I never get the fans of huge spending clubs moaning about other huge spending clubs. One and the same ffs. “Wahhh wahhh Man City are spending loads wahhh wahhhh” said the brain dead fan of the football club spending loads.
Our spend is currently limited by the UEFA regulations and will be down to 80% of turnover next season and 70% the season after. Premier League teams not in Europe will be allowed to spend more than us unless I have misunderstood the new rules. It doesn't make much of a difference to the Super League clubs as their revenue is enormous but it does restrict anyone else playing in Europe.
Like I've already said, you're really shit at this. Is this seriously why you signed up again? Get a life you sad ****.
If it ends up replacing the current PSR (although I dont think it will at start) the first beneficial change is it will be fairer that all clubs can spend the same amount, then from there I expect it will be a case of gradually reducing the multiple every 2-3 years to a saner level, one step at a time. It would also encourage more equitable share of TV income, as the top clubs would be dependent on better TV income for the bottom club.
I think we have the fairest TV income distribution anywhere, with even the club finishing bottom receiving over £100 million. There has to be some form of meritocracy where the best/most popular clubs get an amount related to the number of times they appear on TV in live games. The TV companies (understandably) want to show the content that they feel will attract most viewers and therefore the most advertising revenue.
You're kind of contradicting yourself there. A meritocracy would have the payments depend only on the relative success of clubs that season. Having extra payments for appearing on TV more is not meritocratic, and you can see that in the table: spurs got more money than Brighton and villa for finishing below them, and Chelsea got more money than palace for finishing below them (and very almost the same as Brentford who finished 3 places above them). Everton and west ham also received disproportionately high payments relative to their positions. In all 4 cases, they've been insulated against their relative failures last season, and rewarded for their relative historic success In fact, i'd go as far as saying the facility fee payments are more nepotic than meritocratic, given that the arrangement has the outward appearance of mutual back scratching between the TV companies and the bigger sides (That said I don't think there's much wrong with the current set up. I have no issue with the merit payments, and even if you split the facility fees evenly or rolled them into the merit payments it would only make a difference of £5m or so for most clubs. That's very little in the grand scheme of things)
It's a meritocracy in that the clubs that appear the most get the most money, because as I said they are the clubs the TV companies know will earn them the most revenue. It's nothing to do with nepotism, the TV companies pay billions and they don't do it in a way that broadcasts their favourites, they do it purely to generate their cash back.
Only if you consider rewarding a club in the current season for their historic success to be indicative of a meritocracy. As you've said, clubs that appear the most are the ones attracting highest viewerships, which is generally the case because they have been more historically successful, and therefore built up a larger fan base. Again, see e.g. chelsea in the table you posted, who received the 6th highest facility fees despite their poor season By the same logic, giving each team in the league a bonus point for each first division/premier league title they've won would also be meritocratic
I don't think it's about historic success, otherwise the likes of Newcastle would be paying the TV companies to be on live. It's about fan base, the size of it, and the subsequent viewing figures. Success just happens to go hand in hand with it for the most part.
I doubt the multiple will be reduced - but general growth over time in the top clubs revenues mean that it’ll become more restrictive over time. Given anything more punitive is unlikely to get voted through I can see the merits of this proposal. It’s going to have minimal impact now but in 10 years it should make things more even.
Already see some comments from fans of bigger clubs it's unfair that they should be restricted from spending just because the "smaller clubs" don't earn as much money. They tried to do this in the EFL but the bigger clubs rejected this and eventually the idea got thrown out.
What have I said that’s incorrect? You are crying about a club spending mega amounts to bring about success, while your own club is spending mega abouts to bring about success. Facts. Hypocrite
I don't think even you're idiotic enough to believe that's the point being made. You were shit when you were on here previously as that Godolphin clown, and nothing has changed. Now f**k off, I'm done with you.
It's simple. When the games are on the likes of sky know exactly how many viewers they get. Sky pay a lot of money to have the cherry pick of games and all the clubs benefit from the premium sky pay to get that virtual monopoly. The first picks go to sky. Then europe messes with the fixtures Then the police get involved. Then what's left over gets allocated to the other clubs according to the minimum thresholds required. If sky can get the big teams as much as possible they will. Then tnt get a fee second picks for 12:30 kick off only and the rest of the time they are 5th pick for the weekend. I would suggest that to get a selection for the now prime 5:30pm slot Saturday and 4pm Sunday you will find a lot of the leading clubs in those slots for the first half of season and others will only get considered if in the title race later on
It definitely is the point being made. Constantly Liverpool fans berating City about spending and childishly adding that their titles don’t count as they’re “bought” and bent the rules (all this asterix stuff) when your own club have literally done the same, bought titles/trophy’s and bent the rules. It’s Ted Bundy slagging Peter Sutcliffe, calling him a psychopathic murderer.
They acquired Virgil Van Dijk (who captained them to a title and numerous trophies with a seriously expensively assembled squad) via breaking the rules.
Only if they have it and only if they meet the Premier league rules too. Your revenue will go up by 80million next season. They won't have that. So no it doesn't restrict you at all. The message to all clubs is to grow their revenues. Too many have sat on the TV money and got lazy so their commercial income is non existent virtually. Be it good or bad that's where the game is now due to feeding the never ending hunger of agents and players.
