As far as I’m aware any rule has to be voted for by 14 clubs in the prem. so if it was a big 6 initiative then why didn’t the other 14 vote against it? And yes of course because the EFL financial rules and as far as I’m aware, the ‘big 6’ couldn’t give 2 ****s about financial rules in the EFL because never going there (albeit Manchester united and Tottenham tried their hardest to get there).
I said this before our takeover. It was pull the drawbridge up as American hedge funds hate missing out and why they hate the idea of relegation etc. Arsenal, Spurs, Man Utd, Liverpool, All the main ones crying about how unfair it is that the other 2 could spend money and they couldn't/wouldn't. We weren't even in the mix back then. Don't get me wrong Barca/Madrid and the Italians all just as bad as they couldn't compete with the PL financially and spat their dummies out too. As for thinking they have an issue with us they do - Hence the bullshit Related Party rules they brought in 24 hours after takeover was approved.
To be honest, they shouldn't be in debt. But it's the only way teams can operate. The issue with the current regs is what is classed as 'revenue'. City have taken the piss. Chelsea literally take the piss beyond belief. Villa are now copying them. But what is to say that an owner literally gifting money to help balance the books properly isn't providing the same outcome as 'revenue'?
The point is there are other adequate ways of dissuading clubs from overspending. Why are we prevented from our owners investing in buying players? All businesses invest if they can into the business but we aren’t allowed to essentially for historic reasons. We didn’t get to and stay at the money trough at the right time, that’s why. Why, with psr, do Man U have so much debt? Why isn’t psr ensuring that they reduce/eliminate that debt? Why do Liverpool and Arsenal have so much debt and again no action is required to reduce it? How can Chelsea sell their own assets to themselves at inflated prices to supposedly comply with psr? Simple explanation, so the so called Big 6 use psr in conjunction with an impotent PL so that they can attempt to protect their monopoly.
Perhaps their own greed plays a part. Frightened to let anyone else into the PL financial trough. It’s no surprise that the financial gap between the PL and the Championship is growing year on year. Also the threat of the Super League by the Greedy 6 and the other 14 losing the PL financial trough keeps the 14 in line. Noticeable, however, that there have been some splits recently involving those aspiring clubs eg Us and Villa on votes and also Man City a la legality of the rules which incidentally the PL lost.
Chelsea villa etc agree. Total shambles. You’re essentially saying I agree with the sentiment of psr but cos others have gotten away with it so should we. Unfortunately that’s how issues come back. Everyone then finds more and more loopholes to get round the issues and it makes things 10 times worse. Look prem are a shambles at setting any kind of decent rules. The intention of psr is right. It’s there to discourage clubs from overspending. In an ideal world leagues should have a salary cap that is agreed from the start. There should be rules around clubs not going into transfer debt - investment in infrastructure absolutely fine as can’t restrict that kind of investment. This would allow all clubs to spend the same amount and have same restrictions but it isn’t happening. The other option is you let clubs spend what ever the **** they want. In that case the league turns into Man City v Newcastle for a title challenge as both clubs are state owned so essentially a 2 league team. Bit more competitive than France and Germany but about as competitive as Spain with Barca and Madrid. then have a fight for next few places from teams like Liverpool United Arsenal etc. if that’s what you want. Fine but doesn’t make the league interesting. Already seen last 8 years with city pretty much walking it every year bar 2. All that will happen is same for next 20 years. or you get other clubs spending even more to try and compete, spending over their budgets and then wanting more revenues. Which means more club world cups.. more super leagues. Higher ticket prices. More matches abroad. More pre and post season games abroad. state ownership. Multi club ownerships. Should all be banned.
Villa are selling their women’s team. Are they now a big 6 club? Was no one else allowed to buy players and give them 8 year contracts to spread the costs like Chelsea did? Clubs are finding loop holes. It’s ****, don’t agree with it. But it’s not a ‘big 6’ thing. It’s a ****ty owner thing.
It's always been a 2 horse race. Liverpool/Arsenal Man Utd/Blackburn Man Utd/ Arsenal Man Utd/ Chelsea Chelsea/Man City Man City/Liverpool Man City/NUFC Its the way it goes.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not blaming the fans of the Clubs. It is the Club owners who are at fault along with the PL. Amazing though, at least in this country, as Hamish said it’s primarily Clubs with American owners who seem to be protecting the psr rules not City, not Us. Amazing of the so called Big 6 we have Arsenal, Liverpool, Man U and Chelsea who have American owners. Man C want to break the rules (non Americans) and then wannabes Spurs. Psr is not fit for purpose and should be scrapped. It won’t be under the present regime which is why we hopefully do get an independent football regulator also hopefully with teeth and powers. Amazing how Liverpool, Man U and the like never complained about being the richest club when they were winning titles and cups but only complain when somebody else is richer. That being said I would agree limits need to be imposed but not so that it prevents clubs from aspiring to win trophies as the current rules do.
He's the Spurs version of Darren Eales but owns shares. Was Joe Lewis who was majority owner till he got busted for insider trading in US.
err... no. I actually said the rules aren't fit for purpose. Not that if others break them then so should we. So, seeing as you haven't read my posts properly, I stopped reading yours at this point. Seemed fair. Shame to have wasted time on all those extra worda. I'm sure they were very impactful though.
There's always going to be both sides of the coin on the arguments of psr. Football survived for over 100 years without them. What it will stop is clubs who are ambitious such as Wrexham for example of ever being able to properly compete at the top level of the game. As it stands the vast majority of income clubs get (outside of tv revenues) comes from commercial deals. The largest of these being the kit manufacturing deal and the shirt sponsorship deal. Before we started sniffing around the CL spots we were getting £6.5m a year for kit manufacturing and £6.5m a year from shirt sponsorship and the reason being we couldn't give the larger spending companies the exposure they demand. They demand teams in Europe or at least trying to get to Europe for the big bucks. Likewise, stadium sponsorship, training ground sponsorship, sleeve deals etc all work the same way. Would be very interesting to know what your opinion on psr would have been if Liverpool had been owned by Ashley and went through what we did, then got a takeover with wealthy, ambitious owners. FWIW it's not just football clubs that could go out of business plenty other well loved high street businesses have too. I gave a much bigger **** when Woolworths went than I did about ****ing Barnet ffs.
And whilst I’m giving my 2 pence worth on those ****e rules…… players should pay ****ing agents not clubs.
Just a quick wake up for you all. PSR is **** all to do with the owners, it's about a clubs abillity to earn money and use it in the correct way. Owners can sell up at any time so their wealth is useless to the club which could be left with owners that have nothing to help in any way.
No this is different the owners are getting it right this time it is all banter man we want a Sunderland vs Newcastle F A cup final, to shove it up Chelsea, man U etc.
Yes it's meant the same clubs operating in a closed shop. The entire revenue line is nonsense because some clubs with a billion in debt have high revenues and some with none can't invest. The only pro psr activists I know tend to be big 6 fans and Mackems... I wonder why.
So just sign a waiver in the owners and directors test or afterwards... The solution is easy and doesn't mean some clubs always have all the advantages. It's days are numbered though because it's all going legal. The only argument I hear on that is that we can't have a situation where clubs like Newcastle can spend whatever they like... Erm why not? Clubs like? The entire current concept is a lie mate, but at least you acknowledge it's ****e... It's become the only thing that matters and football is actually a closed shop on the sly. I will say I really am grateful for the reaction of the big 6 fanbases to the super league, but what we've got isn't actually much different right now. There's far more simple solutions, which tells me all I need it know, and the fact Masters is a reptile.
