www.thetimes.com/sport/football/article/aston-villa-legal-action-nassef-sawiris-premier-league-spending-rules-n3tdcrtv2
Aston Villa owner considers legal action against Premier League
📰NewsYou get a lawsuit, and you get a lawsuit!
He should bring it coming. I don't think anyone will stop him.
Villa fans have genuinely turned into the entitled twats ever to grace the game this last season. Never been so happy to see a team embarrass themselves in Europe.
Yup
Where in this article is anything about the fans?
Let me guess you're a Birmingham city fan or another of the nearby clubs just a tinsy bit jealous they're having a good time
Nope, I support Sunderland mate. No allegiance to Villa or their rivals whatsoever. Just genuinely bored of how big headed your fans have became after spending huge amounts of money and fiddling your FFP to suit on the way.
What part of my comment made you think I'm a Villa fan? The bit where I referred to them as they perhaps?
I'd focus your energy on something far more important than what a club is or isn't spending that you apparently have no connection to.
Why don’t you tell that to the hundreds of thousands of crybabies in this sub moaning about City’s spending then?
City have been charged by the premier league and it's been dragging on for a long time, when we've seen lesser cases sorted faster I think people have a right to ask questions.
I'm not even sure why you're in a premier league sub tbh, it's been nearly a decade since your lot were in the league
I have an interest in football mate, keep up with most of the big leagues as well as my own club.
Could ask you why you support united when you never go games?
Keeping my eyes glued on them to see what's going to happen. Newcastle had their own embarrassment last season.
What happened to Newcastle?
They couldn't make it through the group stage.
Not really an embarrassment. Unless you're just being a tryhard banterlord
Maybe I'm a tryhard banterlord 😏
Yep its definitely Villa fans suing the league
I can’t comment on Villa fans because this article is about their club, not them individually?
Your comment was literally just about Villa fans...?
ohh whyy?
These money clubs are pulling some Scientology shit. Just bombard the premier league with lawsuits to the point the league goes ‘alright just chill, fuck’ and lets them get away with what they’re doing. Seriously. Scientology achieved tax exempt status by doing that to the IRS.
I always find it hilarious when Manchester United fans complain about this sort of thing.
It's two cases by two clubs... If the PL can't handle two cases they really shouldn't be managing it.
2 = bombard apparently.
It’s a blue print for the future for clubs that want to cheat. Just take frivolous legal action and you can disrupt the system and prolong your ability to cheat
The Man City one alone will be a bombardment
Are Man City and Villa the same animal though?
Why is everyone with the Premiere League flair such a bootlicker?
The premier league can do no wrong, apparently
It's the standard for people without a flair.
Because they think If they felate the prem league bosses enough, City will get stripped of all their titles 😂.
Not wanting to enable cheating and a financial precedent that would fuck all but 4-5 teams in the English league system = bootlicking. Truly amazing logic. Not everything has to be about rebelling against authority you know
Didn’t 2 teams dominate before the financial rules?
That’s because they were competent clubs, not blatant cheats.
or just the richest at the time?
No, just competently run with a large fan base, not a bunch of coked up fucks. Football remains a business not some corrupt Russian or middle eastern human rights abuser’s plaything.
TIL - here I was thinking it was all the same seeing Arsenal is owned by a spouse of one of the richest families in the world who constantly lobby to infringe on human rights all over the world. For me unless a team is owned by its members/fans it's all the same. Better marketing for sure on the part of the American/European oligarchs.
Arsenal, Man Utd, Liverpool, Spurs and many others are and have always been run as legitimate businesses - borrowing, spending and investing, building teams, squads, reputation and fan base. Some clubs are better than others at business, so make more money and have greater capacity for success - as is the case in all businesses.
Other clubs have filed over and over again because of poor management of shit fanbases and have been picked up for peanuts by literally theives and human rights abusers.
Your approach is the equivalent of comparing Apple to a Columbian drug lord.
Niiice.. can we wager to see who employs more children? I bet ya Apple wins
edit: Like I said, better marketing.
Comparing apple to say russian oligarchs who have stolen entire nations wealth, or potentates who chop up their rivals, enslave women and fund Islamist death cults is a tad on the nose, but hey, you do you.
Sounds like a boot kicker to me
I don’t remember any Villa fans having an issue with FFP when NUFC qualified for the CL and shouted up on the same issue saying it was grossly unfair
In fact, i remember them being distinctly PRO FFP last year, mainly because it was Newcastle.
Funny what changes in a year .
Villa have actually spent fucking loads since promotion as well, something like £600m. European football will help, but gate receipts and commercial revenue haven’t caught up yet.
They’ve done really well, definitely wouldn’t take that away from them as many others have spent more with less return, but they are not the plucky underdogs they want to be seen as.
Just seems like we’re gonna see more ‘legal action against the premier league’ as clubs follow city. More complication just drags things out and leads to less accountability long term.
City’s 115 charges shows that, versus clubs who have been fairly transparent having already been sanctioned.
Villa has obviously done tremendously right with their investment; but there is a lot of luck in football
Let’s say emery doesnt doesn’t do what he has done for some reason. Or just this year. One injury to their big starters and they gd gap with spurs is gone
Basically what happened to Newcastle really.
I guarantee, Villas season next year will mirror Newcastles season this year.
German fan owned model looking pretty good right now.
Yea because the Bundesliga is sooo much better with Bayern winning 10 straight titles. Think before you type up some drivel.
Ligue 1 had a stretch like that. Serie A had a stretch like that. La Liga had obviously had plenty of stretches like that. The Premier League hasn't had quite that level, but it has had long stretches where 1 or 2 teams dominate. Would 50+1 really make any of that worse?
Didn’t know Bayern won the title this year.
Yea after winning it 10 straight years. You did not negate the fact I stated. How does failing to win it the 11th time in a row negate those first 10 straight titles? How has their system improved competition in that league? It's stifled it.
Look you can hype up the prem all you want but city has absolutely been way to dominant the past. 5 years
Yea they've been dominant you're the goofballs telling me 10 straight Bayern Bundesliga has the better model. That's my point. It's a clown take.
They… just lost the league
Yes but after 10 straight wins. Why is this so hard to comprehend. It's still 10 league titles in 11 years. You guys are bashing City for 6 in 7 and only 4 straight. Bayern had 10 straight titles in the last 11 years. Bundesliga is not the model.
It’s not meant to improve competition. It’s meant to improve sustainability. And the Bundesliga clubs are by far the most sustainable of the top 5 leagues, and it’s not even close.
It’s not meant to improve competition. It’s meant to improve sustainability. And the Bundesliga clubs are by far the most sustainable of the top 5 leagues, and it’s not even close.
It’s not meant to improve competition. It’s meant to improve sustainability. And the Bundesliga clubs are by far the most sustainable of the top 5 leagues, and it’s not even close.
You mean the Country owned model is not working?!
/s
It's working pretty well for the fans of the teams the countries own.
Yes but those Country/Clubs are now using "diplomatic relations" as a way to get what they want from the UK Government.
Slightly better than the venture capital owned model
No chance. You see City owners are threatening the UK Government over 'damaged diplomatic relations' over the rules?
As a Villa fan, football has become so shit. FFP is crap, but no FFP is also crap. A max cap in spending not based on revenue would probably be best. Sure it might relatively weaken the EPL, but who even cares as fans at this point? I just want football to be competitive on the field and not won in board rooms. I would take lower quality football for that. If all 20 teams had a realistic chance at winning the title by having the best tactics, systems, perserverence, homegrown players etc then hell I'd be all for it.
So the NFL
I suppose yeah. Unless you're a Lions fan ofc.
What’s wrong with us Lions?
No I suppose their curse is over...for now
Yes, for now… last season 🥲
Add a fixed "luxury tax" style soft spending cap. If you spend more than the limit you pay a tax that gets distributed to all the other teams throughout the pyramid.
That is not a bad suggestion at all
I see your point but good luck with getting that genie back in the bottle
I'm not exactly hopeful
User deleted comment
22d
And this is how you get the super league
Never been less interested in football. State owned clubs bringing legal action against the ruling body just to avoid prosecution?
City fans should be embarrassed but it certainly highlights where the game is headed.
It's essentially who can dodge FFP most effectively.
Hasn't been about the fans for a long time but we didn't realize it until social media and 24/7 news were consumed at this amount.
Football is no longer run for actual fans who love their local team and care about the integrity of the sport. They won’t weaken the PL because it won’t line their pockets to do so.
If Man U, Chelsea, City, Liverpool, all had to dump half their players, there would be greater balance.
Don't expect city to be outspent, especially when you guys spent billions in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s to get out front.
You forgot Arsenal.
Nah, they couldn't win it even with a stacked roster.
Let em try.
Mentality Elephants
I think corner kicks don’t benefit my team, so we are going to sue the Premier League, because we don’t think they fit right with our culture and other teams use them so it’s unfair.
premier league flair with a terrible post
Imagine my shock
Yes, attack the person arguing rather than the argument itself.
This is a Premier League subreddit. You appear to be lost. Here: EFL Championship (reddit.com)
Arsenal fan with 'tourist' in his username with weak banter.
This shit just writes itself
Have a look at the detail of the motion Villa put forward it's far more than just 'this doesn't suit us'. FFP is literally broken.
Always has been
Prevents investment. Keeps the big teams winning and the smaller clibs foghting for the crumbs.
smaller clibs foghting for the crumbs.
Why should a smaller club not fight for crumbs?
Smaller clubs have done fuck all to have a global presence to increase revenue. Why should your club, just on virtue of having rich owners be somehow allowed to compete for the big ones?
In other words, why should success be a lucky draw as to whether a club can get state sponsored owners?
If you're going to have private ownership of clubs, then why should an owner not be able to invest?
The big clubs became big through significant Investment, why pull the ladder up behind them?
owner not be able to invest?
They should in a sustainable manner. Start with growing the fanbase.
pull the ladder up behind them?
Are there any restrictions for the smaller clubs to attain a global fanbase? Africa and Asia are 2 continents completely untapped by all the 14 and some of the big 6.
The limitation is on buying players not on marketing efforts.
Why should the smaller clubs be able to strap on a turbo jet while having done none of the backstage work to be able to sustainably afford spending?
You don't think teams like Villa have fans lol?
Have you ever been to Asia or Africa? Premier league shirts of all kinds are found throughout.
Titles being you worldwide support, investment is needed for titles.
Edit: You live in Singapore. I'm sure youve spent enough time in SEA to know that you're speaking absolute shite here
True, but even you’d have to admit that Villa is an acquired taste and probably not for SEA palate ?
It's the premier league. The fans exist everywhere
Villa has nowhere near the global fanbase the likes of Liverpool and united have.
Premier league shirts of all kinds are found throughout.
And yet where are the club shops? Where are the fans actively wearing them? If you honestly believe Aston Villa is as well represented as united in Asia, I know a Nigerian prince for you.Don't believe me? Just look at the merch numbers for the clubs. The disparity is clear for all to see.
Titles being you world wide support, investment is needed for titles.
Chicken and egg.
Titles don't bring you world widesupport. City won 6 and yet their fanbase remains relatively small compared to the original big 3. A conscious effort to reach out to said consumers does however.
Small clubs who have done nothing to even attempt this don't deserve to challenge for the big ones, especially when they're only challenging on virtue of being lucky enough to be picked up by a state in the first place.
Responding to your edit. I don't get it. I literally live in Asia and am telling you the other 14 don't have anywhere near the presence the original big 3 have. Like it's literal proof but your bias doesn't allow you to see past this.
Go find one Asian that tells you otherwise to prove your point if it's possible then you donut.
Not having the presence of Liverpool doesn't mean they don't deserve investment lol. That's just ridiculous
City has a massive fan base. They set attendance records even when they were relegated. It's only grown since then.
Villa and City both have fans around the world. If Villa went on to win some trophies, they would get even more fans.
Liverpool and United have massive worldwide fan bases because they had extremly successful periods decades ago. During those periods, they spent more than the rest. That's just how it works
Didn't say they didn't deserve investments. But not to the point of unsustainability. If they are completely reliant on their owners, then what's the point of being a football club in the first place?
They set attendance records even when they were relegated
I'm gonna level with you here. No one, not a single person outside of Manchester gave a damn about lower midtable City until oil money came in. They were seen as inferior especially when you consider their rivals are United.
During those periods, they spent more than the rest
They also expanded the presence outside of England and around the world. Some of the money spent was used on that too. They had a direct part to play in the PL being made available to the rest of the world.
So once again, my question is such. Why should smaller lucky draw clubs be allowed the same level of success just because they have rich owners?
There's nothing that city or villa have done to deserve said success other than having rich owners, who once they leave, these clubs will sink back into oblivion/mediocrity.
I've got nothing against active owners investing. I've got an issue against a club being propped up simply because of their ownership and absolutely nothing else. Especially when said owners have other non-sporting motives for their investments in the first place.
That analogy doesn't really work very well
You don’t like the rules, leave the league
And get fined for that? Why make such a stupid comment
FFP rules are such crap, they don’t achieve what they’re supposed to and they just make sure that the smaller clubs with lower revenue aren’t able to spend as much as the bigger clubs with higher revenue, just keeps things the way they are with no opportunity for upwards movement. Have a wage and spending cap that is tiered so the clubs that finish higher in the league can spend less than this further down
If you have a wage cap the Prem will never again be the top league in the world. Good players will leave so they can maximize their income.
Why is everyone so obsessed with being the best league in the world. What does that even mean? We have loads of the best players here but no balance so the league becomes boring and everyone just hates on the top team. At least with a wage and spending cap it will be better balanced and the higher you finish the less you can spend meaning that the better teams can’t just continue to spend ungodly amount of money to stay top. It will be far more fair and exciting !
Judging by our teams performances in Europe this season we should be lucky to rate ourselves as the top league in Europe.
The PL is pretty far ahead in 5 year co efficient, Pool have a win and a loss, City a win and a loss, and Chelsea a win in the CL. No other league is doing that. If we push back to even 15 years the different number of teams winning and making finals is also much higher. One bad season isn't indicative of just "being lucky."
Well when we get paired with 2 of the best teams in Europe it makes it hard to say our league isn’t as good as the others. Real Madrid had to play city and Bayern while the weaker teams played each other. Bayern had to beat arsenal to even make it to Real Madrid. Seeding the tournament will give us much better matches I think.
Tbf despite all what happened, Man City is still the best team in the world
I'm not sure on that. Players for certain Middle Eastern clubs will just get a side-job as a "consultant" for some rich Middle Eastern company that only exists on paper.
This logic only applies to people who watch the Premier League, and even then, I'd bet they're still casuals. Before FFP, how many rich owners bought a club, tried to change its identity, pumped money into it, and then, realizing they couldn't get a healthy return, loaded it with debt and abandoned it, leaving the fans without the team they support?
So people who are against restrictions on clubs spending too much, what structure do you plan on putting to stop rich people coming into a club, trying to pump for as much success and abandoning the club once they realise your team not going to become Man City as soon as a rich tycoon comes over. You’re more likely to end up like Portsmouth under Alex Gaydamak, AS Monaco under Rybolovlev or Leeds under Peter Ridsdale.
Force the owners to put the money in escrow
Clubs are classified as private enterprise this would require changing how fútbol clubs are defined legally
FFP rules are such crap, they don’t achieve what they’re supposed to and they just make sure that the smaller clubs with lower revenue aren’t able to spend as much as the bigger clubs with higher revenue
They can't spend as much as bigger teams it's just maths. Liverpool's turnover is almost 4 times Everton's if Everton matches Liverpool's spending even if they are more successful on the pitch they would go bankrupt after a couple years.
The other teams have to grow slowly, it just doesn't make sense for us to allow short sighted owners and Fans to ruin football clubs that have lasted since the game has existed.
Have a wage and spending cap that is tiered so the clubs that finish higher in the league can spend less than this further down
This just doesn't make sense, you either have the big teams spending Way less, which would make them worse in Europe or you have caps so high they don't make any difference for the other 14 teams. let teams spend what they earn, that the system now and it's the only one which makes sense.
Your logic makes the most sense. It does not make sense to nerf the big clubs by restricting their spendings just to make it a more balanced field for all clubs. Big clubs get to where they are financially is partly due to their capabilities in growing the club, therefore it is onus on the smaller clubs to find a way to grow their club to be competitive with the big clubs. Nerfing a big club’s spendings is like restricting a multimillionaire to only consuming MacDonald’s at most just to appease the general public who are not that rich.
How is a team supposed to grow? The system was built to keep 6 to 8 teams at the top. The system was build bc Man U would just buy everyone, every year.
Look at Leister, 1 year title, 5 years later relegated.
Picked apart by the big teams.
There needs to be a salary cap like in US sports.
A team grows over time, it increases its revenue and then can compete slowly.
Leicester are a good example, they actually grew their revenue really well and they closed some of the Gap, they were comfortable the 8th biggest turn over the year they were relegated. They haved only been in the league 10 years at that time.
In 2020/2021 Leicester spent £182m in wages. That compared to arsenals £210m and spurs £209m, they were catching up.
Unfortunately they had a very shit year and were relegated, they never should have been.
The thing to remember though is that English football isnt just the premier league it's the football pyramid full of smaller and bigger teams. It's a different culture every team doesn't have the right to an equal chance of winning.
US sports there isn’t a competitive alternative. MLB, NFL, and NBA do not have a real salary competitor to take players or teams away. If they choose to implement one in the Prem then you’ll see players leave.
Good. Everyone complains about a farmers league. You guys built your empire on overspending year after year, and now wanna close the door.
Salary Cap is best, with luxury tax % to each team who stays under cap.
That isn't nice to billionaires who want to buy a club and drive transfer fees sky-high. It's good for the sport's sustainability when players like Neymar can be bought for 300M.
I still believe that the ffp was introduced by the elites to maintain the gulf between them and the small clubs after Man city was brought by the Arabs. The huge amount of revenue that every club earns now via broadcasting has made it difficult to maintain the divide now. Laws are meant to be changed and adapted over time. The current iteration of ffp seems archaic now.
Of course you do.
Because Man City have a massive persecution complex.
Can you list 114 more reasons why rules need to be abolished?
"The huge amount of revenue that every club earns now via broadcasting has made it difficult to maintain the divide now."
Remind me again about how many consecutive titles Manchester City have?
I think the idea of ffp is good, it’s just the execution is poor. You gotta cap the spending somehow to keep somewhat of a playing field. Ideally you want it to be like the american sports, where everyone has the same money to play with, but i dont think that’s realistic here with an open league. But you gotta limit the spending somehow.
When the best way to cope with ffp is to sell academies player because they’re pure profit, you know that you have terribly fucked up with ffp.
But saying that, in sports if you break the law that you thought need changing, i think the punishment is still deserved haha. Lobby to change the law first then “break it” haha, not the other way adound.
Hey, City have completely abided by them and won 6 of the last seven titles and a treble. Right? I mean they are completely legitimately way beyond anyone else when it comes to commercial revenue. Right?
Or are you admitting that City have been cheating for years?
Can't have it both ways either the laws are stifling up and coming teams and City only achieved what they did by cheating. Or the laws are fine as they allowed City to achieve all they have without cheating.
Are City's achievements tainted by cheating? Yes or no.
Are City's achievements tainted by cheating? Yes or no.
Unless and until it's proven that they actually cheated, no. With what's been made public so far, it would appear they managed to stay on the right side of the rules. If they actually did what the PL claims, a lot of people are going to prison. Perjury is a serious crime, and not one that can be easily dismissed.
Yes. (Full disclosure, I'm an Everton fan)
Nope, it was brought in as too many historic clubs were being mismanaged into administration and then no existence. It has just had bad side effects.
Where as your club wishes to create an even larger divide.
At this point it’s either release everyone to spend whatever or put down a spending cap of like 400 million (maybe a bit more to include wages) a season per club max or something. PL clubs make more from the PL than the CL so not adhering to UEFA rules won’t hurt them.
How does that stop teams going bankrupt?
The whole point is teams got owners focused on the short term and made them bankrupt.
Everton as an example had a £170 million turnover. If they spend £400 mil they go bankrupt and they are an established prem team . Ipswichs was 21 million, even with TV money they won't break 100 mil.
I wonder what the fix is? In the US our sports leagues have salary caps(except the MLB) but the go-around for it is the owners who can afford it just pay the "luxury tax"(penalty for going over the cap) out of pocket if they need to. It still works to a certain degree but it's not a perfect system either and I don't think it's fair to have spending based on income when you've a promotion/relegation system and teams with lower income are going up against the likes of Arsenal/City/Liverpool/Etc.
To be honest I think the current system works, I don't know the low level rules maybe they need tweaking but the principle of you can spend what you earn seems fair.
You need to make sure teams don't cheat (City) but no teams.have gone bankrupt and teams have been punished for overspending (Everton).
Sure it's frustrating that some teams it's unlikely they will win the premier league but my local team will never even get there ( although they almost did in 1995). They are too small. I don't see any difference between that and that Everton are unlikely to win again for a long time.
Do you think not allowing logo sponsors might even the field to some degree and also make it more difficult for the cheating to happen?
Honestly I am not that interested in being more "fair".
The purposes of FFP is that football teams are self sustainable not that teams have similar amounts of money. Personally I think that Prem clubs out of the Top 6 get a good deal.
Most of Fulhams turnover is TV money which is driven mainly by the big clubs.
Most of Fulhams turnover is TV money which is driven mainly by the big clubs.
That makes sense, and in the US the shared TV revenue helps a lot of the smaller market teams make more money than they otherwise would. The only difference is we don't have relegation, which I guess has a big impact on a team from season to season if they're constantly going from relegation to promotion but can't seem to break the barrier.
I do think that using a logo sponsor as some way to skirt FFP rules isn't fair and shouldn't be allowed though.
That makes sense, and in the US the shared TV revenue helps a lot of the smaller market teams make more money than they otherwise would. The only difference is we don't have relegation, which I guess has a big impact on a team from season to season if they're constantly going from relegation to promotion but can't seem to break the barrier
I think you need to forget the US system all together.
My small local team Tranmere getting a couple thousand fans is in the same football pyramid as Liverpool/United. Are we saying that that should have the same financial chance of winning the premier league as the big clubs. I don't think anyone would argue we should cap the premier leagues wages to allow it to be equal to my local team chance.
So what is the difference between them and Fulham. Nothing .... Really. English football isn't financially equal.
Regarding getting rid of arm sponsors, if the team wants to cheat by over inflation sponsors they would just sell the training top or stadium naming rights instead.
Good point it's just hard for Americans to accept that a lower rank team doesn't have the same chance to compete with a top team if ownership actually wants to.
Can we stop posting articles behind pay walls please.
What does it say? Not signing uo
They should PSR or FFP rules make no sense. So Villa must sell Duran and Luiz is outside of Watkins is there best player while Chelsea and 115 charges FC can spend whatever and continue to win.
Who says Chelsea is winning anything?
And can spend whatever lol?? There’s a reason why we’re seriously considering selling conor galagher and chalobah. Chalobah i would have sold regardless, but without ffp, there’s no way that conor would have been transfer listed.
You know damn well Chelsea spends whatever
Ownership wanted Gallagher gone for awhile, you lot just sold yourself your own car lots to skirt FFP so stop. Bought a billion dollars worth of talent for ECL so your defense falls on deaf ears.
People defending PSR by using Spurs as an example. Yes they have steady streams of revenue but what have they won? They have one of the most unambitious people in their management. To compete for the title even they have to spend more to get excellent players. Why are everyone acting like Spurs level of success is the limit for other clubs?
The fact is building the 'right way' does not work for sustained success. Every successful team currently had at some point a massive injection of cash to push them to the next level.
The solution is easy if all you care about is protecting clubs. Just make each owner sign for bonds and sureties based on how much they spend on the club. Managing risk exposure is a solved issue in business.
If me some dumb random can figure it out you have to wonder why the professionals at the PL struggle so.
Comparing it to Spurs is stupid. It took Spurs about 20 years to make top 4 in 09,league. Even before that they could offer wages and the facilities to entice Bale AND Modric. Both of were wanted by all of Europe. Did anyone see players of that caliber say they want to play for Brighton and Leicester?
Were Bale and Modric wanted by all of Europe when they joined Spurs?
Modric was. Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, hell even starting to spend City. Bale was linked with at least Arsenal too.
Ah interesting. I had a vague recollection that Bale flattered to deceive for a few years after joining from Southampton then suddenly went lights out in that Champions League campaign.
So why should big club have equal shared revenue for TV money? They give the opportunity for them to gain the riches but FFP allow them not to lose what they earned. If they ran the older la liga model then they would always been a massive gap.
It actually stupid that most people ignore this, if they want billionaires owners with no limits then backpay them. Additionally these are the same team who cried about a super league...
TV revenue is not actually the factor. Man City earned 170 Million for coming first whilst Sheffield United earned more than 100 Million for coming last. The problem comes from other revenues which depend on the clubs popularity which can only be gained through success by winning silverware. I am a no expert of accounting and finance to give an idea to the premier league but we can all agree that the PSR limits a clubs potential.
TV revenue is not actually the factor. Man City earned 170 Million for coming first whilst Sheffield United earned more than 100 Million for coming last.
That's what he is saying.
If we are honest, Liverpool, United, Arsenal and City should be getting 50+% of the TV money as they get the biggest viewing figures by far.
What the commenter is saying is you can't have it both ways. FFP with an more equal share of the TV money or a less Equal share money but No FFP.
Yeah it bang on the money, club like Villa or City won't get investment without this option of having equal revenues that why they came in a guarantee 100m. Sheff doesn't even deserve 20m 80m could been split with the original top 4. Yet they shared it fairly.
The Premier League claim their financial rules "promote aspiration of clubs", yet debt-free Aston Villa are selling a key player following Champions League qualification and after spending less than every 'big six' club over the last four years.
Douglas Luiz's transfer proves the system is broken.
The “promote aspirations of clubs” quote isn’t something the PL said about their existing financial rules. It comes from a statement regarding the trial of two forms of cost caps next season. Whoever you’re parroting is taking those words out of context.
Also, has any Villa fan considered the possibility that Douglas Luiz might actually prefer playing for one of the biggest clubs in the world next season?
At least credit John Townly if you’re going to word for word copy him, though I’m glad his perspective is being spread
Sorry. Yeah. These aren’t my words. It is a copy and paste from twitter.
If you're really sorry, you'd edit your original comment and attribute it to the original author.
You somewhat forget that villas turnover is a lot less than the ‘Big Six’ and basically want to spend beyond their means with a blank cheque from daddy.
I didn’t forget that. But not being able to invest in yourself does somewhat go against that “financial rules promote aspiration of clubs” line.
Kinda seems like you did forget about that. The other guy is right, you are simply asking to spend more than you bring in. So many clubs have got themselves into problems this way. Clubs should consider investing in their infrastructure, facilities, youth and branding to build a bigger profile instead of the instant gratification that all these sugar daddy clubs seem to be chasing now.
Yeah but sports shouldnt be like that imo. It shouldnt be a competition of who can put more money to win. I know in the end, money rules blablabla, but at least we can put down guardrails to promote some sort of equality. Spending cap does that.
Ideally you want it to be like the american sports, where everyone has the same money to play with. But i think that’s a bit unrealistic here, but we can implement some of their ideas. Maybe just introduce a spending cap tied down to the value of broadcasting for the whole league (or a specific club that finishes in X position).
Or allow owners to spend above the cap, but introduce a tax to make it more expensive. For example, for the warriors to spend $1 above the cap, they have to give $9 back to the league and that $9 will be spread to teams who do not break the cap. Imagine doing that in the prem!!
I agree with that. I think there should be a cap on spending. But the cap should be the same for all clubs in the league; not based on a clubs revenue (as some club’s revenues are mass higher than others).
So Man Utd shouldn't be able to spend more than Luton Town? What do they do with the £500'000'000 leftover? How would you decide what the cap should be?
If we want a competitive premier league; where you achieve based on merit rather than being allowed to spend more than other clubs; then yes.
Yeap, that is the american way. Not sure that will help city or villa in this case tho haha.
I know what you mean but villa can “lose” 105 million over 3 years as long as the owner covers 90million. As covid is now out of these 3 years i do wonder how villa have hit 105 in 3 years
By spending money I guess. But it’s a generally accepted rule in business that you have to spend money to make money. Villa have clearly spent money; but their revenues are also up; and are going up even more substantially this year with UCL qualification.
I imagine any forthcoming legal case will explore whether the rules are anti-competitive or not.
When the rules were introduced Villa like all clubs were aware, for me challenge it then not years later when it actually affects a club. If any club should be pissed i think Everton win that one.
the challenge is going to be the definition of football - if its a true business industry then it could be anti-competitive but if it a closed sports competition then premier league can do what they want. Also if they determine it a business then all the tax breaks of sports will fall away and UEFA/FIFA cant exist as a group - what business industry has an authority over them that isn’t aligned to a government
Forgot the other 14, it's City, Newcastle, Villa and the other 17.
Fuck those 3 clubs.
Arsenal fan being happy with current rules, shock horror.
Fuck you clubs who are maintaining the anti-competitive status quo.
Newcastle have done nothing but comply with the rules I’m sick of people bringing Newcastle in when Newcastle haven’t done anything
Except they haven't
And what have Newcastle done exactly?
Chelsea ?
Apologies it's been a long day. :)
Fuck any club that is not in the established clubs that want to try and compete. Bunch of fools for wanting to be competitive.
Can't you be competitive without your wages being 90% of your entire turnover?
In all seriousness, no. Not when the big six turnover is about 3 times as big as everyone else.
Then organically increase your turnover, don't just cheat. Can't stand Man U but their turnover is huge for a reason.
Thats the point though isnt it. United underperformed for years but happened to get good again when tv money came in. Now theyre solidified as one of the richest clubs in the world despite 10 years of shite and no one can catch up. Sounds soooo fun to support someone else
For a club to grow now, without massive investment, would require probably 15+ years of consistently excellent business. Thats just not feasible. The only clubs I can really think of that did this are Bayern and Spurs. Particularly in England even the current big 6 were mostly invested in, it just happened a few decades ago so people dont care. But they got the early leg up and have reaped benefits since. So how is that any different?
Without success you cant increase turnover. And you cant have success without investment. Simple as. Villa invested, yes, but now theyve just broken the record for revenue for a non big 6 club. Brighton did it properly, and now their moment in the sun seems to have lasted about 2 seasons. Granted this situation might change but speaking as it stands.
In Villas case they have 0 debt. They have an owner that can cover their costs.
Clubs should be allowed to, within reason, use owners money to compete.
It’s hardly far villa can only lose 105m over 3 years, when clubs like MUFC can waste that year on year.
And if daddy decides that he doesn't want to put any more money in, and Villa do a Leeds, Portsmouth, or worse Bury? What then?
Some way of separating owner investment and clubs income. Not a compete free for all that has happened in the past.
Surely as a Tottenham fan you can see how these rules hurt the league. You’re team has done everything right over the last 15 years and you still can’t compete.
I don't think the rules are perfect, and I don't see how Chelsea are signing even more players
But suing the competition because y0u don't like the rules that were agreed by clubs is a bit of a joke
Add Everton to that list soon enough
They'll be relegated.
The PL is Aston Villa and 19 other clubs, it's laws and rules are governed by those members. Really don't understand who/what City and Villa are rallying against?
There are competition laws that all organisations have to abide by. I imagine the accusation is that FFP is anti-competitive.
Why are they anti competitive?
What is being competitive a good thing?
I am asking because I know zilch about economics
Im also not a lawyer or accountant, so take this as personal opinion/understanding.
Outside of sport it would be utterly unquestionable for a company to be restricted in it's investment potential, or even penalized, due to risk of failure.
The whole point of capitalism is risk/reward, so if a person decides to commit their fortune with the intention of building a franchise it is their choice. Look at Elon Musk blasting billions on twitter... that right there is evidence that there is generally no restrictions on financial risk.
We are, however, in a sport, and those clubs sign up to regulations, and the clubs are a lot more than faceless organizations.
There are certain elements that I think the premier league will be sweating over with these legal cases, especially around related party sponsors. Whether fans broadly like it or not, there is an emotionless legal question over whether the premier league can determine fair market value.
The league can make regulations, they can get clubs to sign up for them, they can get them to vote on them, but they have to operate within the confines of the law, and the law does not care about how we feel about sporting integrity.
This is the intersection we are currently in. Sport, finance, and law are all colliding, and it's only sport where people's feeling actually matter, and I really don't think that it's a good thing.
But they voted to change FFP to PSR and then recently voted to change it again
Board votes don’t veto national laws though. If the competition regulators find that the FFP/PSR rules are anti-competitive then they can just strike them down.
No, but the argument would be it is a members club, and if they don't want to follow the rules they can leave and play in a different club.
Villa quickly becoming a thoroughly unlikeable club
7 missing replies
Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the Rules and Reddiquette.
Please also make sure to Join us on Discord
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.