The point was that you initially made the criteria by which we judge the desirability of revenue sharing by the capitalist sense of "earn your keep, don't expect handouts". I was merely pointing out that the run for easy money isn't something that starts amongst the have-nots of the game.
On this you're right. But United were never, and have never been dependant on CL money until the big fat ginger "billionaire" took us over and levered his borrowings against our assets and the club itself.
I get that, but I think we also need to put into perspective what constitutes "have nots" in this regard. The Colaship features payouts better than many smaller top flights, to say nothing of the minimal guaranteed revenues for even the relegated Premiership clubs. Thus their level of poverty is a matter of perspective. Truly Hull and Coventry couldn't afford the likes of C. Ronaldo, but they certainly aren't paying paupers wages, either. So, "Yes," taken all together the established powers of the day are at a fiscal advantage due to the structure of the system, but certainly any club should be capable of making something positive (no matter how minutely so) out of the revnues flowing into football? Otherwise their administration might be worth reconsideration. That's all I'm saying. Not every club, after all, is meant to be a ManU.
It only matters how rich you are compared to your competition. A championship team may have more money than a Ukrainian first division team, but they're not playing in the Ukrainian first division so that's a pointless number. A premiership team with £50 million in revenue could be considered incredibly rich, but when they're up against a club with £150 million, they may as well be a pub team. And it's quite noticeable how all the people backing the current system support the clubs who benefit most from it. When Arsenal can have their worst season in decades and still comfortably finish fourth and qualify for the money-spinning Champions League which will guarantee them fourth place for eternity, then what's the point in having any teams other than the top four?
SKY show the big four all the time since the demand for their viewing is higher. Why produce something that nobody is willing and able to watch? This isn't SKY's fault. The nature of TV viewing was little different in the pre-SKY days. Who would have got more viewers in the 1980's? Liverpool vs. Everton, or QPR vs. Watford? And as for Spurs, i think they only have themselves to blame for not being a decent side in EPL history. The big four didn't cause Sugar not to invest in top quality players (and do what was necessary to keep them). The big four didn't hire managers who initially started well, but flunked out as things went along (Graham, Jol and Ramos).
I've no real problem with them being on tv most. I just don't think they should be paid extra because they are on tv most. It's just extra unearned payments based on popularity, which helps them stay at the top. And yes, "unearned" is correct, unless you really think that if Man Utd somehow had a poor season and were 8th, they'd only be on tv as much as someone like West Ham.
Not strictly true. Many teams have shown that progression can be made in spite of other sides obscene wealth, providing you spend your money wisely and do your homework. Arsenal have kept up with the other top 3 sides whilst spending a fraction of the money and they've done this through alternative means. They could have moaned about how unfair it is, and how they haven't got the money but they didn't. They increased their scouting and the tactics and techniqie coaching and they now turn what could have been average players into world class ones. Fulham and Wigan have both, this season, progressed up the table in comparison to their pre-season expectations on tiny budgets and they've both acheived this by spending prudently and buying top quality players for bargian basement sums. Everton too have successfully pushed for a top 4 place without having the means to compete financially so far and they're not far off.
This must be a troll. Arsenal are one of the richest teams in the world, their ticket revenue is higher than anyone, they're absolutely loaded. Everton, a club that once upon a time was one of the greatest teams in the land now looks at fourth place as a dream achievement, despite being very well managed. Doesn't that suggest that the financial gap is just too far?
I haven't disavowed what you're saying. My point is that AS A BUSINESS a club should be able to profit even with the smallest revenues within their division. You won't be competing with ManU for players but you can certainly afford a legit squad if you manage your money correctly. Yes, it may take time and luck to make notable strides up the tables within a few years, but if you build your product over time, build a decent fan base then you can eventually position yourself for greater and greater success, on and off the pitch. Even Cheslea's support is not entirely plastic, and Liverpool took time to become the Liverpool we know. If you can't profit at that level then what exactly are you doing claiming a right to such revenues? Now couch that with my second point: I'm on record in this thread supporting equal distribution of TV and UEFA revenues. And I'd wager many if not most Arsenal fans favor measures that mandate better financial management within the clubs if not the restriction of outside funds for subsidizing regular club operations. ManU and Pool fans probably wouldn't object, either, as their financial woes have only recently been placed upon them by owners they objected to and who flouted the current rules. Otherwise those clubs wouldn't be as adversely impacted by the type of rule changes we're supporting. Yes, many within the clubs' offices would bemoan the loss of their advantage, but I suspect they'd adapt quickly. Despite him having participated in this thread since page 1? Yes, Arsenal are wealthy, but if you knew anything about their salary scale you'd know they don't pay the 100k per week seen so regularly at other major clubs. That's why Flamini left, and Hleb, and Henry, and Vieira... That's why Adebayor b*****d and moaned for a new contract last year, and why Arsenal keep giving incremental raises to many stars to prevent them leaving without overspending their wage scale. This is why Arsenal looks to younger players and foreigners to avoid the overpriced scales for English stars like Bent or Shaun Wright-Phillips. Plus right now much of the new cachflow is being used to offset delays with the Highbury renovations annd to build reserves for purely financial well being, at a time when other clubs are paying wages on credit! Are Arsenal wealthy? Yes. Can they pay more than the likes of Sunderland and Wigan? Definitely. Does this mean they overspend or automatically contribute to the inflating of wages? Hardly. Yes, but let's be more clear about this. The dream isn't simply "4th," the dream is a CL berth and the added games and exposure that goes with it. The dream is at least 4th and the chance to build their reputation among other giants. If the CL berths were limited to 3 it be a dream of at least 3rd. Meanwhile the long-term vision is still to win the PL, to grow their facilities and fan base, etc. They just recognize the need to approach this in phases. So please don't sell it as if everyone simply stops dreaming at "4th." That's just a convenient way of expressing their desire to compete in the highest of European competitions.
Their net spend over the last 5 or 6 years is something daft like £20m. A quarter of any of the top 4. They can have a trillion in the bank as far as I'm concerned. If they're not spending it, the point stands. GirffinGunnar, clearly the only way to salvage English football is to limit the money the top 4 clubs make and limit their ability to maximise their potential......... It's not possible to sustain a league of clubs equal in size and power to Man Utd and Real Madrid. In every walk of life somneone has to take a fall of some sort and measure their success against other parameters.
Well, as long as they make a profit, that's all that matters. It doesn't work like that. Maybe in the past, but nowadays no matter how well run you are, if the team in fourth place has several times as much cash as you, as well as the Champions League football that all the top players 'need', then fifth is basically as far as you can go. Do you honestly think this is a better situation than in the 'bad' old days when pretty much any team in the division could have a shot at the title? So, Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool would like a system that would screw up Chelsea? What a surprise. The biggest trolls troll the longest and hardest. Why do you think they built the new stadium if not to increase their revenues? If they're only paying kids a small wage they signed for free, they may as well have stayed at Highbury rather than saddling themselves with massive debts. Your story doesn't add up. I think you've missed the point. Once upon a time, clubs like Everton would be aiming for the league title every season. Now, they have to spend years building up to finish fifth, with even fourth place a distant dream. Don't you think that's somewhat unhealthy? Even if they do manage to consistently finish fifth after patiently building a good team, the big four will just poach all their best players who 'need' Champions League football, and it's back to square one.
A sport only works as long as there is competition. You may have liked it when Schumacher won the F1 at a canter every season, most people didn't. And why not limit how much they can make? Economic inequality only ever causes disorder and decay, just look at Brazil or the US. It wouldn't be limited how much money is made, just how it's distributed. The same players would stil exist, the standard of football would be exactly the same, there'd just be a point to more than four teams in England actually existing. In which case, why do we want clubs of the size and power of Man Utd?
what you don't seem to appreciate is that Man Utd and the rest of the big 4's ability to lord it over the rest like Real Madrid/Barcelona in Spain is purely down to the compounded effects of changes in the game's structure over the last 20 years. As big as Man Utd were, they weren't anywhere near as far ahead as now - a disparity that you, as well as others who've only known football in the premiership era, regard as normal. When Everton won two titles in the 80s, nobody spoke about "plucky" Everton beating the odds to win the league. Same with Villa and even Forest. For any club of a reasonable stature, winning the league was a realistic aspiration. They didn't have to hope a billionaire would come along.
so why hasn't La Liga in Spain been disordered? how many teams other than Real Madrid and Barca have won La Liga in Spanish football history? Utd is as big as it is due to its history of winning trophies. A big club generally is so since it has a history of being consistently successful. A long and continued history of winning trophies and a club's size are generally directly correlated. As long as you get clubs that are more successful than others, and over a long period, these clubs are of greater note.
When it comes to how you regulate the structure of the game you must differentiate overall finances vs. measures designed to impact performance on the field. Limits like those for cutting squad size and the 6+5 measure could have just as much impact on competitiveness as salary caps. The difference is that simply addressing competitiveness through financial controls doesn't always ensure the intended result (See: MLB), especially given the concept of other leagues then being poised to steal talent from England. Would you accept a more competitive PL if it meant the league as a whole slipped to the levels of, say, Le Championnat? Do I think it's better? Not really. But do you honestly see the clubs going back to the same old same old? I don't even think they could if they wanted to because of the impact of modern media, global advertising and branding, etc. It's entirely possible that the PL could mandate equal pay of TV monies and turn out equal shares of UEFA revenues, essentially trimming ManU's budget by some 40M(?) GBP, but ManU and the other big clubs could still maintain their status by virtue of sponsorship revenues, gate receipts, merchandising, etc. Let's face it, many of the clubs throughout the leagues are from more humble sized communities than London and Manchester, so they'll have less to work with in terms of potential fan base and merchandising revenue. That's not their fault and not the fault of the Big Four, either. So unless we make this completely amateur such financial influences are a given in pro sports. Please reread. I suggested they'd be more able to adapt to the type of restrictions your wishing to see because they have developed the natural revenue streams to remain big clubs in comparison to Chelsea. Again, get the full picture, please. Those debts are short-term, temporary loans related to the property development. Yes, they built Emirates to increase revenues but a) current conditions related to Highbury restrict them from outlandish spending comparable to other big clubs, and b) they've an avowed policy of not breaking their wage scale so that the club as a whole can be a more profitable business (so as to survive tough times when they aren't in the CL). When Highbury is sold off they'll have the gross income to spend like Chelsea and then you can get on their case. IN the meantime you're making it sound as if spending less than you earn is a bad thing. I get it, I've said I woud love to see more competitive equity and have supported balanced payouts of league revenues, but I also happen to live in reality where these clubs and the league are global brands that don't operate in a bubble. They're competing with La Liga and Serie A (bleh) for fans and $, and players are drawn to the league for the pay as much as for the thrill of playing soccer. So the question becomes how far are you willing to go, and what happens if you still don't see the results intended? How much of a sacrifice to certain clubs, individual players and others have to make in order to meet your standard of fairness? To wit, you give an indication in your next post... Rght. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." Got it. Wait, where've I heard that before... How about we just hand out the trohpy to a different team every year, then. Really, why play at all. Let's just save all that money and pay off our own debts, eh? Yeah, it's all out riots and scenes of post-apocalyptic despair over here. Clearly we, as a society, were completely wrong in working so hard to make ourselves better off. You may not want to see a club as big as ManU, but I have this gut feeling the fans of ManU feel otherwise. Ditto the fans of Liverpool, Madrid, Bayern, Milan, etc. Sure, many of those may not be true fans by anyone's definition, but they pay to see the games, they buy the gear and thus the clubs grow to what they are today. Are you suggesting that you, or anyone, get's the right to tell them "Sorry, you can't be that big?" You can't, because you can't dictate peoples' feelings and thoughts, and if the masses want to root for Liverpool then the masses will root for Liverpool. And that's their right.
Let's not get carried away, however. ManU has grown to the size it is now largely on the backs of their success in the Premiership, where they've won 10 of their 17 crowns. They were a historically big club, but not quite the behemoth global media has since enabled.
I see. So them wanting it all is OK, and anyone who'd rather they didn't have it all is being selfish? whereas fans of other clubs get tickets, merchandise and tv packages free, I presume? Look, you support Arsenal. You want Arsenal to be successful, and naturally view anything which helps achieve that as a good thing. Nobody, contrary to many arguments being presented, is calling for American sports style parity. Nobody is saying the clock can be turned back 20 years (just as well as for me it'd mean sitting through a bloody awful run of 6 consecutive defeats in the 3rd division). It's just a case of pointing out that having a "big 4" is a state completely alien to the English game for well over 100 years of league football, and the the structure of money distribution has created a disparity in the game which didn't previously exist. The idea that the big 4 are just the Barcelona/Real Madrid of England just sits rather uneasily with those who knew the game before tv cash took over. Some might just think that giving clubs that already have huge financial advantages even more extra money on top, just might not be the best idea. Well, not unless those 4 are all you are interested in.
Saying you wish your team were better off or that all teams were on equal footing is one thing. Calling for measures that inhibit the fan/club relationship (as I'm inferring from leg breaker's ideals) is to me equally unfair. If a club generates certain revenues of it's own, through gate receipts or merchandising or sponsorships, then I believe that should stay with the club and not subsidize someone else. I believe league revenues should be shared equally, but not clubs' direct revenues. See above. The line wasn't meant to tout any one team's fans but to emphasize that those revenues are, IMO, meant for the club and should be differentiated from general league revenues. ManU keeps what they generate, Fulham keeps what they generate and so on. It sounds like at least one person is, but I'll take your word for it. Again, I'm in agreement with calls for equal distribution of league monies for the reasons you've listed. I don't wish for the same 4 (or 3, 2...) teams to rule the roost, either. I'm experienced enough as a sports fan to know my teams will have their lean years and can live with it. I'm simply responding to what sounds like calls for punishing teams simply because they're large or successful, calls which carry the vitriol that implies the success was only from unfair means, or that they should have to pay larger shares, etc. I'm all for equity, but not for welfare. That's all I'm saying. Cheers.
This is the same way I think at the moment. Obviously I'm bias because I support United but my view is thast if a club makes a lot of money then perhaps it's time people said "well done" and then went about trying to find a way to equal that, or find a way round it. Taking money off clubs in order to give others a boost is not entirely agreeable. We all want "true competition" where anyone can win, but if you want to make it fair, then you cannot simply pick out 5 "rich clubs" and expect them to hand over money that they've earned themselves, in order to support everyone else because by default that's selective discrimination and is the very opposite of what you want. If we wiped the slate clean right now, and everyone started on a level playing field, some clubs would still pull ahead again. They have the best marketing, they have bigger fan bases, they have a more illustrious history behind them. Soner or later a natural order would come into being again.
Arf ... seventeen pages and still the basic point wooshes over some people's head. The point is not to have a competition where no team is bigger than another. The point is to have a competition (again) where no team is irredeemably and artificially bigger than another, to the lasting detriment of all the teams in the competition and the competition itself. Let me do that thing everyone else is doing and just imagine a point to contradict, rather than use a point that's actually been made: we're not saying that United and Arsenal and Liverpool and Chelsea should be forced to hand over all non-standard revenue above the revenue earned by the smallest club in the league, nor that Peter Kenyon, David Gill and Ian Foster should meet weekly at Lancaster Gate to wash the feet of whoever the fuck runs West Bromwich Albion. Likewise, I don't think it would be workable if we insisted that Old Trafford pies (which, I have to say, are amongst the yummier of their kind) should be baked in Bolton, thereby ensuring that all bakery/meat-goo franchise profits are shared at source. Nor, just to be entirely clear, do we agree that Stockport County or Tranmere Rovers should be allowed to send representatives to Old Trafford or Anfield and simply take away every third box of gate money, to plump their own nest with. All we're saying, is that some elements of the money now coagulating into pools of grime at the top of the game, might be slightly less whiffy if filtered down through the pyramid, so to speak.
with the current unequal distibution of tv money, isn't that exactly what is happening? the founding principle of the premier league, after all, was that the top division clubs would no longer have to share tv revenue. Isn't weighting the overall CL prize money so clubs from larger leagues can be paid (much) more, doing the very thing you find not agreeable?
CL money is money earned by the top clubs competing in it. EPL money is spread around fairly evenly throughout the league, with TV appearances distorting it slightly. CL money is distributed to teams competing in the CL, and the further you go, the more you earn. As a cup competition, the only sides entitled to that money are the sides in it. Another way of putting it is this: I wonder if Everton would be willing to give their FA Cup final appearance fee to Southampton? They have a lot more money than Southampton so by your reckoning any side that earns any money from extra competition should automatically give it away, regardless of how hard they worked to earn it in the first place? There is a solution somewhere, but limiting what is, effectively, a free market isn't it. That just creates a false economy, and creates a glass ceiling for those at the top.
with the big debt the top 4 are in i doubt they would want to share anything with other clubs theres trouble at liverpool especially and if roman keeps losing money in russia chelsea may need every penny unless he sells
Each club gets a hugely weighted fee dependent of the tv revenue their country brings in. Man Utd could got out in the group stage and make more tv money than Sparta Prague would if they got to the final. No, it's not even fairly even. Half is even. The other half is hugely weighted towards the top sides. Nobody is having difficulty understanding a free market, or even the idea that teams are entitled to prize money they earned. The problem is when that prize money is so large that it creates a virtuous circle that makes certain teams uncatchable. Clearly you have no problem with a league where the same 4 teams will be in the champions league forever barring a billionaire's intervention, or appalling mismanagement, but some might say it makes a rather dull spectacle. Nobody is calling for an end to the free market, or a salary cap, or anything like that. Just a realisation that all the extra cash shovelled in the direction of the top sides is driving a wedge of inequality between the top 4 and he rest that ought to be avoided.
Do you think the NFL or the NBA (in the United States) are operating as "false economy"? They seem to have figured it out. Now I know it's a different beast all together. But taking some pointers from them would not be a bad idea.