General EPL Discussion/Housery Thread

222,119 Views | 2830 Replies | Last: 23 hrs ago by Ghost of Andrew Eaton
Dre_00
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 2:11a, 6/5/24
And don't even get me started on the irony of a football club owner using words like "tyranny" in reference to an overwhelming majority when he is a member of the royal family of a monarchical state that has carried out numerous and frequent human rights violations on their migrant workforce.

So if you're keeping score at home...

Overwhelming majority agreeing on a rule = tyranny
Centralized state power residing with a family = not tyranny
Refusing basic human rights and freedom of movement = not tyranny
Reply Quote
5
CrockerAg98
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:00p, 6/5/24
AG
At the very least, start them with a points deduction for the charges. Give them a fair chance. Say, -50 to start the season? They can go undefeated in the first half of the season to get to the break even, and then have the second half to see what they can do?

I'm in favor of relegation, which I'm sure would have their stars bailing (although I wonder how many that signed for them actually have a relegation clause in the contract?), but they have to either hammer them, or quit pretending like they give a damn about FFP.
Reply Quote
2
Dre_00
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:45p, 6/5/24
So apparently City's new litigation stopped other EPL clubs from committing to financially help EFL through the "New Deal for Football Plan". EPL was nearing an agreement to give 150 million a year to the EFL for 6 years but when this new litigation was filed, they scrapped the plan. Can't give that money away if some legal entity rules that City has a case and the rule is unlawful/illegal.

Man City...that young, upstart, scrappy club out here fighting for the common clubs by...indirectly tapping into sovereign state funds to finance their club and keeping money from being redistributed to smaller leagues/clubs.

An absolute embarrassment.

It has to be said that the EPL made this bed for themselves by even agreeing to these new owners 16 years ago. The only saw the dollar signs (or pound signs I guess) and now...it's coming to bite them in the ass. This was always a risk when they agreed to these owners.
Reply Quote
10
Aston94
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dre_00 • 1:44p, 6/5/24
AG
The difference in mentality of the EPL owners and the NFL owners, for example, is amazing to me. They just don't understand how the collective good is in all their best interests.
Reply Quote
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aston94 • 9:31p, 6/5/24
Aston94 said:
The difference in mentality of the EPL owners and the NFL owners, for example, is amazing to me. They just don't understand how the collective good is in all their best interests.
The top end is making so much money that I don't know what they could gain from a better EPL.
If you say you hate the state of politics in this nation and you don't get involved in it, you obviously don't hate the state of politics in this nation.
Reply Quote
2
ThunderCougarFalconBird
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ghost of Andrew Eaton • 8:20a, 6/6/24
AG
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:
Aston94 said:
The difference in mentality of the EPL owners and the NFL owners, for example, is amazing to me. They just don't understand how the collective good is in all their best interests.
The top end is making so much money that I don't know what they could gain from a better EPL.
that and the non-monetary benefits (cough cough sportswashing).
Reply Quote
Texaggie7nine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:16p, 6/6/24
You can **** on City all you want. I dry my tears with trophies. However, this is just stupid. How can any owner of smaller teams expect to significantly grow a club if subjected to such a stupid thing as FFP.




7nine
Reply Quote
agdoc2001
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Texaggie7nine • 12:32p, 6/6/24
AG
Well you see, manc, they could create something called an "Academy" and in this "Academy", they could develop young players to obtain the skills and play the type of football they feel suits their club identity. Some of these players could ascend to contribute to the 1st team and some of these players could be sold to other sides to balance the budget.

Or, or, and stay with me now, maybe if disgusting nation states weren't distorting the transfer market by paying exorbitant sums of money for players, perhaps these smaller market teams could afford to go into the transfer market and purchase a player on occasion without violating FFP.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
2
jeffk
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Texaggie7nine • 1:18p, 6/6/24
AG
Texaggie7nine said:
You can **** on City all you want.


'Preciate ya.
Reply Quote
Dre_00
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:59p, 6/6/24
So is City fan solution to fix FFP to…have no financial rules? Hmmm…I wonder who that might conveniently benefit?

You can always tell City fan is trying to pull a fast one because they'll claim that the only way to make the league fair is to create an environment that they are the only ones that can take full advantage of.

Emperor Palpatine stuff going on over there.
Reply Quote
6
wangus12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:03p, 6/6/24
AG
Quote:
At the Premier League's Annual General Meeting today, clubs agreed to trial an alternative League-wide financial system next season (2024/25) on a non-binding basis.

The existing Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) will remain in place, but clubs will trial Squad Cost Rules (SCR) and Top to Bottom Anchoring Rules (TBA) in shadow.

This will enable the League and clubs to fully evaluate the system, including the operation of UEFA's equivalent new financial regulations, and to complete its consultation with all relevant stakeholders.
The overall system aims to improve and preserve clubs' financial sustainability and the competitive balance of the Premier League, promote aspiration of clubs, facilitate a workable alignment with other relevant competitions and support clubs' competitiveness in UEFA club competitions, while providing certainty and clarity for clubs, fans and stakeholders.

SCR will regulate on-pitch spend to a proportion (85 per cent) of a club's football revenue and net profit/loss on player sales.

TBA is a League-level anchor linked to football costs, based on a multiple of the forecast lowest central distribution for that season. It is designed to be a pre-emptive measure to protect the competitive balance of the Premier League. This protection is intended not to have an impact unless significant revenue divergence of clubs occurs.


Quote:
Key points
  • Trial of new financial system: Premier League clubs have agreed to trial a new league-wide financial system alongside the existing Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) for the 2024/25 season. The trial will be non-binding.
  • Two new rules: The new system will include two new rules: Squad Cost Rules (SCR) and Top to Bottom Anchoring Rules (TBA).
    • SCR: This rule will limit on-pitch spending to 85% of a club's football revenue and net profit/loss on player sales.
    • TBA: This rule is a pre-emptive measure designed to protect the competitive balance of the league by setting a spending cap based on a multiple of the lowest central distribution for the season. It will only come into effect if there is significant revenue divergence between clubs.

  • Goals of the new system: The overall aim of the new system is to improve and preserve clubs' financial sustainability, promote competitive balance, and ensure alignment with other relevant competitions, including UEFA club competitions.

  • Evaluation and consultation: The trial period will allow the Premier League and clubs to fully evaluate the system, including its alignment with UEFA's new financial regulations, and to consult with all relevant stakeholders.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Aston94
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Texaggie7nine • 3:14p, 6/6/24
AG
Texaggie7nine said:
You can **** on City all you want.



Challenge accepted. Play by the same rules as your opponents and we will see how many trophies you have to dry your tears on.
Reply Quote
3
Texaggie7nine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dre_00 • 4:02p, 6/6/24
Dre_00 said:
So is City fan solution to fix FFP to…have no financial rules? Hmmm…I wonder who that might conveniently benefit?

You can always tell City fan is trying to pull a fast one because they'll claim that the only way to make the league fair is to create an environment that they are the only ones that can take full advantage of.

Emperor Palpatine stuff going on over there.
A level spending cap makes more sense though it does advantage other leagues not subject to them. That at least limits all teams equally and doesn't give an insane advantage to the big clubs who will always have large international fanbases.

Oh sorry little guys. Your owners have the $ to make you a better team? Well too bad, not enough people like your team to warrant you deserving to have good players, so you must stay irrelevant.
7nine
Reply Quote
Texaggie7nine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aston94 • 4:04p, 6/6/24
Aston94 said:
Texaggie7nine said:
You can **** on City all you want.



Challenge accepted. Play by the same rules as your opponents and we will see how many trophies you have to dry your tears on.
ok

7nine
Reply Quote
1
Dre_00
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Texaggie7nine • 4:25p, 6/6/24
Do you realize that City isn't advocating for a level spending cap? And that they are advocating for the removal of rules that have nothing to do with how much money their owners have? In fact, none of the rules being challenged in the most recently revealed litigation have anything to do with how much money an owner has available in his bank account?

I feel like you aren't even aware of what the argument is. You're just blindly defending City without having any clue what battle you're actually fighting.
Reply Quote
Texaggie7nine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dre_00 • 5:17p, 6/6/24
Dre_00 said:
Do you realize that City isn't advocating for a level spending cap? And that they are advocating for the removal of rules that have nothing to do with how much money their owners have? In fact, none of the rules being challenged in the most recently revealed litigation have anything to do with how much money an owner has available in his bank account?

I feel like you aren't even aware of what the argument is. You're just blindly defending City without having any clue what battle you're actually fighting.
You do realize that I'm not a City lawyer right? I'm making a logical statement about how stupid and unfair FFP is.
Not as a defense of City, but as just a statement about how stupid it is.

I'm not going to say "oh City is fighting for the small club", but getting rid of FFP sure as hell helps the small clubs with owners that have $.

A level spending cap MAKES MORE SENSE than FFP if the concern is to help smaller clubs. That fact has nothing to do with what City is advocating for.

The rules being challenged have to do with owners that have the means and willingness to pump more $ into their team and staying within the stupid FFP rules. Get rid of FFP and it wouldn't be an issue. Replace it with a cap, and even add luxury tax that redistributes to the other teams, and you get rid of the issue.
7nine
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Aston94
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Texaggie7nine • 5:39p, 6/6/24
AG
Texaggie7nine said:
Aston94 said:
Texaggie7nine said:
You can **** on City all you want.



Challenge accepted. Play by the same rules as your opponents and we will see how many trophies you have to dry your tears on.
ok



Explain these numbers please.
Reply Quote
Texaggie7nine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aston94 • 6:16p, 6/6/24
How much the team spent on players minus what they received for selling/loaning players.
7nine
Reply Quote
1
YNWA.2013
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Texaggie7nine • 6:42p, 6/6/24
I was wondering where you got that chart because there is no way Manchester City is 15th in net spend over any period of time since 2008. And then I saw the handle on the bottom right.

You can get different numbers based on time frames and the source. But the consensus is something like this:
Reply Quote
1
Aston94
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YNWA.2013 • 7:36p, 6/6/24
AG
YNWA.2013 said:
I was wondering where you got that chart because there is no way Manchester City is 15th in net spend over any period of time since 2008. And then I saw the handle on the bottom right.

You can get different numbers based on time frames and the source. But the consensus is something like this:


These numbers look more in keeping with what I have seen elsewhere.
Reply Quote
Dre_00
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Texaggie7nine • 1:54a, 6/7/24
That's all well and good but this...

Quote:
The rules being challenged have to do with owners that have the means and willingness to pump more $ into their team and staying within the stupid FFP rules. Get rid of FFP and it wouldn't be an issue.

...is not accurate. Or leaves so much information out that it is misleading. City is not asking for FFP rules to be removed so that their owners can use their own personal wealth to fund their club. They are asking for sponsorship rules to be removed so that sponsors can pay whatever they want for sponsorship rights.

If that happens, City and Newcastle owners, who have massive influence on how hundreds and hundreds of billions of "investment" dollars are spent via their involvement with the ruling family and the fact that they sit on the board or chair multiple wealth funds whose sole purpose is to "invest" UAE and Saudi's sovereign wealth in an effort to diversify their state economy and increase their state's soft power, will be able to funnel any amount of money they want from the other interests they control. $500 million so that Mubadala Investment Company can "sponsor" seat 34 at the Etihad? Completely legal.

That doesn't help Aston Villa. That doesn't help Everton. That doesn't help Nottingham Forest. It actually hurts every club because it creates even MORE financial disparity than what exists today. It only helps City and Newcastle. And they know that. And that's why they want the rule change. So that they play in a completely different stratosphere financially that no other club would ever be able to play in. City wants to disrupt the current order alright. They want to break the glass ceiling, kick the current occupants out, and then build a new concrete ceiling so that they (and Newcastle) can live in the penthouse forever.
Reply Quote
5
Texaggie7nine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dre_00 • 8:16a, 6/7/24
If the sponsorship rules were removed, other wealthy owners who have the means and the willingness would be able to funnel in more of their money in as well, to get around the silly FFP rules. That's a net benefit for them.

7nine
Reply Quote
rebag00
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Texaggie7nine • 8:49a, 6/7/24
AG
Texaggie7nine said:
If the sponsorship rules were removed, other wealthy owners who have the means and the willingness would be able to funnel in more of their money in as well, to get around the silly FFP rules. That's a net benefit for them.

"Why don't all your stupid teams get your own petro state ownership! Then these rules would benefit you, too!"

This is pretty good ****housery!
Reply Quote
5
ChipFTAC01
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Texaggie7nine • 9:12a, 6/7/24
AG
Texaggie7nine said:
If the sponsorship rules were removed, other wealthy owners who have the means and the willingness would be able to funnel in more of their money in as well, to get around the silly FFP rules. That's a net benefit for them.



It's also not good (that is getting rid of financial sustainability rules) for the league in general, the clubs in general and the sport in general. A world with a ruling dominant hegonomy isn't interesting. The NFL is a better league because Jerry Jones has to play by the same rules as everyone else. The Premier League is a better league than any other league in Europe because there is (or was) a larger competitive class. I couldn't give two shots about the Bundesliga, Serie A or Ligue 1 when I know with a 95% confidence before the season that Bayern, Juve and PSG are winning the league because they're swinging way more financial muscle than everyone else.

And for the clubs that are swinging big to try to keep up with the Joneses and cant quite get there or quite hang on it is ruinous. The Sunderlands and Leeds and Wednesdays and Blackburns of the world that lose their tenuous grasp on big boy football and go tumbling down the pyramid.
Reply Quote
1
Dre_00
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Texaggie7nine • 9:36a, 6/7/24
Texaggie7nine said:
If the sponsorship rules were removed, other wealthy owners who have the means and the willingness would be able to funnel in more of their money in as well, to get around the silly FFP rules. That's a net benefit for them.



Lol. My bad everyone. I clearly misunderstood the dynamics. We've clearly slipped into Politics board dynamics here. So with that in mind I appreciate you confirming that City fans are the worst fans that have or ever will exist in all of sports. You make late 90s United fans look as decent and respectful as Mother Teresa by comparison.
Reply Quote
1
Texaggie7nine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ChipFTAC01 • 9:56a, 6/7/24
ChipFTAC01 said:
Texaggie7nine said:
If the sponsorship rules were removed, other wealthy owners who have the means and the willingness would be able to funnel in more of their money in as well, to get around the silly FFP rules. That's a net benefit for them.



It's also not good (that is getting rid of financial sustainability rules) for the league in general, the clubs in general and the sport in general. A world with a ruling dominant hegonomy isn't interesting. The NFL is a better league because Jerry Jones has to play by the same rules as everyone else. The Premier League is a better league than any other league in Europe because there is (or was) a larger competitive class. I couldn't give two shots about the Bundesliga, Serie A or Ligue 1 when I know with a 95% confidence before the season that Bayern, Juve and PSG are winning the league because they're swinging way more financial muscle than everyone else.

And for the clubs that are swinging big to try to keep up with the Joneses and cant quite get there or quite hang on it is ruinous. The Sunderlands and Leeds and Wednesdays and Blackburns of the world that lose their tenuous grasp on big boy football and go tumbling down the pyramid.
Oh come the f on. Just imagine if the NFL restricted teams spending based on how much their teams made in income. How "fair" would that be?
7nine
Reply Quote
Texaggie7nine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dre_00 • 10:00a, 6/7/24
Dre_00 said:
Texaggie7nine said:
If the sponsorship rules were removed, other wealthy owners who have the means and the willingness would be able to funnel in more of their money in as well, to get around the silly FFP rules. That's a net benefit for them.



Lol. My bad everyone. I clearly misunderstood the dynamics. We've clearly slipped into Politics board dynamics here. So with that in mind I appreciate you confirming that City fans are the worst fans that have or ever will exist in all of sports. You make late 90s United fans look as decent and respectful as Mother Teresa by comparison.
That's pretty cute how you evoked f16 tactics right before you used them by having 0 argument and only insults.
7nine
Reply Quote
Dre_00
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:02a, 6/7/24
I don't know what that is referencing but cool!
Reply Quote
Texaggie7nine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to rebag00 • 10:13a, 6/7/24
rebag00 said:
Texaggie7nine said:
If the sponsorship rules were removed, other wealthy owners who have the means and the willingness would be able to funnel in more of their money in as well, to get around the silly FFP rules. That's a net benefit for them.

"Why don't all your stupid teams get your own petro state ownership! Then these rules would benefit you, too!"

This is pretty good ****housery!
This is stupid. Any billionaire or group with access to billions has access to multiple industries and companies with which they could pump in sponsorships. Jim Crane's companies and companies he is associated with have sponsorships and partnerships with the Astros. He could easily pump his own money through that if he so wanted to. But there is no need, because there is no stupid FFP. Pretty much every owner of every team could do the same if they wanted. You think those 6 teams that are being forced to sell off players to comply with FFP don't have owners that could push more $ via sponsorships if they wanted?
7nine
Reply Quote
Dre_00
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:42a, 6/7/24
Mathguy64
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:52a, 6/7/24
AG
You can argue that the EPL could have a different system or even that there might be better ones. But they don't. They had a system that all teams and owners agreed to follow and Man Dhabi didn't.

And in the end that's the issue.

You want to have a hard cap like football? Fine

You want the baseball system with a soft cap and taxes? Great.

But that's not what the EPL teams were required to operate under.

City knew what the rules were and blatantly ignored them.
Reply Quote
2
Texaggie7nine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mathguy64 • 11:01a, 6/7/24
Yet to be proven in court. Plus the VAST majority of their winning and trophies were after the period that they are accused of cooking the books. If they were outspending other teams then I can see a valid complaint. Even during the time period of the accusations, they weren't grossly outspending other big teams.


So, overall the argument is. "They spent more than they should be allowed to, even though other bigger teams SHOULD be allowed to spend that much money."


It's a reach.
7nine
Reply Quote
Mathguy64
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Texaggie7nine • 11:05a, 6/7/24
AG
No. The argument is they didn't follow the rules and cheated.

The rules are certainly queer and slanted to teams with old money and not new. No doubt. But they knew what they were and ignored them.
Reply Quote
wangus12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Texaggie7nine • 11:14a, 6/7/24
AG
Quote:
Plus the VAST majority of their winning and trophies were after the period that they are accused of cooking the books.
They cooked the books to build the teams that started doing all the winning.

I don't necessarily agree with FFP because of how its set up, but other teams were following the rules while City weren't. That's why they are in trouble.
Reply Quote
ChipFTAC01
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Texaggie7nine • 11:37a, 6/7/24
AG
Texaggie7nine said:
ChipFTAC01 said:
Texaggie7nine said:
If the sponsorship rules were removed, other wealthy owners who have the means and the willingness would be able to funnel in more of their money in as well, to get around the silly FFP rules. That's a net benefit for them.



It's also not good (that is getting rid of financial sustainability rules) for the league in general, the clubs in general and the sport in general. A world with a ruling dominant hegonomy isn't interesting. The NFL is a better league because Jerry Jones has to play by the same rules as everyone else. The Premier League is a better league than any other league in Europe because there is (or was) a larger competitive class. I couldn't give two shots about the Bundesliga, Serie A or Ligue 1 when I know with a 95% confidence before the season that Bayern, Juve and PSG are winning the league because they're swinging way more financial muscle than everyone else.

And for the clubs that are swinging big to try to keep up with the Joneses and cant quite get there or quite hang on it is ruinous. The Sunderlands and Leeds and Wednesdays and Blackburns of the world that lose their tenuous grasp on big boy football and go tumbling down the pyramid.
Oh come the f on. Just imagine if the NFL restricted teams spending based on how much their teams made in income. How "fair" would that be?


The point I was making that the NFL is "fair" because it isn't tied to the fact that the Cowboys could outspend everyone if Jerry was allowed to plow all of his fortune and the Cowboys financial might into the team and make everyone forget about the Chiefs or Packers.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.