football ,what is wrong with it!

There are many facets of modern football that make it less appealing than it used to be. Too many players have little loyalty to their teams and squander their wealth in irresponsible ways.

And I'm very much afraid that nothing positive will happen to Rovers this season. The senior players are likely to move on, shortly followed by the fans, I imagine. I don't know how the players will maintain their morale for the rest of the season.

A team with relatively poorly paid players - either young or inexpensive - will not be competitive in either the Premier League or the Championship. I am not willing to renew my season ticket just to see the team humiliated every other week.

onlyonejackwalker (U2404)
______________________________

Sounds about right .

Top comment; I'd five star it if I could.

I concur, good read as ever oojw.

My main gripe about football these days are the financial inequalities which make the PL pointless for 14 clubs each season.

We certainly can't complain about the money as Rovers fans at only £225 for a season ticket. And I think a lot of the other issues are over-exaggerated.

Aston Villa just announced a loss of 53 million for last season. That makes a total loss of 90 million for the last 2 seasons. Maybe that answers your question Star.

As long as clubs keep running up debt like there is no tomorrow this circus will continue.Clubs should be made to stay solvent if this means wage caps and limited transfer fees then so be it.It might just create a level playing field!

Star, you are right but wrong. No way will Man U etc ever agree to a level playing field. Wage caps etc seem to work in American sports so why not.

I Don't think they should be a wage cap but i think Clubs should only be able spend a percentage of their income on player wages and transfers round 60% to 70%

If that was the case it wouldn't be only 6 clubs that have a hope in hell of winning the league, it'd be Man U and possibly Arsenal.

UEFA's idea to limit spending to a percentage of turnover simply cements the gap between the big clubs and the small clubs. At least a sugar daddy was a ladder small (or smallish) clubs could use to bridge the gap. City and Chelsea wouldn't have been within sniffing distance of the title in the last 2 decades without Abramovich and the Sheikh's, even they aren't big enough to compete with Man U on just their own wealth.

So the winners of the PL since it started would have been Man U 16 times and Arsenal twice.

The American sports recognise that they are part of the entertainment industry. There is no promotion or relegation, and steps are taken to reduce the extremes between teams in each league. And like entertainers, the biggest sports stars take an even bigger slice of the financial cake. The owners, however, do expect to make a profit. You could restate that as saying that the owners want their sports to be sustainable, and not falling into ever-deeper debt.