Does Blatter and Platini have a point?

Discussion in 'Premier League' started by verde-rubro, Mar 12, 2009.

  1. COYS

    COYS Member

    Jul 29, 2008
    London
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Depressing, but very true. :(

    I dread to think what state of football will be in another ten or fifteen years time.
     
  2. andrew neave

    andrew neave New Member

    Dec 20, 2003
    Las Vegas USA
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    "I dread to think what state of football will be in another ten or fifteen years time. "


    Man Utd will still be winning Trophys
    (to the Nightmare of Platini and Blatter )

    Thats what LOL :D
     
  3. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    It will be in rude health. In and of itself. It's structure will just have changed irrevocably again and many more of the game's current stalwarts will be irrelevant also-rans who attract nothing but disinterest from the game's "fans".

    Plus ca change, plus ca meme.
     
  4. GranCanMan

    GranCanMan Member

    Jan 12, 2007
    Manchester
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Don't ruffle my hair and patronise me about my age. Opinion does not have an age limit. I'm just not having the wool pulled over my eyes by old romanticists who have the benefit of saying what they like because no one else can "prove otherwise".

    Maybe things were slightly better 30 years ago, but this portrayal of some sort of footballing eutopia is bullsh!t and it stinks.


    No, it will have gone down the swanny when Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Roma, Bayern Munich, Inter and AC Milan all go to the wall because of the rest of football reduced their income because they weren't happy at not being involved in something they scarcely deserved to be involved in from the beginning. And the smaller clubs like Portsmouth, Blackburn, etc will also struggle because with the reduction of European places goes their chances of continental football and with that goes vital income which keeps them above water. Like I say, you can only have a certain number of clubs involved in the Champions League, be it one, or 10. Either way, those involved will enjoy a significant financial advantage over those who are not and you still have a problem. Reducing the number of sides simply makes the problem more acute at the top.

    Read the wording again. I never said they "make" the Champoins League. I said they generate the interest. That is why UEFA and FIFA start panicking when mention of a European Super League is made. Because with the withdrawal of the bigger clubs, goes the interest from the sponsors and the money and prestige that comes with that. Let's see how important the distribution of wealth is when there's no wealth to distribute.

    Ergo - Liverpool, Real, Barca etc were big decades before the Champoins League came along.

    Some might suggest that throughout periods of time there have always been a select few that have peaked and boomed at certain points and history shows this. The current state of affairs is a continuation of this trend, albeit it one that has continued longer than some might have predicted/liked. With Man City's new found wealth and the development of Everton and Aston Villa, coupled with the debts currently over the likes of Man Utd and Liverpool we may see another shift in power again. It's certainly not unlikely.

    A consequence of technology. With the coming of age of digital broadcasting, sky tv, the internet and TV rights deals people can now watch football from the comfort of their own home and the money that these people generate is now an integral part of the game. You can either roll with this development or you can fight it. But those that are slow on the up-take will get left behind.

    What can be said is this. You think Enland has it bad? In Italy the major clubs get to sell their own TV rights. This means the likes of Torino, Palermo or Chievo etc have absolutely no contact with any money that Juventus, Inter or AC generate. The bigger clubs rake in their own profits based on their profile while the smaller clubs simply make money from the select number of fans they have. That creates an insurmountable barrier to breaking through into the "top 4".

    In England at least the EPL TV deal is sold to the league as a whole. That's why, even when West Brom go down, they'lll earn in excess of £35m TV money plus parachute payment for 3 years.

    There is a problem. Obviously there is. But I've yet to see a solution which didn't bring with it another set of entirely new problems. Which barely makes it a solution worth considering if you ask me.
     
  5. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    No but first-hand knowledge of the topic under discussion in this thread does.

    Well bully for you, old thing. Problem is, all you're actually doing is tilting at windmills. You are consistently ascribing views to Richard and I that neither of us has expressed.

    See? Although I love the play on words with European football and Utopia. Genius.

    Talking of things that can't happen and no one is advocating ...


    Read through the thread again. It's not about the problem itself, it's about the extent to which the problem is exacerbated by the advent of first the EPL and then the CL.
     
  6. RichardL

    RichardL BigSoccer Supporter

    May 2, 2001
    Berkshire
    Club:
    Reading FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Who is saying it was a utopia?

    The game had different problems and people wondered if half of the clubs in the league would have to go part time, or fold. I can even recall some speculating whether the newly popular American football on channel 4 would overtake football as a (TV) spectator sport.

    What we did have though, was a fair degree of pride in the strength of the old Division 1, meaning we had enough strong clubs that there'd never be an elite that sat above the rest dominating like they did in some countries. That a team like Forest could come out of Division 2, win the title the following year, and win the European Cup in the two years after that, was seen as a testimony to the strength of English football, and english football clubs.

    11 clubs were runners-up in the 70s and 80s. For the 90s & 00s, it's down to 7, and 12 years since it wasn't one of the big 4. There used to be a host of clubs who, it was felt, with the right management, could build a title challenging team.

    Now we have people saying things may change if a gloryhunting billionaire who is prepared to piss his fortune up a wall buys a club. Not exactly the same is it?

    I'd actually love it if a billionaire bought someone like Cheltenham, for a laugh, and spent so much they won the league every year. Then, you can guarantee, you'd see a fair bit of bleating from the big clubs about how unfair it is.


    why would they go to they wall?

    how to you quantify "deserving to be involved in"?

    Why do Arsenal, as a club, deserve to be involved in the champions league and more than Newcastle or Everton even Spurs?

    You could say because their team isn't good enough, but that's just putting the cart before the horse. Why do Arsenal deserve to have an artificial financial advantage over Everton that's so large that Arsenal can afford to have a poor season of rebuilding, and still not seriously worry about missing out?




    ...which get's back to what I said before. Football used to be cyclic. Teams would be strong for a few years, then slip back. It was normal. Today's sitaution is nothing like that. the fact that people think it will take a billionaire to allow another team to break into the top 4 says a fair bit really. That there are people who don't think that's a problem, says even more.


    But haven't those clubs "earned the right" to be paid more than everyone else? Don't they deserve those higher tv deals, as they are the clubs the fans want to see?
     
  7. GranCanMan

    GranCanMan Member

    Jan 12, 2007
    Manchester
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England


    Because they're all in sh!tloads off debt and rely on the current format as a way of sourcing income. Knock the CL numbers down and some clubs will go into administration.


    If you spend money well enough, recruit the right players, and get yourself a team that plays well and wins alot (the aim of the game, after all) then you deserve to be involved in European football. West Brom, for instance, do not deserve to play in Europe this year. They've been aweful.




    They have a better side which scores more goals and wins more games? As a consequence of this, they finish higher up the table and qualify for it.





    Everon dropping points against Portsmouth, Wigan, Middlesbrough and Villa has nothing to do with Arsenals season or any money they have.





    A cynic might argue that, yes. Another might say these clubs have always been big so it's simply carrying on a long standing trend.........................


    My point is that in England, despite this talk of unfair distribution of funds, TV money is shared out fairly evenly between the EPL clubs. That West Brom will receive £35m in TV money despite being aweful is illustrative of this. This money was garaunteed at the start of the season, irrespective of their performance? In contrast, anyside relegated from La Liga or Serie A will not receive any where near that amount.
     
  8. RichardL

    RichardL BigSoccer Supporter

    May 2, 2001
    Berkshire
    Club:
    Reading FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England

    Isn't that their own fault? Why should they get an extra subsidy to allow them to keep spending amounts that are currently beyond their means?


    You don't perhaps think that all the extra cash Arsenal have been able to rake in through the CL and other tv cash has helped them build a better team? One that's less likely to drop points against lesser teams?




    and how much will Man Utd get from SKY?
     
  9. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    There was a £20m gap in TV revenue from the Sky Premiership deal between Manchester United and Derby County last season. So this idea that TV revenue is shared out more or less equally is pretty fanciful. And, of course, only one slice of the pie. Whichever way you slice or dice it, lumping another £25m at four clubs every year, for the simple expedient of not having been fifth, or sixth, or eighteenth, is hardly likely to improve any endemic imbalance that already exists.
     
  10. GranCanMan

    GranCanMan Member

    Jan 12, 2007
    Manchester
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    On the contrary Arsenal are the worst example you can use. Out of all the top sides they've spent by far the least of all. Wenger has comprised a team of untried young players such as Denilson, Toure, Clichey, Van Persie etc. Good couting is the key. The trick is in the coaching. Incidently, Everton's scouting network just got better. Watch out for their recruits in the coming seasons.

    The cash Arsenal have made from the CL is, by the sounds of it, servicing their stadium debt.





    That £20m revenue gap was because of Uniteds Champions League appearances. You're not suggesting that Derby County lay claim to CL revenue, are you?

    Regardless, £35m is a hefty wedge for sa team who performed pretty poorly. It will easily see off all of Derby's expenses and leave them with a lot of change, nevermind the increased gates they had during the season.
     
  11. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    The stadium that, now built on the back of CL money, now earns Arsenal £1.25m a week more than Everton?

    You're kind of making Richard's point for him there. Everton have to sell themselves to Tesco to build a new stadium that will only have 10,000 more seats than their current one.

    No it wasn't. That's Premiership TV money. Sky don't pay the clubs directly, they pay UEFA, who parcel out the money on the basis of league ranking, prize money and TV market share.

    The gap of £20m, top to bottom, is just PRemiership money. That's why we're saying that the CL makes a bad situation even worse.

    Actually yes, that would be brilliant. It's called revenue sharing and it works. Sadly, that ship sailed with the aforementioned Scholar, Irving et al.

    But that's a completely meaningless context. We're discussing the impact money has on the competitiveness of the Premier League, not whether the money a relegated club gets is, for them, a lot of money. £35m will be a godsend to Derby, I agree, but it's not going into making them more competitive, is it?
     
  12. RichardL

    RichardL BigSoccer Supporter

    May 2, 2001
    Berkshire
    Club:
    Reading FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Doesn't each club get somewhere around £250,000 each time they are live on SKY as well? The big 4 must be live nearly every week. Even just 30 league games live at that rate brings in another £7.5 million.

    Add to that, being guaranteed (with things as they are) 3 group CL games, and that must bring in the same in ticket money at a minimum for Man Utd.

    about the only caveat I'd accept against the shortsighted greed of chairmen whose decisions cut their own throats, is that at the time the early tv deals were being created, tv cash was just something to supplement a club's income. Some really thought it would lead to a levelling out of the unevenness that existed then.

    Quite why chairman at the likes of Spurs seemed to have meekly accepted their relegation to virtually permanent also-ran status since then is beyond me.
     
  13. leg_breaker

    leg_breaker Member

    Dec 23, 2005
    For Spurs at least, being perpetual also-rans seems to be pretty profitable. Especially when they can sell all their best players and still have a huge ticket waiting list.
     
  14. Big Soccer Member

    Jan 16, 2008
    Surrey, England
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    I still tend to think that the big-ish clubs, struggling to break into the top 4 do moan a bit much. Any City, Spurs, Everton or Villa fan who moans about not getting into the top 4 should stop it now. It's not impossible, play better and you will get in.

    Spurs fans I know consistantly moan about not getting in, but that is because your team doesn't peform. If they played like that for the whole year then they would stand a great chance of getting there. Ditto with Everton. If not for there awful start they would be in with a shout too. Aston Villa should have really finished 4th this year; but there team didn't perform in the crunch, end of season games. They didn't draw to Stoke at home because of the disparity between the top four and the rest, but because they didn't play well.

    03/04 - Newcastle should have qualified.
    04/05 - Everton did.
    05/06 - Spurs should have.
    06/07 - Someone should have taken advantage of Liverpool's shite early season form.
    07/08 - Fairly undisputed big 4 dominance.
    08/09 - Villa should have.

    Whether smaller clubs can is another issue, but I still maintain that there is too much moaning from the 'challengers'.
     
  15. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Those figures include that payment. United got £15m, Derbt £5m. Which is fair enough in my view - lots of people want to watch United, rather fewer would endure a Derby match unless it involved their own team. But it is another source of imbalance.

    True to an extent, although the principles of Scholar et al, which led to the Premiership in 1992, were always based on the idea that a few should get more than the rest, purely because that few happened to be, in the eyes of their Chairmen, more important to the game than the others. As you've already pointed out in this thread, Spurs and Everton in particular must still be cursing the shortsighted avarice of their 1980's leaders.
     
  16. RichardL

    RichardL BigSoccer Supporter

    May 2, 2001
    Berkshire
    Club:
    Reading FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    isn't that kind of like saying promoted clubs moan about the premiership/championship cash gap too much, and it's only a problem because they don't play well enough to stay up?


    The whole reason the likes of Everton can't play as well as the top 4 is because the top 4 have the money to build teams that are so much better.

    Liverpool last year, for example, finished with 76 points. 2 points a game is a about normal for a title winner in most divisions. Liverpool were 4th, 11 points behind Man Utd.

    Going by points per game, it used to be that around 65 points used to get you 4th place. Teams finishing 5th are, on average, only slightly behind that figure now, but the big 4 are normally all way ahead. In other words, the gap between the big 4 and the average teams is now considerably greater than it used to be between the champions and the rest.
     
  17. GranCanMan

    GranCanMan Member

    Jan 12, 2007
    Manchester
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Jesus, so you want equal grounds now, do you? Every club should have a ground no bigger than 75,000? Every club shall charge no more than £40 for a match day ticket. Every club shall sell their burgers and pies for no more than £3 a pop. Every club programme should be sold at no more than £4 at a time. A drink of sreoft drink shall cost no more than £2.50, and no more than £3 for an alcoholic beverage.................

    You cannot have absolute parity. If a club wants a new ground, then they have to find the funding themselves. Arsenal found it with Emirates, Bolton found it with Reebok, Leicester found it with Walkers. Naming rights are part of the game. Un less you're lucky like United and have a large ground anyway, which is sheer luck really, then you have to consider your options.

    The top clubs market themselves into positions of strength and then you castigate them for maximising the opportunities that come with that?


    You cannot award Derby County a share in television money for a competition they're not even involved in. In that case why don't we share it round to MK Dons, AFC Bournemouth, and Rushden and Diamonds. Why not the Northenden under 10's team which play dow the road from my house? They're in football, surely they deserve a piece of Champions League revenue? Why not me? I watch football, I play it from time to time? What about my mates 2 year old girl? She's going to be involved in football at some point?................


    I'd go with this. I still think that there's too much moaning and that clubs have to help themselves. It riles me that the solution to all this is to limit what the top clubs can currently do, rather than look at other ways the clubs in the "second tier", so to speak, can increase their size and influence. Traqde restriction is not the solution. It creates a false sense of competition through limitations, rather than encouraging development. You seldom hear Aston Villa moaning, or Everton. Newcastle weren't moaning either when they were on the cusp of breaking into the top 4. Everton are very close to making the break through as are Villa and that's been acheived through sheer hard work. There's no reason why other clubs should not follow their lead.
     
  18. GranCanMan

    GranCanMan Member

    Jan 12, 2007
    Manchester
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    I missed this.


    Yes, it is their fault. But these clubs are operating a business plan based on the current set-up. You cannot all of a sudden shift the goal posts and expect these clubs to just "deal with it".

    Remember the ITV digital fiasco? When all those CCC clubs nearly went under because all of a sudden the goal posts were moved and the money they were assured was coming their way was all of a sudden taken away from them? They didn't spend irresponsibly. They simply spent money they were "owed" but then some numb-nuts took away the means of income they were assured of and they found themselves in deep.

    The same ideals apply here. You can't allow clubs to plan for the future based on a set model and then change it. The effects could be catastrophic.
     
  19. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    No, see, you're doing that thing again where you take a point no one's made and then spend ages ranting about it. You should change your screen name to Don Quixote.

    The point being made, quite obviously I thought, is that it is the CL revenue that Arsenal, rather than Everton, have been enjoying for the best part of a decade, that means Highbury is now a set of luxury flats and Jurassic Park is still the home of Everton Football Club.

    Now, you could argue that they both began on an equal footing and Arsenal made more of themselves in the 1990s than Everton, then still broadly speaking a peer in terms of revenue and appeal to players. But you didn't argue that, you just headed back on down to Tangent Alley for another hit.

    I know. Did I say you can? Did anyone?

    Nope.

    Nope.

    But as you mention it, you're wrong anyway. The marketing activities of Arsenal and Everton, to continue with that comparison are pretty much indistinguishable from one another. I doubt there's much Arsenal do by way of Gooner merchandise or Far Eastern retail franchises or whatever, that Everton don't also do. They will earn different amounts from these similar activities, of course, but that's healthy capitalism, as you say. Bigger brand, bigger profits.

    Of course ... being in the Champions' League every year does wonders for your brand. And being in the Champions' League every year does wonders for your chances of being in the Champions' League every year. And being in the Champions' League every year brings in a minimum of £20m a season that others don't get. And £20m a season to invest in stadia, or marketing, or players, or more Gooner Goodies ...

    Yes you can. Of course you can. They won't of course, but not because they can't. Revenue sharing isn't Yogic Flying or time travel.

    Why not, indeed? That's how it used to be done within the Football League, before the Premiership was formed. And it worked pretty well too. But we've covered this ground.

    Well, in a way that sort of already happens of course. No where near to the extent it should, but the FA gets a slice of clubs' revenues through membership and that money is used by the FA for precisely these sort of worthy causes. It's called Grassroots Football, you might have heard of it. It's for people who, y'know, play football.
     
  20. GranCanMan

    GranCanMan Member

    Jan 12, 2007
    Manchester
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    And in turn why don't Serie A and La Liga start handing out their CL money to Luton and Stockport seeing as distribution of irrelavant funds is now apparently an acceptable practice...........Matt, you have a sound head. But awarding CL money to Derby is a non-starter and well you know it.

    Prize money ewas still handed out depending on your eventual league position.

    I'm aware of that. But demanding a slice of TV revenue from a competition you're not competing in, and have never competed in, is unrealistic.
     
  21. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Because that would be silly. And deeply hurtful to Cremonese and Padova. What have they ever done to piss off Serie A?

    Hmm. Only in the sense of that thing you do. Y'know, projecting points no one's ... you know what I mean.

    I've said as much. That doesn't make it a bad idea, or even an unworkable one.

    It's hugely unrealistic. The Premiership is living, breathing embodiment of the fact that there's too much greed and self-interest in football nowadays for people to work together for the benefit of the game. But let's not pretend like it's more than the 17 short years it is, since the above was the de facto status quo in English football. You act as though this is a fairy tale form outer space, rather than recent history.

    No one believes we can return to those days. But those days did occur, were a reality and our distance from them now (in concept, rather than time) is testament to everything Richard and I have been saying on this thread. It is effectively impossible to make a credible argument in favour of the naivety that holds money to no account for imbalancing the game, when you can go back a very short period of time in the game's overall history and closely examine conditions in an environment where money wasn't the factor it is now and where, consequently, balance, fairness, competitiveness and communal benefit were a real and practical daily reality in our nation's favourite game.
     
  22. GunnerJacket

    GunnerJacket Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 18, 2003
    Gainesville, GA
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Sounds as if you're implying the stadium is/was wholly the result of CL money, which is disingenuous. Do the CL funds help? Certainly, and I'm not disputing the working theory that CL success breeds more CL success and so on, but the club built the venue because they had the waiting list and built the financial prospectus to go forward. (A viable lot nearby helped a great deal, as well.) Most importantly they built it as a hedge against possible shortfalls in outside funding (CL, TV), so that they could be more independent and establish more stable financing. Emirates is hardly a product solely the result of current CL form (nor would Stanley Park), and I just wanted to make that clear. The club said they'd manage player funds differently if the CL wasn't there, but the stadium was going forward regardless.
    Perhaps a not so thin line between calling it revenue sharing and calling it welfare. I've avowed here and elsewhere TV revenues should be shared equally between members of that division, as no team would have a product to share without other teams to play against. I've also suggested UEFA monies should be paid to leagues and not to teams, as that's essentially their product - Not simply Madrid or ManU but rather the champions of La Liga, Serie A and so forth. Ideally the leagues would then more evenly distribute those funds so as to minimize the gaps.

    Beyond this, though, we're reaching into levels whereby the transfer of funds begins to artificially support lower level clubs. So long as football wishes to remain a professional sport there must be an accounting for the professional business angle, to wit those operations that cannot illustrate a level of self-sufficiency need not be overly-supported through other monies. Does the FA/League Premiership have a vested interest in keeping members around and reinvesting in the game? Sure, but that shouldn't be done with regular direct payments as that can also create a disincentive for some owners to reinvest their own revenues into the product. Personally I favor things like the FA and leagues funding player health care and retirement packages, creating funds to help leverage teams building facilities, so as to minimize bank rates and dependency on public funds, etc. Simply taking money generated by one team and automatically allocating to another, however, doesn't guarantee the intention or the results.



    I'd contend "No," because the actual product is a competition within a league or tournament. It's not just AC Milan, but rather AC Milan vs someone in Serie A, ere go it should be a Serie A product. That Milan and others have attained greater popularity will be rewarded in their sponsorship deals and elsewhere, but comes only via the structure of the competitions provided. The concept of independent TV deals crosses the line between allowing the club to build it's own revenues and doing so at the direct expense of the competition organizers and the other teams involved.
     
  23. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    No, but it was a pretty big part of the business case. Even allowing for the fact that when Arsenal were seeking finance for the new stadium, you could get people to lend you more or less anything, for anything, the £20m-odd coming in from the CL would have been a calming influence on the "can we have this much" meeting that happened down the bank one day.

    All perfectly sensible stuff. Won't happen, but none the less sensible for that.

    Debt to revenue ratio, Chelsea FC: 302%
    Debt to revenue ratio, Manchester United FC: 240%
    Debt to revenue ratio, Liverpool FC: 285%
    Debt to revenue ratio, Arsenal FC: 205%

    Debt to revenue ratio, Chester City FC: 35%

    I get your point, but let's not make the mistake of assuming that a club that earns a ton of money every year is automatically a well-run and successful business and a club near the bottom of the pile must logically be the opposite. That's Harry territory. That's like arguing that it would be bad for football if clubs at the top of the pile were suddenly denuded of their fake riches and actually made to earn a living.

    Running a football club as a business is a lot easier at the top of the pile than it is at the bottom. The really good football businessmen don't work in the Premier League, that's for sure.
     
  24. GunnerJacket

    GunnerJacket Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 18, 2003
    Gainesville, GA
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Here's where I wish people (and clubs, and UEFA, FA, etc.) would be more truthful in accounting and their requirements for fiscal management. Arsenal's debt is due to the ground move and will be substantially reduced once Highbury is renovated and sold, likely within a couple years. In the cases for Pool and ManU those ratios were unfairly placed upon the club as leverage for the purchase. Chelsea, meanwhile, operates at a straight loss. Thus, those debts are discernably different from one another and alone do not tell the full story. MK Dons surely had a comparably high ratio when building their new ground, so it's tough to argue Arsenal are fiscally improper or even to be lumped with the others shown above. Ditto s**** if they get their new ground without any CL money. Point being if a club is able to operate of it's own accord without needing outside assistance then that's ideal, even if it means accommodating an occasional debt service.

    I'd say a ratio of annual unleveraged debt service vs annual revenues that might prove more telling. What Chelsea has been allowed to get away with while the current heads of Luton are "made example of" is a ridiculous double standard by the FA, IMO.
    No argument from me, I simply add the notion that clubs are not where they are simply by measure of "the system," that they still have the potential to rise and fall of their own doing. Even under the current structure, which could be argued simply amplifies the results of a team's direction: Succeed and greater rewards await, fail and the punishment can be harsh.
     
  25. RichardL

    RichardL BigSoccer Supporter

    May 2, 2001
    Berkshire
    Club:
    Reading FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    UEFA doing exactly the same thing with "market pool" payments in the champions league. They pay clubs from countries with a large number of viewers a payment of several million euro a year, regardless or how well they do, just because they come from countries with a lot of viewers.


    As for welfare, it wasn't so long ago that away teams used to get a proportion of the gate receipts in the league. It was in the ballpark of 20% or so - not a great leveller, but it all helped. I think scrapping that was another idea Scholar pushed through.


    You can phase it in. It doesn't have to be overnight.

    Besides, if any club is working on from a business model that requires champions league qualification every single year, then they deserve to be rubbing shoulders with Leeds United in League 1.
     

Share This Page