General Premier League Thread 2022-23 - mod note in OP 12/03/23

When a club like man city claim to make greater commercial revenue than the likes of United and Liverpool you know it's all bull.

With Avon on this one Bloom is one of the greatest entrepreneurs of his generation.

Ten Haggs United actually play deeper tan Ole's ( deepest average line in the league this season) but as you rightly point out they look for the extra pass or two before getting a striker away,

Ten Hagg has done well , he has done what he had to do , many mangers fail because they try to stick to there " philosophy " He noticed after the first two games it wasn't working as it was to early for the player he had available so went back to basic's that is good management ,

So nobody is criticising him all we saying is the make or break of his job will come when he has to try to transition them to a front foot possession orientated side,

De Zerbi is a very interesting appointment ,

it'll be very interesting to see who ends up in there jobs longer between himself & Potter,

I love Potter he is a brilliant coach but i think Chelsea was the wrong top 6 club for him,

What are the knock-on effects of these dodgy deals though? When 1 or 2 clubs are getting money for sponsorship they could never have gained on the open market?

What does that do to the clubs that are trying to compete with them? Do they go bankrupt trying to compete or do they just accept that they cannot make up a deal for 500m - 1B out of nowhere and are now a 2nd rate team?

FFP should not be about stopping a club from eventually challenging the top clubs but it needs to make sure they are not inflating the whole market beyond repair, causing issues for other clubs. It is very clear that is what Man City are doing, sure they were caught but got off because the evidence was time-barred. But the evidence was still there and everyone knows they cheated before and are at it again now.

Have no issue with clubs growing over time to challenge but have every issue with making up bogus deals to artificially inflate income to skip over other clubs so you can clean the image of your country to the western world. It is a very very bad road to go down.

I didnt mean you specifically want to keep the big clubs big. And again, so what if an owner does that? As long as that company commits to keep paying what difference does it make? The club is protected as they are guaranteed the sponsor money that covers their bills.

If you think these deals distort the market then it should be a budget limit rather than a % of revenue. FFP doesn't stop United spending 200million on a player but it does stop Newcastle.

Spurs (826 M), United (600 M) , Arsenal ( 201M) , Liverpool (208m) are all also in debt ,

From last May there was only 4 clubs reported in Europe in zero depth are PSG, City, Chelsea & Leister

Running football clubs is no easy task ,

Debt doesn't mean that it is not within means. Especially capital debt against an asset (stadium).

We're all in some sort of debt or other (mortgages, loans, etc) but that doesn't mean we can't afford to go out and buy a loaf of bread.

The other 4 are teams that you listed are just hobbies for the mega rich. They're exactly why FFP was brought in, to stop monopolies and promote competition. Though you could argue that the design and implementation doesn't match the spirit of the intention.

Oh ye I'm 100 % aware of all of that

Its like most things in life that are set out with the idea of fairness but end up being corrupted

Absolutely - except Man City and PSG (apparently)

"Criminal and anti competitive".

How is it criminal? Maybe you don't mean in a legal sense.

Anti-competitive. Yeah, I'll give you that. But to a large extent football fans don't want competition. True business competition leads to a healthy failure rate (roughly 10% of businesses close each year I believe). But when a club aims for the stars and it goes badly wrong (they fail and then they either fold, or go close to folding) no-one seems to regard it as a desirable natural outcome. Instead we get loud demands for rule changes to protect clubs from 'bad' owners, appeals to save clubs because of their devastated fan-base and historic importance to their locality etc

But when the EPL or UEFA put rules in place to prevent these crash and burn events, then 'anti-competitive/protection of the elite' gets thrown their way. And to a large extent it's a valid claim.

It just seems a really difficult conundrum.

This will probably put an end to flares at games and pitch invasions

The ultras will get around that too very easily;

Interpretive dance.

If they make a profit of 10.5 million next year they'll be ok going by your math