Is one Phillipe Coutinho really as valuable as *an entire first-team's worth of Lewis Dobbins*? I'm struggling to see what objective metric the league are trying to use here to say that these transfers are, or may be 'fraudulent'.
I’m just enjoying the upset premier league because Newcastle and Villa have both finished in the top 4 in the last two seasons and there’s not much they can legally do about it
Villa signing Dobbin for £10m is inflated but Liverpool selling Brewster for £23m wasn’t?
As Nassef Sawiris (Villa’s co owner) said last week, these rules are not in place to promote competition, rather they are in place just to maintain the status quo
Some of those Liverpool to Bournemouth transfers were like when you take over another club in those old management games and sell your dross to get some quick cash.
£10m really isn't much in today's market. I struggle to see how any one could claim any player who has started a Premier league game absolutely definitely is nowhere near £10m to the point where it could be considered a fraudulent sale. Like, if it was £30+m I'd definitely be calling bullshit, but it's nearly single figures we're talking here.
Would the same furore have been kicked up if it had been £9m? Somehow I think not
It’s bizarre, £10m for a young, talented pacey player who had broken into the first team last year before getting an injury. I was looking forward to seeing more of him this year - if we sold him for anything less I’d have been quite annoyed.
However we need to sell some players to survive, and we need depth in midfield… we got that. Seems like a good deal all round - I actually think Dobbin is well more suited to how Villa play at the moment than to how Everton are playing too, so it’s a good deal for the players too.
Wish we could just sell a nearly out of contract player for £50m to Saudi instead, but here we are…
I think Liverpool were like, "There's no way they will fall for this. Put a buy back clause in there so they don't think we are absolutely taking the piss. Make it something stupid like £40m so they think he's really good"
But there's now no reason to trade players as part of a transfer with PSR implications hindering teams progress and making this form of transfer less appealing to clubs.
It's more prudent that each club pays an amount for each player near enough equal and amortizes the cost over the period of the contract. Both clubs get a player of equal value and then get breathing space.
This is within the rules of PSR, both clubs have a player that has potential, similar value and will play for them and it's advantageous to both clubs as the fee is split over the contract period.
The main issues with PSR:
- only 4/5 clubs really have the ability to make transfer dealings as per previous period because they're the only clubs with revenue allowing for it
- it encourages the other 14 to sell youth prospects to maximise profits. Youth teams become disposable assets at a point where we've finally seen English talent coming through systems, that's a huge backwards step.
- we've got Chelsea selling a hotel to themselves and a countries airlines sponsoring the same state owned team at man city.
And yet we're talking about 9m / 10m Dobbin / Iroegbnum deal. And yet the premier league refuses to investigate, or sanction the teams that threatened a breakaway league for any of these dodgy dealings...
This sounds nice and all but in reality the other 14 clubs disagree with each other more than they do with the Sky six. I'd go as far as to say some clubs would fight for the status quo rather than reform so clubs that are currently competing with them, are unable to pull away while they benefit from selling their players for big profits to the bigger clubs.
I don’t even think it’s about Newcastle and Villa pulling away, surely it’s the EFL catching up. Simply staying in the PL is the cash cow. Doesn’t really matter all that much where you finish from 7-17th you’re safe, you financially secure for another several years and life’s good. As much as the other 14 want to get closer to the top 6, many of them aren’t also going to want to make themselves more vulnerable to the drop as well.
So you’re saying that it isn’t worth aiming for the stars, the main aim should just be consolidation without threatening the current elite 6? I’m shocked.
Well that’s not what I’m saying no. But this being this sub we’ll just assume the most obnoxious takes for the free karma points I guess.
Most of the teams voting against Villa and Newcastle, from the other 14, would be sides that aren’t wanting to be propped up on someone else’s wealth. If you bring in rules to close the gap between Villa/Newcastle and the Big 6, then in theory you’ll be also closing the gap between mid-table and 20th.
Clubs like Palace and Brighton for example, who are comfortable being mid-table cash cows for their owners, are not going to want to open up the market because it’s more likely that the risk of relegation increases, whilst simultaneously not seeing their title chances increasing.
I picked 7-17th because those are the places that aren’t guaranteed anything else. It’s just a PL place for the next year. You’re all so fixated on the Big 6 that you can’t even see the goals within your own “other 14” group are entirely different. Teams that don’t have the financial backing of Villa and Newcastle won’t want an entirely open market, and by teams I mean owners. The fans themselves may want to be more ambitious but it’s not their assets at risk.
As an NUFC fan myself I'd definitely say it's more this. Most fans of course won't feel the same way, but I'd guess a significant number of decision makers at other 14 clubs are happy chugging along making no threat to the status quo as long as that status quo solidifies their spot on the top flight gravy train.
As far as the collusion recommended by OP, it's a wonderful idea were it not for the fact that PL money is so ridiculous that you can count on one hand the number of overseas clubs that would pay the kind of money players being sniffed out by the sky six would be after. Then you have to pray one of those few clubs are the slightest bit interested.
Out of the seemingly 3 rival camps (old elite, wealthy sponsors & everybody else) you’re probably in the worst negotiation position because everybody wants to stop City, and your wants would likely align somewhat with theirs. Villa and Chelsea would dip in and out of this group at times too. I can only imagine how frustrating all these new regulations are in stifling the progression. Not sure how you differentiate your wants from City’s though.
Your 2nd paragraph kinda highlights the biggest issue in the initial OP idea. The PL is the biggest buyer, and players will often want to stay in England anyway. So then you’re forced in to a position of accepting Man Utd’s large bag or potentially just losing the player on a free because either they weren’t interested in abroad opportunities or those opportunities never transpired. The idea overlooks the fact that the players themselves have a say, and you can’t just simply make our European clubs look unattractive when they’re *often* offering more money and the opportunity of continental football.
While there's some truth in that. That is more of a structural and funding problem unfortunately. Of which progress to help that is largely being held up by the big six who were originally in favour of a new EFL funding deal, until they decided to withdraw their support to gain further concessions because they were unhappy with the PL's nee TV deal.
Are the 6 unanimous on that one? Seems like recently we’re always split voting too, and if the other 14 could resolve their issues then they can pass a motion without any Big 6 involvement whatsoever, no?
The horse has bolted. When the vote to stop teams owned by groups buying and selling players amongst themselves failed, that was the final nail. The majority of owners in the league only give a fuck about profit. If you put a vote to the PL teams tomorrow saying they want to go with a diet yank system of no relegation and promotion, how many of those owners would vote against it. It's sad but true. No-one give a hoot about competition other than a paper thin veneer which is only there to appease the fans.
This is pretty much what I said in separate comment above, much to the despair of the sub (cartel fan here, so even stating genuine facts is dismissed). Everyone’s clubs are in it for self-interest at board level, and many of the our lower ranked clubs would also jump at any opportunity of a money-grab if it’s offered. Fans only get pissed off when they’re not part of the new in-crowd. People talk about the ESL, which I also massively despised, but the creation of the PL format was very much another example of that. Sure, it was motioned by the Elite 5 of the time, but 9 other clubs also backed them.
People are so fixated on catching the 6 above, using “fairness” as the reasoning, when in reality they just simply want their team to be the dominant one instead. Most discussions I see on this sort of topic are about “destroying the 6” whilst simultaneously the so-called *solutions* would just see the rest of the pyramid pushed further away. Yes, there’s an obvious ceiling created by FFP that needs to be addressed, but there is also an arguably bigger problem in that the ladder is slowly being pulled up between the PL and EFL too. This is never addressed in the solutions for “fairness” though because it puts more of the clubs in this sub at risk of relegation. This is also why the owners themselves won’t back it.
Nah it was in a separate part of the chain entirely, and cause of the mass downvotes it would get hidden from you anyway. But wouldn’t worry, I was just agreeing with your point.
I think most rational fans would though. West Ham/Brighton/Newcastle/Villa all flavour of the month the last few seasons. It's not like it's all sustainability ensuring they can't be consistent either. Managers go, players egos force moves too. They're all mercenaries looking to make as much as they can (fair dos really) Until a proper cap on spending is met, it's just an illusion of a competition. It's all business and no sport now.
Don't worry about the downvoting either. I've been nuked a few times from Forest and Newcastle fans (I'm sure you can guess why haha)
My issue with all of this, is that selling for PSR reasons is bad for some scenarios, but not others. Why is Everton selling Branthwaite for less than they want to because they have to meet PSR requirements not a problem, but them selling an academy player for what seems on the face of it, a totally reasonable amount not OK?
Is it the fact that lots of these deals have been separate, rather than swaps? But again, clubs have to meet PSR requirements, why wouldn't they structure them to help with those requirements, rather than have them not help. If the PL say, well you're only doing these deals to meet PSR, why would Everton selling Branthwaite to Man U be any different from that?
Clubs will say you punished Forest for hanging on to Brennan Johnson a few weeks too long, so why are you unhappy with this? (As an aside, I think that accounting periods for PSR should match transfer windows, that would help that situation somewhat)
I for one would like to see the premier league and the privileged 6 burned to the ground. They tried to break away and got a slap on the wrist… time for scorched earth
Now I, and many of the *privileged 6*, hate the owners for ever even proposing such a notion, but you do understand that as an Everton fan, your club were very much complicit in the very first breakaway of the PL, right?
You were sat at the negotiation table with us for that one. Aside from yourselves and Spurs, 9 other teams, some of which are amongst the “other 14” too, also voted to jump ship from the original format. Without those extra votes the initial breakaway wouldn’t have happened either.
If clubs even further down our top division were offered the chance of ESL money we know they would have also took the bag because we’ve literally seen it happen before. The owners of many of your clubs *also* wouldn’t have given a fuck, they were just annoyed they didn’t get the opportunity in the first place.
But let’s not make the mistake of perceiving owner’s wants for the fan’s wants, after all it was fan reaction that stopped another breakaway happening, thankfully.
I mean tbf mate that’s kinda ironic. It’s this group’s bias that is ignoring the literal fact that Everton were part of the original Big 5 and helped setup the PL breakaway, because they too prioritised money over tradition.
None of that is “biased nonsense”, it’s a fact.
Neither is pointing out that several other clubs, also from this sub, voted to join the PL breakaway. Many of your clubs chase, and have chased, the money when it suits.
The breakaway premier league isn’t the same as the proposed ESL. It’s domestic and wasn’t enclosed with no relegation. And whilst it was essentially a money grab to increase revenue in order to grow and develop teams. It had a clear plan, and had a clear system of promotion and relegation. Other than the fact that it was a breakaway orchestrated by the biggest teams of the time there are no direct comparisons. What’s more is that it was win win back then, the biggest teams saw an opportunity for more money, but also saw the opportunity to develop the sport, and promote development and excellence at club level, and compete more in Europe and at international level. The ESL just had the 6 richest clubs in the country, join forces with some of Europe’s richest clubs to leave for pure monetary reasons. There was never a plan to help the sport, even if it was sold on selfish monetary reasons.
Which is why we all hated the ESL, including those of us that support the founding clubs. But people in here seem to think we as fans actively wanted that and our views *must* align with our owners, it’s silly. This sub is the first to blame the creation of the PL for everything bad that has happened to English football, yet forgets that it literally voted for it. 11 of the votes came from outside “the cartel”.
Clubs, like Everton (staying with the club I initially discussed), are only pissed now because they didn’t sell their souls to hypercommercialism like Man Utd did in the 90s. They were happy to chase the money to begin with because it *should* have allowed them to remain at the top. But now that they couldn’t keep up it’s “all the cartels fault for ruining the game”.
Now we’ve got, *predominantly,* Newcastle and Villa fans pretending they want a “fairer” league, whilst full well knowing any of their suggested solutions would likely allow them to be a part of the dominant group, leaving everyone else miles behind still. The existing cartel wouldn’t just disappear, they’d just get to be part of it. They couldn’t give a shit about the 12 poorer clubs in here, and yet refuse to acknowledge that their wants also have entirely different motives.
We can agree FFP isn’t fit for purpose, but using the line of “fairer league” to promote open-market is bullshit. It’s thinly veiled self-interest, that actively pushes the EFL even further away from the PL. Everyone is fixated on “crushing the cartel” because of a pulled ladder, yet seemingly ignore that their clubs essentially do the same to the clubs below them too. Mid-table clubs actively vote for the status quo because they too are happy taking the PL money and not yo-yoing between the Championship. They’re not going to actively support Villa and Newcastle wanting to challenge the old elite, because allowing that increases the risk of their own relegation. Yet, only the Big 6 get blamed for this status quo.
Literally all PL owners are acting in self-interest, chasing profits, and it’s hypocritical to suggest only the Big 6 do it. Most of the clubs in here also use loopholes and bend rules at times, but act oblivious to one-another’s actions. If you all came to a general consensus you could outvote the Big 6 regardless, especially seeing as City disagree with them typically anyway. FFP could easily be voted out. The matter of fact is the “other 14” hold themselves back (as a group) because they all have their own self-interests too, and until you can actually offer something “equal” and “fair” for both the newly promoted, and the Uber wealthy, nothing will change. That’s not the fault of the Big 6.
I’m not disagreeing with you in regards to owners and fans wanting different things. Or owners voting to keep the status quo so that they can maintain a bankroll of mid table PL money.
I think it should be fairer and if that has the unfortunate effect of causing the lower leagues the chance to catch up, just as it causes the rest to catch up to the big 6, imo that is worth the risk, we should have fair competition. You keep saying Aston Villa and Newcastle want change so they can get into that cartel, but that’s fine cos they have owners that can afford to spend, but aren’t able to. So they can improve and make gains, but if their revenue doesn’t increase then that ability to spend is irrelevant as after 2 seasons they need to make cutbacks. The big 6 were fortunate in the fact they exploded just at the right time to become huge prior to the rules, and now have revenue streams that outmatch the others, even if the others have that spending power. Essentially they can spend what they want without fear of the rules, and others can’t, even if the money is there. That’s not fair.
And as an Everton fan, I blame Liverpool getting us banned from Europe as much as anything else for us not being in that top group. We were huge at the end of the 80s and if we were allowed in Europe we would’ve likely been entering the PL era with one of the best teams in Europe and been able to attract great players and win stuff throughout the 90s and beyond. We sold our best players, won one fa cup, and battled relegation mostly back then because of it. It meant that when selling souls ours wasn’t worth as much.
There is a fundamental difference between a breakaway domestic league..and an exclusive, closed-ship European competition that completely undermined not only fans, but all other main leagues on the continent. But we all know what the bonkers, rabid Arsenal sub is like.. so not a surprising take.
Yeah, but...
We talk about the Sky 6, but we had Newcastle fans absolutely adamant that they were taking Morgan Gibbs-White off us for a bargain price because of "our financial problems" (probably far less than theirs).
And we've had about three seasons of Brentford fans thinking the same about various players of ours.
We can moan about the unfairness of the rules (true) and how they are there to enshrine the dominance of the sky 6 (true) but then some of our fans are just as bad or worse when they think they can get one over on another club
Yeah this, we are laughing at Arsenal and co thinking they will get Bruno and Isak on the cheap, yet some of our fans are doing the same to other teams
When it comes down to it we are 14 different teams there’s correlations via this sub to us all being fucked over by the sky 6 but “the other 14” are still very ready to fuck each other over
>being fucked over by the sky 6
Sky Money was introduced in 1992. Over the next 10 seasons Newcastle spent more money on transfers in the PL than anyone else. You're now owned by an entire country and have the 3rd highest net transfer spend since then. How can you act as if Newcastle are some small club being bullied by "the sky 6".
And out of the so called "sky 6", 2 got their success from being bought by a country and an Oligarch, 3 are historically most successful and most supported clubs in English football, even before the PL era, and the other was able to become financially successful in the PSR era after being an upper mid table club for decades.
In your second paragraph I was waiting for you to end with ‘and the other is Tottenham (and no one really knows what they are considering one of the ‘big 6’)’
Some mental gymnastics take a window from 32-22 years ago to try argue something doesn’t exist. I very much believe that Newcastle could become part of a big 6/7 but they unequivocally aren’t atm. Because of PSR it solidifies the Sky 6 and there ability to tear apart teams that have achieved above there station. Then villa do something to try and halt that (still selling one of their best players) and fans argue it’s incorrect and improper. Nearly every time I see this argument against what villa and Everton have done it’s some fan like yourself who disclosed no bias but is really a Sky 6 fan. (Guessing by the no flair that you support a big 6 team?).
>Some mental gymnastics take a window from 32-22 years ago to try argue something doesn’t exist.
I used that stat to argue against the whole "Sky 6" line. The Sky money has been around since the beginning of the PL. And is shared more equally than TV money in almost any other European. Top 5 league. The decade those clubs became financial powerhouses from the initial Sky money, Newcastle got the same amount, and outspent all those clubs. That's why that stat is relevant. Newcastle have benefited from the Sky money just as much as any of the "Sky 6".
I also showed how ridiculous it is to say that Sky is the reason the big 6 are as financially well off as they are. 2 of them were bought either by a an entire State or a Oligarch at the behest of his states leader and bought their way to success with the owners money. 3 of the "Sky 6" are historically the most successful and best supported clubs in England. You think it's only because of TV money that the 3 historically most successful and most supported clubs in the country get the most revenue? And the other one is Spurs, who were able to elevate themselves during the PSR era where I thought clubs couldn't join the "Sky 6".
I support United yes. But I also support a competitive PL where money is distributed evenly and clubs should have to spend sustainably and fairly. Everton nearly sent themselves into administration by overspending, there should be rules to try prevent that. Newcastle shouldn't be able to outspend everyone because they're owned by an entire country, same goes for City. That's not fair to anyone in the league. If that's allowed only State Owned clubs will be able to win in the future. I'm against State Ownership in general and opposed the Qatari bid for United. I agree PSR under it's current guise is too restrictive for clubs trying to break into the top 6, and agree it needs to be changed, but it was set up to stop another Leeds happening, not to close off the "big 6", which didn't even exist at the time.
Strange metric to use considering Everton, Fulham, West Ham, Leicester villa and Sunderland have all spent more than Newcastle since the PL was formed.
Sounds great in theory to not do business with the Sky6 but that’s just unrealistic. Very few teams outside of that group can put up the same amount of money for transfers.
Ultimately the amount still has to paid? Yes it helps this years accounting but that 10 million still goes onto the books and comes off the amount you have to spend over the next 5 years. Is it really that much of a hack? Am I missing the point here?
I’m thinking the Better 14 should say fuck the rules, and start a joint action against the league for anti-competitiveness. Never happen, because we’re never agree on anything, but a man can dream.
I couldn’t agree more. This is an excellent idea. It would be farcical if next season you’ve got half the league docked points as well. Today is going to be a bit like transfer deadline day where big 6 clubs are going to be circling looking for bargains.
I’d rather my team go down with a points deduction than pander to this shit.
This sub is literally just people playing the victim.
Your teams are breaking the rules they agreed to, overspend and then you melons cry when there's consequences. You even have in language you use lol. What a cesspit
You're right, we should all be like you and join a sub we dislike just to complain and whine about it.
If someone's got a gun to your head and is forcing you to stay, you can tell us.
I dont think there’s anything wrong with what you’re suggesting but you need to keep in mind selling abroad basically means losing out on 10-30 million in transfer fee
You might be able to do what Villa done with Douglas Luiz but you need to keep in mind a. They’re in the CL b. One of those players is english and probably doesnt mind living in a big city in england
This won’t be the case for most of the other 14 clubs, it’s the definition of cutting your nose to spite your face.
You’re suggesting getting fleeced massively in order to burn the top 6 clubs, there may be some harm but it will actually make you weaker long term as you’re missing out on the inflated fee
Additionally very rarely do the other 14 clubs have players good enough to go to big european teams, there is zero chance you will get a acceptable fee selling to smaller european sides…even the big 6 clubs struggle with this
So yes you could do it but its probably a bad idea long term
Is one Phillipe Coutinho really as valuable as *an entire first-team's worth of Lewis Dobbins*? I'm struggling to see what objective metric the league are trying to use here to say that these transfers are, or may be 'fraudulent'.
Now I really want to see 11 Dobbin's versus 1 prime Coutinho
Here you go: https://youtu.be/VLDUejiltog?si=ZjRVF5z6og1nMgZA
love it
I’m just enjoying the upset premier league because Newcastle and Villa have both finished in the top 4 in the last two seasons and there’s not much they can legally do about it
They encouraged it lol, they let a country buy Newcastle.
Tbf they were pressured by the Gov to do so
That makes it worse not better
Villa signing Dobbin for £10m is inflated but Liverpool selling Brewster for £23m wasn’t? As Nassef Sawiris (Villa’s co owner) said last week, these rules are not in place to promote competition, rather they are in place just to maintain the status quo
Some of those Liverpool to Bournemouth transfers were like when you take over another club in those old management games and sell your dross to get some quick cash.
Yeah charging us £150k for Alex Watson in the early 90s was a pisstake.
£10m really isn't much in today's market. I struggle to see how any one could claim any player who has started a Premier league game absolutely definitely is nowhere near £10m to the point where it could be considered a fraudulent sale. Like, if it was £30+m I'd definitely be calling bullshit, but it's nearly single figures we're talking here. Would the same furore have been kicked up if it had been £9m? Somehow I think not
They’re all upset over Iroegbunam too he joined Everton for £9m
It’s bizarre, £10m for a young, talented pacey player who had broken into the first team last year before getting an injury. I was looking forward to seeing more of him this year - if we sold him for anything less I’d have been quite annoyed. However we need to sell some players to survive, and we need depth in midfield… we got that. Seems like a good deal all round - I actually think Dobbin is well more suited to how Villa play at the moment than to how Everton are playing too, so it’s a good deal for the players too. Wish we could just sell a nearly out of contract player for £50m to Saudi instead, but here we are…
As someone who has had the misfortune of watching Brewster play football regularly, I can only assume that we bought him for a bet
I reckon Ant and Dec told you to do it
I think Liverpool were like, "There's no way they will fall for this. Put a buy back clause in there so they don't think we are absolutely taking the piss. Make it something stupid like £40m so they think he's really good"
It’s the direct buying and selling between clubs that is the issue. It just happens to be young homegrown players that be marked down as pure profit.
But there's now no reason to trade players as part of a transfer with PSR implications hindering teams progress and making this form of transfer less appealing to clubs. It's more prudent that each club pays an amount for each player near enough equal and amortizes the cost over the period of the contract. Both clubs get a player of equal value and then get breathing space. This is within the rules of PSR, both clubs have a player that has potential, similar value and will play for them and it's advantageous to both clubs as the fee is split over the contract period. The main issues with PSR: - only 4/5 clubs really have the ability to make transfer dealings as per previous period because they're the only clubs with revenue allowing for it - it encourages the other 14 to sell youth prospects to maximise profits. Youth teams become disposable assets at a point where we've finally seen English talent coming through systems, that's a huge backwards step. - we've got Chelsea selling a hotel to themselves and a countries airlines sponsoring the same state owned team at man city. And yet we're talking about 9m / 10m Dobbin / Iroegbnum deal. And yet the premier league refuses to investigate, or sanction the teams that threatened a breakaway league for any of these dodgy dealings...
They sanctioned the corrupt six for trying to breakaway. It's just they asked them how they should be punished and a small fine was decided upon... 😑
I really don’t get why people are trying to act like £10m is an inflated price. Seems like standard fare these days
This sounds nice and all but in reality the other 14 clubs disagree with each other more than they do with the Sky six. I'd go as far as to say some clubs would fight for the status quo rather than reform so clubs that are currently competing with them, are unable to pull away while they benefit from selling their players for big profits to the bigger clubs.
This is my view tbf. But that’s only cuz my club isnt doing it
I don’t even think it’s about Newcastle and Villa pulling away, surely it’s the EFL catching up. Simply staying in the PL is the cash cow. Doesn’t really matter all that much where you finish from 7-17th you’re safe, you financially secure for another several years and life’s good. As much as the other 14 want to get closer to the top 6, many of them aren’t also going to want to make themselves more vulnerable to the drop as well.
So you’re saying that it isn’t worth aiming for the stars, the main aim should just be consolidation without threatening the current elite 6? I’m shocked.
Well that’s not what I’m saying no. But this being this sub we’ll just assume the most obnoxious takes for the free karma points I guess. Most of the teams voting against Villa and Newcastle, from the other 14, would be sides that aren’t wanting to be propped up on someone else’s wealth. If you bring in rules to close the gap between Villa/Newcastle and the Big 6, then in theory you’ll be also closing the gap between mid-table and 20th. Clubs like Palace and Brighton for example, who are comfortable being mid-table cash cows for their owners, are not going to want to open up the market because it’s more likely that the risk of relegation increases, whilst simultaneously not seeing their title chances increasing. I picked 7-17th because those are the places that aren’t guaranteed anything else. It’s just a PL place for the next year. You’re all so fixated on the Big 6 that you can’t even see the goals within your own “other 14” group are entirely different. Teams that don’t have the financial backing of Villa and Newcastle won’t want an entirely open market, and by teams I mean owners. The fans themselves may want to be more ambitious but it’s not their assets at risk.
As an NUFC fan myself I'd definitely say it's more this. Most fans of course won't feel the same way, but I'd guess a significant number of decision makers at other 14 clubs are happy chugging along making no threat to the status quo as long as that status quo solidifies their spot on the top flight gravy train. As far as the collusion recommended by OP, it's a wonderful idea were it not for the fact that PL money is so ridiculous that you can count on one hand the number of overseas clubs that would pay the kind of money players being sniffed out by the sky six would be after. Then you have to pray one of those few clubs are the slightest bit interested.
Out of the seemingly 3 rival camps (old elite, wealthy sponsors & everybody else) you’re probably in the worst negotiation position because everybody wants to stop City, and your wants would likely align somewhat with theirs. Villa and Chelsea would dip in and out of this group at times too. I can only imagine how frustrating all these new regulations are in stifling the progression. Not sure how you differentiate your wants from City’s though. Your 2nd paragraph kinda highlights the biggest issue in the initial OP idea. The PL is the biggest buyer, and players will often want to stay in England anyway. So then you’re forced in to a position of accepting Man Utd’s large bag or potentially just losing the player on a free because either they weren’t interested in abroad opportunities or those opportunities never transpired. The idea overlooks the fact that the players themselves have a say, and you can’t just simply make our European clubs look unattractive when they’re *often* offering more money and the opportunity of continental football.
While there's some truth in that. That is more of a structural and funding problem unfortunately. Of which progress to help that is largely being held up by the big six who were originally in favour of a new EFL funding deal, until they decided to withdraw their support to gain further concessions because they were unhappy with the PL's nee TV deal.
Are the 6 unanimous on that one? Seems like recently we’re always split voting too, and if the other 14 could resolve their issues then they can pass a motion without any Big 6 involvement whatsoever, no?
The horse has bolted. When the vote to stop teams owned by groups buying and selling players amongst themselves failed, that was the final nail. The majority of owners in the league only give a fuck about profit. If you put a vote to the PL teams tomorrow saying they want to go with a diet yank system of no relegation and promotion, how many of those owners would vote against it. It's sad but true. No-one give a hoot about competition other than a paper thin veneer which is only there to appease the fans.
This is pretty much what I said in separate comment above, much to the despair of the sub (cartel fan here, so even stating genuine facts is dismissed). Everyone’s clubs are in it for self-interest at board level, and many of the our lower ranked clubs would also jump at any opportunity of a money-grab if it’s offered. Fans only get pissed off when they’re not part of the new in-crowd. People talk about the ESL, which I also massively despised, but the creation of the PL format was very much another example of that. Sure, it was motioned by the Elite 5 of the time, but 9 other clubs also backed them. People are so fixated on catching the 6 above, using “fairness” as the reasoning, when in reality they just simply want their team to be the dominant one instead. Most discussions I see on this sort of topic are about “destroying the 6” whilst simultaneously the so-called *solutions* would just see the rest of the pyramid pushed further away. Yes, there’s an obvious ceiling created by FFP that needs to be addressed, but there is also an arguably bigger problem in that the ladder is slowly being pulled up between the PL and EFL too. This is never addressed in the solutions for “fairness” though because it puts more of the clubs in this sub at risk of relegation. This is also why the owners themselves won’t back it.
Sorry I was skimming the comments so I missed it.
Nah it was in a separate part of the chain entirely, and cause of the mass downvotes it would get hidden from you anyway. But wouldn’t worry, I was just agreeing with your point.
I think most rational fans would though. West Ham/Brighton/Newcastle/Villa all flavour of the month the last few seasons. It's not like it's all sustainability ensuring they can't be consistent either. Managers go, players egos force moves too. They're all mercenaries looking to make as much as they can (fair dos really) Until a proper cap on spending is met, it's just an illusion of a competition. It's all business and no sport now. Don't worry about the downvoting either. I've been nuked a few times from Forest and Newcastle fans (I'm sure you can guess why haha)
My issue with all of this, is that selling for PSR reasons is bad for some scenarios, but not others. Why is Everton selling Branthwaite for less than they want to because they have to meet PSR requirements not a problem, but them selling an academy player for what seems on the face of it, a totally reasonable amount not OK? Is it the fact that lots of these deals have been separate, rather than swaps? But again, clubs have to meet PSR requirements, why wouldn't they structure them to help with those requirements, rather than have them not help. If the PL say, well you're only doing these deals to meet PSR, why would Everton selling Branthwaite to Man U be any different from that? Clubs will say you punished Forest for hanging on to Brennan Johnson a few weeks too long, so why are you unhappy with this? (As an aside, I think that accounting periods for PSR should match transfer windows, that would help that situation somewhat)
I for one would like to see the premier league and the privileged 6 burned to the ground. They tried to break away and got a slap on the wrist… time for scorched earth
Now I, and many of the *privileged 6*, hate the owners for ever even proposing such a notion, but you do understand that as an Everton fan, your club were very much complicit in the very first breakaway of the PL, right? You were sat at the negotiation table with us for that one. Aside from yourselves and Spurs, 9 other teams, some of which are amongst the “other 14” too, also voted to jump ship from the original format. Without those extra votes the initial breakaway wouldn’t have happened either. If clubs even further down our top division were offered the chance of ESL money we know they would have also took the bag because we’ve literally seen it happen before. The owners of many of your clubs *also* wouldn’t have given a fuck, they were just annoyed they didn’t get the opportunity in the first place. But let’s not make the mistake of perceiving owner’s wants for the fan’s wants, after all it was fan reaction that stopped another breakaway happening, thankfully.
Please go away, there are literally so many other subs where you can post your biased nonsense.
I mean tbf mate that’s kinda ironic. It’s this group’s bias that is ignoring the literal fact that Everton were part of the original Big 5 and helped setup the PL breakaway, because they too prioritised money over tradition. None of that is “biased nonsense”, it’s a fact. Neither is pointing out that several other clubs, also from this sub, voted to join the PL breakaway. Many of your clubs chase, and have chased, the money when it suits.
The breakaway premier league isn’t the same as the proposed ESL. It’s domestic and wasn’t enclosed with no relegation. And whilst it was essentially a money grab to increase revenue in order to grow and develop teams. It had a clear plan, and had a clear system of promotion and relegation. Other than the fact that it was a breakaway orchestrated by the biggest teams of the time there are no direct comparisons. What’s more is that it was win win back then, the biggest teams saw an opportunity for more money, but also saw the opportunity to develop the sport, and promote development and excellence at club level, and compete more in Europe and at international level. The ESL just had the 6 richest clubs in the country, join forces with some of Europe’s richest clubs to leave for pure monetary reasons. There was never a plan to help the sport, even if it was sold on selfish monetary reasons.
Which is why we all hated the ESL, including those of us that support the founding clubs. But people in here seem to think we as fans actively wanted that and our views *must* align with our owners, it’s silly. This sub is the first to blame the creation of the PL for everything bad that has happened to English football, yet forgets that it literally voted for it. 11 of the votes came from outside “the cartel”. Clubs, like Everton (staying with the club I initially discussed), are only pissed now because they didn’t sell their souls to hypercommercialism like Man Utd did in the 90s. They were happy to chase the money to begin with because it *should* have allowed them to remain at the top. But now that they couldn’t keep up it’s “all the cartels fault for ruining the game”. Now we’ve got, *predominantly,* Newcastle and Villa fans pretending they want a “fairer” league, whilst full well knowing any of their suggested solutions would likely allow them to be a part of the dominant group, leaving everyone else miles behind still. The existing cartel wouldn’t just disappear, they’d just get to be part of it. They couldn’t give a shit about the 12 poorer clubs in here, and yet refuse to acknowledge that their wants also have entirely different motives. We can agree FFP isn’t fit for purpose, but using the line of “fairer league” to promote open-market is bullshit. It’s thinly veiled self-interest, that actively pushes the EFL even further away from the PL. Everyone is fixated on “crushing the cartel” because of a pulled ladder, yet seemingly ignore that their clubs essentially do the same to the clubs below them too. Mid-table clubs actively vote for the status quo because they too are happy taking the PL money and not yo-yoing between the Championship. They’re not going to actively support Villa and Newcastle wanting to challenge the old elite, because allowing that increases the risk of their own relegation. Yet, only the Big 6 get blamed for this status quo. Literally all PL owners are acting in self-interest, chasing profits, and it’s hypocritical to suggest only the Big 6 do it. Most of the clubs in here also use loopholes and bend rules at times, but act oblivious to one-another’s actions. If you all came to a general consensus you could outvote the Big 6 regardless, especially seeing as City disagree with them typically anyway. FFP could easily be voted out. The matter of fact is the “other 14” hold themselves back (as a group) because they all have their own self-interests too, and until you can actually offer something “equal” and “fair” for both the newly promoted, and the Uber wealthy, nothing will change. That’s not the fault of the Big 6.
I’m not disagreeing with you in regards to owners and fans wanting different things. Or owners voting to keep the status quo so that they can maintain a bankroll of mid table PL money. I think it should be fairer and if that has the unfortunate effect of causing the lower leagues the chance to catch up, just as it causes the rest to catch up to the big 6, imo that is worth the risk, we should have fair competition. You keep saying Aston Villa and Newcastle want change so they can get into that cartel, but that’s fine cos they have owners that can afford to spend, but aren’t able to. So they can improve and make gains, but if their revenue doesn’t increase then that ability to spend is irrelevant as after 2 seasons they need to make cutbacks. The big 6 were fortunate in the fact they exploded just at the right time to become huge prior to the rules, and now have revenue streams that outmatch the others, even if the others have that spending power. Essentially they can spend what they want without fear of the rules, and others can’t, even if the money is there. That’s not fair. And as an Everton fan, I blame Liverpool getting us banned from Europe as much as anything else for us not being in that top group. We were huge at the end of the 80s and if we were allowed in Europe we would’ve likely been entering the PL era with one of the best teams in Europe and been able to attract great players and win stuff throughout the 90s and beyond. We sold our best players, won one fa cup, and battled relegation mostly back then because of it. It meant that when selling souls ours wasn’t worth as much.
There is a fundamental difference between a breakaway domestic league..and an exclusive, closed-ship European competition that completely undermined not only fans, but all other main leagues on the continent. But we all know what the bonkers, rabid Arsenal sub is like.. so not a surprising take.
Yeah, but... We talk about the Sky 6, but we had Newcastle fans absolutely adamant that they were taking Morgan Gibbs-White off us for a bargain price because of "our financial problems" (probably far less than theirs). And we've had about three seasons of Brentford fans thinking the same about various players of ours. We can moan about the unfairness of the rules (true) and how they are there to enshrine the dominance of the sky 6 (true) but then some of our fans are just as bad or worse when they think they can get one over on another club
Yeah this, we are laughing at Arsenal and co thinking they will get Bruno and Isak on the cheap, yet some of our fans are doing the same to other teams
When it comes down to it we are 14 different teams there’s correlations via this sub to us all being fucked over by the sky 6 but “the other 14” are still very ready to fuck each other over
>being fucked over by the sky 6 Sky Money was introduced in 1992. Over the next 10 seasons Newcastle spent more money on transfers in the PL than anyone else. You're now owned by an entire country and have the 3rd highest net transfer spend since then. How can you act as if Newcastle are some small club being bullied by "the sky 6". And out of the so called "sky 6", 2 got their success from being bought by a country and an Oligarch, 3 are historically most successful and most supported clubs in English football, even before the PL era, and the other was able to become financially successful in the PSR era after being an upper mid table club for decades.
In your second paragraph I was waiting for you to end with ‘and the other is Tottenham (and no one really knows what they are considering one of the ‘big 6’)’
Some mental gymnastics take a window from 32-22 years ago to try argue something doesn’t exist. I very much believe that Newcastle could become part of a big 6/7 but they unequivocally aren’t atm. Because of PSR it solidifies the Sky 6 and there ability to tear apart teams that have achieved above there station. Then villa do something to try and halt that (still selling one of their best players) and fans argue it’s incorrect and improper. Nearly every time I see this argument against what villa and Everton have done it’s some fan like yourself who disclosed no bias but is really a Sky 6 fan. (Guessing by the no flair that you support a big 6 team?).
>Some mental gymnastics take a window from 32-22 years ago to try argue something doesn’t exist. I used that stat to argue against the whole "Sky 6" line. The Sky money has been around since the beginning of the PL. And is shared more equally than TV money in almost any other European. Top 5 league. The decade those clubs became financial powerhouses from the initial Sky money, Newcastle got the same amount, and outspent all those clubs. That's why that stat is relevant. Newcastle have benefited from the Sky money just as much as any of the "Sky 6". I also showed how ridiculous it is to say that Sky is the reason the big 6 are as financially well off as they are. 2 of them were bought either by a an entire State or a Oligarch at the behest of his states leader and bought their way to success with the owners money. 3 of the "Sky 6" are historically the most successful and best supported clubs in England. You think it's only because of TV money that the 3 historically most successful and most supported clubs in the country get the most revenue? And the other one is Spurs, who were able to elevate themselves during the PSR era where I thought clubs couldn't join the "Sky 6". I support United yes. But I also support a competitive PL where money is distributed evenly and clubs should have to spend sustainably and fairly. Everton nearly sent themselves into administration by overspending, there should be rules to try prevent that. Newcastle shouldn't be able to outspend everyone because they're owned by an entire country, same goes for City. That's not fair to anyone in the league. If that's allowed only State Owned clubs will be able to win in the future. I'm against State Ownership in general and opposed the Qatari bid for United. I agree PSR under it's current guise is too restrictive for clubs trying to break into the top 6, and agree it needs to be changed, but it was set up to stop another Leeds happening, not to close off the "big 6", which didn't even exist at the time.
Strange metric to use considering Everton, Fulham, West Ham, Leicester villa and Sunderland have all spent more than Newcastle since the PL was formed.
They would welcome it cuz it gets them to the Super League faster.
We should be talking about 115 charges instead.
Every. Damn. Day.
Sounds great in theory to not do business with the Sky6 but that’s just unrealistic. Very few teams outside of that group can put up the same amount of money for transfers.
We have refused to do business with Tottenham for about a decade now, which I’m all in favour of.
Goes without saying 🤣
It's happened in previous seasons too just not as blatantly.
Ultimately the amount still has to paid? Yes it helps this years accounting but that 10 million still goes onto the books and comes off the amount you have to spend over the next 5 years. Is it really that much of a hack? Am I missing the point here?
Since when were Chelsea no longer in the big six
I’m thinking the Better 14 should say fuck the rules, and start a joint action against the league for anti-competitiveness. Never happen, because we’re never agree on anything, but a man can dream.
This would be a massive power move and I'm all for it, it would be nice to keep some of our starts until their prime
I couldn’t agree more. This is an excellent idea. It would be farcical if next season you’ve got half the league docked points as well. Today is going to be a bit like transfer deadline day where big 6 clubs are going to be circling looking for bargains. I’d rather my team go down with a points deduction than pander to this shit.
The thing is that this is basically what city are asking for too.
This sub is literally just people playing the victim. Your teams are breaking the rules they agreed to, overspend and then you melons cry when there's consequences. You even have in language you use lol. What a cesspit
You're right, we should all be like you and join a sub we dislike just to complain and whine about it. If someone's got a gun to your head and is forcing you to stay, you can tell us.
Show me a single rule that's broken. One.
What rules are being broken by Everton and Villa selling a player to each other at fair market value?
Flair up, coward
My money is on them supporting Man City tbh, which would be a bit ironic
I dont think there’s anything wrong with what you’re suggesting but you need to keep in mind selling abroad basically means losing out on 10-30 million in transfer fee You might be able to do what Villa done with Douglas Luiz but you need to keep in mind a. They’re in the CL b. One of those players is english and probably doesnt mind living in a big city in england This won’t be the case for most of the other 14 clubs, it’s the definition of cutting your nose to spite your face. You’re suggesting getting fleeced massively in order to burn the top 6 clubs, there may be some harm but it will actually make you weaker long term as you’re missing out on the inflated fee Additionally very rarely do the other 14 clubs have players good enough to go to big european teams, there is zero chance you will get a acceptable fee selling to smaller european sides…even the big 6 clubs struggle with this So yes you could do it but its probably a bad idea long term