Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Stifler]

42 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It’s the American model that the mostly US owners are looking for - US sports are the embodiment of the ‘closed shop’.   It’s a bloody awful model. 

Yeah. If we went with the American model, then we will need to accept that either the Premier League is a closed league thats at risk of other leagues taking over it in time, or that we move to the ESL.

Salary caps and the hard spent limit aren’t happening without it.

 

 

Edited April 22 by Stifler

[Armchair Pundit]

If the American model ever comes in, that's the day I stop watching football.

[McDog]

53 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It’s the American model that the mostly US owners are looking for - US sports are the embodiment of the ‘closed shop’.   It’s a bloody awful model. 

 

 

It's fine here because that's all we know. 

You guys know I'm a yank. I have absolutely no interest in seeing that model in England or anywhere else it isn't wanted. I first found out about the English pyramid from a computer game called "Football Manager". No, not the Eidos or Sports Interactive game. I think it was Peja or Addictive games. I got a copy on my Commodore 64 in the mid 80's and was amazed by how interesting it made sports, promotion and relegation that is. It was a revelation to me.

That said, in the USA and specifically the NFL, the commissioner has a great deal of power to steer the game and league in whatever direction he wants. HOWEVER, he can be fired by the owners of the 32 teams. He works for them. He is hired and fired by the team owners.

Is the head of the EPL (Richard Masters) specifically hired by the owners? Can they directly order a change like that? In other words, can the owners of the EPL teams force change he doesn't enact?

 

Honest question.

[r0cafella]

53 minutes ago, McDog said:

 

 

It's fine here because that's all we know. 

You guys know I'm a yank. I have absolutely no interest in seeing that model in England or anywhere else it isn't wanted. I first found out about the English pyramid from a computer game called "Football Manager". No, not the Eidos or Sports Interactive game. I think it was Peja or Addictive games. I got a copy on my Commodore 64 in the mid 80's and was amazed by how interesting it made sports, promotion and relegation that is. It was a revelation to me.

That said, in the USA and specifically the NFL, the commissioner has a great deal of power to steer the game and league in whatever direction he wants. HOWEVER, he can be fired by the owners of the 32 teams. He works for them. He is hired and fired by the team owners.

Is the head of the EPL (Richard Masters) specifically hired by the owners? Can they directly order a change like that? In other words, can the owners of the EPL teams force change he doesn't enact?

 

Honest question.

Masters is hired by the members (the clubs) he's just an employee and does the bidding of the members  

[TheBrownBottle]

47 minutes ago, McDog said:

 

 

It's fine here because that's all we know. 

You guys know I'm a yank. I have absolutely no interest in seeing that model in England or anywhere else it isn't wanted. I first found out about the English pyramid from a computer game called "Football Manager". No, not the Eidos or Sports Interactive game. I think it was Peja or Addictive games. I got a copy on my Commodore 64 in the mid 80's and was amazed by how interesting it made sports, promotion and relegation that is. It was a revelation to me.

That said, in the USA and specifically the NFL, the commissioner has a great deal of power to steer the game and league in whatever direction he wants. HOWEVER, he can be fired by the owners of the 32 teams. He works for them. He is hired and fired by the team owners.

Is the head of the EPL (Richard Masters) specifically hired by the owners? Can they directly order a change like that? In other words, can the owners of the EPL teams force change he doesn't enact?

 

Honest question.

The administration of football in England is an absolute mess, and ‘‘twas ever thus from the moment the Football League was formed.  
 

The PL is odd in that it works as a company, with each club being an equal shareholder - as is the FA.  So they collectively appoint the likes of Masters - and this lack of independent regulation is part of the problem.  He’d need to be voted out by a two-thirds majority.
 

Historically, football was governed by the FA (the national team, grassroots / amateurs, the FA Cup, the laws of the game) and the Football League (the professional leagues ie the top four divisions, plus the league cup).  Both bodies were in constant conflict - the northern-based professionals in the north (the Football League) and the posh amateur public schoolboys in the south (the FA).  The PL breakaway was backed by the FA as an act of political spite vs the Football League (with promises that it was in the interest of the English national team - to reduce the top flight to 18 clubs, and potentially even 16.  Still waiting on that one!).  The PL breakaway was really to achieve exactly the conditions we see today - it was really first touted in the late ‘80s, when about a dozen of England’s big clubs met to see if they could hoard all the TV money (including Newcastle).  It’s always been a grubby cash-grab, and our club happily fucked over 90% of the other professional clubs in England (ticket receipts used to be equally shared, as did TV revenues between the 92 professional clubs).  It is probably a wee bit rich for us to bang on about ‘the cartel’ when we’ve been in the vanguard ourselves of fucking over English football for nearly four decades - but ethical consistency isn’t usually the dominion of football supporters  

[McDog]

19 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

The administration of football in England is an absolute mess, and ‘‘twas ever thus from the moment the Football League was formed.  
 

The PL is odd in that it works as a company, with each club being an equal shareholder - as is the FA.  So they collectively appoint the likes of Masters - and this lack of independent regulation is part of the problem.  He’d need to be voted out by a two-thirds majority.
 

Historically, football was governed by the FA (the national team, grassroots / amateurs, the FA Cup, the laws of the game) and the Football League (the professional leagues ie the top four divisions, plus the league cup).  Both bodies were in constant conflict - the northern-based professionals in the north (the Football League) and the posh amateur public schoolboys in the south (the FA).  The PL breakaway was backed by the FA as an act of political spite vs the Football League (with promises that it was in the interest of the English national team - to reduce the top flight to 18 clubs, and potentially even 16.  Still waiting on that one!).  The PL breakaway was really to achieve exactly the conditions we see today - it was really first touted in the late ‘80s, when about a dozen of England’s big clubs met to see if they could hoard all the TV money (including Newcastle).  It’s always been a grubby cash-grab, and our club happily fucked over 90% of the other professional clubs in England (ticket receipts used to be equally shared, as did TV revenues between the 92 professional clubs).  It is probably a wee bit rich for us to bang on about ‘the cartel’ when we’ve been in the vanguard ourselves of fucking over English football for nearly four decades - but ethical consistency isn’t usually the dominion of football supporters  

 

 

Thank you that does help indeed. I think the NFL would also need a majority to throw out the commissioner. It sounds like this bad situation pre-dates Americans buying the teams. I don't doubt rich American interests will want to make money. I guess are British owners all altruistic? Seems like that rat Ratcliffe fits right in with those pieces of shit Glazers ( never liked them before I met you lot even ). 

[r0cafella]

23 minutes ago, McDog said:

 

 

Thank you that does help indeed. I think the NFL would also need a majority to throw out the commissioner. It sounds like this bad situation pre-dates Americans buying the teams. I don't doubt rich American interests will want to make money. I guess are British owners all altruistic? Seems like that rat Ratcliffe fits right in with those pieces of shit Glazers ( never liked them before I met you lot even ). 

No they aren't. It's impossible to apply broad strokes to individual owners though. 

 

I don't think they will be able to get rid of promotion and relegation though, especially now we have an independent regulator. 

[McDog]

7 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

No they aren't. It's impossible to apply broad strokes to individual owners though. 

 

I don't think they will be able to get rid of promotion and relegation though, especially now we have an independent regulator. 

 

 

That is great. Last thing I want to see.

 

 

[TheBrownBottle]

34 minutes ago, McDog said:

 

 

Thank you that does help indeed. I think the NFL would also need a majority to throw out the commissioner. It sounds like this bad situation pre-dates Americans buying the teams. I don't doubt rich American interests will want to make money. I guess are British owners all altruistic? Seems like that rat Ratcliffe fits right in with those pieces of shit Glazers ( never liked them before I met you lot even ). 

It definitely pre-dates Americans buying-in. 
 

Until the 1980s it was against the regulations for football clubs to be administered for a profit.  Spurs were the first club to be floated in the 1980s under Irvine Scholar, and once the commercialisation started it just didn’t stop.  British owners were often grubby little hypocrites who would play the altruism / ‘putting something back’ card, but really it was often about ego-stroking (or later on profiteering).  The PL was well-established (including its practices) by the time the first US-based owners started rocking-up.  The Premier League was already a ‘super league’ like the proposed ESL - it is why I don’t get quite as stoked up as some re the ‘cartel’.  We spent the 90s in every meeting of European super clubs with our owner pushing for everything that is in place and for a ‘European Super League’, and there wasn’t so much as a peep from our support about it at the time (because we’d have been in it). 

[TRon]

8 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

The administration of football in England is an absolute mess, and ‘‘twas ever thus from the moment the Football League was formed.  
 

The PL is odd in that it works as a company, with each club being an equal shareholder - as is the FA.  So they collectively appoint the likes of Masters - and this lack of independent regulation is part of the problem.  He’d need to be voted out by a two-thirds majority.
 

Historically, football was governed by the FA (the national team, grassroots / amateurs, the FA Cup, the laws of the game) and the Football League (the professional leagues ie the top four divisions, plus the league cup).  Both bodies were in constant conflict - the northern-based professionals in the north (the Football League) and the posh amateur public schoolboys in the south (the FA).  The PL breakaway was backed by the FA as an act of political spite vs the Football League (with promises that it was in the interest of the English national team - to reduce the top flight to 18 clubs, and potentially even 16.  Still waiting on that one!).  The PL breakaway was really to achieve exactly the conditions we see today - it was really first touted in the late ‘80s, when about a dozen of England’s big clubs met to see if they could hoard all the TV money (including Newcastle).  It’s always been a grubby cash-grab, and our club happily fucked over 90% of the other professional clubs in England (ticket receipts used to be equally shared, as did TV revenues between the 92 professional clubs).  It is probably a wee bit rich for us to bang on about ‘the cartel’ when we’ve been in the vanguard ourselves of fucking over English football for nearly four decades - but ethical consistency isn’t usually the dominion of football supporters  

 

 

I think that's fair. But the point is, there was nothing artificial in place to stop a club becoming one of the elite if an owner wanted to invest enough money to make it happen. Even with Chelsea and Man City you could argue that at least an owner saw potential there to grow them exponentially. It's not like a multi-billionaire would ever buy Carlisle Utd and expect them to be challenging for the Premier title within 5 years. 

[TheBrownBottle]

5 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

 

I think that's fair. But the point is, there was nothing artificial in place to stop a club becoming one of the elite if an owner wanted to invest enough money to make it happen. Even with Chelsea and Man City you could argue that at least an owner saw potential there to grow them exponentially. It's not like a multi-billionaire would ever buy Carlisle Utd and expect them to be challenging for the Premier title within 5 years. 

Yeah, 100%.  It being shit then doesn’t justify it being shit now. 
 

Though I wonder if the aliens ever gave Michael Knighton some billions whether he would’ve spent it on his club …

[Tsunami]

Wasn’t Masters effectively hand picked by Liverpool & Man U after they’d thrown their weight around?

[Gramgram]

17 hours ago, Armchair Pundit said:

If the American model ever comes in, that's the day I stop watching football.

That’s what worries me, if the yank owned clubs get the 14 votes we could be in a world of trouble. 

[Ben]

1 hour ago, Gramgram said:

That’s what worries me, if the yank owned clubs get the 14 votes we could be in a world of trouble. 

 

The fans wouldn't accept it 

[duo]

Explains it well

 

 

[TheBrownBottle]

2 hours ago, Ben said:

 

The fans wouldn't accept it 

The same group of people who’ve spent the last half century seeing their game slowly down the river and passively did the sum total of sweet FA to stop it?  I’d bet the usual will happen - lots of mumbling and grumbling, a handful of angry conversations on the radio, some beard-stroking articles in the broadsheets, and the outcome being completely unchanged. 

[TomYam]

22 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

The administration of football in England is an absolute mess, and ‘‘twas ever thus from the moment the Football League was formed.  
 

The PL is odd in that it works as a company, with each club being an equal shareholder - as is the FA.  So they collectively appoint the likes of Masters - and this lack of independent regulation is part of the problem.  He’d need to be voted out by a two-thirds majority.
 

Historically, football was governed by the FA (the national team, grassroots / amateurs, the FA Cup, the laws of the game) and the Football League (the professional leagues ie the top four divisions, plus the league cup).  Both bodies were in constant conflict - the northern-based professionals in the north (the Football League) and the posh amateur public schoolboys in the south (the FA).  The PL breakaway was backed by the FA as an act of political spite vs the Football League (with promises that it was in the interest of the English national team - to reduce the top flight to 18 clubs, and potentially even 16.  Still waiting on that one!).  The PL breakaway was really to achieve exactly the conditions we see today - it was really first touted in the late ‘80s, when about a dozen of England’s big clubs met to see if they could hoard all the TV money (including Newcastle).  It’s always been a grubby cash-grab, and our club happily fucked over 90% of the other professional clubs in England (ticket receipts used to be equally shared, as did TV revenues between the 92 professional clubs).  It is probably a wee bit rich for us to bang on about ‘the cartel’ when we’ve been in the vanguard ourselves of fucking over English football for nearly four decades - but ethical consistency isn’t usually the dominion of football supporters  

Yep, good post.

Just one thing, though.

I believe the embryonic idea for a PL was first touted at the back end of 1985. Spurs, ManU, Arsenal, Liverpool and Everton were the initial 'Big 5', being the most recently successful clubs that were also well-supported. ManU, Liverpool and Arsenal happened to have fans of their clubs in most of the top roles at ITV and in the FA.

From 1986 until 1988, ITV showed regular live matches (for the first time on tv). Other clubs were infuriated to fund that ITV were only really interested in broadcasting the self-appointed 'Big 5'. Those same clubs, with the support of the FA and ITV then demanded a greater share of game receipts (75% rather than 50% - the remainder going to lower league clubs), thereby breaking the FL's philosophy of the richer clubs helping out the poorer ones. So from 1988 to 1992, there were a greater number of broadcasted games and the top clubs received a greater share of receipts. The Big 5 were able to claim the public only wanted to watch those clubs play (mainly because other clubs were rarely shown) and the FA and ITV supported their stance. Hence even more money and influence for those 5 clubs. In 1988, The Big 5 had approached 5 further clubs that were perceived to be the biggest of the remaining clubs in Division One (Aston Villa, Newcastle United, Sheffield Wednesday, Nottingjam Forest and West Ham) with a view to forcing through their demands under opposition from the FL. I believe those clubs sat on the fence saying they had only just been approached and had no desire to walk away from the FL but that they didn't want to be left behind by the other clubs either. In the end, the FL managed to diluted some of the demands that the Big 5 and the FA had demanded.

Come 1992, the broadcasting of games had been very successful. Rupert Murdoch had seen the investment opportunity to turn Sky's fortunes around, the FA had seen a way to take more control of the national game away from the FL and the Big 5 (or, by now, a Big 3) wanted an ever greater supply of money and influence over football administration. Hence the PL was formed.

[TheBrownBottle]

19 minutes ago, TomYam said:

Yep, good post.

Just one thing, though.

I believe the embryonic idea for a PL was first touted at the back end of 1985. Spurs, ManU, Arsenal, Liverpool and Everton were the initial 'Big 5', being the most recently successful clubs that were also well-supported. ManU, Liverpool and Arsenal happened to have fans of their clubs in most of the top roles at ITV and in the FA.

From 1986 until 1988, ITV showed regular live matches (for the first time on tv). Other clubs were infuriated to fund that ITV were only really interested in broadcasting the self-appointed 'Big 5'. Those same clubs, with the support of the FA and ITV then demanded a greater share of game receipts (75% rather than 50% - the remainder going to lower league clubs), thereby breaking the FL's philosophy of the richer clubs helping out the poorer ones. So from 1988 to 1992, there were a greater number of broadcasted games and the top clubs received a greater share of receipts. The Big 5 were able to claim the public only wanted to watch those clubs play (mainly because other clubs were rarely shown) and the FA and ITV supported their stance. Hence even more money and influence for those 5 clubs. In 1988, The Big 5 had approached 5 further clubs that were perceived to be the biggest of the remaining clubs in Division One (Aston Villa, Newcastle United, Sheffield Wednesday, Nottingjam Forest and West Ham) with a view to forcing through their demands under opposition from the FL. I believe those clubs sat on the fence saying they had only just been approached and had no desire to walk away from the FL but that they didn't want to be left behind by the other clubs either. In the end, the FL managed to diluted some of the demands that the Big 5 and the FA had demanded.

Come 1992, the broadcasting of games had been very successful. Rupert Murdoch had seen the investment opportunity to turn Sky's fortunes around, the FA had seen a way to take more control of the national game away from the FL and the Big 5 (or, by now, a Big 3) wanted an ever greater supply of money and influence over football administration. Hence the PL was formed.

Thanks Tom, that was a good read.  Yes, the 1988 discussion is what I was referring to - and while our board at the time equivocated a bit, we were absolutely open to it. 
 

What’s even more shocking is that our chairman (McKeag) was also chairman of the Football League, with responsibility to look after the interests of all 92 clubs - yet he wasn’t turning around and telling the then-‘Big Five’ to fuck right off!   

[Gramgram]

10 hours ago, Ben said:

 

The fans wouldn't accept it 

TBH the yanks really don’t care anymore what the fans think, if they could push through a PL model where there is no relegation, they would completely ignore the fans 

[Ben]

14 minutes ago, Gramgram said:

TBH the yanks really don’t care anymore what the fans think, if they could push through a PL model where there is no relegation, they would completely ignore the fans 

 

The only reason the European Super league didn't happen was because the fans protested, the EPL will destroy itself with a no relegation model

[OpenC]

There's a canny difference between being greedy cunts at an open trough, and actively putting rules in place to stop anyone else getting to that trough BB. I don't think there's a massive equivalence between the 1988-92 gold rush and the blatant gerrymandering that constitutes the administration of the game these days. 

 

 

Edited April 24 by OpenC

[Ben]

I think the next deal for the EPL will be to create their own TV station with worldwide rights for a fairly low monthly subscription like Netflix, they could massively increase revenue AND be fair to the supporters 

[Gramgram]

9 minutes ago, Ben said:

 

The only reason the European Super league didn't happen was because the fans protested, the EPL will destroy itself with a no relegation model

Fully see where your coming from, but I think people underestimate how greedy the yanks are, which is why I worry what comes through if they get the 14 votes they need 

[r0cafella]

7 minutes ago, Ben said:

I think the next deal for the EPL will be to create their own TV station with worldwide rights for a fairly low monthly subscription like Netflix, they could massively increase revenue AND be fair to the supporters 

It's not so black and white hence the trial they are doing here (Singapore)

[gjohnson]

We dont have to speculate. We can see the ones that openly break the rules are still allowed to spend at will. The ones with minor breaches are punished to the letter of the law. Totally fair