Whether you believe it to be correct or otherwise is entirely your call. I have thought for some time about these proposals and although I understand both arguments, for me the 'its business' argument falls down every time. If it doesn't there are 10001 things about the game that we should change or ignore or revolutionise in search of compatibility with business.
But we don't. As we accept that there are rules which apply to football that would never stand-up if applied to any business and that these are done for the greater good, as it were.
So in many ways it isn't the objection that I object to but the nature of it.
But "Business" accepts those things you speak of.
As does the stock exchange.
So can the "business" have to abide by diffent rules based on the capital investment?
Is burger king unfair if it has more money than "Wimpy" and they cant compete?
Is Blu-Ray better than HD or did a company have more money?We saw that ending.
I think we're venturing pretty close to the field or economic or political ideology here, in some ways.
Any reverberations, it could be argued, would be short term made against a backdrop of long term unsustainability. If what is being injected is cash that the club cannot independently substantiate to then the long term risk that this may pose to the financial well-being of the club is something the governing bodies are right to consider. Especially if the club is committing itself to spending cash that it doesn't own.
Do investments such as those in City not reverberate through football and offer cash injections to other teams further down the chain?
I can't see how it would unless they were spending millions on players from lower league players. Apart from a windfall for Shrewsbury for Joe Hart I can't think of any other time this has happened.
Sadly I think the likes of City,Chelsea will get around the new rules via creative accounting and it will be business as usual.
That is certainly the case at the moment but City will keep throwing money at this until it happens and sadly it will sooner rather than later. Same as Chelsea will one day win the CL which imho will be a very sad day for football. The sport isn't really a sport anymore which is the saddest aspect of all imho.
That is certainly the case at the moment but City will keep throwing money at this until it happens and sadly it will sooner rather than later. Same as Chelsea will one day win the CL which imho will be a very sad day for football. The sport isn't really a sport anymore which is the saddest aspect of all imho.
I can't see how it would unless they were spending millions on players from lower league players. Apart from a windfall for Shrewsbury for Joe Hart I can't think of any other time this has happened.
Nah, what I am getting at is say City spend 24m on Milner. Villa might spend 20m of that on 3 players. The 6-8m to each team gradually might get spent on 2m players and so on. thats what I mean as opposed to the big fee going straight down to the small club.
What's it got to do with Wenger anyway? He's always talking about other teams, basically he's jealous with the money City are spending because he hasn't got any to spend himself!
Trust me I hope you're right but I fear they will attract better players as they climb the greasy pole. I also think their managers have been cack too which is holding them back for now.
That is certainly the case at the moment but City will keep throwing money at this until it happens and sadly it will sooner rather than later. Same as Chelsea will one day win the CL which imho will be a very sad day for football. The sport isn't really a sport anymore which is the saddest aspect of all imho.
Generally the best players do ultimately tend to end up at the bigger clubs. Its not always been that way but its nothing new either.
Nah, what I am getting at is say City spend 24m on Milner. Villa might spend 20m of that on 3 players. The 6-8m to each team gradually might get spent on 2m players and so on. thats what I mean as opposed to the big fee going straight down to the small club.
Oh ok, I misunderstood. I have no idea about the trickle down then and even then I would think a club is more likely to look abroad for replacements??
But if we want to accept this intervention then at what point is it unfair for United to get the chance to get all best players on crowds of 75,000?
Well there's nothing stopping City building a ground with an 80'000 capacity.
Like I said these rules don't prevent people investing in other aspects of the club, City can invest as much as they want in almost all aspects of the club to allow them to grow organically and sustainably.
Well there's nothing stopping City building a ground with an 80'000 capacity.
Like I said these rules don't prevent people investing in other aspects of the club, City can invest as much as they want in almost all aspects of the club to allow them to grow organically and sustainably.
But you can't create a fan base. QPR could build an 80k stadium but they won't fill it. My point is that if it is unfair to have a rich benefactor, you might as well say its unfair for one team to have more income from more fans. If you want to go here why not spread the wealth across the game?
Well there's nothing stopping City building a ground with an 80'000 capacity.
Like I said these rules don't prevent people investing in other aspects of the club, City can invest as much as they want in almost all aspects of the club to allow them to grow organically and sustainably.
So i can buy the club but you can tell me what to do with it?
But you can't create a fan base. QPR could build an 80k stadium but they won't fill it. My point is that if it is unfair to have a rich benefactor, you might as well say its unfair for one team to have more income from more fans. If you want to go here why not spread the wealth across the game?
No but you can't really blame United for having such a fan base, it's not something that has just been bought with endless money, it's just something that is there due to various moments in history.
I'm honestly not saying this because I'm bitter or anything like that, or worried about City winning things, I'm not the type who wants everything to suit United, for example I'm massively against individual TV deals for clubs, even though Manchester United would be the club to benefit most from that, actually I can't think of many worse ideas that are bad for the game than individual TV deals.
I'm very much into the idea of a more level playing field, even if that is a disadvantage to United but I'm also aware that some clubs will always be bigger than others, you yourself support a club that will always be bigger and better supported than the vast majority in England.
So i can buy the club but you can tell me what to do with it?
That seems fair.
Hows it any different to Microsoft being slapped on the wrists and brought into line when it's deemed they have too much dominance in their market, in all aspects of life, even business their are fair play rules.
No but you can't really blame United for having such a fan base, it's not something that has just been bought with endless money, it's just something that is there due to various moments in history.
And it isnt Citys fault if their owner is one of the worlds richest men either.
But there is a difference, United's fan base, it's success has been born from the club itself, City's comes from some random middle eastern who happens to be massively oil rich.
Can I ask you a question Faxy, as an Everton supporter would you prefer City's owner and to be run like they are? Genuine question as I do wonder what clubs like Everton, Villa etc think about clubs like City.
Can I ask you a question Faxy, as an Everton supporter would you prefer City's owner and to be run like they are? Genuine question as I do wonder what clubs like Everton, Villa etc think about clubs like City.
Its simple it sperms from jealousy of clubs who can't spend big on players and we all know clubs like Everton don't have the spending power to go out and complete in the transfer market like City can.
Can I ask you a question Faxy, as an Everton supporter would you prefer City's owner and to be run like they are? Genuine question as I do wonder what clubs like Everton, Villa etc think about clubs like City.
Good luck to them. At times its excruciating to have a genuine fan running the club. If he hadnt got Moyes god knows where we would be though.
Its simple it sperms from jealousy of clubs who can't spend big on players and we all know clubs like Everton don't have the spending power to go out and complete in the transfer market like City can.
Why would I be in favour of City spending how they like if I was jealous?
Comments
But "Business" accepts those things you speak of.
As does the stock exchange.
So can the "business" have to abide by diffent rules based on the capital investment?
Is burger king unfair if it has more money than "Wimpy" and they cant compete?
Is Blu-Ray better than HD or did a company have more money?We saw that ending.
The people with the money should call the tune.
City=Spend money
Utd= Dont
Title=???
It doesnt equal "spend money"
But if we want to accept this intervention then at what point is it unfair for United to get the chance to get all best players on crowds of 75,000?
Are we trying to level the playing field because I just dont see how you can.
I can't see how it would unless they were spending millions on players from lower league players. Apart from a windfall for Shrewsbury for Joe Hart I can't think of any other time this has happened.
Sadly I think the likes of City,Chelsea will get around the new rules via creative accounting and it will be business as usual.
That is certainly the case at the moment but City will keep throwing money at this until it happens and sadly it will sooner rather than later. Same as Chelsea will one day win the CL which imho will be a very sad day for football. The sport isn't really a sport anymore which is the saddest aspect of all imho.
It wont happen.
Nah, what I am getting at is say City spend 24m on Milner. Villa might spend 20m of that on 3 players. The 6-8m to each team gradually might get spent on 2m players and so on. thats what I mean as opposed to the big fee going straight down to the small club.
Trust me I hope you're right but I fear they will attract better players as they climb the greasy pole. I also think their managers have been cack too which is holding them back for now.
Generally the best players do ultimately tend to end up at the bigger clubs. Its not always been that way but its nothing new either.
Oh ok, I misunderstood. I have no idea about the trickle down then and even then I would think a club is more likely to look abroad for replacements??
Well there's nothing stopping City building a ground with an 80'000 capacity.
Like I said these rules don't prevent people investing in other aspects of the club, City can invest as much as they want in almost all aspects of the club to allow them to grow organically and sustainably.
Maybe but even so, its money in football that wasnt before. Probably could have made my own point clearer.
But you can't create a fan base. QPR could build an 80k stadium but they won't fill it. My point is that if it is unfair to have a rich benefactor, you might as well say its unfair for one team to have more income from more fans. If you want to go here why not spread the wealth across the game?
So i can buy the club but you can tell me what to do with it?
That seems fair.
No but you can't really blame United for having such a fan base, it's not something that has just been bought with endless money, it's just something that is there due to various moments in history.
I'm honestly not saying this because I'm bitter or anything like that, or worried about City winning things, I'm not the type who wants everything to suit United, for example I'm massively against individual TV deals for clubs, even though Manchester United would be the club to benefit most from that, actually I can't think of many worse ideas that are bad for the game than individual TV deals.
I'm very much into the idea of a more level playing field, even if that is a disadvantage to United but I'm also aware that some clubs will always be bigger than others, you yourself support a club that will always be bigger and better supported than the vast majority in England.
Hows it any different to Microsoft being slapped on the wrists and brought into line when it's deemed they have too much dominance in their market, in all aspects of life, even business their are fair play rules.
And it isnt Citys fault if their owner is one of the worlds richest men either.
Its simple it sperms from jealousy of clubs who can't spend big on players and we all know clubs like Everton don't have the spending power to go out and complete in the transfer market like City can.
Good luck to them. At times its excruciating to have a genuine fan running the club. If he hadnt got Moyes god knows where we would be though.
Why would I be in favour of City spending how they like if I was jealous?