ENIC

[Finney Is Back]

But the idea is that should a Sheffield United come up they could spend on a par with Everton who would not be able to spend the 400m over two seasons they have now, that on its own is a equaliser as is footballs greatest leveller which is any clubs ability to implode at anytime which happens now regardless of financial muscle

I don't think Sheffield United could spend on a par with Everton. I would imagine Everton's incomings would still be considerably higher than Sheffield United's. Everton would also already have a PL level squad whereas Sheffield United would have to try to invest to create one in one summer. Very, very difficult to do that in the knowledge that relegation after one year no longer sees a parachute payment.

 

[Grays_1890]

I don't think Sheffield United could spend on a par with Everton. I would imagine Everton's incomings would still be considerably higher than Sheffield United's. Everton would also already have a PL level squad whereas Sheffield United would have to try to invest to create one in one summer. Very, very difficult to do that in the knowledge that relegation after one year no longer sees a parachute payment.

But over time that power of spending will shrink because the players they have now won't be able to be replenished by better and lets not forget the fact Everton pretty much fall foul of FFP at the moment and are also in a relegation battle. And the Turnover Gaps are nowhere near what you would think, looking back Sheffield United (lets stick to them as an example) turned over 140m, Palace turned over 150m, Leicester 159m, Saudi Sportswashing Machine 170, Southampton 150m so the gaps would not be that big and established PL clubs would have to look over their shoulders as the high attendance clubs with similar income from TV and PL would push them.

I was just giving an example but there are huge clubs in the EFL who could come up and battle it out on a level with many a club already in the PL under the new rules, you would not have to double down with parachute payments for that to happen moving forward.

And at the end of the day the parachute payments has not encouraged a sensible plan of spending long term or helped clubs, its actually hurt them, look at the clubs that have come up and gone down and look at many of thems financial situations now....Boltons, Wigans, Derby etc...the promise of more money leaves a longer legacy of doom

I think a more sustainable model for all of football is needed, if that means players eventually take a hit on wages, considering their outgoings are the largest black hole in the game, even better

 

[elltrev]

I think the only really effective solution would be to completely redistribute TV money and/or create a wage / net spend cap. Anything else is just tinkering around the edges. I don’t really understand how clubs outside of the big 6-7 don’t protest more about the insane financial inequality in the game. (Same for non-PL clubs, but at least some of them have to get promoted each year, unlike the relatively closed shop of Champions League qualification).

 

[Lilbaz]

I think the only really effective solution would be to completely redistribute TV money and/or create a wage / net spend cap. Anything else is just tinkering around the edges. I don’t really understand how clubs outside of the big 6-7 don’t protest more about the insane financial inequality in the game. (Same for non-PL clubs, but at least some of them have to get promoted each year, unlike the relatively closed shop of Champions League qualification).

The majority of the inequality is caused by the champions league. More tv revenue, more sponsors, higher matchday. Probably works out £150-200m a year for regulars (from the prem).
It's not a problem that can be fixed by the premier league alone.

 

[Lilbaz]

I think we'll likely see a bigger variety of clubs coming up to the PL. However I think we'll see the likelihood of them being able to stay up reducing even further. Not sure whether that is good or bad really.

The tv revenue for each prem club will drop, while the championship will rise. So coming up they'll be on a more even footing.

If we did adopt the 70% spending rules then 70% of £200m is £140m, 70% of £100m is £70m. Still double but a gap of £70m instead of £100m. For £500m turnover it would be £350m to £70m. So instead of £400m gap, it would be £280m.

 

[Raziel]

The majority of the inequality is caused by the champions league. More tv revenue, more sponsors, higher matchday. Probably works out £150-200m a year for regulars (from the prem).
It's not a problem that can be fixed by the premier league alone.

Agreed, but I find the English solution very weird. If the lower leagues need investment and need protecting fiscally that is FA/government problem

If I was running a business I'd be fudging livid if the proposition was to take money I earned and pump in into other businesses that could/will be my future competition.

The top clubs have literally spent decades building a global audience and investing in brands, why should their reward be put to lower league teams?

Note, my opinion is money doping/lack of financial controls is the real problem, not revenue distribution.

 

[Lilbaz]

Agreed, but I find the English solution very weird. If the lower leagues need investment and need protecting fiscally that is FA/government problem

If I was running a business I'd be fudging livid if the proposition was to take money I earned and pump in into other businesses that could/will be my future competition.

The top clubs have literally spent decades building a global audience and investing in brands, why should their reward be put to lower league teams?

Note, my opinion is money doping/lack of financial controls is the real problem, not revenue distribution.

In business terms it's absolutely ridiculous and outrageous. But these aren't just businesses. They are considered to be community representations. So it's more like tax. The more you earn the higher your ability to pay without struggling to survive. Redistribution.

American sports realised this with the draft system, salary caps etc...

Also allows owners to make profit.

 

[Grays_1890]

Agreed, but I find the English solution very weird. If the lower leagues need investment and need protecting fiscally that is FA/government problem

If I was running a business I'd be fudging livid if the proposition was to take money I earned and pump in into other businesses that could/will be my future competition.

The top clubs have literally spent decades building a global audience and investing in brands, why should their reward be put to lower league teams?

Note, my opinion is money doping/lack of financial controls is the real problem, not revenue distribution.

But it could easily be seen to be short sighted to not believe that the EFL plays a part in the PL success with everything feeding into the PL. For years EFL clubs have had their academies and first teams pillaged for players way under their market value in order for the PL to build their academies and succeed, this for me is a levelling up which is a long time coming IMHO

The English game is all one infrastructure thats been divided up for too long to sell the PL narrative and I get it but if PL clubs can't forgo 15-25m a year for the greater good of the sport and something they will ultimately benefit from then that says something about the mentality of the sport and the fans.

 

[elltrev]

The majority of the inequality is caused by the champions league. More tv revenue, more sponsors, higher matchday. Probably works out £150-200m a year for regulars (from the prem).
It's not a problem that can be fixed by the premier league alone.

Totally agree. When I said TV money I meant from the PL and CL. (Maybe 'TV money' was the wrong term to use - I mean all the money that comes from UEFA for playing in the CL).

 

[elltrev]

Agreed, but I find the English solution very weird. If the lower leagues need investment and need protecting fiscally that is FA/government problem

If I was running a business I'd be fudging livid if the proposition was to take money I earned and pump in into other businesses that could/will be my future competition.

The top clubs have literally spent decades building a global audience and investing in brands, why should their reward be put to lower league teams?

Note, my opinion is money doping/lack of financial controls is the real problem, not revenue distribution.

But for me it's about the sporting principle of fair competition, not just business. And the Champions League creates such a closed shop, it's so hard to break without doping. (We and Leicester are the only teams who've even come close, in different ways).

How are a team like Everton or Leeds ever going to compete with victims without doping, when they're starting with less than a third of the revenue? Not to mention all the teams starting from a much lower baseline than those two.

 

[Lilbaz]

Totally agree. When I said TV money I meant from the PL and CL. (Maybe 'TV money' was the wrong term to use - I mean all the money that comes from UEFA for playing in the CL).

Fair enough. It's just prem teams (at least not those in europe) alone don't have any power of how uefa distributes the money or can ask. Independent regulator though possibly could.

 

[Lilbaz]

One thing that i noticed. The government didn't say no to the esl. They said no to closed shop competitions. The new format of the esl is not a closed shop. They also didn't mention fifa or uefa.

 

[Raziel]

But for me it's about the sporting principle of fair competition, not just business. And the Champions League creates such a closed shop, it's so hard to break without doping. (We and Leicester are the only teams who've even come close, in different ways).

How are a team like Everton or Leeds ever going to compete with victims without doping, when they're starting with less than a third of the revenue? Not to mention all the teams starting from a much lower baseline than those two.

That is a capitalism issue, it's a natural outcome

Again, things like wage caps, properly implemented FFP, etc. is probably more of answer.

Taking money from us, Everton, Leeds, etc. to fund lower level clubs is a bit of an odd answer.

 

[Lilbaz]

That is a capitalism issue, it's a natural outcome

Again, things like wage caps, properly implemented FFP, etc. is probably more of answer.

Taking money from us, Everton, Leeds, etc. to fund lower level clubs is a bit of an odd answer.

Yet for the majority of history of football in this country it was more equally distributed. Only the start of the prem changed things.

Consider it social democracy.

 

[elltrev]

That is a capitalism issue, it's a natural outcome

Again, things like wage caps, properly implemented FFP, etc. is probably more of answer.

Taking money from us, Everton, Leeds, etc. to fund lower level clubs is a bit of an odd answer.

Sure but as I said, football is (or ideally should be, IMO) about sport at least as much as it is about business. So personally I'm in favour of regulatory bodies curbing those natural capitalist effects if it's good for the sport. (I appreciate in practice that's often not realistic, with how much money there is in the game now).

Out of interest where do you sit on the political spectrum? I always wonder if that correlates with people's views on financial regulation in football. Then again, USA is very right wing economically but their sports are more left wing than communism! (With the worst teams getting rewarded most highly, via top draft picks).

 

[Lilbaz]

Sure but as I said, football is (or ideally should be, IMO) about sport at least as much as it is about business. So personally I'm in favour of regulatory bodies curbing those natural capitalist effects if it's good for the sport. (I appreciate in practice that's often not realistic, with how much money there is in the game now).

Out of interest where do you sit on the political spectrum? I always wonder if that correlates with people's views on financial regulation in football. Then again, USA is very right wing economically but their sports are more left wing than communism! (With the worst teams getting rewarded most highly, via top draft picks).

Tbf america has always seemed to be capitalism for the poor socialism for the rich. Government subsidies, closed shop competition, too big to fail...

 

[Raziel]

Sure but as I said, football is (or ideally should be, IMO) about sport at least as much as it is about business. So personally I'm in favour of regulatory bodies curbing those natural capitalist effects if it's good for the sport. (I appreciate in practice that's often not realistic, with how much money there is in the game now).

Out of interest where do you sit on the political spectrum? I always wonder if that correlates with people's views on financial regulation in football. Then again, USA is very right wing economically but their sports are more left wing than communism! (With the worst teams getting rewarded most highly, via top draft picks).

I have no issue with financial regulation in football, sports or business (in my opinion every single time we have depended on a business/industry to do the right thing, they don't, it absolutely has to be enforced)

What I do find odd is the "it's ok for a state to buy football clubs, completely fudge the nature of the game and create a closed shop" but hey "no, to ESL" and we expect even the poorest EPL teams to subsidize the pyramid? there is way too much emotion vs. logic in these conversations/decisions

I would consider myself progressive on most issues if it matters ...

 

[elltrev]

I have no issue with financial regulation in football, sports or business (in my opinion every single time we have depended on a business/industry to do the right thing, they don't, it absolutely has to be enforced)

What I do find odd is the "it's ok for a state to buy football clubs, completely fudge the nature of the game and create a closed shop" but hey "no, to ESL" and we expect even the poorest EPL teams to subsidize the pyramid? there is way too much emotion vs. logic in these conversations/decisions

I would consider myself progressive on most issues if it matters ...

Yeah fair enough (I don’t think I have any of those opinions you’re criticising - if you think I do then there may have been some crossed wires!)

 

[Lilbaz]

Right here is the white paper. Enjoy the read.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ble-future-reforming-club-football-governance

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Unacceptable........?.

"The way that this club is led is by not splashing the money. Our transfers always have to be on point. That makes it really tricky," he said.

"We cannot make four transfers before we know who will leave the club and these kind of things.

"Last year was not a season for a big change. We played until the last moment and, if you want to change at this club, we cannot just bring in players and realise later that no-one wants to leave. It doesn't work like that"

"We have to make our own plans and that's what we do but based on the way this club is led,"

"It's obviously different to other clubs, that's how it is. It worked out so far and we have to see if it will work still or if we have to adapt.

"That's something for us in the offices when we are not on the training pitch and for my conversations with the owners and all these kinds of things."