They already bought it. Look at Manshitty's trophy haul over the last ten years.
16 Feb 2024
345
-
But that's the choice isn't it? Would you rather let Newcastle buy the league or prevent Forest from being competitive?
-
No, not really. There are other ways to do this - for example, to give newly promoted clubs a higher first year allowable loss to account for the increased spending that they're going to have to do, and to allow them to exclude promotion bonuses from PSR considerations. Simply allowing teams with bottomless pockets to buy their way past PSR restrictions is a ludicrous idea.
-
If we stay up for the next five years our annual income still isn't going to come close to the big 6. Changing the amount we can lose in season 1 or exempting promotion bonuses isn't going to change that. So, any system that limits the amount you spend based on turnover, is going to disadvantage us compared to them.
-
It's just more idiocy. Want to control inflationary house prices? The British establishment way is to use interest rates, slaughter business investment. and other things, and not really control house prices because they don't really want that. When you should just tax housing purchases, and increase housing supply, to keep the inflationary pressure on house prices down*.
Want to stop state owned football clubs buying success? Slaughter investment for community clubs**. No you fucking muppets, regulate against state ownership of football clubs. Football clubs should belong to their community. Not oil states, russians, 'mericans, or shipping magnates.
* Obviously house price inflation was used as a political tool, to appeal to self interested greed, while people turned a blind eye to the countless harms done to others as a result of leveraging the compliance with that ideology.
** If any meaningful examples still exist. Luton? -
Which is of course the whole point of it all.
-
OK, if that's your aim then base the PSR cap on the average turnover of a Premier League club from the previous season. In 2022 that was around 382M, so let Forest spend up to that level and prevent Man City from spending beyond it.
Presumably that would immediately herald the arrival of the ESL because it would be impossible for English clubs to sign or retain top global talent, but we'd get a more competitive league.
-
I don't disagree with this, but that ship has sailed. Virtually impossible now to force the sale of those assets.
-
Escrow funds to cover any contracted spending over set limits. Boom. Done.
I think that you will find that we are a nation state, that controls our borders and can set our own rules. As dishy rishi has been in the news telling us in regard to their fake holiday in cambodia* stalking horse, for removing our human rights.
* Insert "they all look the same" joke here.
-
This seems the sensible approach.
But it would still hand the title to Newcastle os Man City
-
Yes, but Shirley if this season has taught us anything, it’s that they “a competitive league” comes a very long way down the list of priorities for the people in charge of these matters. See also the “Champions” League (so-called only because the “Oh-OK-Finishing-Fourth-Will-Do” League wasn’t sufficiently on-brand); if the Real Madrids & Juves of this world could do away with the tedious need to qualify, they would.
I can’t remember who it was, but an article in the Athletic a few weeks ago started with one of these Fat Cats being quoted saying “we don’t want too many Leicesters”. Leaving aside the fact that even one Leicester is more than enough, a competitive league isn’t what they’re after, so much as a guaranteed stratospheric income for a self-selecting few.
Clubs like ours are there to provide cannon fodder and a means of road testing young players from abroad. If they’re any good, the Rich Boys will soon hoover them up.
-
OK, but you are still (just about) a nation governed by law, and any attempt to force the sale of a globally trading asset would be met with the kind of legal battle you really don't want your government getting into. Existing laws around eminent domain and national security would be a struggle to make a sensible argument for, so you'd find yourself needing to make new laws and again, that's not really going to be much of a vote winner for a government when faced with the kind of PR noise that the most powerful and wealthiest clubs in football can and would make.
So you're really just talking about impossible wishes.
-
No. I was being ironically sarcastic. But the point remains, if you can remove your populations human rights, you can legislate against foreign nationals or corporations owning companies or property. I know this for sure because we took an absolute pumping on foreign assets when our government removed our legal status in those countries by brexshitting.
You won't solve football problems, with financial rules for sustainability. For that you need football administration and governance. Unfortunately those are piss weak, self interested, and purely pursuing the cashola.
-
The report on the BBC website makes for pretty sobering reading.
Sure, we all know this stuff but the graphical representation could actually be done on a log scale.
-
I come back to what I posted last week. The Premier League can take their millions and do what the like. Let's have a football league that competes separately, no promotion or relegation to or from the Premier League. Saturday 3pm kick offs with one game on a Sunday on terrestrial TV. Clubs have squads of 25, fifteen from their own academy/school of excellence under 25 years old, and the other ten players over 25, one year contracts. Squad salary cap fully funded by team/league sponsorship and TV deal. Clubs run not for profit, owned by supporters trusts, profit from ticket sales to be invested into community sports facilities and the club academy.
As many clubs can join the new Premier League, and when they go bust they can be invited into the new football league with ownership structure as required.
-
Strange to see Fulham's broadcast revenue so much lower than everyone else's. Are they not chosen for TV as much? Or does this include their own pay to view income too (and they're crap at it?).
