Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham, Liverpool, West Ham, Aston Villa, Wolves, Nott'm Forest, Crystal Palace, and Bournemouth
Bit weird considering half of them might be in the EFL soon.
The rejected EFL deal
-
Cereal Killer
- Posts: 575
- Karma: 143
Re: The rejected EFL deal
Surprised that United and City were up for it but the other big clubs weren’t
Re: The rejected EFL deal
The argument that "the prospect of a business being forced to pay a rival business in the same industry – with that money then used by the rival to try and take their place in the Premier League"
Is abhorrent and, in a single line, shows everything that is wrong with modern football.
1) A football club isn't equivalent to a business. It's not a manufacturing plant or an insurance company. It's a community group. Fans aren't customers, yet this "it's a business" think puts them squarely in the income-generator category
2) the premier league isn't a separate entity - it's the top of a fluid pyramid and more than one of those clubs wouldn't exist if it wasn't a pyramid that was supported by all.
As a club, we don't do a lot of things right, but we do normally take the moral stance in matters like these.
Is abhorrent and, in a single line, shows everything that is wrong with modern football.
1) A football club isn't equivalent to a business. It's not a manufacturing plant or an insurance company. It's a community group. Fans aren't customers, yet this "it's a business" think puts them squarely in the income-generator category
2) the premier league isn't a separate entity - it's the top of a fluid pyramid and more than one of those clubs wouldn't exist if it wasn't a pyramid that was supported by all.
As a club, we don't do a lot of things right, but we do normally take the moral stance in matters like these.
Re: The rejected EFL deal
It's selfish, but I understand our viewpoint.
There's 2 factors for it that I can see.
1. At a time when we're already struggling to not lose millions every season why would we voluntarily agree to reducing our main source of income, whilst at the same time financing our competition(The teams coming up) and lessening the need for our prime target for transfer dealings(relegated teams) to sell their players when they go down?
2. The failure for the PL to get the new deal agreed increases the chance of the independant regulator being created to oversee the PL, who we're pissed off with at the minute so it's a convenient way of sticking the boot to them.
There's 2 factors for it that I can see.
1. At a time when we're already struggling to not lose millions every season why would we voluntarily agree to reducing our main source of income, whilst at the same time financing our competition(The teams coming up) and lessening the need for our prime target for transfer dealings(relegated teams) to sell their players when they go down?
2. The failure for the PL to get the new deal agreed increases the chance of the independant regulator being created to oversee the PL, who we're pissed off with at the minute so it's a convenient way of sticking the boot to them.
-
Cereal Killer
- Posts: 575
- Karma: 143
Re: The rejected EFL deal
We agreed with it…Goaljira wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 6:39 am It's selfish, but I understand our viewpoint.
There's 2 factors for it that I can see.
1. At a time when we're already struggling to not lose millions every season why would we voluntarily agree to reducing our main source of income, whilst at the same time financing our competition(The teams coming up) and lessening the need for our prime target for transfer dealings(relegated teams) to sell their players when they go down?
2. The failure for the PL to get the new deal agreed increases the chance of the independant regulator being created to oversee the PL, who we're pissed off with at the minute so it's a convenient way of sticking the boot to them.
Re: The rejected EFL deal
Okay, then I'm stupid.
Last edited by Goaljira on Wed Mar 13, 2024 10:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Cereal Killer
- Posts: 575
- Karma: 143
Re: The rejected EFL deal
Yeah fuck the lower leagues, let them all go to shit, it’s not like we ever need them for bringing players through or anything. We want more money money money as we can’t manage our own club finances properly despite the ridiculous amounts we get for TV deals already
Re: The rejected EFL deal
I've edited my post.Cereal Killer wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2024 9:27 am Yeah fuck the lower leagues, let them all go to shit, it’s not like we ever need them for bringing players through or anything. We want more money money money as we can’t manage our own club finances properly despite the ridiculous amounts we get for TV deals already
-
Cereal Killer
- Posts: 575
- Karma: 143
Re: The rejected EFL deal
Might go back and agree we’re stupid
Part of the deal the EFL want is scrapping parachute payments for relegated teams
This seems slightly insane to me on a number of levels
1. An established PL side goes down e.g Leicester/us. They’ll have revenues drop from £150m to what £30m? They won’t be able to afford anyone’s wages which means sell everyone for whatever you can get. What if nobody wants Andre Gomes on £100k a week and you’re stuck with him? You’ll then fall foul of the EFL profit and loss rules as you’ve got players you can’t shift on big wages causing you losses. On top of that you need a whole new squad on peanuts
2. Teams like Ipswich win promotion. For the above reason they can’t offer decent wages to any potential signings in case they go back down and then get points deducted down to League One. Or build in relegation clauses slashing pay, but then who would they attract with that? So they end up with shockingly unequal squads and almost guarantee relegation