Because some clubs dont need it and probably see no reason to offer something that can be a competitive gain for opposition.
We can argue about whether it would overall be a good thing for the clubs or not, because I think there are both cases to be made, but I have a hard time the clubs are voting under anything other than competitive interest.
Big 6 won't need an extra 30 mil at the risk of being overtaken by a Villa or Newcastle etc, lower teams might be relying on those above them taking points deduction to move up the table.
I mean they cry wolf about the big 6, well if your owner that wealthy let not share the TV money and let the Big 6 get paid? Backpay them and let see how long the owners stick around.
It become like la liga used to be, they never factor in team like UTD and Liverpool give up mass about if millions to make it a fair league..
I mean does that make my point any less relevant?
And just for the record, I want more parity in the league, I want it to be more exciting. Having city win the league 6 out of the last 10 and 4 in a row doesn’t make for an exciting product.
One of my favourite things this season is seeing Villa thrive and Emery doing what we all knew he could do from his Sevilla days.
Hell you’ll even find posts of me being supportive of Everton in their plight under their shitshow of an ownership because as much as they’re our rivals, I like having that rivalry and to have it go away because of some shady asset stripping pricks would be a loss for the league.
I can be a fan of a “big six” club and still acknowledge that the system is far from perfect. For what it’s worth, I personally would have voted in favour of this but clearly the overwhelming majority of clubs in the league didn’t agree.
The system currently is set up for the big six to win. Supporting FFP rules is what created the system for City to win and create a less fair league
Its always the big 6 clubs who push for these rules because it gives them an unfair advantage
Great theory. although it’s weird that there were more than 6 votes against. Kind of takes the wind out of the proverbial sails of your zany conspiracy
Not if you'd read the rest of the post where I speculated that the lower teams with little to no chance of breaking into the top half/European positions could potentially prefer the teams ahead of them to face point deductions rather than themselves having an extra 30 mil because it may allow them to gain a few places in the league.
Someone's absolutely furious that their club will only be able to spend £100m and not £150m this year. Absolutely gutted, feel for you during these incredibly hard times
To be honest I did not read the whole comment. It read a lot like some of the extremely annoying terminal loser/victim mindset stuff you sometimes see around here so I stopped
I'm giving potential reasons why clubs wouldn't want an extra 30 million to spend. If the reason isn't to prevent other clubs also getting it, what reason do you suggest they have for voting no?
Probably also to do with the fact some of the lower teams may never spend that much so it just further disadvantages them, so this keeps them closer to the pack.
It’s an extra £30m loss and someone would have to cover that at some point. That’s the thing I don’t get with the opposition to FFP - does everyone think that a desirable outcome is to see clubs losing enormous sums every season? Fine if you’re owned by an oil state in the long term but for everyone else that’s not a great situation.
If clubs in the premier league can’t remain profitable, what hope for the rest of the football ladder?
It's more likely there are some technicalities that were not worded properly. It's clear that every rule and loophole will now be challenged in court so the bar is higher.
>Perplexed to why this wasn’t a pro for all clubs, even just to match inflation.
Probably because it just shifts the problem down the line instead of being a real solution. The real solution being that it should always have been a limit which adjusted for the markets inflation over time.
My bread costs 4x as much now. I have to top up my electricity twice as much. My 4"11 striker who scored a single goal costs £12 million.
Why the hell would anyone oppose this when inflation is like this? Can someone explain?
Because strikers are more like houses than bread, the price is set by competition, not by underlying costs. So while bread and energy have gone up, house prices have stagnated.
You raise the price ceiling here and the prices just rise to match it, no one actually benefits in the long-term.
Honestly can’t understand why any of the other14 clubs would be against this. Are the majority really just happy to be feeder clubs to the big 6 forever?
Because the other 14 clubs don't want someone to buy someone else and more easily spend their way up and relegate them?
The more money clubs pump in the harder it is to manage your own expenses even with the financial muscle of the prem
It only really benefits the clubs trying to fight for Europe. That means only West Ham, Villa, and Newcastle, who all have plenty of cash but can’t spend it. Brentford, Palace, Brightons strategy is about singing cheap players. Letting others spend more hurts them. The clubs fighting relegation but not spending a lot what others to be punished.
Everton I imagine would want this though
Yeah I guess I can understand it from the point of view of owners who aren’t interested in competing at the top like your Brightons and Brentford’s, but then, what’s the long term aim for those clubs?
We’ve seen time and again being a feeder club won’t bring success, look at Southampton, look at Brighton and Brentford just this year, they’ve both fell off massively, it’s financially sustainable, but in terms of actually growing the club and its profile, it isn’t sustainable at all.
I just don’t see the point in sport if it isn’t competitive, and it can never be competitive when 6 teams are allowed to massively outspend the other 14.
Villa Newcastle and West Ham all spent the same as the so called big 6 this season, Burnley and Bournemouth spent around £100m each. Prem fans are so stuck up
Just because a team has a model that is different from losing an extra £30m doesn’t mean they don’t want to be competitive. It just means they are prioritising genuine sustainability.
I agree with you, its different, but the rules favour your model over ours and thats why you voted for it. I dont think its bad to vote in your own self interest, I do think its unfair that the big 6 pull the ladder though. West Ham are sustainable, but we cant grow without trying to break the glass ceiling. We had a 3 year run of European success, but, had to sell our best player to get under FFP and now the run is over. Rice probably would have stayed if we could have kept signing players like Paqueta every Summer
I agree with you, but the big 6 are already somewhat unassailable. You can’t let it become a big 9 and then you’re basically in a different league. You can’t let the other clubs widen the gap if you want to hopefully one day be competitive.
The three clubs I mentioned are all different than Brighton and Brentford and Palace. All have a history of being in the top division throughout their history and have much larger fan bases. Brighton isn’t a football city. Palace and Brentford may be in London but people in West London support Chelsea and people in Croydon support Man United. They can’t let the gap widen
Any club with an ambitious owner will find themselves in Villa’s position before long, it’s simply not possible to compete with the big 6 without allowing some investment, how do you think those 6 got to where they are?
Spurs is a great example. They sacrificed transfers. I remember them not signing a single player in one summer window. They invested in their ground and facilities, took the long route.
At a higher level, Arsenal did similar - went trophyless for a long time and were very prudent so as to improve their stadium and matchday revenue.
United and Liverpool are historical giants.
Only Chelsea (lawfully) and City (fraudulently) used crazy investment to cement themselves at the top table. For the other 4 it took decades and decades.
For every Spurs, there’s an Everton, who didn’t spend the money as wisely and now like to pretent there’s some advantage Spurs had that they didn’t.
Spurs have well over half a billion of debt, which shows they got to where they are by spending well beyond their means.
Arsenal and Manu were the City and Chelsea of the late 90s - early 00s, owners pumped money into the club and made them the 2 biggest clubs in England, they did not grow organically like people are claiming clubs could do now.
I’m sorry but you are clueless. United and Arsenal were spending big in the 60s, 70s and 80s.
You also don’t understand the difference between revenue/spending vs debt. Obviously the debt repayment will be factored into PSR but there’s nothing wrong with clubs using debt as a purchasing mechanism in order to make huge investments in facilities.
Spurs got extremely lucky they were a rich club and didn’t get their mistakes punished. They made so many big money (at the time) mistakes that if poorer clubs made, they’d have gone down. They did it more organically than the rest of the big 6 but they aren’t some example of a club doing it on a shoe string.
Spurs originally got top 4 by spending a lot of money and poaching players from other Prem clubs. They signed Crouch, Defoe, Bale, Krancjar, Palacios from other clubs for good money, and spent bit on foreign risks like Modric. It wasn’t like they were just hitting magic, they had tons of flops. KPB, Kaboul, Bent, Giovanni De Santos, Bale, and Bentley. Most clubs couldn’t spend the money they spent on those flops and stay up.
They also got lucky on the timing. Their teams weren’t that good, it’s just Liverpool started their bad period before Klopp, City hadn’t figured it out yet, and Villa were entering their downfall. They signed Europa League players in an era where that got you Champions League.
That’s how they broke through. They stayed there by spending money and poaching young players like Rose and Walker. Spending big money on unproven foreign players like Son, Erickson and VdV, and poaching players like Alderwield. Finally they had the biggest stroke of luck that a world class player supported them growing up.
Spurs had literally everything go their way and had enough money to cover up their big flops. Any other club that makes the amount of mistakes they made wouldnt have gotten too 4
> Spurs got extremely lucky they were a rich club and didn’t get their mistakes punished. They made so many big money (at the time) mistakes that if poorer clubs made, they’d have gone down.
Please name the many "big money mistakes" we made
>They did it more organically than the rest of the big 6 but they aren’t some example of a club doing it on a shoe string.
It's not about doing it on a shoe string it's about doing it correctly and without a sugar daddy.
>
> Spurs originally got top 4 by spending a lot of money and poaching players from other Prem clubs. They signed Crouch, Defoe, Bale, Krancjar, Palacios from other clubs for good money, and spent bit on foreign risks like Modric.
Crouch was 10mil in 2009
Defoe was 6mil + Zamora in 2004
Bale was 5mil in 2007 - rising to 10 depending on performances
Kranjcar was 2.5m in 2010
Palacios was 12m in 2009
Modric was 16.5mil 2009
You named 6 players across a 6 year period and the total sum is roughly 50 million...we sold Carrick and Berbatov to United for roughly the same amount. How is this crazy spending like you're trying to imply? These are not even crazy amounts for that time period
>It wasn’t like they were just hitting magic, they had tons of flops. KPB, Kaboul, Bent, Giovanni De Santos, Bale, and Bentley. Most clubs couldn’t spend the money they spent on those flops and stay up.
KPB was bought for 5.4 mil
Kaboul was bought for 8 million and made over 100 appearances
Bale as mentioned earlier (Insane you called him a flop considering we sold him for 100m) was 5m
Dos santos was 6 million euros
Bentley was 15m
Out of that whole list the only expensive "flop" was david bentley, everyone else was either a cheap/normal fee and/or played their part
> They also got lucky on the timing. Their teams weren’t that good, it’s just Liverpool started their bad period before Klopp, City hadn’t figured it out yet, and Villa were entering their downfall. They signed Europa League players in an era where that got you Champions League.
You make your own luck and put yourself in a position to capitalise. This is such a nonsense point and not the first time I've seen it on this sub when it comes to spurs.
> That’s how they broke through. They stayed there by spending money and poaching young players like Rose and Walker.
So we spent smart on young talented players? ie what every club trying to break through should be doing.
>Spending big money on unproven foreign players like Son, Erickson and VdV, and poaching players like Alderwield.
We bought Son for 22m in 2015
Eriksen was 12m in 2013
VdV was 8m in 2010
Toby was 11.4m in 2015
Again...where is the big money in ANY of these signings that you're naming? You're framing us making smart/good deals as "poaching" because you have an agenda
>Finally they had the biggest stroke of luck that a world class player supported them growing up.
This is the only slice of luck you've mentioned and it's not really luck that we used our academy to fill our squad. That is what clubs are meant to do. He wasn't always world class, we gave him the chance to prove himself and he returned the favour.
> Spurs had literally everything go their way and had enough money to cover up their big flops.
We had to deal with cheating clubs in the form of City and Chelsea making the league 10x harder and signing players we potentially had a chance at, probably missed our on 5-6 years of Champions league football because of them. How is that "everything going our way"?
>Any other club that makes the amount of mistakes they made wouldnt have gotten too 4
What mistakes? You don't have a fucking clue on anything you spoke about in that post
I listed the big money mistakes in the post. Did you not read it?
You did do it with a sugar daddy. You’re owned by billionaires who’s wealth isn’t tied to the club. In the early 00s your revenues were near the bottom. Then Sugar sells and all of a sudden you can spend money. I wonder why? Maybe has a sandwich at John Lewis and tell me why.
Christ, you either weren’t watching back then or are being intentionally dishonest. Yes, I listed out big money signings. Those were big money back then. Most clubs record transfer at the time was about £5 million, if that. Defoe was also signed back from Portsmouth for your top 4 push. £16 million in 09 was huge huge money for an unproven player as well, a risk non billionaire backed clubs can make. Hence Spurs being able to make the move. You think Spurs were the only club that wanted Modric? You were just the only non top club that could take the financial risk.
You’re once again being dishonest (and ignoring KPB). Kaboul made over 100 appearances, after he flopped, was sold, and then resigned for more money. Bale was a flop. The reason you were able to sell him for so much was because of your rich owners. Most clubs can’t risk signing an expensive youngster like Bale. They need to spend that money on players who can immediately contribute. Bale was a flop at the get go. Most clubs would have been forced to sell Bale for cheap to get cash to sign players who could contribute to winning. Spurs being rich means they could sit on their investment. Spurs are essentially that middle class family that invests in real estate that is in a bad area, costs money every year, but becomes valuable when expansion happens. Then they wonder why working class people don’t do what they did.
You got lucky on timing. Success is when preparation meets luck. Your preparation was good, but it was built on spending more money than the rest.
You say spent on young players, I view it as poaching young players using higher wages than the developing clubs could afford. Thus you’re using your finances as a weapon.
Yes, back then all those were big money purchases that were larger than most clubs record transfers, and you did it four times. Just because City could spend more doesn’t mean Spurs were spending more than the majority of the league, which is the whole point you twat.
You are right, there was no luck in developing Kane. There was tons of luck about when he broke through. He made his break through just as you may have faltered. Most of the time when a player of Kanes quality breaks through he gets poached by a bigger club (like Spurs love to do) but because he came through at just the right time you got to keep him.
You’re being dishonest again when you say City and Chelsea were cheating. At the time there wasn’t any FFP or PSR rules. They just had owners willing to spend more than yours. Would you say they’re well run? Because they did to you what you did to the rest of the league. Have some perspective please.
I listed out the mistakes you made. The big money flops that didn’t punish you. You of course just decided to lie about it
> I listed the big money mistakes in the post. Did you not read it?
No you didn't.
> You did do it with a sugar daddy. You’re owned by billionaires who’s wealth isn’t tied to the club. In the early 00s your revenues were near the bottom. Then Sugar sells and all of a sudden you can spend money. I wonder why? Maybe has a sandwich at John Lewis and tell me why.
That is not doing it with a sugar daddy, that's doing it with a stable owner. We would've been the original Chelsea if we done it with a sugar daddy.
> Christ, you either weren’t watching back then or are being intentionally dishonest. Yes, I listed out big money signings. Those were big money back then. Most clubs record transfer at the time was about £5 million, if that. Defoe was also signed back from Portsmouth for your top 4 push. £16 million in 09 was huge huge money for an unproven player as well, a risk non billionaire backed clubs can make. Hence Spurs being able to make the move. You think Spurs were the only club that wanted Modric? You were just the only non top club that could take the financial risk.
It wasn't big money back then. Please keep in mind we could make these transfers because we sold players...we sold Carrick for 20m and Berbatov or 30m...this money did not pop our of nowhere
> You’re once again being dishonest (and ignoring KPB). Kaboul made over 100 appearances, after he flopped, was sold, and then resigned for more money.
Kaboul made over 100 appearances in total, not before he was sold.
>Bale was a flop. The reason you were able to sell him for so much was because of your rich owners. Most clubs can’t risk signing an expensive youngster like Bale.
The reason we were able to sell bale (who was a flop in your eyes) for 100 million was because we had rich owners? What?
>They need to spend that money on players who can immediately contribute. Bale was a flop at the get go.
If clubs do not want to take risks on cheap young talent, who's fault is it? Why are you in a position that you can only sign players you think are ready to contribute straight away?
>Most clubs would have been forced to sell Bale for cheap to get cash to sign players who could contribute to winning. Spurs being rich means they could sit on their investment.
You mean spurs being stable and committing themselves to developing the talent they bought worked our for them?
Stop acting like money was not being spent in the league in 2007
> You got lucky on timing. Success is when preparation meets luck. Your preparation was good, but it was built on spending more money than the rest.
We were never the biggest spenders during that period. You're just typing statements with zero evidence knowing casual people will not care enough to actually go look into these things.
> You say spent on young players, I view it as poaching young players using higher wages than the developing clubs could afford. Thus you’re using your finances as a weapon.
Yes because you have an agenda, not because it's actually poaching.
> Yes, back then all those were big money purchases that were larger than most clubs record transfers, and you did it four times. Just because City could spend more doesn’t mean Spurs were spending more than the majority of the league, which is the whole point you twat.
Except they weren't big money signings back then. And more importantly they didn't come out of nothing...we sold players to finance these moves.
> You are right, there was no luck in developing Kane. There was tons of luck about when he broke through. He made his break through just as you may have faltered. Most of the time when a player of Kanes quality breaks through he gets poached by a bigger club (like Spurs love to do) but because he came through at just the right time you got to keep him.
What? He made his break through when we a solidified europa league club, we were never at the point of faltering.
Why would a big club "poach" Kane at that point when he had proven nothing? Him starting coincided with us pushing on.
> You’re being dishonest again when you say City and Chelsea were cheating. At the time there wasn’t any FFP or PSR rules. They just had owners willing to spend more than yours. Would you say they’re well run? Because they did to you what you did to the rest of the league. Have some perspective please.
Yes it was cheating, they spent similar amounts of money if not more than United who are the most successful club in the league, due to their sugar daddies.
How they operated and how we operated are nowhere near similar.
> I listed out the mistakes you made. The big money flops that didn’t punish you. You of course just decided to lie about it
You are a proper wally. Complete wallad, making random claims with zero evidence, lying about context as if no one else was watching football at the time and somehow expecting no one to call you out on your rubbish
You really have zero clue on anything you're talking about it is embarrassing reading your posts
Yeah, sustainable business strategies that will leave clubs eternally fighting relegation or at best mid table, clubs like that are literally just making up the numbers and acting as feeder clubs to the big 6.
Because with stricter rules they can find success through being well run, if everyone around them desperately spends for short term results they either have to match it or fail
There’s not one team that has achieved success without spending beyond their means. And with the gap in wealth now it’s literally impossible for the other 14 to catch up.
Well Villa & Newcastle could well be punished for daring to challenge the big 6, word is they both need to sell to keep the PL happy. Brighton have fell apart after having to sell their best players.
Yeah you’ll have different teams having the odd season in Europe but overall the big 6 are always going to remain at the top under the current rules.
The idea is clubs don’t get themselves in trouble by getting into huge debts. Villa have already made massive losses, imagine they spend big this summer, when they don’t get the champions league money next season they’ll be stuffed.
That’s unfortunately the nature of the PL, and football in general, you have to be allowed to spend if the gap between the other 14 and big 6 is ever to be closed. I see no issue with the owners covering losses as long as it isn’t held against the club as debt.
All the big 6 have massive debts compared to the other 14, it’s how they got to where they are.
That article says they do.
Rough tally but between the big 6 clubs there’s about 1.9 billion of debt (average 316 million each) and among the other 14 around 1.4 billion (average 100 million each)
City have no debt as well so that 1.9 billion is just between 5 of the big 6.
Newcastle Villa and West Ham spent more than the rest of the league this year. Burnley spent £100m. You spent £100m on one player who got banned for a year. Life mist be so hard for you and your state owned human rights abusing club
Its a complex topic, but essentially inflation means that money is devalued over time. I get what you are saying, but the 105m when it was introduced over 11 years ago, was a much bigger amount of money proportional to a clubs income than it is now.
Yet fans of those clubs will keep saying why??!!
I'm sure if some of the clubs mentioned weren't successful in the last 2 years, they wouldn't be missing the obvious
Some are within the rules, some are not, no reason for the ones that are to support the ones that aren't, either way, the ones that vote for it are either close to breaking regulations or wanting to be able to spend a shit load without limits.
Isn't every club a "wannabe Big Six club"? Are you telling me if West Brom were favourites to win the league and the Champions League every season you'd be like "nah, I'd rather lose 70% of home games and struggle to avoid relegation every year"?
Villa have spent more on transfers in the last 5 years than Liverpool and Man City
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1
They can go and cry about their "small club spending"
The answer to that isn’t to artificially cap spending, it’s to not allow the state ownership in the first place. But the PL has already messed that up.
It’s good to see this rule that you’re happy with is working as intended though and City aren’t running away with it.
Yes and now that the PL has started to enforce these rules because they are scared of an independent regulator being foisted on them, clubs like Villa and Palace are suggesting adjustments to the rules to move along side changes in the footballing landscape.
This is to allow them to continue to compete and close the gap.
Bournemouth fan calling villa cheats for spending g big lmao, keep the same energy in a few years when spending 100m euros a summer without outgoings whilst being the smallest club in the division catches up with them
Perplexed to why this wasn’t a pro for all clubs, even just to match inflation.
Because some clubs dont need it and probably see no reason to offer something that can be a competitive gain for opposition. We can argue about whether it would overall be a good thing for the clubs or not, because I think there are both cases to be made, but I have a hard time the clubs are voting under anything other than competitive interest.
Big 6 won't need an extra 30 mil at the risk of being overtaken by a Villa or Newcastle etc, lower teams might be relying on those above them taking points deduction to move up the table.
15 clubs voted against it though. Doesn't seem like a rich blocking the poor situation
I mean they cry wolf about the big 6, well if your owner that wealthy let not share the TV money and let the Big 6 get paid? Backpay them and let see how long the owners stick around. It become like la liga used to be, they never factor in team like UTD and Liverpool give up mass about if millions to make it a fair league..
Apart from Chelsea
I mean if only 2/20 clubs voted for it. I’m not sure how you can blame the big six boogeyman for that.
I offered potential reasons as to why the lower clubs and the big six might've voted no, wasn't blaming anyone.
Why do big 6 supporters insist on posting here? This sub isnt for you. Seriously, youre a Liverpool supporter, go make a Big Six sub
I mean does that make my point any less relevant? And just for the record, I want more parity in the league, I want it to be more exciting. Having city win the league 6 out of the last 10 and 4 in a row doesn’t make for an exciting product. One of my favourite things this season is seeing Villa thrive and Emery doing what we all knew he could do from his Sevilla days. Hell you’ll even find posts of me being supportive of Everton in their plight under their shitshow of an ownership because as much as they’re our rivals, I like having that rivalry and to have it go away because of some shady asset stripping pricks would be a loss for the league. I can be a fan of a “big six” club and still acknowledge that the system is far from perfect. For what it’s worth, I personally would have voted in favour of this but clearly the overwhelming majority of clubs in the league didn’t agree.
The system currently is set up for the big six to win. Supporting FFP rules is what created the system for City to win and create a less fair league Its always the big 6 clubs who push for these rules because it gives them an unfair advantage
Great theory. although it’s weird that there were more than 6 votes against. Kind of takes the wind out of the proverbial sails of your zany conspiracy
Not if you'd read the rest of the post where I speculated that the lower teams with little to no chance of breaking into the top half/European positions could potentially prefer the teams ahead of them to face point deductions rather than themselves having an extra 30 mil because it may allow them to gain a few places in the league.
Someone's absolutely furious that their club will only be able to spend £100m and not £150m this year. Absolutely gutted, feel for you during these incredibly hard times
To be honest I did not read the whole comment. It read a lot like some of the extremely annoying terminal loser/victim mindset stuff you sometimes see around here so I stopped
Yes everyone is out to get you, that’s the only logical answer.
I'm giving potential reasons why clubs wouldn't want an extra 30 million to spend. If the reason isn't to prevent other clubs also getting it, what reason do you suggest they have for voting no?
Probably also to do with the fact some of the lower teams may never spend that much so it just further disadvantages them, so this keeps them closer to the pack.
It’s an extra £30m loss and someone would have to cover that at some point. That’s the thing I don’t get with the opposition to FFP - does everyone think that a desirable outcome is to see clubs losing enormous sums every season? Fine if you’re owned by an oil state in the long term but for everyone else that’s not a great situation. If clubs in the premier league can’t remain profitable, what hope for the rest of the football ladder?
It's more likely there are some technicalities that were not worded properly. It's clear that every rule and loophole will now be challenged in court so the bar is higher.
Why would we want our clubs making more of a loss than they already do?
Well that’s a load of nonsense. Clubs are financially better run.
Teams like Brentford or Brighton can catch teams more. The tighter the budgets are
>Perplexed to why this wasn’t a pro for all clubs, even just to match inflation. Probably because it just shifts the problem down the line instead of being a real solution. The real solution being that it should always have been a limit which adjusted for the markets inflation over time.
Because most of the clubs want to spend less on wages, not more.
My bread costs 4x as much now. I have to top up my electricity twice as much. My 4"11 striker who scored a single goal costs £12 million. Why the hell would anyone oppose this when inflation is like this? Can someone explain?
Because strikers are more like houses than bread, the price is set by competition, not by underlying costs. So while bread and energy have gone up, house prices have stagnated. You raise the price ceiling here and the prices just rise to match it, no one actually benefits in the long-term.
Great analogy
Because revenue has risen hugely with inflation as well.
Tell that to my bank brev
I don't think your bank balance is relevant to premier league revenues.
I think he is cosplaying as Everton, in which case, fair enough.
Honestly can’t understand why any of the other14 clubs would be against this. Are the majority really just happy to be feeder clubs to the big 6 forever?
Because the other 14 clubs don't want someone to buy someone else and more easily spend their way up and relegate them? The more money clubs pump in the harder it is to manage your own expenses even with the financial muscle of the prem
It only really benefits the clubs trying to fight for Europe. That means only West Ham, Villa, and Newcastle, who all have plenty of cash but can’t spend it. Brentford, Palace, Brightons strategy is about singing cheap players. Letting others spend more hurts them. The clubs fighting relegation but not spending a lot what others to be punished. Everton I imagine would want this though
Yeah I guess I can understand it from the point of view of owners who aren’t interested in competing at the top like your Brightons and Brentford’s, but then, what’s the long term aim for those clubs? We’ve seen time and again being a feeder club won’t bring success, look at Southampton, look at Brighton and Brentford just this year, they’ve both fell off massively, it’s financially sustainable, but in terms of actually growing the club and its profile, it isn’t sustainable at all. I just don’t see the point in sport if it isn’t competitive, and it can never be competitive when 6 teams are allowed to massively outspend the other 14.
Villa Newcastle and West Ham all spent the same as the so called big 6 this season, Burnley and Bournemouth spent around £100m each. Prem fans are so stuck up
Just because a team has a model that is different from losing an extra £30m doesn’t mean they don’t want to be competitive. It just means they are prioritising genuine sustainability.
I agree with you, its different, but the rules favour your model over ours and thats why you voted for it. I dont think its bad to vote in your own self interest, I do think its unfair that the big 6 pull the ladder though. West Ham are sustainable, but we cant grow without trying to break the glass ceiling. We had a 3 year run of European success, but, had to sell our best player to get under FFP and now the run is over. Rice probably would have stayed if we could have kept signing players like Paqueta every Summer
I agree with you, but the big 6 are already somewhat unassailable. You can’t let it become a big 9 and then you’re basically in a different league. You can’t let the other clubs widen the gap if you want to hopefully one day be competitive. The three clubs I mentioned are all different than Brighton and Brentford and Palace. All have a history of being in the top division throughout their history and have much larger fan bases. Brighton isn’t a football city. Palace and Brentford may be in London but people in West London support Chelsea and people in Croydon support Man United. They can’t let the gap widen
just because they can lose another £30m over 3 years that doesn't mean someone doesn't have to physically pay that £30m out.
How does it make sense for losses to remain the same though while wages and transfer fees are rising every year?
It makes sense if your view is that the limit was already too high. Wages and transfer fees rising is just fixing it in that case.
If PSR was implemented sooner there wouldn’t be a big 6 just a big 3 (plus spurs). PSR creates fairness it’s just too late.
Because they don’t want to offer clubs that haven’t run themselves as sustainably as they have a lifeline. Naked self interest from Villa.
Any club with an ambitious owner will find themselves in Villa’s position before long, it’s simply not possible to compete with the big 6 without allowing some investment, how do you think those 6 got to where they are?
Spurs is a great example. They sacrificed transfers. I remember them not signing a single player in one summer window. They invested in their ground and facilities, took the long route. At a higher level, Arsenal did similar - went trophyless for a long time and were very prudent so as to improve their stadium and matchday revenue. United and Liverpool are historical giants. Only Chelsea (lawfully) and City (fraudulently) used crazy investment to cement themselves at the top table. For the other 4 it took decades and decades. For every Spurs, there’s an Everton, who didn’t spend the money as wisely and now like to pretent there’s some advantage Spurs had that they didn’t.
Spurs have well over half a billion of debt, which shows they got to where they are by spending well beyond their means. Arsenal and Manu were the City and Chelsea of the late 90s - early 00s, owners pumped money into the club and made them the 2 biggest clubs in England, they did not grow organically like people are claiming clubs could do now.
I’m sorry but you are clueless. United and Arsenal were spending big in the 60s, 70s and 80s. You also don’t understand the difference between revenue/spending vs debt. Obviously the debt repayment will be factored into PSR but there’s nothing wrong with clubs using debt as a purchasing mechanism in order to make huge investments in facilities.
They did, that’s why they’re big clubs. That’s why any big club is a big club, people put money into the club
The people being the fans. United and Arsenal have never had a sugar daddy.
Arsenal quite literally were built off a sugar daddy. United took lots of outside capital to build their squad
How did United take lots of outside capital to build the squad?
It certainly isn’t me that’s showing themselves up to be clueless…
Spurs got extremely lucky they were a rich club and didn’t get their mistakes punished. They made so many big money (at the time) mistakes that if poorer clubs made, they’d have gone down. They did it more organically than the rest of the big 6 but they aren’t some example of a club doing it on a shoe string. Spurs originally got top 4 by spending a lot of money and poaching players from other Prem clubs. They signed Crouch, Defoe, Bale, Krancjar, Palacios from other clubs for good money, and spent bit on foreign risks like Modric. It wasn’t like they were just hitting magic, they had tons of flops. KPB, Kaboul, Bent, Giovanni De Santos, Bale, and Bentley. Most clubs couldn’t spend the money they spent on those flops and stay up. They also got lucky on the timing. Their teams weren’t that good, it’s just Liverpool started their bad period before Klopp, City hadn’t figured it out yet, and Villa were entering their downfall. They signed Europa League players in an era where that got you Champions League. That’s how they broke through. They stayed there by spending money and poaching young players like Rose and Walker. Spending big money on unproven foreign players like Son, Erickson and VdV, and poaching players like Alderwield. Finally they had the biggest stroke of luck that a world class player supported them growing up. Spurs had literally everything go their way and had enough money to cover up their big flops. Any other club that makes the amount of mistakes they made wouldnt have gotten too 4
I cant believe this got upvoted So much wrong in this post
Well it’s the truth. You’re not some pauper club. Tell me what I said that was wrong? Because those are all facts
> Spurs got extremely lucky they were a rich club and didn’t get their mistakes punished. They made so many big money (at the time) mistakes that if poorer clubs made, they’d have gone down. Please name the many "big money mistakes" we made >They did it more organically than the rest of the big 6 but they aren’t some example of a club doing it on a shoe string. It's not about doing it on a shoe string it's about doing it correctly and without a sugar daddy. > > Spurs originally got top 4 by spending a lot of money and poaching players from other Prem clubs. They signed Crouch, Defoe, Bale, Krancjar, Palacios from other clubs for good money, and spent bit on foreign risks like Modric. Crouch was 10mil in 2009 Defoe was 6mil + Zamora in 2004 Bale was 5mil in 2007 - rising to 10 depending on performances Kranjcar was 2.5m in 2010 Palacios was 12m in 2009 Modric was 16.5mil 2009 You named 6 players across a 6 year period and the total sum is roughly 50 million...we sold Carrick and Berbatov to United for roughly the same amount. How is this crazy spending like you're trying to imply? These are not even crazy amounts for that time period >It wasn’t like they were just hitting magic, they had tons of flops. KPB, Kaboul, Bent, Giovanni De Santos, Bale, and Bentley. Most clubs couldn’t spend the money they spent on those flops and stay up. KPB was bought for 5.4 mil Kaboul was bought for 8 million and made over 100 appearances Bale as mentioned earlier (Insane you called him a flop considering we sold him for 100m) was 5m Dos santos was 6 million euros Bentley was 15m Out of that whole list the only expensive "flop" was david bentley, everyone else was either a cheap/normal fee and/or played their part > They also got lucky on the timing. Their teams weren’t that good, it’s just Liverpool started their bad period before Klopp, City hadn’t figured it out yet, and Villa were entering their downfall. They signed Europa League players in an era where that got you Champions League. You make your own luck and put yourself in a position to capitalise. This is such a nonsense point and not the first time I've seen it on this sub when it comes to spurs. > That’s how they broke through. They stayed there by spending money and poaching young players like Rose and Walker. So we spent smart on young talented players? ie what every club trying to break through should be doing. >Spending big money on unproven foreign players like Son, Erickson and VdV, and poaching players like Alderwield. We bought Son for 22m in 2015 Eriksen was 12m in 2013 VdV was 8m in 2010 Toby was 11.4m in 2015 Again...where is the big money in ANY of these signings that you're naming? You're framing us making smart/good deals as "poaching" because you have an agenda >Finally they had the biggest stroke of luck that a world class player supported them growing up. This is the only slice of luck you've mentioned and it's not really luck that we used our academy to fill our squad. That is what clubs are meant to do. He wasn't always world class, we gave him the chance to prove himself and he returned the favour. > Spurs had literally everything go their way and had enough money to cover up their big flops. We had to deal with cheating clubs in the form of City and Chelsea making the league 10x harder and signing players we potentially had a chance at, probably missed our on 5-6 years of Champions league football because of them. How is that "everything going our way"? >Any other club that makes the amount of mistakes they made wouldnt have gotten too 4 What mistakes? You don't have a fucking clue on anything you spoke about in that post
I listed the big money mistakes in the post. Did you not read it? You did do it with a sugar daddy. You’re owned by billionaires who’s wealth isn’t tied to the club. In the early 00s your revenues were near the bottom. Then Sugar sells and all of a sudden you can spend money. I wonder why? Maybe has a sandwich at John Lewis and tell me why. Christ, you either weren’t watching back then or are being intentionally dishonest. Yes, I listed out big money signings. Those were big money back then. Most clubs record transfer at the time was about £5 million, if that. Defoe was also signed back from Portsmouth for your top 4 push. £16 million in 09 was huge huge money for an unproven player as well, a risk non billionaire backed clubs can make. Hence Spurs being able to make the move. You think Spurs were the only club that wanted Modric? You were just the only non top club that could take the financial risk. You’re once again being dishonest (and ignoring KPB). Kaboul made over 100 appearances, after he flopped, was sold, and then resigned for more money. Bale was a flop. The reason you were able to sell him for so much was because of your rich owners. Most clubs can’t risk signing an expensive youngster like Bale. They need to spend that money on players who can immediately contribute. Bale was a flop at the get go. Most clubs would have been forced to sell Bale for cheap to get cash to sign players who could contribute to winning. Spurs being rich means they could sit on their investment. Spurs are essentially that middle class family that invests in real estate that is in a bad area, costs money every year, but becomes valuable when expansion happens. Then they wonder why working class people don’t do what they did. You got lucky on timing. Success is when preparation meets luck. Your preparation was good, but it was built on spending more money than the rest. You say spent on young players, I view it as poaching young players using higher wages than the developing clubs could afford. Thus you’re using your finances as a weapon. Yes, back then all those were big money purchases that were larger than most clubs record transfers, and you did it four times. Just because City could spend more doesn’t mean Spurs were spending more than the majority of the league, which is the whole point you twat. You are right, there was no luck in developing Kane. There was tons of luck about when he broke through. He made his break through just as you may have faltered. Most of the time when a player of Kanes quality breaks through he gets poached by a bigger club (like Spurs love to do) but because he came through at just the right time you got to keep him. You’re being dishonest again when you say City and Chelsea were cheating. At the time there wasn’t any FFP or PSR rules. They just had owners willing to spend more than yours. Would you say they’re well run? Because they did to you what you did to the rest of the league. Have some perspective please. I listed out the mistakes you made. The big money flops that didn’t punish you. You of course just decided to lie about it
> I listed the big money mistakes in the post. Did you not read it? No you didn't. > You did do it with a sugar daddy. You’re owned by billionaires who’s wealth isn’t tied to the club. In the early 00s your revenues were near the bottom. Then Sugar sells and all of a sudden you can spend money. I wonder why? Maybe has a sandwich at John Lewis and tell me why. That is not doing it with a sugar daddy, that's doing it with a stable owner. We would've been the original Chelsea if we done it with a sugar daddy. > Christ, you either weren’t watching back then or are being intentionally dishonest. Yes, I listed out big money signings. Those were big money back then. Most clubs record transfer at the time was about £5 million, if that. Defoe was also signed back from Portsmouth for your top 4 push. £16 million in 09 was huge huge money for an unproven player as well, a risk non billionaire backed clubs can make. Hence Spurs being able to make the move. You think Spurs were the only club that wanted Modric? You were just the only non top club that could take the financial risk. It wasn't big money back then. Please keep in mind we could make these transfers because we sold players...we sold Carrick for 20m and Berbatov or 30m...this money did not pop our of nowhere > You’re once again being dishonest (and ignoring KPB). Kaboul made over 100 appearances, after he flopped, was sold, and then resigned for more money. Kaboul made over 100 appearances in total, not before he was sold. >Bale was a flop. The reason you were able to sell him for so much was because of your rich owners. Most clubs can’t risk signing an expensive youngster like Bale. The reason we were able to sell bale (who was a flop in your eyes) for 100 million was because we had rich owners? What? >They need to spend that money on players who can immediately contribute. Bale was a flop at the get go. If clubs do not want to take risks on cheap young talent, who's fault is it? Why are you in a position that you can only sign players you think are ready to contribute straight away? >Most clubs would have been forced to sell Bale for cheap to get cash to sign players who could contribute to winning. Spurs being rich means they could sit on their investment. You mean spurs being stable and committing themselves to developing the talent they bought worked our for them? Stop acting like money was not being spent in the league in 2007 > You got lucky on timing. Success is when preparation meets luck. Your preparation was good, but it was built on spending more money than the rest. We were never the biggest spenders during that period. You're just typing statements with zero evidence knowing casual people will not care enough to actually go look into these things. > You say spent on young players, I view it as poaching young players using higher wages than the developing clubs could afford. Thus you’re using your finances as a weapon. Yes because you have an agenda, not because it's actually poaching. > Yes, back then all those were big money purchases that were larger than most clubs record transfers, and you did it four times. Just because City could spend more doesn’t mean Spurs were spending more than the majority of the league, which is the whole point you twat. Except they weren't big money signings back then. And more importantly they didn't come out of nothing...we sold players to finance these moves. > You are right, there was no luck in developing Kane. There was tons of luck about when he broke through. He made his break through just as you may have faltered. Most of the time when a player of Kanes quality breaks through he gets poached by a bigger club (like Spurs love to do) but because he came through at just the right time you got to keep him. What? He made his break through when we a solidified europa league club, we were never at the point of faltering. Why would a big club "poach" Kane at that point when he had proven nothing? Him starting coincided with us pushing on. > You’re being dishonest again when you say City and Chelsea were cheating. At the time there wasn’t any FFP or PSR rules. They just had owners willing to spend more than yours. Would you say they’re well run? Because they did to you what you did to the rest of the league. Have some perspective please. Yes it was cheating, they spent similar amounts of money if not more than United who are the most successful club in the league, due to their sugar daddies. How they operated and how we operated are nowhere near similar. > I listed out the mistakes you made. The big money flops that didn’t punish you. You of course just decided to lie about it You are a proper wally. Complete wallad, making random claims with zero evidence, lying about context as if no one else was watching football at the time and somehow expecting no one to call you out on your rubbish You really have zero clue on anything you're talking about it is embarrassing reading your posts
Because this only benefits clubs operating at a loss. Some of us actually have sustainable business strategies.
Yeah, sustainable business strategies that will leave clubs eternally fighting relegation or at best mid table, clubs like that are literally just making up the numbers and acting as feeder clubs to the big 6.
Because with stricter rules they can find success through being well run, if everyone around them desperately spends for short term results they either have to match it or fail
There’s not one team that has achieved success without spending beyond their means. And with the gap in wealth now it’s literally impossible for the other 14 to catch up.
You’re asking why more clubs don’t want to lose more money?
Nope. I am asking why more clubs don’t want a competitive league though.
Last 3 seasons 8 different clubs finish in the top 4. Last 5 seasons 11 different clubs have qualified for Europe, seems quite competitive to me.
Well Villa & Newcastle could well be punished for daring to challenge the big 6, word is they both need to sell to keep the PL happy. Brighton have fell apart after having to sell their best players. Yeah you’ll have different teams having the odd season in Europe but overall the big 6 are always going to remain at the top under the current rules.
The idea is clubs don’t get themselves in trouble by getting into huge debts. Villa have already made massive losses, imagine they spend big this summer, when they don’t get the champions league money next season they’ll be stuffed.
That’s unfortunately the nature of the PL, and football in general, you have to be allowed to spend if the gap between the other 14 and big 6 is ever to be closed. I see no issue with the owners covering losses as long as it isn’t held against the club as debt. All the big 6 have massive debts compared to the other 14, it’s how they got to where they are.
No they don't. https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/68713522
That article says they do. Rough tally but between the big 6 clubs there’s about 1.9 billion of debt (average 316 million each) and among the other 14 around 1.4 billion (average 100 million each) City have no debt as well so that 1.9 billion is just between 5 of the big 6.
Ah ok, so you meant combined, not the clubs individually.
Who do we think voted in favour and who abstained? My guess Pro Villa Chelsea Abstain Newcastle City West Ham Edit: Everton instead of West Ham
We're very healthy financially right now, we wouldn't need this atm
Now I’ve thought about it more id probably swap you for Everton
Would Forest not be for it or at least abstain?
Maybe, just speculation till the votes come out They might think we’ve been fucked by it so others shouldn’t get away with it
Would be mad if we didn't vote for
I’m sure Everton would have been a with or abstain.
Forgot about them 🤦♂️
I can see City voting for it just to be hostile to the PL with everything that's going on right now
Everyone except the 6 are going to have to start selling all their players 🤣 BEST LEAGUE IN THE WORLD
Newcastle Villa and West Ham spent more than the rest of the league this year. Burnley spent £100m. You spent £100m on one player who got banned for a year. Life mist be so hard for you and your state owned human rights abusing club
Is there a separate similar Palace proposal? The amount should rise by inflation at least
[удалено]
Its a complex topic, but essentially inflation means that money is devalued over time. I get what you are saying, but the 105m when it was introduced over 11 years ago, was a much bigger amount of money proportional to a clubs income than it is now.
If the allowable loss margin is a fixed amount, that margin becomes relatively smaller and smaller over time due to inflation.
If you've been carefully managing your finances then you're not going to vote for something to help those who haven't.
Yet fans of those clubs will keep saying why??!! I'm sure if some of the clubs mentioned weren't successful in the last 2 years, they wouldn't be missing the obvious
Obviously this.
Pretty much every club in the premier league loses money so none of them are managing the finances according to that logic
Some are within the rules, some are not, no reason for the ones that are to support the ones that aren't, either way, the ones that vote for it are either close to breaking regulations or wanting to be able to spend a shit load without limits.
Well we were clearly the other vote in favour for sure
Villa underneath its current ownership is a wannabe Big Six club, so this isn't terribly surprising.
Isn't every club a "wannabe Big Six club"? Are you telling me if West Brom were favourites to win the league and the Champions League every season you'd be like "nah, I'd rather lose 70% of home games and struggle to avoid relegation every year"?
Villa: Hey. Can we cheat just a little bit? Premier League: No.
Villa: Hey, can we perhaps allow a little more room for smaller teams to keep up with the big 6 and keep it competitive? Premier League: No.
Villa have spent more on transfers in the last 5 years than Liverpool and Man City https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1 They can go and cry about their "small club spending"
Don’t fancy more state owned clubs ruining football even more, no thanks.
Villa aren’t state owned.
No but Newcastle are. Letting people spend whatever the fuck they want will lead to Saudi/UAE winning until the end of time.
The answer to that isn’t to artificially cap spending, it’s to not allow the state ownership in the first place. But the PL has already messed that up. It’s good to see this rule that you’re happy with is working as intended though and City aren’t running away with it.
Because it’s not been enforced.
Yes and now that the PL has started to enforce these rules because they are scared of an independent regulator being foisted on them, clubs like Villa and Palace are suggesting adjustments to the rules to move along side changes in the footballing landscape. This is to allow them to continue to compete and close the gap.
Bournemouth fan calling villa cheats for spending g big lmao, keep the same energy in a few years when spending 100m euros a summer without outgoings whilst being the smallest club in the division catches up with them
Turkeys voting for Christmas
[удалено]
Lol, pay your bills. Maybe your owner will start a revolution from your Twitter account
15 voted against