Euros 2021

Don CurlyHorny

Sang-Froid
Messages
1,323
Reaction score
1,725
Would wage and buying caps like they had in rugby not be a good thing for your football ?

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk
Yes, but it would be good for all domestic leagues, none more so than the EPL

until corruption is rooted out of football ( see UEFA / Blatter et al), it’s geared for the rich teams to get richer, the gaps only get wider, the same teams are challenging for the trophies all around Europe and the sport as we know it goes out the window.

some huge great European club names are now nobodies … such a shame

DCH
 

Walleye

Well-known member
Messages
3,448
Reaction score
2,621
Salary caps would be a disaster and couldn't work unless implemented in every single country at the same time, then you've got all sorts of legal issues.

Football is unique because it is supremely competitive. It is (or should be) a meritocracy and a couple of bad years you could find yourself in league 1 with finances a small fraction of what they used to be. I know this only too well being a makem.

This is exactly how it should be, totally open and competitive.

In American football we have the opposite. A closed league means you can have ten bad seasons and the money keeps flowing in just the same as before. Why is this important? It is only actually important to the clubs owners. American football is run by the owners with all the power off the pitch.

99.9% of fans really don't understand how profits in football are made. They aren't made in the usual way of publishing annual accounts and showing an operating profit after tax. Very few owners aim for this, most are considering "how much annual loss can I afford?".
The way owners make football is by purchasing a football club and the value of that football club over time grows by more than the club loses every season, and the change in the purchasing power of money.

For example: Man Utd were bought for about £800 million and about £600 million of that was debt held by the club. The new owners are paying off the debt annually, making a smallish loss most years while still putting significant funds into the club, maybe 100 to 200 million every season. 10 years later the club is valued at over £4billion which means the Glazers are sitting on an almost £2billion "profit" in around 10 years of ownership. Its absolutely eye watering.

Now, in football it can go wrong. Man Utd could get relegated. They have done before. If that happened, the Glazers would be in deep sh1t, until they can spend and get back to the top. So football is inherently very risky investment wise.

So club owners really, really want to de-risk their investments and hang on to their money. How do they do this? Well for many years the big European clubs have been pulling the strings at Uefa (by threatening breakaway) with three big improvements for them....group stages to derisk the champions league, top four qualifying for champions league - this meant Man Utd could have a "bad" season but still slosh around in the champions league money pot next season = happy owners. FFP was the major concession to the big clubs. Uefa sold it as "fairness" but its the least fair thing every to happen in football and was a massive game changer. It effectively stratified football and discouraged other very rich people from coming in and spending £1bn per season on players...when they would be fined 20-30 points and end up out of the champions league. FFP was a truly awful initiative for a competitive sport.
This is also why the big six are blocking another rich Arab state from buying Newcastle. They definitely do not want a "big 7" with only 4 places in the champions league available. This risks their investments way too much. Remember, they are not football club owners, they are business men with economists as advisers.

So then we come to ESL...uefa finally grew some balls and started changing the champions league away from the double group stages intended to favour the big clubs, towards a more competitive (and inherently financially risky to the big clubs) knockout system. This was a big trigger for the big clubs, their threats of breakaway weren't working, so they had to break away. Uefa cleverly forced their hand, they launched prematurely and it failed, for now.

What we are seeing now is many owners across Europe who look at the relative (financial) safety of American football closed league systems and see that as the only way forward.

So the big battle is on. We had a truly competitive sport 30byears ago where any club, with the right set up and investment, could make it to the top and thus displace a "big club". Since 1990 the competitiveness of football has been chipped away until we are where we are..the same few clubs dominate European football and if you missed the gravy train, you are screwed, forever.

For me, it's time to go back to a truly competitive system like football should be. We've crept far too close to a closed league system, led by the rich owners. Let more rich people come in and spend their billions if they wish to. Let clubs go bust and disappear if the owners screw up and lose their money, have more promotion and relegation to increase competition, opportunity and risk. Have knockout competitions instead of group stages. Give the minnows a chance.

Do all of this and you'll find the economics will sort itself out. Money will flow from top to bottom more readily, the clubs at the top will spend less and pay players less (it's too risky to spend big in a truly open competitive system) and fans wills start to love the game again.

True competition is the answer, not more misguided rules. If the ESL becomes a reality, football as we know it will be dead. It will be reduced to a media event with the illusion of competition. Nothing worse imo.
 

Don CurlyHorny

Sang-Froid
Messages
1,323
Reaction score
1,725
Salary caps would be a disaster and couldn't work unless implemented in every single country at the same time, then you've got all sorts of legal issues.

Football is unique because it is supremely competitive. It is (or should be) a meritocracy and a couple of bad years you could find yourself in league 1 with finances a small fraction of what they used to be. I know this only too well being a makem.

This is exactly how it should be, totally open and competitive.

In American football we have the opposite. A closed league means you can have ten bad seasons and the money keeps flowing in just the same as before. Why is this important? It is only actually important to the clubs owners. American football is run by the owners with all the power off the pitch.

99.9% of fans really don't understand how profits in football are made. They aren't made in the usual way of publishing annual accounts and showing an operating profit after tax. Very few owners aim for this, most are considering "how much annual loss can I afford?".
The way owners make football is by purchasing a football club and the value of that football club over time grows by more than the club loses every season, and the change in the purchasing power of money.

For example: Man Utd were bought for about £800 million and about £600 million of that was debt held by the club. The new owners are paying off the debt annually, making a smallish loss most years while still putting significant funds into the club, maybe 100 to 200 million every season. 10 years later the club is valued at over £4billion which means the Glazers are sitting on an almost £2billion "profit" in around 10 years of ownership. Its absolutely eye watering.

Now, in football it can go wrong. Man Utd could get relegated. They have done before. If that happened, the Glazers would be in deep sh1t, until they can spend and get back to the top. So football is inherently very risky investment wise.

So club owners really, really want to de-risk their investments and hang on to their money. How do they do this? Well for many years the big European clubs have been pulling the strings at Uefa (by threatening breakaway) with three big improvements for them....group stages to derisk the champions league, top four qualifying for champions league - this meant Man Utd could have a "bad" season but still slosh around in the champions league money pot next season = happy owners. FFP was the major concession to the big clubs. Uefa sold it as "fairness" but its the least fair thing every to happen in football and was a massive game changer. It effectively stratified football and discouraged other very rich people from coming in and spending £1bn per season on players...when they would be fined 20-30 points and end up out of the champions league. FFP was a truly awful initiative for a competitive sport.
This is also why the big six are blocking another rich Arab state from buying Newcastle. They definitely do not want a "big 7" with only 4 places in the champions league available. This risks their investments way too much. Remember, they are not football club owners, they are business men with economists as advisers.

So then we come to ESL...uefa finally grew some balls and started changing the champions league away from the double group stages intended to favour the big clubs, towards a more competitive (and inherently financially risky to the big clubs) knockout system. This was a big trigger for the big clubs, their threats of breakaway weren't working, so they had to break away. Uefa cleverly forced their hand, they launched prematurely and it failed, for now.

What we are seeing now is many owners across Europe who look at the relative (financial) safety of American football closed league systems and see that as the only way forward.

So the big battle is on. We had a truly competitive sport 30byears ago where any club, with the right set up and investment, could make it to the top and thus displace a "big club". Since 1990 the competitiveness of football has been chipped away until we are where we are..the same few clubs dominate European football and if you missed the gravy train, you are screwed, forever.

For me, it's time to go back to a truly competitive system like football should be. We've crept far too close to a closed league system, led by the rich owners. Let more rich people come in and spend their billions if they wish to. Let clubs go bust and disappear if the owners screw up and lose their money, have more promotion and relegation to increase competition, opportunity and risk. Have knockout competitions instead of group stages. Give the minnows a chance.

Do all of this and you'll find the economics will sort itself out. Money will flow from top to bottom more readily, the clubs at the top will spend less and pay players less (it's too risky to spend big in a truly open competitive system) and fans wills start to love the game again.

True competition is the answer, not more misguided rules. If the ESL becomes a reality, football as we know it will be dead. It will be reduced to a media event with the illusion of competition. Nothing worse imo.
Until it gets back to only 1 entry for the domestic champion per champions league ( European cup) and maybe 2 entrants for Europa League ( cup winners and second place ) I’ll never take European club football serious. How some countries have 4 entries , and a further system for letting these teams dropping into lower competitions when they get beat, is beyond reality. It’s so bizarre it’s now accepted by the fans. Let’s get back to open draws, 2 legged affair. There’s too much games these days that the build up and excitement of a match has now gone. Lost count of how many games I lose interest after 5 minutes. And yes, you may get maulings when the likes of Barry Town draw Real Madrid, but they would have earned the right to play that match, romance of the cup and shocks can happen. UEFA don’t want shocks. The modern football fan supports whoever’s won silverware. I hear, maybe incorrectly, that the away goals rule is to be scrapped. Why are they changing this?, Alex Ferguson was a tactical genius regarding the away goals and the order of playing at home or away first. European matches are cat and mouse and an away goal encourages teams to open up when playing away and makes for a better watch. More bore feats about to be served up.

DCH
 
Last edited:

Don CurlyHorny

Sang-Froid
Messages
1,323
Reaction score
1,725
Salary caps would be a disaster and couldn't work unless implemented in every single country at the same time, then you've got all sorts of legal issues.

Football is unique because it is supremely competitive. It is (or should be) a meritocracy and a couple of bad years you could find yourself in league 1 with finances a small fraction of what they used to be. I know this only too well being a makem.

This is exactly how it should be, totally open and competitive.

In American football we have the opposite. A closed league means you can have ten bad seasons and the money keeps flowing in just the same as before. Why is this important? It is only actually important to the clubs owners. American football is run by the owners with all the power off the pitch.

99.9% of fans really don't understand how profits in football are made. They aren't made in the usual way of publishing annual accounts and showing an operating profit after tax. Very few owners aim for this, most are considering "how much annual loss can I afford?".
The way owners make football is by purchasing a football club and the value of that football club over time grows by more than the club loses every season, and the change in the purchasing power of money.

For example: Man Utd were bought for about £800 million and about £600 million of that was debt held by the club. The new owners are paying off the debt annually, making a smallish loss most years while still putting significant funds into the club, maybe 100 to 200 million every season. 10 years later the club is valued at over £4billion which means the Glazers are sitting on an almost £2billion "profit" in around 10 years of ownership. Its absolutely eye watering.

Now, in football it can go wrong. Man Utd could get relegated. They have done before. If that happened, the Glazers would be in deep sh1t, until they can spend and get back to the top. So football is inherently very risky investment wise.

So club owners really, really want to de-risk their investments and hang on to their money. How do they do this? Well for many years the big European clubs have been pulling the strings at Uefa (by threatening breakaway) with three big improvements for them....group stages to derisk the champions league, top four qualifying for champions league - this meant Man Utd could have a "bad" season but still slosh around in the champions league money pot next season = happy owners. FFP was the major concession to the big clubs. Uefa sold it as "fairness" but its the least fair thing every to happen in football and was a massive game changer. It effectively stratified football and discouraged other very rich people from coming in and spending £1bn per season on players...when they would be fined 20-30 points and end up out of the champions league. FFP was a truly awful initiative for a competitive sport.
This is also why the big six are blocking another rich Arab state from buying Newcastle. They definitely do not want a "big 7" with only 4 places in the champions league available. This risks their investments way too much. Remember, they are not football club owners, they are business men with economists as advisers.

So then we come to ESL...uefa finally grew some balls and started changing the champions league away from the double group stages intended to favour the big clubs, towards a more competitive (and inherently financially risky to the big clubs) knockout system. This was a big trigger for the big clubs, their threats of breakaway weren't working, so they had to break away. Uefa cleverly forced their hand, they launched prematurely and it failed, for now.

What we are seeing now is many owners across Europe who look at the relative (financial) safety of American football closed league systems and see that as the only way forward.

So the big battle is on. We had a truly competitive sport 30byears ago where any club, with the right set up and investment, could make it to the top and thus displace a "big club". Since 1990 the competitiveness of football has been chipped away until we are where we are..the same few clubs dominate European football and if you missed the gravy train, you are screwed, forever.

For me, it's time to go back to a truly competitive system like football should be. We've crept far too close to a closed league system, led by the rich owners. Let more rich people come in and spend their billions if they wish to. Let clubs go bust and disappear if the owners screw up and lose their money, have more promotion and relegation to increase competition, opportunity and risk. Have knockout competitions instead of group stages. Give the minnows a chance.

Do all of this and you'll find the economics will sort itself out. Money will flow from top to bottom more readily, the clubs at the top will spend less and pay players less (it's too risky to spend big in a truly open competitive system) and fans wills start to love the game again.

True competition is the answer, not more misguided rules. If the ESL becomes a reality, football as we know it will be dead. It will be reduced to a media event with the illusion of competition. Nothing worse imo.
Good post Walleye

DCH
 

wormo

Well-known member
Messages
4,583
Reaction score
3,597
Location
stirling

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20210717-200422_Facebook.jpg
    Screenshot_20210717-200422_Facebook.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 14
Top