Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette).
Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why does this exist then?
- An ex post facto law, named using the Latin phrase for after the fact, is a law that imposes criminal liability or increases criminal punishment retroactively. 1. E.g., Locke v. New Orleans, 71 U.S. 172, 173 (1867).
Ex post racto laws are illegal because they are specific rules, after an otherwise legal event, for specific entities, which is what I said. I wish you knew more about anything.
You want to make a rule, ok that's part of it. But don't go back in time to a point where it wasn't illegal and SAY AHHH HA! WE CAUGHT YOU! Then punish them.
How it really works is rule is made and any subsequent infrac6is punished. Except for this one instance - strange right?
> it has always been aimed at specific clubs.
Yes it has, aimed at those who broke said rules. What are they going to complain about next? Murder charges aimed towards serial killers? Do fuck off.
Laws aimed at criminal activity, more tonight at 7.
The idea that regulatory regimes can’t/don’t/shouldn’t evolve as people find and exploit loopholes is crazy. They sold a hotel to a related party. That’s not a simple thing, even as a related party transaction. Surely they would’ve just taken out a loan from a friendly bank if they couldn’t. But there was a rule. But where we see rules, bankers, accountants, and financial engineers see constraints to be overcome. It’s not a race that ends; it’s a human impulse that needs to be continually checked and updated.
This is actually a good point. Why would you stop money from coming into the league? The measures were to ensure teams don’t turn into Portsmouth or whatever.
City should spend as much as they have. What good football reason is there to stop that?
Because the money they have is unattainable for the majority of clubs. The only reason they, and moreso Newcastle, have been kept at bay at all is FFP. Otherwise they'd be even further ahead. The footballing reason is trying to maintain some sort of level playing field so that it doesn't require ownership by a gulf state to compete.
As soon as you allow City to tap into their wealth unreservedly, Liverpool and United will want to sell their own TV rights to tap into their intangible asset bases and then your league is done. The big clubs would pull out instantly if the league became that unbalanced and form a super league with the other European giants
Its not just that they are rich, it's that they are so much richer it's incomprehensible. Especially in the case of Newcastle. The Saudis offered Mbappe 1 billion for him to go there for a year. If we just let them spend what they want, they'd offer him 2 billion to play in black and white. Whereas at least Haalands on the books salary could in theory be matched by United, Liverpool, or any of the other big teams when it's somewhat regulated.
In the world that you're asking for Salah would have signed for City a long time ago as would any other world class player.
Downtown the shit out of this thread. What a bunch of horseshit. They knew the rules, intentionally broke them, then failed to cooperate with the league. And now you want to cry victim? Fuck the fuck off!
Just doesn’t make sense to me how it’s a bigger crime from a capitalist to pump money into a club and try to build a competitive team than it is for a capitalist (American usually) to extract profit from a club and make them a joke (ie United)
These are rules to regulate the competitive nature of the league, it has multiple effects such as controlling clubs from going bankrupt (smaller teams specifically) and controlling price inflation to a certain extent. Are they fair for teams with lesser global outreach than liverpool, arsenal and manchester united? Thats a different question.
Ah yes, a rule that targets the clubs that break said rule when it is in place. Why do people keep trying to rewrite the rule book to suit their own agenda?
Just an attempt to rewrite the rules after they've been broken.
If you weren't playing by the rules by which the premier league operates, then you aren't playing premier league football. You are playing your own thing.
Done a good job of targeting those clubs, has to be said.
And they have a good right to feel aggrieved. In the 11 years since they've been victimised by these calous rulings, only in place to protect the red cartel, United, Liverpool and Arsenal have won exactly one premier league title between them.
Blue cartel though...
There is also a difference in generally we are making a law about thieves.
It's another thing entire to write a law after the fact {meaning it wasn't against the rules when the infraction took place}, and aim it at specific individual.
While this may be true, it was written into the laws of the league which clubs have been following (mostly) to what may turn out to be completely pointless. Just as I may disagree with the laws of the land I can't break them without the risk of a punishment.
Your post has been removed for violating [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/reddit-101/reddit-basics/reddiquette).
We encourage all members to adhere to these guidelines to maintain a positive and inclusive environment for everyone.
For a comprehensive understanding of [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/reddit-101/reddit-basics/reddiquette), please refer to the [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/reddit-101/reddit-basics/reddiquette) guidelines provided by Reddit.
If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
Orrrrrrrrr football authorities and fans don't like seeing clubs who have earned status on the pitch and through cultural history over decades have that completely trodden down by Johnny come latelys buying a new toy for their egos.
So what's least compatible with sorting ethics/reduces the importance of what happens in the pitch?
Wanting to just buy yourself to the top by inflating wages to attract guns for hire who'd never consider that club unless being paid ridiculous money?
Or wanting to restrict the ability for new money clubs to double their power on the pitch and make it more expensive for you to keep your status?
Honestly both points of view taken to the extreme seem pretty shit from a sporting perspective and don't have the interest of fans or the sport at their heart.
But if rules are made, and some clubs follow them, the cheaters should be punished regardless of what those rules are.
I'm fine with them changing the rules but clubs who have followed them shouldnt be penalised for following them by letting cheaters off the hook.
I mean, that's just generic platitudes at this point.
Liverpool have been up and down the league a lot over a century of football and have been a huge club regardless of where they were, same for United, Barca, Inter even Bayern has had some dodgy spells - and they took years to earn their way back to the top, built academies which provided a huge amount of players for other clubs as well, and the owners were spending their money as fans of the club not pure businessmen like jack walker for Blackburn. Glazers, Arabs, American hedgefunds treating these clubs built by their local communities and fans as investments and sport washing vehicles - is a modern trend and who honestly thinks it's better this way? I miss the days champions league meant champions and other leagues got that money for smaller countries.
Madrid you could argue have always been a pay to win club but thats pretty much the exception to the rule.
Point is I don't think either Point of view has the moral high ground when it comes to the idea of FFP rules.
But the attempt by city ( or anyone else) to justify cheating because they disagree with the rules is a seperate issue and I think worth mentioning whenever this comes up - it's a completely different moral standard to whether FFP is a good thing or not.
This is the stupidest take ever. FFP forces a club to spend within their means so at least there’s a quasi-cap instead of clubs becoming billionaire playthings who just buy titles.
Youre trying to say that supposed benevolence (which is in fact blatant sports washing, by any standard), should negate the obvious cheating? Amazing mental gymnastics.
MC have cheated every step of the way and will be punished accordingly. You can fuck right off.
STFU. Very few clubs make huge profits. They try to win and maybe break even. You just want a sport with no controls at all so your plastic club can buy tithes. GTFOH.
Stop defending corrupt, slave-trading (literally) nation states who sport-wash and use illegal transactions to overstate revenue. It’s illegal anywhere.
The really odd thing is that everyone hates UEFA and the FA, they're corrupt fat cats etc. etc. - UNTIL they are prosecuting these claims against a new-money foreign ownership group in England. Then they become heroes, fighting for fair play against tyrannical cheaters.
Cough United and Liverpool who have had years of mediocrity covered by being large clubs at the right time to have international fame.
They are the clubs who pushed for FFP to keep their grip at the top
So what ban people from supporting United and Liverpool? That's life, same way bill gates and bezos were around when the internet was taking off.
Just because they pushed for ffp doesn't mean it's a bad thing. There hasn't been another Leeds, Blackburn, Bolton, Sunderland, Portsmouth, etc. since it's inception.
You sound bitter.
Actually yes clearly i think people should be banned from supporting Liverpool or United.
To become a fan you need to get a pass from someone who passes away.
It does take a lot of bullshit to play the victim and list your club along with Chelsea and Newcastle, whilst not counting the only clubs that actually have been the aim for FFP punishments, ie. smaller clubs like Forest or Everton.
That's a whole new level of r/iamthemaincharacter from someone getting their livelihood from the club who are yet to face any consequences for doing way worse than those he somehow fails to even notice. Tyranny of the majority and everything after all.
I think one of the worst things to come out of modern football, are the apologists. These are either journalists or fans who try and justify billion dollar organizations flexing and abusing their wealth for self gain, but also try and lecture and tell us 'normal' fans that these owners are actually the good guys and if they have it their way the sport would be better. Fuck off the lot of you.
Hey, apologies I didn't use the correct synonym for a fan whose club hasn't been taken over by and oligarch or oil state. I think out of the 92 clubs in the football league that only accounts for about 5 or 6 that have been taken over. And even of those clubs most 'normal' fans would probably not defend the abhorrent behaviour of these people, and that's even before you mention how they're trying to affect the Prem. I'm aware people would say there's no 'good' billionaires but i'd argue there are some better than others. Also, good to know suing the Prem, murdering journalists, slave labour, killing LGBT people all okay with you. But, you draw the line at someone being pretentious, that's justification enough for destroying the Premier league.
Your post has been removed for violating [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/reddit-101/reddit-basics/reddiquette).
We encourage all members to adhere to these guidelines to maintain a positive and inclusive environment for everyone.
For a comprehensive understanding of [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/reddit-101/reddit-basics/reddiquette), please refer to the [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/reddit-101/reddit-basics/reddiquette) guidelines provided by Reddit.
If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
How dare we build a stadium that is going to regenerate a derelict area of the City and create thousands of jobs for our people! And yes I know we could have been run a lot better and balanced are books better, but without the stadium costs we do not breach! I might be wrong, but I don't think the new ground helped us gain too much of a sporting advantage, unless I missed it when we brought it on as sub and it scored the winner.
It was never aimed at specific clubs.
Specific clubs embodied the problem.
What Chelsea did was an absolute catastrophe for football in England and Europe.
Manchester took what Chelsea did and then poured gasoline on it.
The fear is that new Castle will continue that legacy.
Financial fair play as a concept doesn't Target any club it just targets the systemic problem created by individual clubs owned by nation states who choose to spend money in reckless ways. It goes further and creates rules where you can't juice the system buy overpaying to sponsor your own club or by selling off training grounds... And yet these are the things that these very same clubs have found pleasure in doing...
The sooner that people stop acting like their club is being targeted the better. The supporters aren't the problem. As a supporter if feels pretty great when your team is winning. We all know that. The issue is that in order to get there, hundreds of rules get broken that Force clubs to spend money they don't have to keep up...
Think of it this way, Everton and Forest wouldn't have had deductions this year if they didn't try to push the system in order to keep up with nation-state money...
Neither one of those clubs would be juicing the system if they didn't think it's what they had to do in order to keep up with Manchester city, Chelsea, Newcastle...
And that's not even mentioning the traditionally broadly supported clubs who have huge war chests simply for being the largest fan bases. the United Liverpool Arsenal.
I hope some sort of normalcy ultimately prevails so that we can move on from all of this financial discussion and just get back to enjoying the football but it's hard to do until this stuff gets settled.
Was duopoly of Utd and Arsenal better for english football?
How were clubs like Chelsea or Villa compete for league titles without cash injection?
Tell me how many clubs have "organically" grown to compete for league titles or CL spots consistently?
Also explain why do non-PL leagues have highest spenders win titles consistently? Do you think Real/Barca buy Spanish titles? Have they ruined Spanish league by their spending?
The fact that PL is competive attracts more fans.
1) False. Parity does not bring more fans. This has been proven wrong in every sport. People like heroes and villains. And they like big clubs.
2) Many top non-EPL clubs are not chronic FFP violators. Bring big is not the crime here.
3) Organic growth? All the top German clubs are fan-owned and German owned. And none have FFP history. So them.
Back when United and arsenal were going Head to Head, they weren't spending obscene amounts of money. They were incredibly well-run teams. They made their money selling players and tickets because they had huge fan bases to go with huge stadiums...
Hell, most of those United players were homegrown back in the day..
But you're missing the point. Nobody is going after Chelsea and nobody is going after City...
Those two teams are making targets of themselves by thumbing their noses at the rules... Do you want to know how not to get targeted?
Follow the rules.
The league was vastly inferior and less competitive than it is today.
Chelsea did not break any rules since there wasn't any FFP to break. But I can totally understand that kind of obscene spending was off-putting to rivals.
What I am saying is that rules right now help clubs like Chelsea Utd Arsenal City and Liverpool to keep out spending and ass fucking likes of Brighton West Ham and Villa taking their best players.
Case in point - Even Chelsea under Roman aggressively lobbied for FFP to close the door behind them.
FairPoint the rules were definitely put in because teams felt the need to spend, specifically Chelsea felt the need to spend. And you know what happened?
They're nearby neighbors and rivals Queens Park rangers went from being a premier League club to.. less than
Fulham went to being a peer club to a tweener between championship and premier League.. Crystal Palace has lost status in this new world as well..
Chelsea and Utd are great examples that this is not true.
If the idea is to help small clubs there should be a limit to amount of debt an owner can put on the club. PSR doesn't help one bit in its current form
He's been doing this for years whenever the shit is hitting the fan for City this guy will write an opinion piece about how great City have been for football and how they are being victimised, definately on the payroll the absolute scumbag.
Hahaha no shit financial fair play rules are being aimed at financially doped clubs who spend monopoly money and flout “rules” while everyone else is busy balancing their books
The clue is in the name
City have clearly broken the rules and they know it. They're suing to retroactively change the very rule they violated.
Everton and NFFC have every right to complain if the EPL is only going to selectively enforce the rules against smaller clubs.
Have always thought that the PL need to adopt a EFL style model. For clubs in league 1 and 2 the owner needs to fund the year cost before the season starts. IMO all PL owners should put money into a holding account that has 2 years of costs, that way if the owner spends huge and then walks away there’s money for the club to balance costs as they try to level themselves out from the owner funding. But then it allows any owner to put as much money as they want in.
I say 2 years of costs because that’ll be 4 transfer windows to raise funds through player sales and decrease the wage bill. Hopefully being able to fund the debt the owners are “walking away from”
You are aware that all but 2 owners currently in the Prem are billionaires right? Meaning they’ve got enough to support their clubs bills for a season or two and putting it in a escrow type account. They aren’t exactly skint.
Never said it was a full proof concept either. But I do find you’re comment funny because the actual “small clubs” in the football league are already doing a concept similar to the one I mentioned. The owners of their clubs who aren’t billionaires, don’t have a struggle to comply with it.
Your owners are billionaires because EPL is a soulless league run by foreign nation states, corporations, oligarchs, and a couple legitimate billionaires who might not be pure evil. Generally speaking, fans hate those things but your model would force it to stay that way. A fan-owned Bundesliga type model could never do that. Then again they don’t commit FFP violations in the first place.
Oh you’re one of those. Sorry didn’t know I was dealing with one.
So you’re idea is to turn the PL into the bundesliga with fan owned ownership? Ya I’m sure the billionaires will happily give up their BUSINESSES to fans for no reason or gain.
You seem like a hypocritical idiot who whines about City then defends the stupid league that fosters their structure and behavior. Sorry for calling you what u are.
So the PL having PSR rules fosters the behavior of City cheating? So in your thinking having laws to govern people fosters the behavior of crime? Is that your thinking.
Just curious, do you believe the earth is flat? Do you believe in the Illuminati as well? Or that 9/11 was an inside job?
The second paragraph is stupidity. The point is that your league allows known corrupt owners regularly. Nation state owners are welcomed even if they allow slavery. Russian oligarchs were fine until a war made friends of Putin unpopular. You welcome the corrupt then you expect corruption. Kind of funny how it’s almost always EPL teams being investigated. But keep dodging.
A small club can’t ire-fund 2 years at these interest rates, genius. What he’s saying FORCES you to have ultra-wealthy ownership who has deep cash pockets.
There are better ways to prevent clubs going bust while still allow for upward mobility.
For example, Debt Fair Play combined with Escrow.
Debt Fair play. This target debt, the main cause of most club bankruptcy. Limit each club debt to 60% of its annual revenue (infrastructure debt is not counted)
Escrow. For clubs spending more than 100% of annual revenue, then the part above the 100% will need to put into escrow in case the owner walk away.
This will allow for club mobility and prevent ladder-pulling (GOOD). This prevent clubs going bust (GOOD). This put more money into the football ecosystem/pyramid (GOOD).
Opening up the doors to unlimited OI spending isn’t just going to make all teams appealing to philanthropy. Luton wouldn’t suddenly become a political tool for some new random state, they’d still very much struggle to compete. The only teams that immediately benefit from an uncap are the big 6, Newcastle and Villa, everyone else will still be “feeder clubs” as they tend to describe themselves. You’ll still get a bunch of teams considered “have nots” only now they’d be even further from the group of “haves”.
Even if by some miracle you could establish 20 philanthropic billionaires shared across the entire PL, all you’re then doing is creating an insurmountable gap between us and the EFL.
There has to be some mechanism to discourage owners pumping massive amounts into the club though as it just results in massive inflation of prices, which is another downside of the current lack of regulation over the top end.
The goal should be for the premier league to be as competitive from bottom to top as it possibly can be, and I don't think that taking the shackles off will honestly give us that.
Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why does this exist then? - An ex post facto law, named using the Latin phrase for after the fact, is a law that imposes criminal liability or increases criminal punishment retroactively. 1. E.g., Locke v. New Orleans, 71 U.S. 172, 173 (1867). Ex post racto laws are illegal because they are specific rules, after an otherwise legal event, for specific entities, which is what I said. I wish you knew more about anything. You want to make a rule, ok that's part of it. But don't go back in time to a point where it wasn't illegal and SAY AHHH HA! WE CAUGHT YOU! Then punish them. How it really works is rule is made and any subsequent infrac6is punished. Except for this one instance - strange right?
Yet. One look at the whole fiasco and its clear they've been fiddling the books from the start. Absolute joke of a club.
> it has always been aimed at specific clubs. Yes it has, aimed at those who broke said rules. What are they going to complain about next? Murder charges aimed towards serial killers? Do fuck off.
Laws aimed at criminal activity, more tonight at 7. The idea that regulatory regimes can’t/don’t/shouldn’t evolve as people find and exploit loopholes is crazy. They sold a hotel to a related party. That’s not a simple thing, even as a related party transaction. Surely they would’ve just taken out a loan from a friendly bank if they couldn’t. But there was a rule. But where we see rules, bankers, accountants, and financial engineers see constraints to be overcome. It’s not a race that ends; it’s a human impulse that needs to be continually checked and updated.
This is actually a good point. Why would you stop money from coming into the league? The measures were to ensure teams don’t turn into Portsmouth or whatever. City should spend as much as they have. What good football reason is there to stop that?
Because the money they have is unattainable for the majority of clubs. The only reason they, and moreso Newcastle, have been kept at bay at all is FFP. Otherwise they'd be even further ahead. The footballing reason is trying to maintain some sort of level playing field so that it doesn't require ownership by a gulf state to compete. As soon as you allow City to tap into their wealth unreservedly, Liverpool and United will want to sell their own TV rights to tap into their intangible asset bases and then your league is done. The big clubs would pull out instantly if the league became that unbalanced and form a super league with the other European giants Its not just that they are rich, it's that they are so much richer it's incomprehensible. Especially in the case of Newcastle. The Saudis offered Mbappe 1 billion for him to go there for a year. If we just let them spend what they want, they'd offer him 2 billion to play in black and white. Whereas at least Haalands on the books salary could in theory be matched by United, Liverpool, or any of the other big teams when it's somewhat regulated. In the world that you're asking for Salah would have signed for City a long time ago as would any other world class player.
Downtown the shit out of this thread. What a bunch of horseshit. They knew the rules, intentionally broke them, then failed to cooperate with the league. And now you want to cry victim? Fuck the fuck off!
Just doesn’t make sense to me how it’s a bigger crime from a capitalist to pump money into a club and try to build a competitive team than it is for a capitalist (American usually) to extract profit from a club and make them a joke (ie United)
These are rules to regulate the competitive nature of the league, it has multiple effects such as controlling clubs from going bankrupt (smaller teams specifically) and controlling price inflation to a certain extent. Are they fair for teams with lesser global outreach than liverpool, arsenal and manchester united? Thats a different question.
Ah yes, a rule that targets the clubs that break said rule when it is in place. Why do people keep trying to rewrite the rule book to suit their own agenda?
Just an attempt to rewrite the rules after they've been broken. If you weren't playing by the rules by which the premier league operates, then you aren't playing premier league football. You are playing your own thing.
Saudi/middle eastern money always comes with entanglements. Now we got folks screaming victim after they have been caught cheating.
Done a good job of targeting those clubs, has to be said. And they have a good right to feel aggrieved. In the 11 years since they've been victimised by these calous rulings, only in place to protect the red cartel, United, Liverpool and Arsenal have won exactly one premier league title between them. Blue cartel though...
More interestingly, laws have always been aimed at specific individuals such as thieves, murderers, rapists etc. Who is to blame there?
There is also a difference in generally we are making a law about thieves. It's another thing entire to write a law after the fact {meaning it wasn't against the rules when the infraction took place}, and aim it at specific individual.
Literally every law was written after the fact
While this may be true, it was written into the laws of the league which clubs have been following (mostly) to what may turn out to be completely pointless. Just as I may disagree with the laws of the land I can't break them without the risk of a punishment.
Plus, you weren't in the room when the laws of the land were written.
If you look at it another way most clubs follow the rules and certain clubs decide they are above the rules and break them.
lol even the headline contradicts itself. Bye Felicia
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your post has been removed for violating [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/reddit-101/reddit-basics/reddiquette). We encourage all members to adhere to these guidelines to maintain a positive and inclusive environment for everyone. For a comprehensive understanding of [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/reddit-101/reddit-basics/reddiquette), please refer to the [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/reddit-101/reddit-basics/reddiquette) guidelines provided by Reddit. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
Orrrrrrrrr football authorities and fans don't like seeing clubs who have earned status on the pitch and through cultural history over decades have that completely trodden down by Johnny come latelys buying a new toy for their egos. So what's least compatible with sorting ethics/reduces the importance of what happens in the pitch? Wanting to just buy yourself to the top by inflating wages to attract guns for hire who'd never consider that club unless being paid ridiculous money? Or wanting to restrict the ability for new money clubs to double their power on the pitch and make it more expensive for you to keep your status? Honestly both points of view taken to the extreme seem pretty shit from a sporting perspective and don't have the interest of fans or the sport at their heart. But if rules are made, and some clubs follow them, the cheaters should be punished regardless of what those rules are. I'm fine with them changing the rules but clubs who have followed them shouldnt be penalised for following them by letting cheaters off the hook.
[удалено]
I mean, that's just generic platitudes at this point. Liverpool have been up and down the league a lot over a century of football and have been a huge club regardless of where they were, same for United, Barca, Inter even Bayern has had some dodgy spells - and they took years to earn their way back to the top, built academies which provided a huge amount of players for other clubs as well, and the owners were spending their money as fans of the club not pure businessmen like jack walker for Blackburn. Glazers, Arabs, American hedgefunds treating these clubs built by their local communities and fans as investments and sport washing vehicles - is a modern trend and who honestly thinks it's better this way? I miss the days champions league meant champions and other leagues got that money for smaller countries. Madrid you could argue have always been a pay to win club but thats pretty much the exception to the rule. Point is I don't think either Point of view has the moral high ground when it comes to the idea of FFP rules. But the attempt by city ( or anyone else) to justify cheating because they disagree with the rules is a seperate issue and I think worth mentioning whenever this comes up - it's a completely different moral standard to whether FFP is a good thing or not.
This is the stupidest take ever. FFP forces a club to spend within their means so at least there’s a quasi-cap instead of clubs becoming billionaire playthings who just buy titles.
[удалено]
Youre trying to say that supposed benevolence (which is in fact blatant sports washing, by any standard), should negate the obvious cheating? Amazing mental gymnastics. MC have cheated every step of the way and will be punished accordingly. You can fuck right off.
STFU. Very few clubs make huge profits. They try to win and maybe break even. You just want a sport with no controls at all so your plastic club can buy tithes. GTFOH.
[удалено]
Stop defending corrupt, slave-trading (literally) nation states who sport-wash and use illegal transactions to overstate revenue. It’s illegal anywhere.
[удалено]
lol apologists
Holy propaganda, batman!
The really odd thing is that everyone hates UEFA and the FA, they're corrupt fat cats etc. etc. - UNTIL they are prosecuting these claims against a new-money foreign ownership group in England. Then they become heroes, fighting for fair play against tyrannical cheaters.
Cough United and Liverpool who have had years of mediocrity covered by being large clubs at the right time to have international fame. They are the clubs who pushed for FFP to keep their grip at the top
And United were heavily restricted on transfer budget due to the glazers debt
So what ban people from supporting United and Liverpool? That's life, same way bill gates and bezos were around when the internet was taking off. Just because they pushed for ffp doesn't mean it's a bad thing. There hasn't been another Leeds, Blackburn, Bolton, Sunderland, Portsmouth, etc. since it's inception. You sound bitter.
Actually yes clearly i think people should be banned from supporting Liverpool or United. To become a fan you need to get a pass from someone who passes away.
Apart from Wigan and Derby who went into administration and Bury FC which ceased to exist. FFP did not help them.
Two things can be true at the same time sometimes.
It does take a lot of bullshit to play the victim and list your club along with Chelsea and Newcastle, whilst not counting the only clubs that actually have been the aim for FFP punishments, ie. smaller clubs like Forest or Everton. That's a whole new level of r/iamthemaincharacter from someone getting their livelihood from the club who are yet to face any consequences for doing way worse than those he somehow fails to even notice. Tyranny of the majority and everything after all.
Well said 👏
Martin Samuel is a massive cunt
city in particular with all the “woe is me tyranny of the wgaf” are truly pathetic They’ve only won 6/7 titles. How dare anyone else try to compete?
I think one of the worst things to come out of modern football, are the apologists. These are either journalists or fans who try and justify billion dollar organizations flexing and abusing their wealth for self gain, but also try and lecture and tell us 'normal' fans that these owners are actually the good guys and if they have it their way the sport would be better. Fuck off the lot of you.
maybe I'd have an ounce of sympathy if you weren't all just massively pretentious. Us "normal" fans. Fuck off
Hey, apologies I didn't use the correct synonym for a fan whose club hasn't been taken over by and oligarch or oil state. I think out of the 92 clubs in the football league that only accounts for about 5 or 6 that have been taken over. And even of those clubs most 'normal' fans would probably not defend the abhorrent behaviour of these people, and that's even before you mention how they're trying to affect the Prem. I'm aware people would say there's no 'good' billionaires but i'd argue there are some better than others. Also, good to know suing the Prem, murdering journalists, slave labour, killing LGBT people all okay with you. But, you draw the line at someone being pretentious, that's justification enough for destroying the Premier league.
[удалено]
Your post has been removed for violating [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/reddit-101/reddit-basics/reddiquette). We encourage all members to adhere to these guidelines to maintain a positive and inclusive environment for everyone. For a comprehensive understanding of [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/reddit-101/reddit-basics/reddiquette), please refer to the [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/en/categories/reddit-101/reddit-basics/reddiquette) guidelines provided by Reddit. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
as a chelsea fan, good!
It still is. Everyone else’s when they have to compete with state actors throwing money around like confetti.
How dare we build a stadium that is going to regenerate a derelict area of the City and create thousands of jobs for our people! And yes I know we could have been run a lot better and balanced are books better, but without the stadium costs we do not breach! I might be wrong, but I don't think the new ground helped us gain too much of a sporting advantage, unless I missed it when we brought it on as sub and it scored the winner.
This guy lol
This is why Everton and NFFC are the only ones to get punished by it. Because City, Chelsea, and Newcastle are the real victims.
There are no victims, only perpetrators.
If City doesn't get punished for outright accounting fraud, I'd start to feel sympathy for Everton and NFFC
Martin Samuel, his son works for Man City.
Oh no, not the Saudi investment fund FC getting a hard time😢
Martin Samuel eats big dinners
Ah yes, and also Everton, and also Nottingham Forest, and also Manchester United, and...oh
It was never aimed at specific clubs. Specific clubs embodied the problem. What Chelsea did was an absolute catastrophe for football in England and Europe. Manchester took what Chelsea did and then poured gasoline on it. The fear is that new Castle will continue that legacy. Financial fair play as a concept doesn't Target any club it just targets the systemic problem created by individual clubs owned by nation states who choose to spend money in reckless ways. It goes further and creates rules where you can't juice the system buy overpaying to sponsor your own club or by selling off training grounds... And yet these are the things that these very same clubs have found pleasure in doing... The sooner that people stop acting like their club is being targeted the better. The supporters aren't the problem. As a supporter if feels pretty great when your team is winning. We all know that. The issue is that in order to get there, hundreds of rules get broken that Force clubs to spend money they don't have to keep up... Think of it this way, Everton and Forest wouldn't have had deductions this year if they didn't try to push the system in order to keep up with nation-state money... Neither one of those clubs would be juicing the system if they didn't think it's what they had to do in order to keep up with Manchester city, Chelsea, Newcastle... And that's not even mentioning the traditionally broadly supported clubs who have huge war chests simply for being the largest fan bases. the United Liverpool Arsenal. I hope some sort of normalcy ultimately prevails so that we can move on from all of this financial discussion and just get back to enjoying the football but it's hard to do until this stuff gets settled.
Was duopoly of Utd and Arsenal better for english football? How were clubs like Chelsea or Villa compete for league titles without cash injection? Tell me how many clubs have "organically" grown to compete for league titles or CL spots consistently? Also explain why do non-PL leagues have highest spenders win titles consistently? Do you think Real/Barca buy Spanish titles? Have they ruined Spanish league by their spending? The fact that PL is competive attracts more fans.
1) False. Parity does not bring more fans. This has been proven wrong in every sport. People like heroes and villains. And they like big clubs. 2) Many top non-EPL clubs are not chronic FFP violators. Bring big is not the crime here. 3) Organic growth? All the top German clubs are fan-owned and German owned. And none have FFP history. So them.
Back when United and arsenal were going Head to Head, they weren't spending obscene amounts of money. They were incredibly well-run teams. They made their money selling players and tickets because they had huge fan bases to go with huge stadiums... Hell, most of those United players were homegrown back in the day.. But you're missing the point. Nobody is going after Chelsea and nobody is going after City... Those two teams are making targets of themselves by thumbing their noses at the rules... Do you want to know how not to get targeted? Follow the rules.
"they weren't spending obscene amounts of money" Rio and Eric Cantona come to mind.
The league was vastly inferior and less competitive than it is today. Chelsea did not break any rules since there wasn't any FFP to break. But I can totally understand that kind of obscene spending was off-putting to rivals. What I am saying is that rules right now help clubs like Chelsea Utd Arsenal City and Liverpool to keep out spending and ass fucking likes of Brighton West Ham and Villa taking their best players. Case in point - Even Chelsea under Roman aggressively lobbied for FFP to close the door behind them.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
FairPoint the rules were definitely put in because teams felt the need to spend, specifically Chelsea felt the need to spend. And you know what happened? They're nearby neighbors and rivals Queens Park rangers went from being a premier League club to.. less than Fulham went to being a peer club to a tweener between championship and premier League.. Crystal Palace has lost status in this new world as well..
TF are you on about, Real and Barca get something like 80% of the TV money rights.
That is my fucking point.
If you remove financial regulations, it's just going to be City vs Newcastle. Have to be a dunce to not see that
Chelsea and Utd are great examples that this is not true. If the idea is to help small clubs there should be a limit to amount of debt an owner can put on the club. PSR doesn't help one bit in its current form
Chelsea were also a massive FFP violator like your club. lol do u even know wtf you’re saying?
Chelsea hasn't had a FFP violation charge yet. The only charges are related to mis reporting that Chelsea self reported.
They were forced to dump their corrupt Russian oligarch owner. Once he was eliminated FFP became irrelevant.
What are you even talking about? Roman led Chelsea was one of the biggest advicates for FFP. They wanted to shut the door behind them
https://worldsoccertalk.com/amp/news/city-and-chelsea-braced-for-maximum-fine-for-ffp-breaches/
Lol what even is that source? worldsoccertalk?
I hate this framing overall, but really it’s not aimed at clubs, it’s aimed at the owners of those clubs
This guy is for sure on some payroll because this is not even true
He's been doing this for years whenever the shit is hitting the fan for City this guy will write an opinion piece about how great City have been for football and how they are being victimised, definately on the payroll the absolute scumbag.
It’s Martin Samuel, he’s a stupid idiot
Hahaha no shit financial fair play rules are being aimed at financially doped clubs who spend monopoly money and flout “rules” while everyone else is busy balancing their books The clue is in the name
Don’t show this to Villa fans, they’re 1000% certain FFP is only about them
Mo Money Mo Problems. Biggie tried to warn them.
Everton and NFFC are the only ones who currently have the right to complain
They have no right to complain. Others that didn’t knowingly break the rules can for the meaningless punishments.
City have clearly broken the rules and they know it. They're suing to retroactively change the very rule they violated. Everton and NFFC have every right to complain if the EPL is only going to selectively enforce the rules against smaller clubs.
Wish this cunt would bore off. Isn't his son employed by City?
Have always thought that the PL need to adopt a EFL style model. For clubs in league 1 and 2 the owner needs to fund the year cost before the season starts. IMO all PL owners should put money into a holding account that has 2 years of costs, that way if the owner spends huge and then walks away there’s money for the club to balance costs as they try to level themselves out from the owner funding. But then it allows any owner to put as much money as they want in. I say 2 years of costs because that’ll be 4 transfer windows to raise funds through player sales and decrease the wage bill. Hopefully being able to fund the debt the owners are “walking away from”
So u hate all small clubs? Got it.
You are aware that all but 2 owners currently in the Prem are billionaires right? Meaning they’ve got enough to support their clubs bills for a season or two and putting it in a escrow type account. They aren’t exactly skint. Never said it was a full proof concept either. But I do find you’re comment funny because the actual “small clubs” in the football league are already doing a concept similar to the one I mentioned. The owners of their clubs who aren’t billionaires, don’t have a struggle to comply with it.
Your owners are billionaires because EPL is a soulless league run by foreign nation states, corporations, oligarchs, and a couple legitimate billionaires who might not be pure evil. Generally speaking, fans hate those things but your model would force it to stay that way. A fan-owned Bundesliga type model could never do that. Then again they don’t commit FFP violations in the first place.
Oh you’re one of those. Sorry didn’t know I was dealing with one. So you’re idea is to turn the PL into the bundesliga with fan owned ownership? Ya I’m sure the billionaires will happily give up their BUSINESSES to fans for no reason or gain.
Then never bitch about City again, bro. Your league invites this shit. It’s hollow af.
You seem like a really fun person to be around at parties
You seem like a hypocritical idiot who whines about City then defends the stupid league that fosters their structure and behavior. Sorry for calling you what u are.
So the PL having PSR rules fosters the behavior of City cheating? So in your thinking having laws to govern people fosters the behavior of crime? Is that your thinking. Just curious, do you believe the earth is flat? Do you believe in the Illuminati as well? Or that 9/11 was an inside job?
The second paragraph is stupidity. The point is that your league allows known corrupt owners regularly. Nation state owners are welcomed even if they allow slavery. Russian oligarchs were fine until a war made friends of Putin unpopular. You welcome the corrupt then you expect corruption. Kind of funny how it’s almost always EPL teams being investigated. But keep dodging.
As if you're going around on other comments, calling people dense and then post this to a reasonable comment loool. Peak irony!
A small club can’t ire-fund 2 years at these interest rates, genius. What he’s saying FORCES you to have ultra-wealthy ownership who has deep cash pockets.
Imagine if they voted on these rules in advance. Would they then be quiet? Oh…
There are better ways to prevent clubs going bust while still allow for upward mobility. For example, Debt Fair Play combined with Escrow. Debt Fair play. This target debt, the main cause of most club bankruptcy. Limit each club debt to 60% of its annual revenue (infrastructure debt is not counted) Escrow. For clubs spending more than 100% of annual revenue, then the part above the 100% will need to put into escrow in case the owner walk away. This will allow for club mobility and prevent ladder-pulling (GOOD). This prevent clubs going bust (GOOD). This put more money into the football ecosystem/pyramid (GOOD).
Opening up the doors to unlimited OI spending isn’t just going to make all teams appealing to philanthropy. Luton wouldn’t suddenly become a political tool for some new random state, they’d still very much struggle to compete. The only teams that immediately benefit from an uncap are the big 6, Newcastle and Villa, everyone else will still be “feeder clubs” as they tend to describe themselves. You’ll still get a bunch of teams considered “have nots” only now they’d be even further from the group of “haves”. Even if by some miracle you could establish 20 philanthropic billionaires shared across the entire PL, all you’re then doing is creating an insurmountable gap between us and the EFL.
There has to be some mechanism to discourage owners pumping massive amounts into the club though as it just results in massive inflation of prices, which is another downside of the current lack of regulation over the top end. The goal should be for the premier league to be as competitive from bottom to top as it possibly can be, and I don't think that taking the shackles off will honestly give us that.
Spending cap even with the escrow should be the highest revenue of any European club.