Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Football] Would the Premier League be better off without Manchester City?



JetsetJimbo

Well-known member
Jun 13, 2011
1,160
The idea that a nation state can own a football club is just mad to me.

We'd obviously think it was crazy if the British government announced it was buying (say) Newcastle or Man City. So why is it any less mad to let a foreign government do so?

(And before people point out that's not a precise comparison, we'd also think it was mad if the British government tried to buy PSG or Bayern.)
 




Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,937
Surrey
So you would introduce a rule. You acknowledge it's obviously discriminatory. You believe that this is a positive thing and that no person or body seeking to buy a club would take the PL to court to have the rule struck out? Presumably you believe that because you think there's no domestic or international laws against an organisation having discriminatory procedures?

And you thought my comment was feeble? Do I have all that correct?
Yes you have that correct. Glibly saying "that'll work out" or whatever rather than explaining your position was particularly feeble, and it turns out that since that misguidedly superior but decidedly crappy post, a couple of others agree with me and have also pointed out that a) rules are discriminatory in nature and b) it seems to work fine for Putin and Russia.
 




amexer

Well-known member
Aug 8, 2011
6,797
Whilst not comfortable with Nations owning clubs I have always enjoyed watching City. Albion have an income of £200m plus and City Utd Spurs etc income is £500m plus. Will always have more wealthy clubs. Certainly would not want American system where all I think have same income and no relegation With now so many American owners great danger they will try and push things through
 


GT49er

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Feb 1, 2009
49,073
Gloucester
Just needs sensible limits on various things to stop fiddling. Sponsorship to account for no more than 50% of total revenue, for example. Players wages (including bonuses) no more than 75% of total revenue. Will it happen? Probably not!

Re: Manchester City - I'd love to see them relegated to League 2. It wouldn't destroy the club financially, and it would be fun to see them working their way back up - fun for the fans too (just ask Rangers' fans!) and a great boost for all those 'little' clubs who would benefit from some massive pay days.
 




Beanstalk

Well-known member
Apr 5, 2017
3,028
London
It would be dreadful but not because they'd be particularly missed.

If they disappeared into thin air, and ceased to be involved in any football, then yes, of course the Premier League would be better off.

If they became the first club to leave the English pyramid system, then the rest would follow very quickly, and the game would collapse in on itself. I would prefer to see them fall in line tbh. Pep will go now Txiki has confirmed he's leaving in the summer and we'll see them start a new cycle where they'll be less dominant for a bit anyway.

Something OBVIOUSLY needs to change when it comes to teams like City acting as if they're above the rules... Maybe a government regulator or something would be useful.
 


Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
31,241
The way I look at it the Premier League should be like a casino, where the club owners are the high rollers who want a seat at the blackjack table.

A casino has the ability to bar people from entry, and also requires the punter to exchange their cash for chips. However, casino licences are regulated by the government, and tightly controlled.

The Premier League appear to be operating a casino, but letting anyone in and letting them gamble with their own dirty, used notes. Any new punters joining the table are "seen and raised" to a level where ultimately they cannot compete. They may enjoy an extended lucky streak but this won't last.

It just feels as though the Premier League should have a lot more financial and legal clout than it does
 


jackanada

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2011
3,496
Brighton
If i may indulge myself with a true story that many on here will already be aware of , but that i just love and always makes me chuckle .

Back in the 50s when the USA were creating the magnificent A12-SR71 ( operation Oxcart) they needed copious amounts of titanium to build these things , purely to spy on the Russians , and the only place to acquire such large amounts of titanium were -of course Russia .

So the CIA invented a whole string of dummy companies spread worldwide to buy the titanium , to build the SR71 -to spy on Russia -delicious .

My point is that i don`t think it is possible to "vet" anyone thoroughly enough to be 100% sure they can be trusted to own an EPL club !
Now I haven't heard about the titanium, but I did have the privilege of spending a fair amount of time with a man who was quite key in proceedings.
He told how to make the optics for the early spy satellites they needed an incredibly high refractive index virtually flawless glass, but that only one factory in East Germany had ever made such a thing and what was more the process of making it took literal years. Seems they pulled the same trick twice
 




Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
31,241
I like the idea of the Premier League being able to revoke membership to any club that persistently infringes upon its rules.

The reality is that no one other than their fans would miss Man City, or Chelsea. They are privileged to be able to participate in the competition and they need it more than it needs them.

Indeed, it may become more interesting if Chelsea and Man City were binned off for Celtic and Rangers, Ajax or Feyenoord, Al Ahli or Al Hilal, if only for a temporary period. At the end of the day it would still be the Premier League with 38 matches, a trophy to be contested. I wouldn't give it another moment's thought.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here