What City and Chelsea have done is wrong, so shutting the door to stop the entire football pyramid in this country becoming a joke was the right thing.
Op…. What part of football clubs cannot spend more money than they can earn or generate?
It’s really not that hard.
There’s the cases of Newcastle, City and Chelsea and then there’s the cases where irresponsible owners have injected cash and then it’s all gone pear shaped.
They can still invest though, btw, so that’s not quite right to say otherwise. They can even make a hefty loss.
comment by RED666……🚽🚽 3-2 Liverpool (U6562)
posted 12 minutes ago
Op…. What part of football clubs cannot spend more money than they can earn or generate?
It’s really not that hard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He understands that, he is asking why billionaires are not allowed to GIVE them 300 million to use for transfers etc. Its not a debt, its a gift, so it wouldnt put a club in financial problems.
comment by Cloggy (U1250)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by RED666……🚽🚽 3-2 Liverpool (U6562)
posted 12 minutes ago
Op…. What part of football clubs cannot spend more money than they can earn or generate?
It’s really not that hard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He understands that, he is asking why billionaires are not allowed to GIVE them 300 million to use for transfers etc. Its not a debt, its a gift, so it wouldnt put a club in financial problems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s simple the club haven’t earned the 300 million!
comment by RED666……🚽🚽 3-2 Liverpool (U6562)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Cloggy (U1250)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by RED666……🚽🚽 3-2 Liverpool (U6562)
posted 12 minutes ago
Op…. What part of football clubs cannot spend more money than they can earn or generate?
It’s really not that hard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He understands that, he is asking why billionaires are not allowed to GIVE them 300 million to use for transfers etc. Its not a debt, its a gift, so it wouldnt put a club in financial problems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s simple the club haven’t earned the 300 million!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it’s inherently daft because a small club can never earn the revenues that United can earn (based on decades of past success and global fanbase). So FFP will always keep them at a huge disadvantage and never allow small clubs to be able to catch the big boys - ever. It’s anti competitive in that respect
By the way I absolutely think we need protection against owners racking up losses beyond what a club earns - I just don’t think the current FFP mechanism actually works.
Presumably because if that investment stops, the club may then be liable for costs that they can’t cover i.e. they are operating like a club with a higher income than they actually have.
comment by Cloggy (U1250)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by RED666……🚽🚽 3-2 Liverpool (U6562)
posted 12 minutes ago
Op…. What part of football clubs cannot spend more money than they can earn or generate?
It’s really not that hard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He understands that, he is asking why billionaires are not allowed to GIVE them 300 million to use for transfers etc. Its not a debt, its a gift, so it wouldnt put a club in financial problems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the game then becomes less who is better on the pitch and.note who has the biggest bank balance with what goes on on the pitch becoming more irrelevant.
I just don’t think the current FFP mechanism actually works.
————
How so?
Owners are allowed to pump in money but it's capped. So this nonsense how smaller clubs with rich owners can't compete isn't actually true.
If they did away with the rules entirely it's UAE v Saudi till the end of days until another gulf state joins the gang. Is
that what football fans want to see? I genuinely don't think it is.
I made my point clear on this over a decade ago. Rich people coming into the sport is fine but when it's essentially countries getting involved then it's just nonsense. It should never have been allowed to begin with and these rule changes from governing bodies are then essentially admitting they ballsed up.
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 7 minutes ago
Owners are allowed to pump in money but it's capped. So this nonsense how smaller clubs with rich owners can't compete isn't actually true.
If they did away with the rules entirely it's UAE v Saudi till the end of days until another gulf state joins the gang. Is
that what football fans want to see? I genuinely don't think it is.
I made my point clear on this over a decade ago. Rich people coming into the sport is fine but when it's essentially countries getting involved then it's just nonsense. It should never have been allowed to begin with and these rule changes from governing bodies are then essentially admitting they ballsed up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil isn't infinite
Ideally they’d have sorted out wealth distribution within the game at the same time they implemented FFP but can’t see that ever happening. That and they should have looked at the balance sheet, not just the p&l.
The landscape of owners has changed a fair bit, previously you had a lot that wanted to just sit on their initial investment and benefit from the asset growth. Now there’s more that are wanting to invest more.
I don't think the current rules are million miles from being a sensible compromise between measures aimed at avoiding two undesirable scenarios. It should be possible for clubs to sustainably invest to grow, without being locked out by a self-perpetuating elite. It's also healthy if the sport is protected from both irresponsible short-term investors and getting warped by nation state ownership killing competition as a sideshow in their geopolitical agenda.
The example of clubs like Brighton and Brentford, with relatively modest owner investment combined with pushing the boundaries of innovation and raising the bar of professionalism, demonstrates that it is possible to rise up the football pyramid without being bankrolled to the tune of billions. What I think is missing is greater redistribution of the revenues generated by the game to strengthen clubs all the way down the pyramid and to nurture the grassroots. There will always be inequality in football (unless we move to a cartel system like US sports) but there have been periods when the gap spending power wasn't as great as it is today.
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount.
comment by Robbing Hoody - I taught Szoboszlai how to cushion half volleys (U6374)
posted 32 minutes ago
I just don’t think the current FFP mechanism actually works.
————
How so?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well firstly it’s full of loopholes which has allowed the current situation to develop with City and to a lesser extent Leicester who have been able to avoid sanctions thus far by flipping between the divisions. So that needs sorting out
Secondly - it protects the gap between the biggest and smallest clubs. Why do you think United, Liverpool, City etc always vote against changes or signal that they will? It’s because they know that their global revenues give them a massive advantage in FFP terms over the likes of Crystal Palace for eg who can never hope to match it.
That essentially means while the likes of Palace, Brentford etc need to take years to sustainably grow and get every decision perfect - the big clubs have got 10 times the spending power every season under FFP rules because they earn so much more in revenues mainly due to legacy positions
It creates an unfair playing field - and while I totally agree that there should be a protection against small clubs spending recklessly and racking up unsustainable losses tied to one owner- I don’t think this is the way to do it
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 13 minutes ago
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m over a three year period I think it is that owners are allowed to top the funds up with. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Football finances need to massively change anyway. Players going for 100-150m is absolute stupidity and will never be a good thing. Players also earning £400-500k a week is also absolutely ridiculous and needs to stop. Not sure how that happens though now the genie is out of the lamp.
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 13 minutes ago
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m over a three year period I think it is that owners are allowed to top the funds up with. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Football finances need to massively change anyway. Players going for 100-150m is absolute stupidity and will never be a good thing. Players also earning £400-500k a week is also absolutely ridiculous and needs to stop. Not sure how that happens though now the genie is out of the lamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m top up of very modest club revenues over a 3 season period while United earn $800m dollars in a single year in global revenues. That’s not reasonable.
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 13 minutes ago
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m over a three year period I think it is that owners are allowed to top the funds up with. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Football finances need to massively change anyway. Players going for 100-150m is absolute stupidity and will never be a good thing. Players also earning £400-500k a week is also absolutely ridiculous and needs to stop. Not sure how that happens though now the genie is out of the lamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's more than that, but maybe not.
Re wages and fees, it would only take some of the major clubs to agree to reduce fees and wages for new signings within 5 years (length of current player contracts)
Player A is wanted by Real, City and Bayern and so on. They each refuse to pay more than £50m and £200k per week. The selling clubs have no option but to accept eventually. Same with the player.
comment by 98 Problems (and promotion ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 13 minutes ago
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m over a three year period I think it is that owners are allowed to top the funds up with. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Football finances need to massively change anyway. Players going for 100-150m is absolute stupidity and will never be a good thing. Players also earning £400-500k a week is also absolutely ridiculous and needs to stop. Not sure how that happens though now the genie is out of the lamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m top up of very modest club revenues over a 3 season period while United earn $800m dollars in a single year in global revenues. That’s not reasonable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say that like that money just fell off a tree. United have spent decades building the club and brand. It didn't happen overnight. If that can be undone by one middle eastern Prince buying a Tinpot football club then the game is done for anyway. What incentive is that for teams? Just be crap and hope for a oil state to buy them?
If you were in the fizzy drinks industry could you compete with Coke? If you wanted to start making your own sports shoes could you compete with Nike and Adidas? Of course not. That's life sunshine.
This middle Eastern money at PSG and City has been good for PSG and City ONLY. It's not been a good thing for the rest of football at all and won't be looked back on fondly at all.
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 40 minutes ago
comment by 98 Problems (and promotion ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 13 minutes ago
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m over a three year period I think it is that owners are allowed to top the funds up with. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Football finances need to massively change anyway. Players going for 100-150m is absolute stupidity and will never be a good thing. Players also earning £400-500k a week is also absolutely ridiculous and needs to stop. Not sure how that happens though now the genie is out of the lamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m top up of very modest club revenues over a 3 season period while United earn $800m dollars in a single year in global revenues. That’s not reasonable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say that like that money just fell off a tree. United have spent decades building the club and brand. It didn't happen overnight. If that can be undone by one middle eastern Prince buying a Tinpot football club then the game is done for anyway. What incentive is that for teams? Just be crap and hope for a oil state to buy them?
If you were in the fizzy drinks industry could you compete with Coke? If you wanted to start making your own sports shoes could you compete with Nike and Adidas? Of course not. That's life sunshine.
This middle Eastern money at PSG and City has been good for PSG and City ONLY. It's not been a good thing for the rest of football at all and won't be looked back on fondly at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you saying has been undone though as you’re arguing against your own point a bit here? If you want to remove the super rich from the game then you have to remove the incentives in the first place, and PSG and City aren’t comparables in that, they have completely different motivations.
The issue with a Mansour is that there’s that much wealth in the game now, he can come in, invest 2 billion and within 15 years be sat on an asset worth double that initial investment. That’s also why you get the flip of it with people like the Glazers who can just sit on an initial investment and reap all the benefits of the asset growth without having to put any more into themselves.
It’s always been about attracting rich owners and investment. The difference nowadays is the amount of wealth in the game and the disparity of it means it both attracts the super wealthy in the first place more and also clubs are actually more reliant on it.
Brighton are a very good example of that. Theyre seen rightly as a well run club doing things the right way. That right way has had to involve an owner putting in 500m of his own money though and them selling assets continuously to now just maintain their status quo.
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 hour, 44 minutes ago
comment by 98 Problems (and promotion ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 13 minutes ago
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m over a three year period I think it is that owners are allowed to top the funds up with. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Football finances need to massively change anyway. Players going for 100-150m is absolute stupidity and will never be a good thing. Players also earning £400-500k a week is also absolutely ridiculous and needs to stop. Not sure how that happens though now the genie is out of the lamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m top up of very modest club revenues over a 3 season period while United earn $800m dollars in a single year in global revenues. That’s not reasonable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say that like that money just fell off a tree. United have spent decades building the club and brand. It didn't happen overnight. If that can be undone by one middle eastern Prince buying a Tinpot football club then the game is done for anyway. What incentive is that for teams? Just be crap and hope for a oil state to buy them?
If you were in the fizzy drinks industry could you compete with Coke? If you wanted to start making your own sports shoes could you compete with Nike and Adidas? Of course not. That's life sunshine.
This middle Eastern money at PSG and City has been good for PSG and City ONLY. It's not been a good thing for the rest of football at all and won't be looked back on fondly at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve been able to spend decades building your club and brand on the back of a legacy position that dates back to the 1950s and even before that. Its that legacy position of being historically one of the biggest clubs in world football that allows you to outspend the rest on a consistent basis and keeps the gap at such a disproportionate level
You rightly reference a soft drinks start up being able to compete with the likes of Coke, but what your missing is that this is a sporting competition - not an episode of The Apprentice. The only way your model is taking football is into some kind of revised European breakaway league for the biggest clubs.
Now I totally accept that a Saudi prince shouldn’t be able to buy his way to success overnight BUT the current stipulations actually prevent any small club from ever being able to break into the stranglehold the top 4 have historically had on a consistent basis. That should change and I believe if we have a better mechanism then it will make competitive football better
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 4 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by 98 Problems (and promotion ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 13 minutes ago
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m over a three year period I think it is that owners are allowed to top the funds up with. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Football finances need to massively change anyway. Players going for 100-150m is absolute stupidity and will never be a good thing. Players also earning £400-500k a week is also absolutely ridiculous and needs to stop. Not sure how that happens though now the genie is out of the lamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m top up of very modest club revenues over a 3 season period while United earn $800m dollars in a single year in global revenues. That’s not reasonable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say that like that money just fell off a tree. United have spent decades building the club and brand. It didn't happen overnight. If that can be undone by one middle eastern Prince buying a Tinpot football club then the game is done for anyway. What incentive is that for teams? Just be crap and hope for a oil state to buy them?
If you were in the fizzy drinks industry could you compete with Coke? If you wanted to start making your own sports shoes could you compete with Nike and Adidas? Of course not. That's life sunshine.
This middle Eastern money at PSG and City has been good for PSG and City ONLY. It's not been a good thing for the rest of football at all and won't be looked back on fondly at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t realise City had only bought players from the Middle East.
Sheikh Grealish?
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
Khail Walker?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's leaned into the Middle Eastern many wives and children philosophy
Sign in if you want to comment
PSR and owner investment
Page 1 of 2
posted on 29/4/24
What City and Chelsea have done is wrong, so shutting the door to stop the entire football pyramid in this country becoming a joke was the right thing.
posted on 29/4/24
Op…. What part of football clubs cannot spend more money than they can earn or generate?
It’s really not that hard.
posted on 29/4/24
There’s the cases of Newcastle, City and Chelsea and then there’s the cases where irresponsible owners have injected cash and then it’s all gone pear shaped.
They can still invest though, btw, so that’s not quite right to say otherwise. They can even make a hefty loss.
posted on 29/4/24
comment by RED666……🚽🚽 3-2 Liverpool (U6562)
posted 12 minutes ago
Op…. What part of football clubs cannot spend more money than they can earn or generate?
It’s really not that hard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He understands that, he is asking why billionaires are not allowed to GIVE them 300 million to use for transfers etc. Its not a debt, its a gift, so it wouldnt put a club in financial problems.
posted on 29/4/24
comment by Cloggy (U1250)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by RED666……🚽🚽 3-2 Liverpool (U6562)
posted 12 minutes ago
Op…. What part of football clubs cannot spend more money than they can earn or generate?
It’s really not that hard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He understands that, he is asking why billionaires are not allowed to GIVE them 300 million to use for transfers etc. Its not a debt, its a gift, so it wouldnt put a club in financial problems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s simple the club haven’t earned the 300 million!
posted on 29/4/24
comment by RED666……🚽🚽 3-2 Liverpool (U6562)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Cloggy (U1250)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by RED666……🚽🚽 3-2 Liverpool (U6562)
posted 12 minutes ago
Op…. What part of football clubs cannot spend more money than they can earn or generate?
It’s really not that hard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He understands that, he is asking why billionaires are not allowed to GIVE them 300 million to use for transfers etc. Its not a debt, its a gift, so it wouldnt put a club in financial problems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s simple the club haven’t earned the 300 million!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it’s inherently daft because a small club can never earn the revenues that United can earn (based on decades of past success and global fanbase). So FFP will always keep them at a huge disadvantage and never allow small clubs to be able to catch the big boys - ever. It’s anti competitive in that respect
By the way I absolutely think we need protection against owners racking up losses beyond what a club earns - I just don’t think the current FFP mechanism actually works.
posted on 29/4/24
Presumably because if that investment stops, the club may then be liable for costs that they can’t cover i.e. they are operating like a club with a higher income than they actually have.
posted on 29/4/24
comment by Cloggy (U1250)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by RED666……🚽🚽 3-2 Liverpool (U6562)
posted 12 minutes ago
Op…. What part of football clubs cannot spend more money than they can earn or generate?
It’s really not that hard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He understands that, he is asking why billionaires are not allowed to GIVE them 300 million to use for transfers etc. Its not a debt, its a gift, so it wouldnt put a club in financial problems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the game then becomes less who is better on the pitch and.note who has the biggest bank balance with what goes on on the pitch becoming more irrelevant.
posted on 29/4/24
More*
posted on 29/4/24
I just don’t think the current FFP mechanism actually works.
————
How so?
posted on 29/4/24
Owners are allowed to pump in money but it's capped. So this nonsense how smaller clubs with rich owners can't compete isn't actually true.
If they did away with the rules entirely it's UAE v Saudi till the end of days until another gulf state joins the gang. Is
that what football fans want to see? I genuinely don't think it is.
I made my point clear on this over a decade ago. Rich people coming into the sport is fine but when it's essentially countries getting involved then it's just nonsense. It should never have been allowed to begin with and these rule changes from governing bodies are then essentially admitting they ballsed up.
posted on 29/4/24
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 7 minutes ago
Owners are allowed to pump in money but it's capped. So this nonsense how smaller clubs with rich owners can't compete isn't actually true.
If they did away with the rules entirely it's UAE v Saudi till the end of days until another gulf state joins the gang. Is
that what football fans want to see? I genuinely don't think it is.
I made my point clear on this over a decade ago. Rich people coming into the sport is fine but when it's essentially countries getting involved then it's just nonsense. It should never have been allowed to begin with and these rule changes from governing bodies are then essentially admitting they ballsed up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil isn't infinite
posted on 29/4/24
Ideally they’d have sorted out wealth distribution within the game at the same time they implemented FFP but can’t see that ever happening. That and they should have looked at the balance sheet, not just the p&l.
The landscape of owners has changed a fair bit, previously you had a lot that wanted to just sit on their initial investment and benefit from the asset growth. Now there’s more that are wanting to invest more.
posted on 29/4/24
I don't think the current rules are million miles from being a sensible compromise between measures aimed at avoiding two undesirable scenarios. It should be possible for clubs to sustainably invest to grow, without being locked out by a self-perpetuating elite. It's also healthy if the sport is protected from both irresponsible short-term investors and getting warped by nation state ownership killing competition as a sideshow in their geopolitical agenda.
The example of clubs like Brighton and Brentford, with relatively modest owner investment combined with pushing the boundaries of innovation and raising the bar of professionalism, demonstrates that it is possible to rise up the football pyramid without being bankrolled to the tune of billions. What I think is missing is greater redistribution of the revenues generated by the game to strengthen clubs all the way down the pyramid and to nurture the grassroots. There will always be inequality in football (unless we move to a cartel system like US sports) but there have been periods when the gap spending power wasn't as great as it is today.
posted on 29/4/24
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount.
posted on 29/4/24
comment by Robbing Hoody - I taught Szoboszlai how to cushion half volleys (U6374)
posted 32 minutes ago
I just don’t think the current FFP mechanism actually works.
————
How so?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well firstly it’s full of loopholes which has allowed the current situation to develop with City and to a lesser extent Leicester who have been able to avoid sanctions thus far by flipping between the divisions. So that needs sorting out
Secondly - it protects the gap between the biggest and smallest clubs. Why do you think United, Liverpool, City etc always vote against changes or signal that they will? It’s because they know that their global revenues give them a massive advantage in FFP terms over the likes of Crystal Palace for eg who can never hope to match it.
That essentially means while the likes of Palace, Brentford etc need to take years to sustainably grow and get every decision perfect - the big clubs have got 10 times the spending power every season under FFP rules because they earn so much more in revenues mainly due to legacy positions
It creates an unfair playing field - and while I totally agree that there should be a protection against small clubs spending recklessly and racking up unsustainable losses tied to one owner- I don’t think this is the way to do it
posted on 29/4/24
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 13 minutes ago
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m over a three year period I think it is that owners are allowed to top the funds up with. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Football finances need to massively change anyway. Players going for 100-150m is absolute stupidity and will never be a good thing. Players also earning £400-500k a week is also absolutely ridiculous and needs to stop. Not sure how that happens though now the genie is out of the lamp.
posted on 29/4/24
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 13 minutes ago
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m over a three year period I think it is that owners are allowed to top the funds up with. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Football finances need to massively change anyway. Players going for 100-150m is absolute stupidity and will never be a good thing. Players also earning £400-500k a week is also absolutely ridiculous and needs to stop. Not sure how that happens though now the genie is out of the lamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m top up of very modest club revenues over a 3 season period while United earn $800m dollars in a single year in global revenues. That’s not reasonable.
posted on 29/4/24
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 13 minutes ago
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m over a three year period I think it is that owners are allowed to top the funds up with. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Football finances need to massively change anyway. Players going for 100-150m is absolute stupidity and will never be a good thing. Players also earning £400-500k a week is also absolutely ridiculous and needs to stop. Not sure how that happens though now the genie is out of the lamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's more than that, but maybe not.
Re wages and fees, it would only take some of the major clubs to agree to reduce fees and wages for new signings within 5 years (length of current player contracts)
Player A is wanted by Real, City and Bayern and so on. They each refuse to pay more than £50m and £200k per week. The selling clubs have no option but to accept eventually. Same with the player.
posted on 29/4/24
comment by 98 Problems (and promotion ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 13 minutes ago
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m over a three year period I think it is that owners are allowed to top the funds up with. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Football finances need to massively change anyway. Players going for 100-150m is absolute stupidity and will never be a good thing. Players also earning £400-500k a week is also absolutely ridiculous and needs to stop. Not sure how that happens though now the genie is out of the lamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m top up of very modest club revenues over a 3 season period while United earn $800m dollars in a single year in global revenues. That’s not reasonable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say that like that money just fell off a tree. United have spent decades building the club and brand. It didn't happen overnight. If that can be undone by one middle eastern Prince buying a Tinpot football club then the game is done for anyway. What incentive is that for teams? Just be crap and hope for a oil state to buy them?
If you were in the fizzy drinks industry could you compete with Coke? If you wanted to start making your own sports shoes could you compete with Nike and Adidas? Of course not. That's life sunshine.
This middle Eastern money at PSG and City has been good for PSG and City ONLY. It's not been a good thing for the rest of football at all and won't be looked back on fondly at all.
posted on 29/4/24
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 40 minutes ago
comment by 98 Problems (and promotion ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 13 minutes ago
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m over a three year period I think it is that owners are allowed to top the funds up with. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Football finances need to massively change anyway. Players going for 100-150m is absolute stupidity and will never be a good thing. Players also earning £400-500k a week is also absolutely ridiculous and needs to stop. Not sure how that happens though now the genie is out of the lamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m top up of very modest club revenues over a 3 season period while United earn $800m dollars in a single year in global revenues. That’s not reasonable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say that like that money just fell off a tree. United have spent decades building the club and brand. It didn't happen overnight. If that can be undone by one middle eastern Prince buying a Tinpot football club then the game is done for anyway. What incentive is that for teams? Just be crap and hope for a oil state to buy them?
If you were in the fizzy drinks industry could you compete with Coke? If you wanted to start making your own sports shoes could you compete with Nike and Adidas? Of course not. That's life sunshine.
This middle Eastern money at PSG and City has been good for PSG and City ONLY. It's not been a good thing for the rest of football at all and won't be looked back on fondly at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you saying has been undone though as you’re arguing against your own point a bit here? If you want to remove the super rich from the game then you have to remove the incentives in the first place, and PSG and City aren’t comparables in that, they have completely different motivations.
The issue with a Mansour is that there’s that much wealth in the game now, he can come in, invest 2 billion and within 15 years be sat on an asset worth double that initial investment. That’s also why you get the flip of it with people like the Glazers who can just sit on an initial investment and reap all the benefits of the asset growth without having to put any more into themselves.
It’s always been about attracting rich owners and investment. The difference nowadays is the amount of wealth in the game and the disparity of it means it both attracts the super wealthy in the first place more and also clubs are actually more reliant on it.
Brighton are a very good example of that. Theyre seen rightly as a well run club doing things the right way. That right way has had to involve an owner putting in 500m of his own money though and them selling assets continuously to now just maintain their status quo.
posted on 29/4/24
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 hour, 44 minutes ago
comment by 98 Problems (and promotion ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 13 minutes ago
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m over a three year period I think it is that owners are allowed to top the funds up with. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Football finances need to massively change anyway. Players going for 100-150m is absolute stupidity and will never be a good thing. Players also earning £400-500k a week is also absolutely ridiculous and needs to stop. Not sure how that happens though now the genie is out of the lamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m top up of very modest club revenues over a 3 season period while United earn $800m dollars in a single year in global revenues. That’s not reasonable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say that like that money just fell off a tree. United have spent decades building the club and brand. It didn't happen overnight. If that can be undone by one middle eastern Prince buying a Tinpot football club then the game is done for anyway. What incentive is that for teams? Just be crap and hope for a oil state to buy them?
If you were in the fizzy drinks industry could you compete with Coke? If you wanted to start making your own sports shoes could you compete with Nike and Adidas? Of course not. That's life sunshine.
This middle Eastern money at PSG and City has been good for PSG and City ONLY. It's not been a good thing for the rest of football at all and won't be looked back on fondly at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve been able to spend decades building your club and brand on the back of a legacy position that dates back to the 1950s and even before that. Its that legacy position of being historically one of the biggest clubs in world football that allows you to outspend the rest on a consistent basis and keeps the gap at such a disproportionate level
You rightly reference a soft drinks start up being able to compete with the likes of Coke, but what your missing is that this is a sporting competition - not an episode of The Apprentice. The only way your model is taking football is into some kind of revised European breakaway league for the biggest clubs.
Now I totally accept that a Saudi prince shouldn’t be able to buy his way to success overnight BUT the current stipulations actually prevent any small club from ever being able to break into the stranglehold the top 4 have historically had on a consistent basis. That should change and I believe if we have a better mechanism then it will make competitive football better
posted on 29/4/24
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 4 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by 98 Problems (and promotion ain’t one) (U12353)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Mainoo Man (U23147)
posted 13 minutes ago
Owners are allowed to invest a certain amount.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m over a three year period I think it is that owners are allowed to top the funds up with. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Football finances need to massively change anyway. Players going for 100-150m is absolute stupidity and will never be a good thing. Players also earning £400-500k a week is also absolutely ridiculous and needs to stop. Not sure how that happens though now the genie is out of the lamp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£90m top up of very modest club revenues over a 3 season period while United earn $800m dollars in a single year in global revenues. That’s not reasonable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say that like that money just fell off a tree. United have spent decades building the club and brand. It didn't happen overnight. If that can be undone by one middle eastern Prince buying a Tinpot football club then the game is done for anyway. What incentive is that for teams? Just be crap and hope for a oil state to buy them?
If you were in the fizzy drinks industry could you compete with Coke? If you wanted to start making your own sports shoes could you compete with Nike and Adidas? Of course not. That's life sunshine.
This middle Eastern money at PSG and City has been good for PSG and City ONLY. It's not been a good thing for the rest of football at all and won't be looked back on fondly at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t realise City had only bought players from the Middle East.
Sheikh Grealish?
posted on 29/4/24
Khail Walker?
posted on 29/4/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
Khail Walker?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's leaned into the Middle Eastern many wives and children philosophy
Page 1 of 2