Match Day Thread Premier League, Cups & Euro Watch

Totally agree the issue for me is that if you let it happen for long enough it becomes already impossible to fix. Ther have always been big clubs but as.money has increased the chance of a club doing a Nottingham forest or a derby or whatever has decreased.

Even Blackburn was a money pit.

Leicester might actually be the final hurrah for a club just having everything fall their way given mahrez vardy and kante, huth etc etc.

If we let city do a Juventus or psg in england and say oh look chelsea can compete all we are doing is ignoring the issue.

I mean prior to lfc absolutely spanking all comers in 70s and 80s the league title was far more shared in england than other leagues and even today despite utd winning 11 in a short time it's not like those countries.


If I were asked I would bet on city reaching 21 faster than lfc right now and city are on 6 going on 7.

It's not about Guardiola or about the current squad it's about the inevitability of people buying anyone they want, building massive reserve team stadium and a complex that is utterly unaffordable without oil money, a state backed global football set up to move stuff about etc etc.

They will buy the next Guardiola, the next whoever.

 

The aim of the premiership should always be competitiveness. Once this dies or reduced the “product” is damaged. One of the key reasons for the premiership’s popularity is how so many clubs are seriously competing for either the title or CL places or avoiding relegation so that most matches are relevant. The title we’ve had 2 contenders fighting it out in the last few seasons. And top 4 is always down-to the wire. West Ham and Leicester are forcing their way into the mix where the likes of Arsenal and Spurs are floundering.

We cannot blame the premiership if it tried to protect its product by safeguarding its competitive nature. How it does it without breaching general and legal business rules and regulations is yet to be seen. How can anyone stop a club buying the best and most expensive players in every position if it wanted to?

 

The CL cash was more important in the late 90’s to the point in the current century when the domestic TV cash boomed to dwarf it. The main benefactors at that time were United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Newcastle, with Chelsea taking over from the latter. Now of course it’s changed but the forthcoming UEFA coefficient rules for the expanded version will massively benefit the likes of you, and the others who’ve ridden the gravy train, as you’ll likely still get a place even if you fail in the league, that’ll go down well as and when it comes to fruition.

 

That’s not my understanding of it tbh. The case brought 5 years ago by a mixture of fans and agents, was claiming damages against UEFA for supposed damaged caused due to FFP. The ECJ initially declared it had no jurisdiction and then an appeal failed to overturn that, citing a poorly constructed case. I’m reliably informed that City had every intention of taking their case through the courts had the CAS decision gone against them. So I would maintain that the actual premise of restriction of trade and FFP has never been truly tested.

 

Well there was a point where the cl money became slight less important but I dont think it was every insignificant and it was increased massively to rebalance as well.

Sorry again but we were not even in the cl till 2001/02 and even then inconsistently so sorry but we worked very hard to get into the thing and found it hard to stick in.

So no we didnt benefit as much as arsenal and utd. We benefited but were not a.locked top 4

You will find chelsea were in before us and we actually got that newcastle space. Once newcastle.lost it they fell apart just not quite as bad as leeds but just about.

City.emerged in 2009 and 2010 and we fell apart under g&h


Sky top 4 was a press construct imo.

We get in, hang round a bit then fall away.

Again the point is due to oil money your club has been denied any hope of getting in now.

But anyway, I actually agree with you on the cl thing with fsg being totally out for no 1 in their actions however it still doesn't take from the point I make.

Again being in the cl for keeping up is not winning anything. City and chelsea will win a procession of trophies.

The oil money will keep buying them up.

 

Football is cyclical mate, City currently have arguably the best manager in the World (or certainly one of them) of course the money is also a key factor, but the extent of their current ‘doping’ is arguably overblown, given the massive expansion in revenues that club has had due to its success. Yes the initial success was bought (before FFP became a factor) but it’s not like benefactor owners is anything new. We had one in the 70’s, Blackburn had Jack Walker etc etc. all that’s happened is that the numbers have got bigger.

For me, as long as the club isn’t being saddled with debt that could threaten its very existence, like Leeds and Sunderland etc. Then owners should be entitled to do as they like, there’s always a means to an end btw, and self sustainability of a vastly more valuable asset is what most are aiming for.

If Abu Dhabi sold City tomorrow, they’d likely get every penny back that they’ve spent, and they’ve had a decade of huge publicity for their oil state in that period, on their quest to mirror Dubai.

 

having delved deeper they did but it is a very unclear area due in particular to the political declarations made by the commission . The EU definitely accept that Sports due to their nature can structure themselves to increase competition but seem to think CAS is best place for sport to sort its differences out unless they clearly break EU law and are not proportionate see ruling against International Skating Union .
Should point out the PL rules would probably stand up in court purely as the rules are set by the members (clubs) themselves .

 

Which is fair enough, it should be cyclical meaning other clubs can rise with careful management and good work. The point with city is they are far more than owners doing what they like it is a state run propaganda tool. As such even if say jeff basos or Elon musk bought a club its doubtful they could compete to the same extent

 

I think that's an interest way to put it.

The yanks have sought to resolve this but the big "franchises" have still won though in their sports.

If you look even at what city have Chelsea have done with spare money in academies that have hardly scratched the surface there.

If we put in rules requiring 4 or 5 local players they would simply have the most amazing facilities that young kids would travel for. I'm actually surprised city have failed this far to exploit the red bull model.

City with 3 or 4 feeder clubs would stop the likes of Sanchez going to dortmund

 

Haven't they got about half a dozen round the world - definitely yank & Aussie ones

 

Yes but they seem to be more about brand for the oil state than moving players about like red bull are doing.

If city really pushed it they could have 10 clubs in europe feeding players up the chain. It think though that would end up requiring action by UEFA.

I think red bull get away with it as Salzburg are no real threat to anyone and happily sell to dortmund etc. It helps Leipzig have not so far really upset bayern

 

they have used the New York one a bit but they seem to use it mainly the other way round i.e. to give City youngsters game time

 

Yeah, the logical conclusion that what chelsea started a long time ago is top young players being collected and brought through but i think Chelsea decided that its simpler buy senior players for Chelsea to perform now and to buy whoever and hawk round europe to eventually sell to offset some cost.

It is interesting that salzburg have this huge rep but theres not actually that many former players at the very top

 

The ECJ didn’t really want to go near it, and UEFA didn’t want it examined in court, that’s about the size of it. UEFA’s stance appears to have altered and personally I think FFP will slowly slide quietly into the bin tbh. Rules on limiting repayable debt with fixed repayment schedules is the way to go imo, if they’re genuinely interested in protecting clubs, as opposed to merely the interests of the European elite.

The PL sacked off it’s STCC rules a couple of years back, and it’s written off last year and likely it’ll do the same with this one, for its FFP rules. The point about the members literally owning the PL is a valid one, albeit the current Newcastle case shows that the rules are not beyond challenge.

 

No huge issue with owners coming in and spending money. If that’s what they want to do then fine, ffp stops it to a point but always ways round it.

the main issue is that those clubs come in and artificially inflate the market. Suddenly world class 30m players are being sold for 80m and your average prem player who was £5m is now costing £20m. so not only are they having a huge advantage by having more money than anyone else, but they are pricing the smaller clubs out of the market.

now I do think recently it’s been less of a problem because the domestic tv money has taken off so much that even teams at bottom of prem get some good cash, as proven by the likes of brighton, Fulham, villa and Everton being some of the biggest net spenders in the league. But back in the early 2000s when chelsea and city came into money, they really took prices up.

And let’s remember, higher transfer fees, mean higher wages, higher agent fees, means higher season ticket prices so who are the ones that suffer?

 

Good debate anyway. Kept me entertained.

I think there has to be limits and I'd like to see a few more Wigan in the cups.

One aspect sky and the whole thing did was kill the interest in those over time.

 

good news.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56747993

the slavia prague lad has been done for racist language.

The rangers lad was done for 3 games for probably violent conduct.

the other rangers lad for 4 games for fracturing a skull. (should be more)

some people take matters into their own hands in their undisciplined ways but this hand over the mouth racist **** needs to be severely dealt with.

Its premediated.

If a guy shouts something in anger he betrays himself and his anger shames him. however for a guy to coldly as he covers his mouth os cameras cannot capture his actions is even worse.

 

Seedorf suggested today that anyone covering their mouth when talking to opposition player should be punished. Extreme but makes sense (assuming the player makes a complaint).

 

Yes but equally it's common place when players have a chat. Messi and ronaldo for instance. I would say they wanted nobody to realise they were quite civil.

It shows an awareness of cameras on them from all angles so if theres no freedom in the tunnel or whenever then I suppose it's another quite simple thing that people with bad intent will use.

 

I can't see how that could ever be implemented.