Excellent Article - A Must Read!
- Thread starter rez9000
- Start date
Gilzeanking
Well-Known Member
- May 7, 2005
- 6,139
- 5,083
People seem to have forgotten that the big clubs were threatening to break away and start a European league .
The Prem won't want to reignite that debate by turning off the money .
The Prem won't want to reignite that debate by turning off the money .
rez9000
Any point?
- Feb 8, 2007
- 11,942
- 21,098
- Thread starter
- #23
Let them break away. Who's going to support them? Who are they going to be affiliated with? Who will regulate them? The FA? They can't because it won't be just English clubs involved. UEFA? No way in hell for two reasons a) They are deat-set against any kind of breakaway European League and b) It will effect both the Champions League AND the UEFA Cup. And who would gain promotion to this new League? The top clubs in the Premiership, La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A, The French League, The Portugese League and all the other Leagues around Europe? You'd have 10 relegations every season. No club would want to play in that. Maybe they won't have any relegations. How boring would that be? We'd have the same situation as we have in the premiership now, in that the same clubs gai the top spots and the same clubs lose out.
Sky will lose out because it would dilute their coverage of the Premiership which could cut their subscription figures. And with the recent deal they've cut with the Premiership, they'll be reluctant to shell out again for a new League, in order to maintain them.
The effect will be that you will have a League of maybe 10-15 clubs in Europe with no regulation, no real viewers outside of their fanbase, a reduction in attendance as the majority of fans will not be able to afford to travel to other European cities every two weeks for away games, and potentially a League that no one would want to follow anyway.
It was a bluff from the start. The clubs supposedly pushing for a Euro League knew full well that it wouldn't happen, and also knew that they wouldn't benefit from it. It was simply a way for the bigger club chairmen to assert their authority over the smaller ones.
the break away threat was always laughable to me - I wish g14 had done done it
football would be saner and they would have had to come back cap in hand
of course they knew that and never would have dared - it was a joke of a threat - probably got them a little leverage tho
football would be saner and they would have had to come back cap in hand
of course they knew that and never would have dared - it was a joke of a threat - probably got them a little leverage tho
KentuckyYid
*Eyes That See*
- May 11, 2005
- 13,013
- 2,265
Rez if you have the least successful clubs allowed to spend the most and the most successful clubs only allowed to spend the least, the worlds best players would only be in range of the least successful clubs.
Unless of course you finnagle it so that the worlds best players become the cheapest too...
hellava_tough
Well-Known Member
- Apr 21, 2005
- 9,429
- 12,383
Didn't the Conference do this at some stage?
rez9000
Any point?
- Feb 8, 2007
- 11,942
- 21,098
- Thread starter
- #28
First off, we're talking about a season-by-season cap. If Man U win the title this year, they can spend less the next year. If they want to win the title again, they have to do it by playing good football, not because of the players they buy (I would like to point out that I'm using Man U as an example, not suggesting that they don't play good football). But if they fail to win the title the following year, they would be allowed to spend more. It then cycles, and the paying field is levelled.
Let's take examples from this year's table. Fulham came 17th, Man U, top. So the League says to Fulham 'OK, because of your position in the League, you will be allowed to spend £200 million (just as a hypothetical figure) on players' and they say to Man U 'You won the League, so you will only be allowed to spend £20 million on players'.
Fulham go out and splash £200 million on 11 players and Man U only sign 2. The following year you may see Man U finishing 6th and Fulham winning the League. The League then say that Fulham can only spend £20 million and Man U can spend £50 million (or whatever) and the cycle continues, and the big clubs can no longer marginalise the smaller clubs because of their position.
The emphasis then becomes on which club plays the best football, and rather than having only 4 teams with all the glamour players, you would have them at every club and every game would become a feast of football.
TV coverage would become more equable, instead of concentrated on the Top 4. We'd get rid of that shitty manufactured Sunday where Man U, Chelsea, Arsescum and Liverpool play each other and all other football coverage becomes irrelevent.
There isn't a suggestion that the best players be prevented from playing for the big clubs. Just that the winner of the League will have to start spending in a more thoughtful manner and without hoovering up all the talent and impoverishing the rest of the League.
What you sugest by what you say is that a successful club's squad is crap the next season, but we all know that's not so. Look at Man U. They've picked up the Premiership trophy twice in a row. Yet the core of their team is the same as last year - Rooney, Ronaldo, Scholes, Giggs, Carrick, Ferdinand, Vidic, Van der Saar.
A spending limit is about preventing the top teams from capturing all the talent, which marginalises the less successful clubs to a greater and greater degree. And it would prevent an Abramovich type from coming in and buying the title.
By giving the less successful clubs greater influence the League becomes unpredictable. Every club would be in with a chance of winning the title. Other advantages would be: lower player turnover at smaller clubs; much more competition in the League itself; and yes, player prices would drop, as clubs with less to spend become more cautious.
