If it’s based on 6x the revenue of the bottom club, isn’t it in the bottom club’s best interests not to grow their revenue as the ratio of 6:1 means the more they earn, the top clubs can spend 6 times that?OH! So close. Can you name a single reason why teams being closer together financially would make the sport unompetitive?
So how did even get to a vote if it was Arsenal who wanted this? You look at Arsenal this will give 200m more to spend if it gets voted through! Why can't some come up with let's scrap it all will they vote on this? Will it even get a vote..
Some owners are there to increase their revenue, no?Incredibly easily, you just grow central commercial deals, prize money and restructure TV payments. Get the bottom 3 an extra £10m and the top clubs can spend £45-60m a year more.
Yes. it's not that hard. It's supposedly going to be based on the centralised revenue, so the amount of money doesn't change no matter who actually finishes 20th.
You're getting it!
OH! So close. Can you name a single reason why teams being closer together financially would make the sport unompetitive?
If it’s based on 6x the revenue of the bottom club, isn’t it in the bottom club’s best interests not to grow their revenue as the ratio of 6:1 means the more they earn, the top clubs can spend 6 times that?
ie £100m = £600m (£500m difference)
£200m = 1.2b (£1b difference)
Why spend more when I can spend just enough to stay here. I'm making a guaranteed sum either way.
Known as the American ModelSome owners are there to increase their revenue, no?
Why spend more when I can spend just enough to stay here. I'm making a guaranteed sum either way.
I recognise that there is the salary cap too, so it wouldn’t just be £1b difference, I was just mulling over whether it would be a continuing hindrance as the other clubs will still be getting more money,No, because it's in their interest to earn money, spend it on players and wages and stay in the Premier League to keep getting £100m+ a year.
This proposed new rule gives Arsenal zero more money to spend.
Some owners are there to increase their revenue, no?
Why spend more when I can spend just enough to stay here. I'm making a guaranteed sum either way.
I recognise that there is the salary cap too, so it wouldn’t just be £1b difference, I was just mulling over whether it would be a continuing hindrance as the other clubs will still be getting more money,
I’m not sure it’ll have a huge effect anyway. The best teams are the ones best run and with the best managers. Money helps, of course.
Villa are doing exactly this at the moment.I'd agree about being well run, but only within the groupings that already exist. There's no way that any club, outside the big 6, could break into the CL places on a regular basis, just by being well run.
We see teams having the odd good season, but even then they're relying on 2-3 of the bigger clubs having poor seasons at the same time.
Villa are doing exactly this at the moment.
There’s a top 3, then Villa, Spurs, Rags, Newcastle fighting out the rest with Brighton not too far behind.
Revenue is important, for sure, but it is possible to compete with less, just much harder.
The bottom club gets the least amount of TV revenue so it's both!
Time will tell with Villa, but I can see them competing whilst Emery is there.Isn't it more likely that Villa doing what I suggested?
They're having a good season, but they're competing with clubs that have more than double their revenue, and is that ever going to be sustainable. We'd have probably said similar about Newcastle challenging the status quo last year.
After their PL win, Leicester had a few seasons where they nearly made the Champions League again, but they still never got anywhere close to the big six financially. Apart from the Covid season, the closest they got was within about £150m of Arsenal. Arsenal are now pushing further away financially, and I'd expect them to have £250m+ more than anyone outside the big 6 in their next accounts.
Turn it around and anchor it to the revenue of the richest club.
Allow the clubs owners to invest up to what the highest revenue is. Therefore, the likes of Newcastle could have their owners invest to match up with anyone. Owners are allowed to invest as long as they are not loading debt onto the club.
This opens the door to outside investment and means no team can drastically outspend anyone else.
Until they change the loaned player rules yet again allowing for only half a player to be on loan to any one club, and since you can't cut up a person in half (without going to prison), that means no more loans.So, we will have Wirtz on loan from Melbourne City paying half his wages…
It seems a sound idea idealistically. As we’ve shown, we’re the best because we spend our money better than everyone else.
If this continues, then no scheme will harm us much. Everybody’s cloth will be cut similarly.
It’s 6x the revenue from the bottom clubs tv deal. Not total revenue for a start.If it’s based on 6x the revenue of the bottom club, isn’t it in the bottom club’s best interests not to grow their revenue as the ratio of 6:1 means the more they earn, the top clubs can spend 6 times that?
ie £100m = £600m (£500m difference)
£200m = 1.2b (£1b difference)