What each club can spend

It makes sense, but it's food for thought for anyone who dismisses complaints about the current financial disparities between teams on the basis that "there have always been big clubs and small clubs", which is a comment I've seen crop up on here a few times.

 

I'd agree. there's money and then there's position and draw. our best signings were from unfashionable clubs.

keegan, Scunthorpe?
rush, Chester

the list goes on and on.

we didn't have the best crowds but we have good people buying players and good managers and went on a long run from shankley through the boot room until dalglish left in 1991 and the prem started

forest had years of legendary success under a good manager who bought good players and they matched us.

now you've spurs on 500 and something million with massive TV money, massive gates, loads of events on thst drives commercial and companies falling over each other to get their name seen on the spurs bowl.

we are trying to get over 100mil in gates again with our expansion and trying to get concerts in to go with the hard sell fsg do.

everton are at 170mil. you.might as well say they don't do any commercial stuff. it's all tv and gate. bar 20 odd million.

but in the end we all pay though the nose to watch and we will continue to pay more.

 

Centre goals aren’t a reliable source, right? Think a few posters are jumping the gun quite a bit here

 

Seems to have been originally reported by the daily mail. Not that that necessarily makes it any more reliable mind

 

Yeah, it's come from a report from Mail Sport, which detailed a few alternatives they were apparently looking at. The luxury tax one probably the best headline, and also perhaps one with an agenda to be pushed by whoever the journalist sourced this from...

 

I'm all for the luxury tax. Allow the state owned clubs to ensure that the fans of clubs that cried about FFP have the door shut on them forever from anything.

 

I don't think it should be the only bit of financial regulation (or rather it would be completely pointless if it is), but I wouldn't be opposed to a luxury tax if the fines are all distributed down to the football league.

 

Those arguments about never being able to compete with current establishment due to the current rules would not only remain but would become even more desperate as someone like Tony Bloom goes from trying to compete against the established big clubs to now trying to compete against literal countries.

It’s a horrific idea and in my opinion would be a shot in the arm of the carcass that is the super league.

 

It wouldn't change much really as the uefa rules would still exist and would apply to the likes of man city etc. every season anyway, and those rule are more stringent than the premier league's rules.

But yes, that is more or less why I think it would be pointless as the only rule. Whether you think the main purpose of PSR is to promote sustainability or to prevent state backed clubs like man city and Newcastle becoming horrifically dominant (or to stop anyone else challenging the big 6, which is obviously also a common point of view), changing the rules to just have a luxury tax wouldn't make any sense as a luxury tax would fail to do any of that

 

Fans should have been pushing for harder FFP. Instead, they have moaned it out of existence and have allowed trillionaires, who own other clubs where they can spread player cost to circumvent UEFA competition rules, to ensure you'll never even make a League Cup final.

It's brilliant.

 

The last 20 league cup finalists have included 3 clubs that aren't part of the big 6. One of those 3 are Newcastle who would obviously benefit from rules being removed, and another one is villa who also have incredibly rich owners, and who generally seem to view themselves as temporarily embarrassed football giants rather than a typical "make up the numbers" club.

I'm not in favour of a financial free for all, but the only clubs that would find themselves with a significantly reduced chance of winning a trophy or making a league cup final if it happened are clubs like spurs, man u, Liverpool and arsenal - big clubs that currently have realistic chance of winning trophies each season, but that don't have owners able or willing to throw infinite amounts of money around

 

But that’s another thing that isn’t as easy to do anymore because of the way football has changed.

How many players as good as Keegan are getting meaningful appearances for lower league clubs before they’re poached?

I’m not saying that as a slight on the ‘Big 6’ because we’re f*cking terrible for it too but Cat 1 academies are now able to poach literal children from other teams for peanuts in hopes 1 of them will come good eventually.

Keegan played 120 games in the fourth tier before signing for Liverpool, where he was already good enough to play 30+ games for Liverpool that season and get an England cap shortly after.

Does anybody seriously think a similar level of player today makes 120 appearances for Doncaster or Swindon before jumping straight to Liverpool? I don’t think they’d play 120 minutes! They’d be poached before they’re old enough to buy a can of Red Bull. And even if they weren’t poached at 14/15 then they’d be signed by us or Brentford in the January of their first season. They’d then spend 18 months playing for our youth teams before being loaned out to Northampton, coming back, playing 14 games for us and then being linked with a £50 move to Arsenal/Liverpool.

I get that Liverpool fans are rightly proud of what they achieved in the 80s but whenever one of their fans try to use it as a blueprint for the modern era on here it makes me laugh. You might as well get Alan Turing to try and explain Bitcoin.

 

why can't we have both.

a punative points deduction amd a massive wealth based fine?

not many but there are a couple.

you have to be 20 when you make it now or you are a flop.

olly Watkins comes to mind.

Joe gomez for us.

its not the same but we picked up Bradley after being associated for years when he did his exams and moved over and got him a league 1 loan

they are very very rare now but I also think the prem.clubs (we are guilty of it) are absolutely poaching any clubs youth systemt hey can so just getting your debut for a club (elliott) means you'll be targeted

 

A Points deduction is a DETERRENT to not break the Rules.
A fine is just an irritant to most EPL Owners that's why they want that instead.

 

Gomez played half a season of football for Charlton before you signed him

You signed Bradley for your u18s before shipping him out for a league 1 loan 3 seasons later

The only one of those examples that comes anywhere close be being a half decent counter point is watkins

 

Watkins went from L2 to the championship for 3 years and then to the Prem. Gomez played 21 games in the Championship, moved to Liverpool and played 5 league games in his first two seasons.

If they’re the best examples then it proves my point entirely.

 

A large part of the reason talent is spotted sooner now is because of scouting and data advancements in the game. Add in the fact now you can watch a player across the leagues (before they've even made a senior app) without even needing to send scouts up and down the country if you don't want, because it is all filmed.

Feels a bit off to compare what happened in the 70s/80s to now, when you consider the above. It is easier to be more sure of a player now than it was 20/30/40 years ago. Where it was mostly down to the eye test from your scout.

 

Nice little earner for the PL? You make it sound like it’s owned by a third party who take lots of money out of it?

It’s not. It’s owned by the clubs.

Don’t know why people keep forgetting that when they claim the PL are just looking for more money from the clubs, or that the PL has some conspiracy against them. It’s nonsense.