I did read it that way

If they were interested in fair competition, they'd give everyone 1/20th of the collective pile. CL money too.

But they're not interested in competitiveness so they don't (which I'm happy about as it helps Liverpool, but in principle completely disagree).

Call me selfish

But there needs to be a reward for competing. The best should get the most reward.

Otherwise it's not a competition at all, it's just 20 teams turning up for a few kick-abouts.

agree to disagree there

the players aren't incentivised (is that a word ) by the owners being handed fat cheques.

they play for medals and their personal wage packet

Eh, where do you think their personal wage packet comes from? Money is just money, TV money is just another revenue stream for a club.

by that logic their playing their hearts out to increase pie sales, sponsorship deals and gate receipts too

they all lead to more revenue as well and are increased when the players win more often

"by that logic their playing their hearts out to increase pie sales, sponsorship deals and gate receipts too"

Well, yes, of course they are. In an extreme case, if they are crap, no-one will come to watch and no-one will get paid. That is the very nature of professional sport, or any other business.

No customers, no sales, no wages.

From what I was made aware of, FFP has done a good job dampening the exponential increase in player wages. It was only meant to calm down procedures, not stop them altogether.

This Sky 4 conspiracy bolloks annoys me. The year before the PL Leeds won it, the first year of the PL Villa ran United close. People talk like the PL was created to stop this happening again. It just happened that Fergie and Wenger had built their clubs up to take advantage of the situation at the right time. Could have easily been Leeds, Spurs, Everton or even Villa if they'd had the right squad and manager at the right time.

In fairness Liverpool had the international popularity, the ground, the recent success etc more than anyone, you could be where United are now in the games standing if not for poor management.

I totally get ffp, who wants a game where one club has 22 players on 500k a week and everyone else either giving up our going bust trying to keep up?

Could have easily been Leeds, Spurs, Everton or even Villa if they'd had the right squad and manager at the right time.

............

Or even Blackburn had that old kept investing, or not bothered to pop his clogs.

comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
Could have easily been Leeds, Spurs, Everton or even Villa if they'd had the right squad and manager at the right time.

............

Or even Blackburn had that oldkept investing, or not bothered to pop his clogs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Totally forgot about Blackburn, VC! The Manchester City of the nineties.

Totally forgot about Blackburn, VC!

..............

I can understand that.

"...or not bothered to pop his clogs."

I know. Most people, given the choice, .......

of course there's no conspiracy. that's tin foil hat nonsense.

it's bog standard brand management and marketing. you put the most money behind the product with the best chance of selling is all.

It's completely unfair to the other products, but that's business. And football is a business above all else, not an island of idealism and fairness.

But the big clubs had to earn their share of the bigger pot with trophies (well, apart from Blackburn). 93 could have been a one season wonder for United if they'd bought badly or got complacent.

It wasn't a free pass to success.

" you put the most money behind the product with the best chance of selling is all."

What utter nonsense. If that was the case, Liverpool would never have waited this long to win the league. According to some sources (I think it was twitter or something), they are still the best supported club across the UK. They are certainly one of the best - and therefore one of the best, if not the best, saleable "brands".

Incidently, you dismiss it as tin hat nonsense, and then, unless I've misunderstood, you go on to describe it as some kind of grand marketing conspiracy.

Five European Cups, eighteen league titles, millions of fans worldwide. You should be the biggest club in the country.

comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)

posted 2 hours, 16 minutes ago

The prem and sky and the CL rigged the league 20 years ago and created the 'sky 4'. It was grossly unfair.

Billionaires were the only way to right that wrong. There was no competition and no real way to be competitive in that model.

Then the sky 4 and their sponsors chucked their toys out of the pram that their unfair advantage had been erased and we got FFP.

There's no difference between oil money and sky/CL money. Neither are 'earned'.

------------------

You sure you don't think its a conspiracy?

marketing isn't a conspiracy, it's business

the goal of the premier league is to:
be seen as the 'bestest league in the world'
grow revenue through better sponsorship & TV deals showcase it's clubs as the 'best in Europe'
which attracts better players and makes the league better
which attracts more money
and so on

the way they've structured money distribution reflects this

same as any other business except they can't explicitly name the clubs, they just give the top end the most money to ensure they have the best chance of success. which has the same result over time.

If Arsenal and Everton had been given the same cut of the money pool for the last 20 years, you'd have a much worse Arsenal and much better Everton right now. Everton were a very big club pre-Premiership.

So you don't just think that teams are rewarded with more money for finishing higher in the league then? Instead you suggest teams are preselected to have more money based on some arbitrary marketing criteria to allow them to finish higher in the league so that the league can earn more money?

And you don't think this theory of your deserves to be called a conspiracy?

The fact is, some teams were at the top of the game when the money really started pouring in - it was a luck of timing. Not some great marketing scam. Ya loon.

Kaisers

Can you remember what Liverpool's stance was on the distribution of the TV money to the Premier League clubs?

When there was talk of a more even split of money between CL and Europa league sides, the counter argument was that if that happened, we wouldn't be able to compete with Real, Barca, Bayern etc. in the CL. The CL sides 'needed' all that money to stay competitive.

It's a completely valid argument and correct. That's why we don't level the playing field. It would be a disaster for the ability of our top sides to be 'a good advertisement for the premiership' and possibly even risk our 4 club in the CL status.

fairness has fook all to do with it.

no idea VC

comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)

posted 3 minutes ago

no idea VC

..............

I am pretty certain Liverpool were one of the clubs that voted against sharing the wealth. (Kenny)

SAF was an advocate for the lower clubs being treated fairly.