maybe so. I'm sure someone can give a better one but it is also down to all tje foreign players tjst are readily available too I suppose.
He's just the latest we've lost others including a highly rated CB at the time who as disappeared into the Man City system. The tribunal still hasn't decided the compensation were getting for Nyoni either
Haven’t most of the current England team played in Championship or below? Walker did for Sheff U, Stones for Barnsley, Maguire played loads of games in L1 and the Championship. Bellingham for Birmingham, Kane had quite a few loans.
“Luxury tax” is nothing more than legalised bribery. It’s literally paying the authorities to turn a blind eye. Nobody can sensibly be in favour of giving yet more power to sportswashers.
BBC done a long article on the financial situation in the Premier league. The bubble is bursting and getting out control but seems they cannot work out the best way to control it hence the potential rule changes. Premier League clubs' £1bn losses in 11 charts
The Premier League have basically brought it on themselves. You create a beast that offers such riches, you are going to have people doing whatever they can to chase the dream. It's no different to gambling companies advertising massive jackpots which then tempt people into spending everything they have trying to win it. Forest and Everton are in the spotlight now as PL clubs suffering, but how many lower league clubs have ended up in a financial mess from trying and failing to reach the "promised land"?
If the rules stay tough, then the cost for players, wages etc should fall anyway, right? If clubs can't spend big, then the transfer fees will begin to fall as there isn't billions of cash floating around. Likewise wages will begin to drop as players will not be able to ask for 200k despite being shit. Clubs being able to spend more doesn't really change much. It just inflates the price for all average players as well. Even if the market crashed, the bigger clubs will still have the bigger budget.
You perhaps saw the beginnings of this in January, when nobody really bought or spent any money in the PL. I think that January scared Sky, as without endless transfer speculation and hype their product is diminished. What else are they going to talk about all day every day. Who knows if they let it play out for a couple years, maybe it would have the cooling effect that most of us want. I guess they don't really know and don't want the uncertainty.
The Premier League is corrupt, that much is quite clear. They will do everything they can to protect those that make the brand globally valuable. You see it each week in the decisions that officials make on the field and this season we've started to see it more and more off the field.
Much as they make a big deal out of the transfer window, they don’t really make much money out of it. They will be far more worried about points deductions ruining the product. complete nonsense
The original daily mail report had it as just one of several options being considered, so I doubt the details are finalised yet. However, the reports I've seen indicate that the current plan would be to distribute the money to the clubs that remained within the PSR rules, although they do suggest that some of it could be used to build up a fund for EFL teams so that premier league clubs don't need to commit to directly providing more money to them in a new deal. Funnily enough, because the current plan would be to tie it to the PSR limit (rather than a flat limit like they do in the US) as the punishment for "minor" PSR breaches, this means clubs like Everton and forest would end up sending money to man city, man u etc. Can't see that going down well with fans
Why are we the only ones yet to publish our 2023 accounts (I believe Burnley and Leeds have since that was made).
None of that defeats the point I made. Fining rule breakers huge sums of money whilst allowing them to continue picking up silverware would be a nice little salve to the other clubs who can then enjoy getting their share of the oil-generated wealth. It's little more than city, or any club bought and subsidised by an oil state, actually paying off the other 19 clubs unofficially. They may as well propose a £50 million (for example) payment to each of the others in exchange for being allowed to operate under their own rules.
That would only benefit clubs / owners who make a profit and could take that money out, which almost exclusively none of them do. If this did happen they’d put it back in; but would still be at a worse position vs City / others than in the current rules. It entirely defeats the point you are trying to make. It’s easy to come out with statements of the PL being greedy, or corrupt, without actually having any substance behind it, but mostly it never actually fits.
City group seems to be held up as the gold standard of multi club groups, and excluding man city they lost £207m last year, which is more than the total non-man city revenues of £164m. It would be terribly unfair and it's probably an awful idea, but maybe the best way to combat the otherwise inevitable rise of multiclub groups would be to apply the psr rules to the group as a whole as well as the club in the premier league. I doubt everyone would be so keen to buy up other clubs if they ran a risk of missing out on the title or getting relegated due to Timbuktu FC losing too much money
Not including the £1.5 billion the Glazers have just been paid for a minority share of United they've also siphoned off over £1 billion from the club in the 18 years since they mortgaged it. So if city gave every club in the League £50 million to spend on players they'd all be in a "worse position vs City / others than in the current rules"? Regardless of how easy it might be I haven't made any such statements.
For the second paragraph, for that to happen, if the luxury tax was 100% on what you spent, City would have had to spend 19x the £50m over what they were allowed. So, very clearly and obviously, very much worse off than the current rules. For the third, your argument was literally greed. See the first of your paragraphs.
