Match Day Thread General matchday thread.

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
A few lazy journalist articles this morning on what our successful appeal against PSR / FFP charge means for Citeh's pending 115 ...

**** all - our appeal was successful because the Premier League couldn't charge us as we were outside their authority in part of the relevant time period having been relegated ...

Citeh are, and have been, within Prem League authority throughout the entire time frame(s) that the 115 charges fall into ...
 
Solid Air 2 said:
it hasn't but they have been teetering on the edge for months and have been relying on loans to pay the clubs daily outgoings .
Click to expand...

Yeah it doesn't look good and if they do actually go down you've got to worry for them. I used to enjoy poking fun at Everton a few years ago but it's not been funny for me the last couple of years as relegation could genuinely be catacylsmic for them and no-one wins when big clubs (and they are a big club by any measure) can go bust through bad ownership.

I would argue though that FFP doesn't help that situation in any way. If someone wants to bankrupt a club it doesn't stop them doing it it merely punishes the club for it happening, I'm sure if they get another fine it's going to really help their financial situation. I understand that the teams voted for it in the first place but seeing it in action for a decade has seemed to highlight that it doesn't actually do what it was supposedly meant to do and instead creates a glass ceiling for clubs who can afford to compete.

I don't even hate it being around I just think it's disingenuous for anyone to try and defend it on the basis of the principles it was brought in for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bumps, BobbyD and Bodinki
haslam said:
Yeah it doesn't look good and if they do actually go down you've got to worry for them. I used to enjoy poking fun at Everton a few years ago but it's not been funny for me the last couple of years as relegation could genuinely be catacylsmic for them and no-one wins when big clubs (and they are a big club by any measure) can go bust through bad ownership.

I would argue though that FFP doesn't help that situation in any way. If someone wants to bankrupt a club it doesn't stop them doing it it merely punishes the club for it happening, I'm sure if they get another fine it's going to really help their financial situation. I understand that the teams voted for it in the first place but seeing it in action for a decade has seemed to highlight that it doesn't actually do what it was supposedly meant to do and instead creates a glass ceiling for clubs who can afford to compete.

I don't even hate it being around I just think it's disingenuous for anyone to try and defend it on the basis of the principles it was brought in for.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't worry too much about the long term future - relegation itself (if it happens) actually allows you to reshape and cut loose dead wood - plus they will be snapped up by rich ownership in due course ... whether that is before or after entering administration remains to be seen ...
 
haslam said:
Yeah it doesn't look good and if they do actually go down you've got to worry for them. I used to enjoy poking fun at Everton a few years ago but it's not been funny for me the last couple of years as relegation could genuinely be catacylsmic for them and no-one wins when big clubs (and they are a big club by any measure) can go bust through bad ownership.

I would argue though that FFP doesn't help that situation in any way. If someone wants to bankrupt a club it doesn't stop them doing it it merely punishes the club for it happening, I'm sure if they get another fine it's going to really help their financial situation. I understand that the teams voted for it in the first place but seeing it in action for a decade has seemed to highlight that it doesn't actually do what it was supposedly meant to do and instead creates a glass ceiling for clubs who can afford to compete.

I don't even hate it being around I just think it's disingenuous for anyone to try and defend it on the basis of the principles it was brought in for.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
If a **** owner comes in (after having passed the Premier leagues good ownership tests I might add), then they completely **** up the clubs finances. The owner, who is the transgressor, gets to walk away scot free, whilst the PL, who gave the ****ty owner the green light in the first place, then has the gall punishes the only innocent party in all of this (the club), and take the clubs money, while the two parties who ****ed up (the owner and the PL) get to walk away without a single blemish (infact the PL, who let the owner take ownership of the club in the first place, get to steal the clubs money). Sounds real fair.
If the onus was on helping the club whilst punishing the owner (and not the other way around), then it might make sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bumps and haslam
FosseFilberto said:
All you really need to ask yourself is which clubs benefit most from FFP / FSP to know why they were really brought in ...

I'm not saying there shouldn't be some financial safeguards in place - but you can do that without necessarily having measures that link spending on players to revenues - all that is achieved by that is that you make the Premier League (any league) less competitive ... now who does that benefit?

Most Premier League clubs and also many Championship clubs are run by Billionaires - either individuals or corporates - they don't need help 'sustaining' - they ain't going bust any time soon ... you could ensure 'sustainability' by having a legally binding guarantee that any club owner has to settle any debts on exiting that ownership - this could be in the form of a financial 'bond'.

The current rules are there to stop another Citeh or Chelsea joining 'the club' ... neither (with all due respect) were really 'Big clubs' until their billionaire owners gave them foundations for success via spending on players... the sort of spending that would not now be possible... and guess what, neither of them needs 'sustaining' now, do they?
Click to expand...
I think you’re missing the point. When clubs get into financial trouble it’s not the wealthy owners, highly paid players and coaching staff who lose out. It will be hundreds of small businesses, required in the successful running of clubs, that ultimately suffer.
For me there should be some control, but history shows clubs have no self control, therefore a governing body has to try and manage it.
I will repeat what I’ve said before, increase revenue (which largely sits outside of the rules) and spend more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bumps and Solid Air 2
pieguts said:
For me there should be some control, but history shows clubs have no self control,
Click to expand...
Of course not, because a club isnt a living person.
Its control, or lack thereof, is dictated by whoever is running it, namely the owner.
 
pieguts said:
I think you’re missing the point. When clubs get into financial trouble it’s not the wealthy owners, highly paid players and coaching staff who lose out. It will be hundreds of small businesses, required in the successful running of clubs, that ultimately suffer.
For me there should be some control, but history shows clubs have no self control, therefore a governing body has to try and manage it.
I will repeat what I’ve said before, increase revenue (which largely sits outside of the rules) and spend more.
Click to expand...

Not missed the point at all - my 'solution' of exit guarantee/ bond ensures that doesn't happen ... whilst not inhibiting the development of ambitious clubs and owners wishing to do a Chelsea or Citeh and become one of our 'biggest clubs' ...

... although I'm really talking about the Prem here ...
 
Gessa said:
My mates a ST holder, he only renewed because he wanted a guarantee of CL tickets, his ST went up from £625 to £845 on top of this, he's gonna be well pissed. It won't happen but about time fans started boycotting.
Click to expand...

I think once the removal of concessions becomes widespread we'll see some pretty large boycotts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: remembercolinlee and Gessa
Bodinki said:
Indeed.
If a **** owner comes in (after having passed the Premier leagues good ownership tests I might add), then they completely **** up the clubs finances. The owner, who is the transgressor, gets to walk away scot free, whilst the PL, who gave the ****ty owner the green light in the first place, then has the gall punishes the only innocent party in all of this (the club), and take the clubs money, while the two parties who ****ed up (the owner and the PL) get to walk away without a single blemish (infact the PL, who let the owner take ownership of the club in the first place, get to steal the clubs money). Sounds real fair.
If the onus was on helping the club whilst punishing the owner (and not the other way around), then it might make sense.
Click to expand...
Moshiri won't be walking away scot free as he pumped something like 750m into EFC and it seems very very unlikely to get anything like that in fact most probably nothing . They were done by the fact Usmanov was sanctioned as he was always useful when they needed some more dosh .
 
Gessa said:
My mates a ST holder, he only renewed because he wanted a guarantee of CL tickets, his ST went up from £625 to £845 on top of this, he's gonna be well pissed. It won't happen but about time fans started boycotting.
Click to expand...
i know 3 Villa ST holders and the moaning is going to be , rightfully . epic.
When the pricing for our new main stand was announced at the next game half the Kop walked out mid game while chanting "one greedy bastard" at John Henry who didn't seem best pleased <laugh>
 
Solid Air 2 said:
i know 3 Villa ST holders and the moaning is going to be , rightfully . epic.
When the pricing for our new main stand was announced at the next game half the Kop walked out mid game while chanting "one greedy bastard" at John Henry who didn't seem best pleased <laugh>
Click to expand...

When our fees were announced last year lots of people complained and they made sure there were concessions for a variety and season ticket holders paid less. They ended up ranging from £30-£55 which is positively reasonable compared to the amount Villa are suggesting. The annoyance is that if they'd been £20-£30 more per ticket then yes they'd probably have still sold out but it justs drives a wedge between the club and the fans, they're selling out any form of goodwill (and long-term support) for a short-term benefit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Libby, remembercolinlee and Solid Air 2
FosseFilberto said:
All you really need to ask yourself is which clubs benefit most from FFP / FSP to know why they were really brought in ...

I'm not saying there shouldn't be some financial safeguards in place - but you can do that without necessarily having measures that link spending on players to revenues - all that is achieved by that is that you make the Premier League (any league) less competitive ... now who does that benefit?

Most Premier League clubs and also many Championship clubs are run by Billionaires - either individuals or corporates - they don't need help 'sustaining' - they ain't going bust any time soon ... you could ensure 'sustainability' by having a legally binding guarantee that any club owner has to settle any debts on exiting that ownership - this could be in the form of a financial 'bond'.

The current rules are there to stop another Citeh or Chelsea joining 'the club' ... neither (with all due respect) were really 'Big clubs' until their billionaire owners gave them foundations for success via spending on players... the sort of spending that would not now be possible... and guess what, neither of them needs 'sustaining' now, do they?
Click to expand...
Had the chance to get rid of them and let them do one and wallow in their own ****e
Won’t spend ages going on about the ESL but the league could have ridded themselves of those 6 maybe 7-8 clubs

makes you wonder why they didn’t

I would have got rid and told them if they ever come back they start right back at the bottom
Easy really
 
  • Like
Reactions: duggie2000 and FosseFilberto
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back