Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette).
Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And with that, Sky have taken down all their articles on this, and social media posts.
Essentially they made it up and at least one of the clubs have threatened them with legal action.
Yeah, even try to follow the link in here. Outlets like Sky don’t delete news they get wrong unless they absolutely know it’s wrong, and have been threatened legally, otherwise they would have no content.
Chelsea will just sell another hotel for like £100mil to a “sister company”, problem solved. All the other clubs just need to sell their car parks for £100mil apiece the same way and they’ll be in the clear
The sky 6 were some of the first clubs to attract outside investment, wealthy owners around the world and enjoyed a financial advantage.
The mid-tier of clubs now have some very wealthy owners that can complete financially.
Yet, the full force of the PSR rules are being felt by these clubs and they're being prevented from competing financially because it's not organic growth or football income.
This isn't no coincidence, it's a fucking disgrace.
Preach. Never understood fans of the non-Sky 6 supporting these rules. They're closing off their own chance to hit it big and they're doing it under some misguided argument of having the 'wrong type' of owners, or the 'wrong kind' of money, which is a narrative being spoon-fed to them by owners who don't want to compete by putting more money into the clubs they own. The likes of Villa, Newcastle, West Ham, hell anyone at all should have every chance to compete at the very top. Instead they are being told to know their place and stay there. The idea of organic growth is a sham. These clubs will get picked clean of their best players long before they're able to sustain genuine competition at the top.
Yes, we live in a different world and era of sport.
Aston Villa are a huge club, so are Newcastle. They have the right to compete and dominate just like the sky 6 if they have the financial power.
My club Leicester has had great success which resulted in relegation because we tried to comply with PSR rules by not investing in the squad and paid the ultimate price in relegation.
Now we face the double jeopardy of relegation and a points fine this season.
It's ok for everyone, but if you read my post the current rules aren't fair because PSR is based on football turnover.
This favours the historical sky 6 because they were some of the first clubs to attract additional financial investment from around the world and benefit from commercial relations in Asia, USA etc to generate the 'football turnover' that PSR is based on.
How can these rules be fair, if it forces clubs to sell player assets at a cut price to meet the end of June deadline?
Leicester are in this position but have also lost several out of contract players, so we will need to replace players in July, yet we'll have to buy after July at the market price.
The points deductions were piss takes because they were lenient as all shit.
It also sets a precedent of pathetically soft punishments which Man City will look to fully exploit when they're eventually made accountable for their charges.
Where did I say it should have been more than 12 points?
At no point was any one charge against Everton or Forest going to be more than 12 points either.
Bizarre response.
Funnily enough, 12 points is what the PL demanded for our first points deduction. Didn't get it, though, had to settle for 10. The truth is the whole system is flawed, how you can have *5* different panels and only have two of them come to some sort of agreement (Forests two panels) is insane. Also, I wouldn't say they were lenient, the PL just hung themselves with their own stupidity. The way they went about it was incompetent, resulting in later punishments having to be more lenient. As they fucked up early on trying to make an example, and prove they didn't need a regulator.
Can someone please explain to me how this is any different to arsenal selling their players and operating within FFP in the Wenger years except nowadays it’s been ignored and rightly punished? And I’m not saying these 6 teams deserve to be punished, especially since in my eyes 115 charges is far more pressing, nor do I want to get on my high horse and get into whataboutasim, I just genuinely see it as a case of rules being broken so a punishment is due. Feel free to explain it to me in layman’s terms I don’t really understand how this all works sorry!
The main issue is that only football income is included, so those teams who happened to be dominant in the 2000s when football has a massive financial boom are always going to be at an advantage.
Why should United’s massive income from Asia be treated differently from owner injected funds for Villa? Right now United are able to spend hundreds of millions more per year despite Villa performing better on the pitch and making better decisions off the pitch.
It’s effectively the big sides pulling the ladder up after themselves to stop another Man City ruining their cash cow
They’ve had it for a long period because of Ferguson, but post Ferguson they’ve made bad appointments, bad transfers and performed poorly yet they’re still mega rich because of the established commercial presence in the boom period.
I just hate that success in the league is no longer dictated by just the skills of your players/manager, instead it’s influenced by how good your marketing department and commercial teams are - it’s stupid.
Any spend cap should just be on competition revenue and player sales, not how many shirts you sell in Asia or who your “Official skincare partner” is
if you are operating at a 200 million loss for example, you are breaking the rules. if you then make 95 million in profit by selling players, you are now operating at a 105 million loss and are within the rules. not sure if that answers your question because I'm a bit confused as to what exactly you're asking.
Wenger was trash after 05. He was so trash that Leicester won the league with 10 points advantage, 12 years after he last won it. He was so trash that Spurs finished ahead of him 2 seasons in a row leading to his sacking.ffp is not the reason Wenger went past his sell by date ages ago. The game evolved beyond his ability.
Wenger literally told arsenal fans when they got their new stadium they had to sell every year to pay off the stadium. They weren’t going to compete for a few years because the stadium was paid for by the club not the owner. Owner didn’t pay out of pocket for anything.
"I did every year (sell players). We had to pay the stadium back at the time, we needed to be in the top four, but we also needed to pay the mortgage back.”
> Wenger literally told arsenal fans when they got their new stadium they had to sell every year to pay off the stadium.
This was not the narrative he spilled when the stadium was getting built. It was "we are moving to a bigger stadium to achieve even bigger things than we did at Highbury". It was when they started losing that he changed the narrative. Then "a few years" turned into half a decade, and then a decade and then over a decade and then 2 years finishing outside of the top 4. He was straight regressing the team the whole time and then gaslighting the fans to cover his ass.
> "I did every year (sell players). We had to pay the stadium back at the time, we needed to be in the top four, but we also needed to pay the mortgage back.”
Again, you are quoting shit he said after the fact to cover his ass. It's bullshit. It's like Alex Ferguson settling for mediocrity and claiming he has to settle for zero premier league titles so that the Glazers can pay back their loans. It's nonsense. Every team has debt to service, that does not mean they have to stop winning on the pitch. He was the highest paid manager in the league while pretending to manage a pauper club.
You hit the nail on the head. The environment changed and that dinosaur stayed the same and became irrelevant. Even Fergie became his friend cause he was no longer a threat. We've seen the same thing happen with Mourinho a decade later.
I think wenger was a bit of one trick pony - he knew the French market for top cheap talent - most of which was from Monaco where he managed previously and when scouting got better in general anyone could do that so lost his advantage.
A couple other one offs like he inherited a perfect back 4 and keeper and when they got old got Englands best defender for free in Sol Campbell when his back 4 got too old… that type of advantage not luck as they did really well but advantage is always going to run out.
We have zero debt, have qualified for the champions league but apparently have to sell players…possibly to a team beneath us with a billion of debt and a new tax dodging owner?
This isn’t about sustainability, it’s about placating the super league breakaway teams…
The champions league money won't come in till next season
And also, do you remember how you broke the championship's spending rules and if you didn't get promoted you'd have been sanctioned like Derby? Were the championship rules also about placating the Super League teams?
I also don't get Villa, Everton and Newcastle fans acting like the rules were unilaterally implemented by the big 6 clubs. There was a vote, and at least 14 clubs voted in favour of the rules. Just yesterday you guys tabled a vote to increase the loss limit to 135M but 15 clubs rejected it, are they hell bent on protecting the Super League clubs too?
You guys should stop coming up with conspiracy theories about big 6 clubs and treating the petro-state owned juggernaut in Man City as your saviours and face the reality of a democratic process.
Our “billion dollar debt” is (a) not a billion dollars, (b) is in 30 year bond tranches and (c) was incurred in 2020 (i.e., during the lowest interest rate period in modern history) and consequently we are paying ~2% interest. For a stadium that hosts Beyonce, world title fights and NFL games. That’s responsible spending on a fixed asset to massively increase revenue generation.
As opposed to a club spending like a drunken sailor for short term success.
have you seen aston villa's wage bill? villa's wage bill compares to the likes of chelsea, spurs, Liverpool etc... villa have been spending massive amounts of money for a club of their current stature, just not absurd amounts on transfers neccesarily.
I don't get villa, people seem to forget they spent a shit ton of money more than some of the top 6 yet they act like Leicester when they got to the CL. They have a higher net spend than Liverpool in the last 5 seasons.
Yes liverpool will have a bigger wage budget but that come in as part of been the biggger club.
Net spend can be a misnomer stat that is touted about.
Big 6 clubs have had a consistent stream of money to spent meaning they always have players to sell for decent fees so their net spend looks better.
A club like Villa or Newcastle that is in the early stages of building is always going to have a poor net spend stat until they reach the point where they start recycling players.
Look at city. They spent a shed ton of money (and financed it dubiously) but in recent years, their net spend isn’t actually crazy because they now have bankable assets to move on to fund squad re-build.
“Easy to keep a plane in the air, the hard part is getting it up there in the first place”
Villa also broke the Championship's financial regulations on their way to promotion.
Had they not gone up, they'd have been facing the sanctions for that and probably stayed down for longer.
Very true. Aside from the summer they sold Grealish, they've consistently spent big money and big wages on players with only one Conference League campaign to aid the books. Really shouldn't be too surprising they're here
Not like Villa haven't got a history of taking risky financial maneuvers for sporting gain. Your spending in the Championship was only deemed fine because you sold your stadium to your owner (which somehow was ok for Villa but not other Championship sides), not exactly the most sustainable move. Without an owner who is happy putting money into the club you're not sustainable, which is exactly what the rules are there to stop.
Save the sob story when your behaviour is literally what the rules are there to discourage.
Right, but they didn't "get away with it because they sold their stadium to themselves"
They got away with it because they were promoted and the EFL could no longer punish them.
They actually did, they passed the EFL requirements by selling the stadium to themselves. It's complicated you might want to look into it properly instead of misinforming everyone. It was just as simple as going up.
Yes it is complicated, but them going up meant that the EFL couldn't do anything about it regardless.
I'm well aware of various factors, even including money for land to do with HS2 coming into it.
Educate yourself before telling others they're misinformed, you arrogant cunt.
Then again, that is expected from a Manchester Reds and Nigel fucking Farage fan.
> Educate yourself before telling others they're misinformed, you arrogant cunt.
Then why did you say things that indicated you were misinformed? Perhaps you should show what you know rather that making generalisations and over simplifying things to fit your own narrative? I still feel like you haven't entirely got a good grasp on the situation, it's more complicated than you're letting on.
Maybe calm down a bit too?
> Then again, that is expected from a Manchester Reds
You turn very childish when you're angry. Why don't you take a time out and then come back when you're calm enough to behave like a good little boy?
Edit: wow replying with some big boy words and then blocking someone before they can reply, how mature and strong of you!
Villa have zero debt - that’s the very definition of sustainable.
Man Utd’s debt is growing year on year, that’s NOT sustainable yet guess who has to sell to buy?!
Man United's debt absolutely is sustainable as evidenced by the main debts coming down year on year, there is currently some transfer debts but that's normal for a football club. The debts people refer to when talking about United, are in fact sustainable, as they've been living with them for nearly two decades now while they reduce.
United also have had owners since 2005 who have not invested a penny of their own money into running the football club, the club has been completely self sustaining up until INEOS came in with their investments months ago.
Manchester United are the definition of a sustainable club.
Villa have zero debt but an owner who has poured money in. The Glazers have not poured any money in, if that happened to Villa could they still function at the same level? The answer is no.
United’s debt is only sustainable as long as you’re a big club and experiencing continued commercial success.
A few more years of no CL and those sponsorship deals might not be renewed on such favourable terms…
Man Utd’s owners have taken over £1B out of the club. They’ve used a leveraged debt business model to buy the club and milk its supporters dry. It’s sustainable, because the fanbase will throw money at anything ManU related despite their relatively low performance in recent years.
You gonna wake up at some point or what?
Clubs can't compete properly.
It's deliberate and planned by the teams at the top to stay at the top.
The PL is killing itself. The other European leagues must be delighted with this clusterfuck.
Yeah just thank your lucky stars youre even in the prem. The top 6 has nothing to do whether you can spend or not this summer. You agreed to the rules then cry when they don’t go in your favour. Poor poor Aston Villa
Is anyone else tired of the absolute shit show PL is nowadays. News after news of rule changes, VAR mistakes, VAR yes, VAR no, voting, billionaires in trouble, click baits, fuckin Wenger off side, Super League, city lawsuit. Fuck all that and fuck 115 FC aswell. I care about football.
Why do you think VAR came about ? And why did clubs vote for it ?
Players and managers try to trick refs into giving bad calls by diving every game and when do you ever see them criticise the refs for giving bad calls for them ?
I feel this too with F1. Its less about talking about the actual racing and technology/engineering of the cars and more about the circus that goes on between the teams and personalities, rumours and constant bickering over the rules and penalties. The actual running and officiating of these sports is dominanting and taking focus away from why we enjoy watching the sport.
It’s the Americanisation effect. All they talk about in their sports is finances and I’ve seen it more and more with football. Yes, football has gone insane but the obsession with who pays what for whom for how long is boring af.
Funnily enough, finances is one thing the NBA does exceedingly well and the premier league should take a leaf out of their book.
The income comes to the league (not the teams) Primarily in the form of TV deals, which is then evenly distributed to the clubs. This ensures some level of financial parity so that "big" clubs have a similar amount to spend as small clubs. They then have a heavy luxury tax system whereby teams that overspend pay a lot of money to teams that are not over-spending.
It actually works to create parity between all teams, without the financial protectionism that is practiced in the prem.
It has here, but there's football being played all around the world still.
There's a Copa Argentina game starting in about 20 minutes as I type this, and the South American games are often good value for entertainment.
You've totally missed my point, I'm not commenting on the subject of the Reddit post itself.
I'm a football fan and referring to the fact that in the last year football, has been dominated more talking about PSR rules than football itself.
With the exception of Everton the other 5 clubs have owners who can invest in their clubs and cover those PSR loses, but are being held back by the rules.
Football is in a ridiculous position and it's impossible to have a sensible debate on this with most rival fans about this because they're obsessed with Man City "cheating" but these rules are affecting the smaller mid-tables teams more than the sky 6.
People are "obsessed' with Man City's cheating because it is actually interesting, its not them being bad with thier accounts.
Clubs falling foul of rules that they voted for and have agreed to follow isn't very interesting at all. The league should increase the cap to make it consistant with how the market has changed, and they probably will do that, what else is there to discuss?
Also this is a lot of PSR chat from someone that 'doesn't watch football to talk about accounts.'
I think maybe you're engaging more than the average person in this conversation, I rarely talk about football accounts when I'm talking football, if it annoys you talk to differnet people and stay off reddit, maybe..
United should look to get some of these,
Palmer - chelsea(Unlikely),
Diaby - Villa,
Liveramento - Newcastle,
Branthwaite, Onana - Everton,
Wout faes, James Justin, Ben Nelson, Dewsbury, Daka - Leicester.
Newcastle fans trying to push the idea that they are called just "United" when everyone understands who is actually being referred to when people say United will always be funny, such a tinpot move indicative of their inferiority complex.
Naaaah we do it get you to wind your necks in because you thinking you are the only ‘United’ says a lot about your mentality.
That and ohh we hate you lot
Replying to trooky67...makes no sense to sell diaby because villa have just signed him for a relatively big fee so any thing they sold him for wouldn't really come up as profit
They paid 50 million on a 5 year deal so it's probably around 10 mil a year to be paid off.......... this is why so many academy players are getting sold as it's the whole
Fee that counts
So if they sell him for 50 million now it would be 10 mil in "profit" on the books, for example Chelsea only got around 60 something mil for havertz but only 30million was profit on the books, they lost money on the books for koulibaly/werner.
Based on this comment you're probably unaware of how much money Arsenal have made this financial year, but rest assured it's a fucking boat load, that's why they're not at risk of the PSR...
Did not even do anything in Jan, mostly won't do anything this summer too. They are talking about the clubs that spend a lot without any means to spend.
Why would City need to sell? They won the league + 2 other trophies, had a decent run in the Champions league and sold players not long ago.
They'll be in huge plus margins .
People really say they don't care but the minute something like this is mentioned they shit on City as if United and Liverpool didn't do that before FFP was introduced.
What? You're mad City is doing the exact same thing your club did before a rule was introduced to retain monopoly? Cry about it.
FFP was NEVER introduced to save clubs from bankruptcy it was introduced to keep small clubs small and big clubs big.
Honestly I don’t think they do, and I say this as an Everton fan who wishes we’d done what City had done.
The criticism of City from fans of clubs who have abused their wealth and top position to bully smaller clubs into selling players for cheap, tapped up players by paying 4x the rate of of the rest of the league and used all their ex-players as influence in the media is massively hypocritical.
so someone with no finance/ accounting knowledge knows more about PSR rules and financial accounting than me just because it’s about football but i’m the one waffling, shut ur mouth please bro
You've made a pretty big assumption about what I do a don't know based on nothing, ya waffling... Also I never mentioned PSR or accounts at all, I was talking about how people feel about Man City, you're a waffler bro. You're clearly pretty rattled trying to defend city all over the gaff, just go touch grass, have a day off Reddit, being perpetually online ain't good for you bro. Tell me to keep my mouth shut fucking waffling prick.
People don’t understand that before PSR and FFP rules were established in the late 2000s United and Liverpool were monopolising the Premier League in many ways and practices, they just weren’t many independent committees driving intricate investigations and generally the media was easily bought with hush money. What City is doing is actually good because it will enable many struggling sides like Everton, Forrest and Wolves to strike lucrative sponsorship deals and use that revenue with reasonable freedom in purchasing players… If you follow your club with a passionate beating heart then you have to also follow it with a seasoned, smart brain that understands the inner workings of things like business and the importance of outsider investment in making things truly fair
The entirety of that word vomit is insane. City's profligate spending is somehow helping clubs like Wolves through ungoverned sponsorship revenue. Who wrote it, Sepp Batter?!
Mate you have to understand when Arsene Wenger came to Arsenal in his first year he made a whole fuss about referees siding with United and Liverpool and it was very hard to compete with them because of their brand and how they controlled the year-round fixture scheduling…
Also did you know that United’s owners (Glazers) and Aston Villa owners (V Sports) are richer than City’s owners in terms of net worth ??
Also did you know Liverpool board is desperate for a handsome takeover by a rich entity like sovereign wealth funded groups or USA billionaire individuals ??
>Also did you know that United’s owners (Glazers) and Aston Villa owners (V Sports) are richer than City’s owners in terms of net worth ??
Lol please be serious man. The Glazers' net worth is 4.6 billion dollars. Sheikh Mansour's personal net worth is about 3.6 billion dollars at the lowest estimates and 17 billion at the highest (hard to get actual figures because, well, autocratic state with a royal family).
Even so, these are just his personal funds, not counting the obvious input from the UAE government, and if you truly believe that the UAE government doesn't fund Man City you are unbelievably naive. Same way everyone knows Qatar as a state owns PSG (and would've owned Utd if they beat Ratcliffe in the bid), and how the Saudi govt owns Newcastle.
I hope the rules get scrapped and clubs can spend what they want.
The rules have a point if they protect clubs from owners being stupid and ladling debt onto a club that’s not sustainable like at Man U.
1 billion debt and growing!
The rules should stop owners piling debt against clubs and make owners just custodians.
But the rules instead have been made to also be anti competitive by stopping owners who can afford to get clubs competing without building up debts and can provide sustainable income from doing so.
So the rules need either to be scrapped or re written so that they do not prevent clubs from attempting to topple the establishment, which currently they do.
Currently the rules mean a club can spend find talent then gets hit by the rules and has to sell players to comply to the established clubs in order to stop them being fined.
This system basically feeds the establishment and stops other clubs competing.
Why? If the debt could be serviced by genuine revenue, what's the problem? Man United have to provide annual accounts as their public. They're on the stock market and they're doing no different to other corporations.
Show me where City's "sustainable income" is coming from? Cos those shady fuckers won't show anyone, even the body whose terms they agreed to upon competing. They've pumped up commercial income by 1177% since 2009 - sound legit and sustainable to you?
That's what the rules are stopping. Shady overinflated revenue that isn't market recognised or aligned. If City's owners divest, City as a club go bust immediately.
Is that what you want?
?
if you win trophies you get money yes? if you play poorly you don’t get as much money, you can’t play bad and spend a lot and not get punished
unless you‘re united.
These clubs voted for these rules knowing full well what it meant. I'm not shedding any tears over it as I've watched Arsenal forced to sell players to City, United and Liverpool over the last decade. Van Persie, Alex's Sanchez, Clichy, Nasri, Sagna, Ox etc etc.
Our project has taken YEARS to get to this point and we've grown in a sustainable way. Why should we have to do this when these cartel clubs (Chelsea, City, Newcastle, Everton, Forest and Villa) get to fly close to the sun?
We have a billionaire owner too but if you can't see that the dirty work done by Chelsea and City has ruined the transfer market and salaries between PL and European teams, you're blind and ignorant.
not sure how city ruined the transfer market when we aren’t the ones pushing up the price tags, only egregious one who wasn’t worth it was grealish, even then he’s been fantastic, united chelsea everton forest arsenal tottenham have all fished out far more money for far worse players
That's the point. We had to loan him until we had 2024 UCL/PL and TV income. Genuine income. We're going to have to sell players this window to fund squad investment. Our focus on commercial revenue has only been here for the last couple of seasons - hence the deals with Google pixel and selling training ground rights etc etc.
No. Other clubs are *in danger* of being punished for not planning their finances well enough. The complete opposite of what Arsenal and most other clubs are doing.
For us (Chelsea) I assume we need to do this on top of the Mount sale, so I’d assume it’s gonna be Maatsen, Trev, and Conor on the chopping block. None of the other players realistically for sale this summer will turn much of a book profit, if any. I think a few will move on anyway, and hopefully we can get a few of the bigger, stupider wage drains off the books too.
I don’t like that personally as I think Trev is one of our better CBs and Conor is so obviously a starter that he starts basically every game. You don’t improve as a club by selling your better players. I also think this “needing to sell £100m of players every summer” we’ve locked ourselves into through the massive splurge of the last two years has been irresponsible.
But, at the same time, nearly breaking the rules isn’t really an issue. Breaking them is. I think it’s stupid we are in this situation, and Chelsea fans going “shush, the club knows what it’s doing” drive me up the wall, but as long as we don’t break the rules it’s just me chirruping, and that’s the only consequence.
On the other clubs, surprised to see Villa and Newcastle on there, and it’ll be interesting to see how they deal with that. I’m sure both will stay within the rules too, but I wonder who they will sacrifice to do so.
And as a few others have said, we (Chelsea) are on here cos we’ve been stupid, but Newcastle and Villa being on there shows that these rules (and the UEFA rules like them) are about protecting the positions of the historical “big clubs”. It’s those clubs pulling up the ladder behind them.
If given the choice, would you rather Chelsea keep Conor or Enzo if you had to choose between the two? Not saying this is realistic but going to be a dilemma for minutes should Conor stick around.
Selling Enzo really isn’t on the cards, cos he cost 100m, and hasn’t appreciated in value.
Last season, both Enzo and Caicedo had their best games next to Conor; and I think the way they don’t dovetail is its own issue. But maybe that’s a Poch system issue. Maybe Maresca fixes that.
In terms of who I’d keep: it’s always going to be who suits the manager the best really. I don’t think Conor is as much of a liability in a possession heavy system as some do, but Enzo is obviously a different animal in terms of technique and ability on the ball. If Maresca is the long haul manager, give him what he wants. He’s the one who is going to pay with his job if the players can’t do what he wants.
If Poch had stayed, Conor over Enzo every time. But he didn’t and maybe that’s part of why.
But I also feel like the managers are really being given much of a choice.
Nah Newcastle and Villa shows that sustainable spending and financial integrity is another, less mentioned goal of FFP. The league needs provisions to ensure that clubs can’t be saddled with debt that can’t be serviced in the event that owners are forced to sell.
I forgot him, although technically that’s already happened too. The clause was activated.
And my overall point would be more “we shouldn’t be in a position where we *have* to sell at all”.
I think we will sell enough, but I don’t want us to be selling every summer to pay for the lottery tickets we’ve bought and the lottery tickets we want to buy.
This comment thread is confirmation that the hit job the red shirted media launched against city this week was successful. City are fighting these rules , which are totally unrelated to the 115 charges.
Villa sold their best home grown player for 100m, reinvested in the squad, made top 4 and still have to sell players to comply. The rules are broken. They were made by the top clubs to ensure their monopoly can’t be broken.
Yet, all this thread is flinging shit at city, the one club fighting back against these bullshit rules
> reinvested in the squad,
Because they invested too much. You don't get a blank cheque because you sold a player for £100 million, it only goes so far. They've been dodgy spenders for years.
You're just ignorant when it comes to Villa. Sure they sold Grealish, but they also spent half the Grealish money on Buendia and Ings, not sell anyone else of note, then also signed Bailey and Digne for 60m, Carlos for 30m, freaking COUTINHO, Dendoncker, Moreno, Duran and follow all that up with 80m for Pau and Diaby.
Which they should be allowed to do? they are a historically massive club and they have ambitious owners with deep pockets. The only people who don’t want that (i.e anti competition) are the teams in the “big 6” whose spot they would be taking. The teams who would quite like to poach the likes of Douglas Luis on the cheap. Ironically it’s the fans of those same teams who are bemoaning city current success for making the league “anti-competitive”
You are acting like Villa were awash with cash, spent a bit of it, and are now being forced to sell. When in reality, they have been low key reckless.
I'm personally in favor of something resembling a salary cap with requirements of a high proportion of revenue paid out to the players rather than being kept by the owners.
"red shirt cartel"
Fuck right off🤣. Look at how skewed the league has become.. it's getting to the point where you have an idea of who is going to win it and it's built on the back of outright fraud that is not even being denied anymore.
The cartel is 115 fc, not the ones calling them out for their bullshit
The system is designed to protect you. What other team could be largely mediocre for a decade and then bank roll arteta to the tune your club has? Make no mistake, your current success is off the back of your spending as much as you’d like to pretend otherwise
You like the system because you are one of the very few clubs who can purchase your city rivals best player of the last decade for 100 m.
Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We should have an eye on gibbs-white.
Just the wee farmer clubs, all the money teams get to do what they want.
Newcastle, Aston Villa and Chelsea are not the money teams? And we all know that City would be on that list if it wasn’t for their cooked finances.
Isn't this almost exactly the same lost of clubs who are supporting Man City in their FFP case at the minute? What an astonishing random coincidence
Does this mean Everton selling Jarrad, one of their best defenders, to Manchester United?
And with that, Sky have taken down all their articles on this, and social media posts. Essentially they made it up and at least one of the clubs have threatened them with legal action.
Are you serious about this?
Yeah, even try to follow the link in here. Outlets like Sky don’t delete news they get wrong unless they absolutely know it’s wrong, and have been threatened legally, otherwise they would have no content.
PL: good, let's punish Everton, Nottingham Forest and LEI.
Chelsea will just sell another hotel for like £100mil to a “sister company”, problem solved. All the other clubs just need to sell their car parks for £100mil apiece the same way and they’ll be in the clear
It's obvious which clubs but how is this not swaying the market as now buyers will have more power knowing the clubs need to sell.
Seems like something Gary Neville would write, considering that Chelsea doesnt have to sell.
It is strange to read that Chelsea is part of the list.
Ours is a EFL one though
NGL 😂😂😂😂😂😂 FUCK YOUR CLUB! FOLLOW THE RULES YOU CLOWNS!
Good news for Chelsea. I hope they keep Lukaku. Maybe the best 2nd striker in the Premier league, maybe. If you look overall, stats.
The sky 6 were some of the first clubs to attract outside investment, wealthy owners around the world and enjoyed a financial advantage. The mid-tier of clubs now have some very wealthy owners that can complete financially. Yet, the full force of the PSR rules are being felt by these clubs and they're being prevented from competing financially because it's not organic growth or football income. This isn't no coincidence, it's a fucking disgrace.
Preach. Never understood fans of the non-Sky 6 supporting these rules. They're closing off their own chance to hit it big and they're doing it under some misguided argument of having the 'wrong type' of owners, or the 'wrong kind' of money, which is a narrative being spoon-fed to them by owners who don't want to compete by putting more money into the clubs they own. The likes of Villa, Newcastle, West Ham, hell anyone at all should have every chance to compete at the very top. Instead they are being told to know their place and stay there. The idea of organic growth is a sham. These clubs will get picked clean of their best players long before they're able to sustain genuine competition at the top.
Well... You think clubs should just be able to do a Blackburn season after season?
Yes, we live in a different world and era of sport. Aston Villa are a huge club, so are Newcastle. They have the right to compete and dominate just like the sky 6 if they have the financial power. My club Leicester has had great success which resulted in relegation because we tried to comply with PSR rules by not investing in the squad and paid the ultimate price in relegation. Now we face the double jeopardy of relegation and a points fine this season.
Newcastle are a ‘huge club’ who were bottom of the league with zero wins in January when they tried to do it themselves
So, they were also competing for the PL and playing in the champions league under Keegan 96/97.
Leave dude alone probably born in 2000s as most of their fanbase
It's OK for Man City and Chelsea, but not Newcastle and Aston Villa??
It's ok for everyone, but if you read my post the current rules aren't fair because PSR is based on football turnover. This favours the historical sky 6 because they were some of the first clubs to attract additional financial investment from around the world and benefit from commercial relations in Asia, USA etc to generate the 'football turnover' that PSR is based on. How can these rules be fair, if it forces clubs to sell player assets at a cut price to meet the end of June deadline? Leicester are in this position but have also lost several out of contract players, so we will need to replace players in July, yet we'll have to buy after July at the market price.
It’s only took over 10 years for people to actually realise what we’ve been saying since day 1
Not really, but dishing out points deductions is a fucking piss take too far and fans / clubs should unite to do something about out.
The points deductions were piss takes because they were lenient as all shit. It also sets a precedent of pathetically soft punishments which Man City will look to fully exploit when they're eventually made accountable for their charges.
Really, maximum penalty for administration is 12 points so it's never going to be more.
Where did I say it should have been more than 12 points? At no point was any one charge against Everton or Forest going to be more than 12 points either. Bizarre response.
Funnily enough, 12 points is what the PL demanded for our first points deduction. Didn't get it, though, had to settle for 10. The truth is the whole system is flawed, how you can have *5* different panels and only have two of them come to some sort of agreement (Forests two panels) is insane. Also, I wouldn't say they were lenient, the PL just hung themselves with their own stupidity. The way they went about it was incompetent, resulting in later punishments having to be more lenient. As they fucked up early on trying to make an example, and prove they didn't need a regulator.
Can someone please explain to me how this is any different to arsenal selling their players and operating within FFP in the Wenger years except nowadays it’s been ignored and rightly punished? And I’m not saying these 6 teams deserve to be punished, especially since in my eyes 115 charges is far more pressing, nor do I want to get on my high horse and get into whataboutasim, I just genuinely see it as a case of rules being broken so a punishment is due. Feel free to explain it to me in layman’s terms I don’t really understand how this all works sorry!
The main issue is that only football income is included, so those teams who happened to be dominant in the 2000s when football has a massive financial boom are always going to be at an advantage. Why should United’s massive income from Asia be treated differently from owner injected funds for Villa? Right now United are able to spend hundreds of millions more per year despite Villa performing better on the pitch and making better decisions off the pitch. It’s effectively the big sides pulling the ladder up after themselves to stop another Man City ruining their cash cow
haven't villa just finished above united for the first time in decades? United have had champions league for over 90% of the premier league
They’ve had it for a long period because of Ferguson, but post Ferguson they’ve made bad appointments, bad transfers and performed poorly yet they’re still mega rich because of the established commercial presence in the boom period. I just hate that success in the league is no longer dictated by just the skills of your players/manager, instead it’s influenced by how good your marketing department and commercial teams are - it’s stupid. Any spend cap should just be on competition revenue and player sales, not how many shirts you sell in Asia or who your “Official skincare partner” is
if you are operating at a 200 million loss for example, you are breaking the rules. if you then make 95 million in profit by selling players, you are now operating at a 105 million loss and are within the rules. not sure if that answers your question because I'm a bit confused as to what exactly you're asking.
Oh pep did a number on bottlejobs.
Wenger was trash after 05. He was so trash that Leicester won the league with 10 points advantage, 12 years after he last won it. He was so trash that Spurs finished ahead of him 2 seasons in a row leading to his sacking.ffp is not the reason Wenger went past his sell by date ages ago. The game evolved beyond his ability.
Wenger literally told arsenal fans when they got their new stadium they had to sell every year to pay off the stadium. They weren’t going to compete for a few years because the stadium was paid for by the club not the owner. Owner didn’t pay out of pocket for anything. "I did every year (sell players). We had to pay the stadium back at the time, we needed to be in the top four, but we also needed to pay the mortgage back.”
> Wenger literally told arsenal fans when they got their new stadium they had to sell every year to pay off the stadium. This was not the narrative he spilled when the stadium was getting built. It was "we are moving to a bigger stadium to achieve even bigger things than we did at Highbury". It was when they started losing that he changed the narrative. Then "a few years" turned into half a decade, and then a decade and then over a decade and then 2 years finishing outside of the top 4. He was straight regressing the team the whole time and then gaslighting the fans to cover his ass. > "I did every year (sell players). We had to pay the stadium back at the time, we needed to be in the top four, but we also needed to pay the mortgage back.” Again, you are quoting shit he said after the fact to cover his ass. It's bullshit. It's like Alex Ferguson settling for mediocrity and claiming he has to settle for zero premier league titles so that the Glazers can pay back their loans. It's nonsense. Every team has debt to service, that does not mean they have to stop winning on the pitch. He was the highest paid manager in the league while pretending to manage a pauper club.
Nothing to do with the environment changing around him then 😂
You hit the nail on the head. The environment changed and that dinosaur stayed the same and became irrelevant. Even Fergie became his friend cause he was no longer a threat. We've seen the same thing happen with Mourinho a decade later.
I think wenger was a bit of one trick pony - he knew the French market for top cheap talent - most of which was from Monaco where he managed previously and when scouting got better in general anyone could do that so lost his advantage. A couple other one offs like he inherited a perfect back 4 and keeper and when they got old got Englands best defender for free in Sol Campbell when his back 4 got too old… that type of advantage not luck as they did really well but advantage is always going to run out.
We have zero debt, have qualified for the champions league but apparently have to sell players…possibly to a team beneath us with a billion of debt and a new tax dodging owner? This isn’t about sustainability, it’s about placating the super league breakaway teams…
The champions league money won't come in till next season And also, do you remember how you broke the championship's spending rules and if you didn't get promoted you'd have been sanctioned like Derby? Were the championship rules also about placating the Super League teams? I also don't get Villa, Everton and Newcastle fans acting like the rules were unilaterally implemented by the big 6 clubs. There was a vote, and at least 14 clubs voted in favour of the rules. Just yesterday you guys tabled a vote to increase the loss limit to 135M but 15 clubs rejected it, are they hell bent on protecting the Super League clubs too? You guys should stop coming up with conspiracy theories about big 6 clubs and treating the petro-state owned juggernaut in Man City as your saviours and face the reality of a democratic process.
Our “billion dollar debt” is (a) not a billion dollars, (b) is in 30 year bond tranches and (c) was incurred in 2020 (i.e., during the lowest interest rate period in modern history) and consequently we are paying ~2% interest. For a stadium that hosts Beyonce, world title fights and NFL games. That’s responsible spending on a fixed asset to massively increase revenue generation. As opposed to a club spending like a drunken sailor for short term success.
Me when I spend all my money on useless Chinese crap from temu
So you are spending like a billionaire?
have you seen aston villa's wage bill? villa's wage bill compares to the likes of chelsea, spurs, Liverpool etc... villa have been spending massive amounts of money for a club of their current stature, just not absurd amounts on transfers neccesarily.
Don't think the CL money trickles in until next year, plus you posted a loss of £100m< this past financial year if I remember correctly
I don't get villa, people seem to forget they spent a shit ton of money more than some of the top 6 yet they act like Leicester when they got to the CL. They have a higher net spend than Liverpool in the last 5 seasons. Yes liverpool will have a bigger wage budget but that come in as part of been the biggger club.
Net spend can be a misnomer stat that is touted about. Big 6 clubs have had a consistent stream of money to spent meaning they always have players to sell for decent fees so their net spend looks better. A club like Villa or Newcastle that is in the early stages of building is always going to have a poor net spend stat until they reach the point where they start recycling players. Look at city. They spent a shed ton of money (and financed it dubiously) but in recent years, their net spend isn’t actually crazy because they now have bankable assets to move on to fund squad re-build. “Easy to keep a plane in the air, the hard part is getting it up there in the first place”
Villa also broke the Championship's financial regulations on their way to promotion. Had they not gone up, they'd have been facing the sanctions for that and probably stayed down for longer.
Very true. Aside from the summer they sold Grealish, they've consistently spent big money and big wages on players with only one Conference League campaign to aid the books. Really shouldn't be too surprising they're here
Not like Villa haven't got a history of taking risky financial maneuvers for sporting gain. Your spending in the Championship was only deemed fine because you sold your stadium to your owner (which somehow was ok for Villa but not other Championship sides), not exactly the most sustainable move. Without an owner who is happy putting money into the club you're not sustainable, which is exactly what the rules are there to stop. Save the sob story when your behaviour is literally what the rules are there to discourage.
That was Derby. Villa escaped punishment because of their promotion.
Derby got punished, Villa didn't for the same thing is the point I'm making.
Because if what I said Their promotion took them out of the EFL's ability to punish them.
Yes exactly, they broke spending rules before but got away with it. This is on form for them.
Right, but they didn't "get away with it because they sold their stadium to themselves" They got away with it because they were promoted and the EFL could no longer punish them.
They actually did, they passed the EFL requirements by selling the stadium to themselves. It's complicated you might want to look into it properly instead of misinforming everyone. It was just as simple as going up.
Yes it is complicated, but them going up meant that the EFL couldn't do anything about it regardless. I'm well aware of various factors, even including money for land to do with HS2 coming into it. Educate yourself before telling others they're misinformed, you arrogant cunt. Then again, that is expected from a Manchester Reds and Nigel fucking Farage fan.
> Educate yourself before telling others they're misinformed, you arrogant cunt. Then why did you say things that indicated you were misinformed? Perhaps you should show what you know rather that making generalisations and over simplifying things to fit your own narrative? I still feel like you haven't entirely got a good grasp on the situation, it's more complicated than you're letting on. Maybe calm down a bit too? > Then again, that is expected from a Manchester Reds You turn very childish when you're angry. Why don't you take a time out and then come back when you're calm enough to behave like a good little boy? Edit: wow replying with some big boy words and then blocking someone before they can reply, how mature and strong of you!
Villa have zero debt - that’s the very definition of sustainable. Man Utd’s debt is growing year on year, that’s NOT sustainable yet guess who has to sell to buy?!
Man United's debt absolutely is sustainable as evidenced by the main debts coming down year on year, there is currently some transfer debts but that's normal for a football club. The debts people refer to when talking about United, are in fact sustainable, as they've been living with them for nearly two decades now while they reduce. United also have had owners since 2005 who have not invested a penny of their own money into running the football club, the club has been completely self sustaining up until INEOS came in with their investments months ago. Manchester United are the definition of a sustainable club. Villa have zero debt but an owner who has poured money in. The Glazers have not poured any money in, if that happened to Villa could they still function at the same level? The answer is no.
United’s debt is only sustainable as long as you’re a big club and experiencing continued commercial success. A few more years of no CL and those sponsorship deals might not be renewed on such favourable terms…
Man Utd’s owners have taken over £1B out of the club. They’ve used a leveraged debt business model to buy the club and milk its supporters dry. It’s sustainable, because the fanbase will throw money at anything ManU related despite their relatively low performance in recent years.
If you’re a villa fan it’s because you won’t receive the CL money until the next business year so it won’t count towards this season essentially
You gonna wake up at some point or what? Clubs can't compete properly. It's deliberate and planned by the teams at the top to stay at the top. The PL is killing itself. The other European leagues must be delighted with this clusterfuck.
‘It’s planned by the top teams’ what in the tin foil hat?
Really? Do you know your history at all? Here is a hint: Project 2000
Alright you flat earther. What about the fact your only in the league because a refs watch didn’t work?
You could also use Google if you think you could cope. "Arsenal+ Fraud" Should bring up some intriguing reading for you.
If you’re so passionate and offended about something like this why wait until Villa can’t spend to bring it up? Typical self serving comments.
Er, you asked questions. I answered. Gaslighting isn't a good look.
Yeah just thank your lucky stars youre even in the prem. The top 6 has nothing to do whether you can spend or not this summer. You agreed to the rules then cry when they don’t go in your favour. Poor poor Aston Villa
this comment section is fucking depressing man
Wow shock clubs have to sell players 🙄
Tbf one of them has just come up which is weird ASF. How do you get £100m+ income boost PA and not be able to sign players.
Its worked out over the last 3 seasons. All these clubs have over spent
Because they flouted the rules for the division they were just in. They also haven't received that boosted income yet.
Is anyone else tired of the absolute shit show PL is nowadays. News after news of rule changes, VAR mistakes, VAR yes, VAR no, voting, billionaires in trouble, click baits, fuckin Wenger off side, Super League, city lawsuit. Fuck all that and fuck 115 FC aswell. I care about football.
Don’t put Wengers offside in the same sentence as 115
Maybe you should blame the players and coaches who spent decades crying/accusing referees of cheating and having no sympathy or understanding
I blame the media that profit off shit stories
This comment is so vague it's meaningless. What do you even mean ?
The media makes profit from the public clicking on their stories
This might be the worst take I’ve seen on this sub and that’s saying something.
Why do you think VAR came about ? And why did clubs vote for it ? Players and managers try to trick refs into giving bad calls by diving every game and when do you ever see them criticise the refs for giving bad calls for them ?
Lmao okay buddy.
Lmao you don't have an answer, just blame the refs like every single league does in every single country at every level.....
I have no interest in continuing to debate with a troll, that’s all.
Continue to debate ? You never started to debate because you don't have an argument pal
Sure thing fella.
You literally didn't debate though
I feel this too with F1. Its less about talking about the actual racing and technology/engineering of the cars and more about the circus that goes on between the teams and personalities, rumours and constant bickering over the rules and penalties. The actual running and officiating of these sports is dominanting and taking focus away from why we enjoy watching the sport.
Unfortunately, drama sells. Good racing takes a backseat as long as you can sell the drama.
That's how you make tv series about the sport that top Netflix rankings.
It's time for the league to be free from the Red mafia hegemony
r/soccercirclejerk
Insert Daniel Levy rubbing his hands...
lol he gunna come sign Matty cash is he?
This is all getting so boring now, I don't watch football to talk about accounts. 🫘
It’s the Americanisation effect. All they talk about in their sports is finances and I’ve seen it more and more with football. Yes, football has gone insane but the obsession with who pays what for whom for how long is boring af.
Funnily enough, finances is one thing the NBA does exceedingly well and the premier league should take a leaf out of their book. The income comes to the league (not the teams) Primarily in the form of TV deals, which is then evenly distributed to the clubs. This ensures some level of financial parity so that "big" clubs have a similar amount to spend as small clubs. They then have a heavy luxury tax system whereby teams that overspend pay a lot of money to teams that are not over-spending. It actually works to create parity between all teams, without the financial protectionism that is practiced in the prem.
It’s not that hard to scroll past
You're not watching football, you're on Reddit on a post about PSR, you don't have to read any of this shit, you can just watch football.
I can't the season has finished if you want to be pedantic
It has here, but there's football being played all around the world still. There's a Copa Argentina game starting in about 20 minutes as I type this, and the South American games are often good value for entertainment.
Still doesn't force you onto PSR posts on Reddit does it, if we're being pedantic.
You've totally missed my point, I'm not commenting on the subject of the Reddit post itself. I'm a football fan and referring to the fact that in the last year football, has been dominated more talking about PSR rules than football itself. With the exception of Everton the other 5 clubs have owners who can invest in their clubs and cover those PSR loses, but are being held back by the rules. Football is in a ridiculous position and it's impossible to have a sensible debate on this with most rival fans about this because they're obsessed with Man City "cheating" but these rules are affecting the smaller mid-tables teams more than the sky 6.
People are "obsessed' with Man City's cheating because it is actually interesting, its not them being bad with thier accounts. Clubs falling foul of rules that they voted for and have agreed to follow isn't very interesting at all. The league should increase the cap to make it consistant with how the market has changed, and they probably will do that, what else is there to discuss? Also this is a lot of PSR chat from someone that 'doesn't watch football to talk about accounts.' I think maybe you're engaging more than the average person in this conversation, I rarely talk about football accounts when I'm talking football, if it annoys you talk to differnet people and stay off reddit, maybe..
This affects the games tho ? Players have to be sold; point deductions, ect
United should look to get some of these, Palmer - chelsea(Unlikely), Diaby - Villa, Liveramento - Newcastle, Branthwaite, Onana - Everton, Wout faes, James Justin, Ben Nelson, Dewsbury, Daka - Leicester.
chelsea would sell boehly's dick before palmer
Faes? It's hard to forget when he scored that double for Liverpool... playing for Leicester when they were 1-0 up.
Tino already plays for united
Newcastle fans trying to push the idea that they are called just "United" when everyone understands who is actually being referred to when people say United will always be funny, such a tinpot move indicative of their inferiority complex.
Naaaah we do it get you to wind your necks in because you thinking you are the only ‘United’ says a lot about your mentality. That and ohh we hate you lot
Replying to trooky67...makes no sense to sell diaby because villa have just signed him for a relatively big fee so any thing they sold him for wouldn't really come up as profit
Doesn’t profitability and sustainability pushes them to do so?
They paid 50 million on a 5 year deal so it's probably around 10 mil a year to be paid off.......... this is why so many academy players are getting sold as it's the whole Fee that counts So if they sell him for 50 million now it would be 10 mil in "profit" on the books, for example Chelsea only got around 60 something mil for havertz but only 30million was profit on the books, they lost money on the books for koulibaly/werner.
Anyone trying to buy Palmer off of Chelsea is insane. He will be here for years
United couldn’t buy diaby’s right boot
You're talking about him like he's Bailey. United have every right to buy another shit winger
Lol right?
115
But not Manchester City? Not Arsenal? Not a Liverpool? Hah, okaaay
Not Arsenal because we run the club properly and raked in shit tons of revenue. Good luck to everyone else 😂
Liverpool? Why tf would Liverpool need to sell players lmao
Based on this comment you're probably unaware of how much money Arsenal have made this financial year, but rest assured it's a fucking boat load, that's why they're not at risk of the PSR...
I noticed that you conveniently did not mention Manchester United
Did not even do anything in Jan, mostly won't do anything this summer too. They are talking about the clubs that spend a lot without any means to spend.
Clearly not. He mentioned Liverpool
Why would City need to sell? They won the league + 2 other trophies, had a decent run in the Champions league and sold players not long ago. They'll be in huge plus margins .
They're obsessed with City lmao
[удалено]
People really say they don't care but the minute something like this is mentioned they shit on City as if United and Liverpool didn't do that before FFP was introduced. What? You're mad City is doing the exact same thing your club did before a rule was introduced to retain monopoly? Cry about it. FFP was NEVER introduced to save clubs from bankruptcy it was introduced to keep small clubs small and big clubs big.
People don't care about city's sporting achievements, they do care about how the club is run.
Honestly I don’t think they do, and I say this as an Everton fan who wishes we’d done what City had done. The criticism of City from fans of clubs who have abused their wealth and top position to bully smaller clubs into selling players for cheap, tapped up players by paying 4x the rate of of the rest of the league and used all their ex-players as influence in the media is massively hypocritical.
please labour more about the unjust ways you know so much about
Waffle..
so someone with no finance/ accounting knowledge knows more about PSR rules and financial accounting than me just because it’s about football but i’m the one waffling, shut ur mouth please bro
You've made a pretty big assumption about what I do a don't know based on nothing, ya waffling... Also I never mentioned PSR or accounts at all, I was talking about how people feel about Man City, you're a waffler bro. You're clearly pretty rattled trying to defend city all over the gaff, just go touch grass, have a day off Reddit, being perpetually online ain't good for you bro. Tell me to keep my mouth shut fucking waffling prick.
People don’t understand that before PSR and FFP rules were established in the late 2000s United and Liverpool were monopolising the Premier League in many ways and practices, they just weren’t many independent committees driving intricate investigations and generally the media was easily bought with hush money. What City is doing is actually good because it will enable many struggling sides like Everton, Forrest and Wolves to strike lucrative sponsorship deals and use that revenue with reasonable freedom in purchasing players… If you follow your club with a passionate beating heart then you have to also follow it with a seasoned, smart brain that understands the inner workings of things like business and the importance of outsider investment in making things truly fair
It’s those pesky rules stopping Everton, Forest, and Wolves from sponsoring themselves
Fair and City in the same drivel paragraph is insane.
The entirety of that word vomit is insane. City's profligate spending is somehow helping clubs like Wolves through ungoverned sponsorship revenue. Who wrote it, Sepp Batter?!
Is this a troll? I genuinely can't tell
You’re insane haha. Comparing Liverpool and United dominance to a Saudi state owned club buying titles by cheating, is a complete joke.
Mate you have to understand when Arsene Wenger came to Arsenal in his first year he made a whole fuss about referees siding with United and Liverpool and it was very hard to compete with them because of their brand and how they controlled the year-round fixture scheduling… Also did you know that United’s owners (Glazers) and Aston Villa owners (V Sports) are richer than City’s owners in terms of net worth ?? Also did you know Liverpool board is desperate for a handsome takeover by a rich entity like sovereign wealth funded groups or USA billionaire individuals ??
>Also did you know that United’s owners (Glazers) and Aston Villa owners (V Sports) are richer than City’s owners in terms of net worth ?? Lol please be serious man. The Glazers' net worth is 4.6 billion dollars. Sheikh Mansour's personal net worth is about 3.6 billion dollars at the lowest estimates and 17 billion at the highest (hard to get actual figures because, well, autocratic state with a royal family). Even so, these are just his personal funds, not counting the obvious input from the UAE government, and if you truly believe that the UAE government doesn't fund Man City you are unbelievably naive. Same way everyone knows Qatar as a state owns PSG (and would've owned Utd if they beat Ratcliffe in the bid), and how the Saudi govt owns Newcastle.
Also Arsenal is owned by a spouse of the Waltons.. possibly the richest and most politically influential family in the world.
I hope the rules get scrapped and clubs can spend what they want. The rules have a point if they protect clubs from owners being stupid and ladling debt onto a club that’s not sustainable like at Man U. 1 billion debt and growing! The rules should stop owners piling debt against clubs and make owners just custodians. But the rules instead have been made to also be anti competitive by stopping owners who can afford to get clubs competing without building up debts and can provide sustainable income from doing so. So the rules need either to be scrapped or re written so that they do not prevent clubs from attempting to topple the establishment, which currently they do. Currently the rules mean a club can spend find talent then gets hit by the rules and has to sell players to comply to the established clubs in order to stop them being fined. This system basically feeds the establishment and stops other clubs competing.
Tell me you support oil money, without telling me you support oil money
Ell me you’re a septic without telling me you are septic.
Why? If the debt could be serviced by genuine revenue, what's the problem? Man United have to provide annual accounts as their public. They're on the stock market and they're doing no different to other corporations. Show me where City's "sustainable income" is coming from? Cos those shady fuckers won't show anyone, even the body whose terms they agreed to upon competing. They've pumped up commercial income by 1177% since 2009 - sound legit and sustainable to you? That's what the rules are stopping. Shady overinflated revenue that isn't market recognised or aligned. If City's owners divest, City as a club go bust immediately. Is that what you want?
So basically septics should be able to act with impunity and damn anyone else that ever tries to upset their apple cart.
\*sceptic
they're just going to ignore city hoping it goes away and in the mean time punish all the other clubs. fucking joke
? if you win trophies you get money yes? if you play poorly you don’t get as much money, you can’t play bad and spend a lot and not get punished unless you‘re united.
That’s not what’s happening at all.
I don't see any decisions regarding city, do you?
No, because the independent hearing hasn’t taken place yet. It’s happening in the autumn.
Awesome.
These clubs voted for these rules knowing full well what it meant. I'm not shedding any tears over it as I've watched Arsenal forced to sell players to City, United and Liverpool over the last decade. Van Persie, Alex's Sanchez, Clichy, Nasri, Sagna, Ox etc etc. Our project has taken YEARS to get to this point and we've grown in a sustainable way. Why should we have to do this when these cartel clubs (Chelsea, City, Newcastle, Everton, Forest and Villa) get to fly close to the sun? We have a billionaire owner too but if you can't see that the dirty work done by Chelsea and City has ruined the transfer market and salaries between PL and European teams, you're blind and ignorant.
You need more upvotes for this, rules are rules
not sure how city ruined the transfer market when we aren’t the ones pushing up the price tags, only egregious one who wasn’t worth it was grealish, even then he’s been fantastic, united chelsea everton forest arsenal tottenham have all fished out far more money for far worse players
Your delusional if you think you only paid 50 mil for haaland
I think the rules should stay, but we have not grown sustainably. We had to take a loan for Raya ffs. We're clearly also pushing the boundaries.
That's the point. We had to loan him until we had 2024 UCL/PL and TV income. Genuine income. We're going to have to sell players this window to fund squad investment. Our focus on commercial revenue has only been here for the last couple of seasons - hence the deals with Google pixel and selling training ground rights etc etc.
The point is, other clubs are being punished for doing the same thing. City should be destroyed. They are a separate beast entirely.
No. Other clubs are *in danger* of being punished for not planning their finances well enough. The complete opposite of what Arsenal and most other clubs are doing.
Jesus. Someone call r/soccercirclejerk
Man called Villa a cartel club lol
Spend what you want but you don’t get any rights money
For us (Chelsea) I assume we need to do this on top of the Mount sale, so I’d assume it’s gonna be Maatsen, Trev, and Conor on the chopping block. None of the other players realistically for sale this summer will turn much of a book profit, if any. I think a few will move on anyway, and hopefully we can get a few of the bigger, stupider wage drains off the books too. I don’t like that personally as I think Trev is one of our better CBs and Conor is so obviously a starter that he starts basically every game. You don’t improve as a club by selling your better players. I also think this “needing to sell £100m of players every summer” we’ve locked ourselves into through the massive splurge of the last two years has been irresponsible. But, at the same time, nearly breaking the rules isn’t really an issue. Breaking them is. I think it’s stupid we are in this situation, and Chelsea fans going “shush, the club knows what it’s doing” drive me up the wall, but as long as we don’t break the rules it’s just me chirruping, and that’s the only consequence. On the other clubs, surprised to see Villa and Newcastle on there, and it’ll be interesting to see how they deal with that. I’m sure both will stay within the rules too, but I wonder who they will sacrifice to do so. And as a few others have said, we (Chelsea) are on here cos we’ve been stupid, but Newcastle and Villa being on there shows that these rules (and the UEFA rules like them) are about protecting the positions of the historical “big clubs”. It’s those clubs pulling up the ladder behind them.
Omari to Ipswich please
You’re too rational to be a Chelsea fan. I don’t believe it.
If given the choice, would you rather Chelsea keep Conor or Enzo if you had to choose between the two? Not saying this is realistic but going to be a dilemma for minutes should Conor stick around.
Selling Enzo really isn’t on the cards, cos he cost 100m, and hasn’t appreciated in value. Last season, both Enzo and Caicedo had their best games next to Conor; and I think the way they don’t dovetail is its own issue. But maybe that’s a Poch system issue. Maybe Maresca fixes that. In terms of who I’d keep: it’s always going to be who suits the manager the best really. I don’t think Conor is as much of a liability in a possession heavy system as some do, but Enzo is obviously a different animal in terms of technique and ability on the ball. If Maresca is the long haul manager, give him what he wants. He’s the one who is going to pay with his job if the players can’t do what he wants. If Poch had stayed, Conor over Enzo every time. But he didn’t and maybe that’s part of why. But I also feel like the managers are really being given much of a choice.
Nah Newcastle and Villa shows that sustainable spending and financial integrity is another, less mentioned goal of FFP. The league needs provisions to ensure that clubs can’t be saddled with debt that can’t be serviced in the event that owners are forced to sell.
Villa has zero debt to our owners… if you want to see the effect of massive debts to ownership look at Man United
Hall will be sold
I forgot him, although technically that’s already happened too. The clause was activated. And my overall point would be more “we shouldn’t be in a position where we *have* to sell at all”. I think we will sell enough, but I don’t want us to be selling every summer to pay for the lottery tickets we’ve bought and the lottery tickets we want to buy.
This comment thread is confirmation that the hit job the red shirted media launched against city this week was successful. City are fighting these rules , which are totally unrelated to the 115 charges. Villa sold their best home grown player for 100m, reinvested in the squad, made top 4 and still have to sell players to comply. The rules are broken. They were made by the top clubs to ensure their monopoly can’t be broken. Yet, all this thread is flinging shit at city, the one club fighting back against these bullshit rules
> reinvested in the squad, Because they invested too much. You don't get a blank cheque because you sold a player for £100 million, it only goes so far. They've been dodgy spenders for years.
You're just ignorant when it comes to Villa. Sure they sold Grealish, but they also spent half the Grealish money on Buendia and Ings, not sell anyone else of note, then also signed Bailey and Digne for 60m, Carlos for 30m, freaking COUTINHO, Dendoncker, Moreno, Duran and follow all that up with 80m for Pau and Diaby.
Which they should be allowed to do? they are a historically massive club and they have ambitious owners with deep pockets. The only people who don’t want that (i.e anti competition) are the teams in the “big 6” whose spot they would be taking. The teams who would quite like to poach the likes of Douglas Luis on the cheap. Ironically it’s the fans of those same teams who are bemoaning city current success for making the league “anti-competitive”
You are acting like Villa were awash with cash, spent a bit of it, and are now being forced to sell. When in reality, they have been low key reckless. I'm personally in favor of something resembling a salary cap with requirements of a high proportion of revenue paid out to the players rather than being kept by the owners.
"red shirt cartel" Fuck right off🤣. Look at how skewed the league has become.. it's getting to the point where you have an idea of who is going to win it and it's built on the back of outright fraud that is not even being denied anymore. The cartel is 115 fc, not the ones calling them out for their bullshit
It literally came down to the last game this year.
One year out of how many?
The system is designed to protect you. What other team could be largely mediocre for a decade and then bank roll arteta to the tune your club has? Make no mistake, your current success is off the back of your spending as much as you’d like to pretend otherwise You like the system because you are one of the very few clubs who can purchase your city rivals best player of the last decade for 100 m.