Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 72,313
Maybe mint a fake photocopyable banknote and create a money shower wherever and whenever Man City play. Would be impossible to police and impossible to ignore. A bit like this really...
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Man City launch legal action against Premier League
- Thread starter macbeth
- Start date
People are mistaken if they think Manchester City rather than Premier League is the main problem.
Sure, punish them, but without real structural change nothing is really going to happen.
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 72,313
Well they could achieve that change by means of 'tyranny of the majority'. Or 'democracy' as we sometimes call it round these parts. Not that Man City's owners would understand the concept
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
If City don't like our rules, then why don't they just f*ck off and join the Saudi Pro League, and play in the desert in front of 759 fans ? Its not like they'll be missed is it, the lying conniving cheating tossers.
The owners are from a culture where money is power and power rules the majority.
Well I never - Chelsea, Villa and Newcastle supporting Man City. A collection of the four most odious clubs in the Premier League.
Er, no.
No?
Great. Just get them relegated then and we'll see a completely fair league where Newcastle eventually win ten years in a row because they have more oil than the other 19 clubs, who are all by then likely to be owned by either Gulf-states, or property developing hedgefunds with strong ties to the very same Gulf-states.
Unless of course the UAE guys just buy another club and do the same shit (eventually maybe getting discovered 10 years later), because the problem is apparently Manchester City, and not the structure that allows all this dirty blood money to flood into the league.
Right.
BBassic
I changed this.
- Jul 28, 2011
- 13,043
I saw another source claim Everton were backing City as well. I can understand Newcastle being there. Chelsea too because, lol, Boehly. Villa - sure, seems like a Villa thing to do. But Everton?
Odd.
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 72,313
That Season Ticket at Lewes looks ever more enticing...
Manchester City are actually 100% correct that the rules suck. Worst rule of them all is allowing their owners to own a football club.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
You don't have to relegate them. Just kick them out if they are not prepared to play by the EPL rules that every other club signs up to. They can then go and ply their trade elsewhere, where spending is not linked to turnover or restricted by APT rules. A new competition ? The Saudi Pro League ? Who cares ? Nobody would miss them. I sure won't.
Why don't Newcastle just spend half a billion this summer?
Because under PL rules they can't
Yeah, and thats a fantastic rule - a wonderful addition to football and I will enjoy it until someone make sure its destroyed in some "free market"-fanatic court or another.
But the situation where they even want and are theoretically able to spend that money is a problem. The existence of these owners, all racing to waste as much money as they can in what they pretend to be a market that can never be saturated, creates structural problems across football.
It makes wages and other costs all over the league system, and all over Europe, increase to the point that they are pretty much dependent on these money-splashing clubs to buy a talent or two from them every year or so. A lot of clubs in the Championship and even League One build their economy around some sort of "fact" that they will get a pile of money for a few players.
And then League Two and National League clubs are starting to act in the same manner, building their financial sustainability around selling a player or two to League One or Championship.
Suddenly you find yourself in a situation where the league system, hell even grassroots football, are one fad ("we're gonna invest in Counter-Strike instead!!") or a few geopolitcal events or a big stock market crash away from collapsing the entire football structure. And its not good. Not sustainable.
Something will always happen at one point or another. Most clubs survived World War 2, how many would survive World War 3? Most, if not all, clubs couldn't give a shit about the oil crisis in 1973 but today it would cause a bunch of headaches to a lot of people in football. There's always something around the corner and the bigger the football bubble gets, the louder it bursts.
Its all very unsustainable and fragile. And it creates devilish effects like some of these clubs, and their happiness and success, becomes a requirement for football to function, allowing them political influence not to mess up one of UKs biggest exports, the PL.
Imho these are some of the regulations that should be made (and I'm not going to pretend the 51 percent rule is ever happening in England):
1. No foreign owners and no shady owners.
2. No players or other employees above.. say £100k a month (adjust for inflation perhaps)
3. No transfer fees above say £10m (same as above).
4. A maximum of 10% of profits ending up in owner pockets, with the rest split on a crisis buffert, grasroot football and the local community
5. No ticket fees at all - NOT needed with the world paying all that TV money
This would result in a far worse (but no one gives a shit if its fun and exciting) and much more entertaining and fair league.
It would result in a league where the billions of money brought in through various TV deals would be distributed across the communities these clubs belong to, and the fans who want to go see games.
What on earth are you on about? If Man City aren't allowed to ignore the rules, not allowed to fake sponsor themselves for ridiculous sums, then Newcastle won't be able to either, which makes it less likely that Newcastle will be winning season after season.
Somehow you think that stopping an oil state from breaking the rules makes it more likely that other clubs will be bought by oil states, and more likely that oil states will win.
If you have a method of stopping dirty money coming into the league, by all means post that and see if fans and clubs agree with you. But letting City break the rules is not the way forward.
Will you quote me where I said I want the PL to lose this legal battle?That fantastic rule is the one that you want the PL to lose their legal battle over
Because I certainly don't want that. But I do want the legal battle itself - because something needs to break the status quo and hopefully change football overall to the better. Like creating measures not to create further situations like this.
I said "people are mistaken if they think Manchester City rather than the Premier League is the main problem."
And I'm pretty firm on that. The whole PL mentality of "let everyone in as long as they splash money" is the core problem, and would remain the core problem if City are relegated with no structural changes.
This legal battle is going to be perfect opportunity to take a firm grip and regulate football the way it needs to be regulated.
This thread is about the legal battle between City and the PL, and suggesting the PL is the main problem makes it sound like you're not on their side. So you are on their side in this battle - ok, that's good to hear.
Ok, I hope it works out as you appear to hope too.
Well that's not really true, hence the FFP rules. The 'fit and proper test' has long been a bit of a joke (I think one of Portsmouth's owners didn't even exist?), but it's not easy to legally stop someone owning a club because you think they're a bit sus'.
Everton feel that they were harshly judged by FFP terms being "just" £19.5m over the allotted losses. They're backing this because it would've been very easy to get a rich owner to sponsor the reserve team for £25m a season, rather than desperately trying to sell your overpriced, underperforming players for a profit.
Destroying the ATP rules may stop teams like Everton competing at the top in the long term, but saves them in the short term.