Are 12 American owners a serious threat to our game ?

[WT86]

CFG have been operating in New York for a decade and I know their agenda well. At the end of the day they're running a business and acting accordingly. They know what they need to do to get the local heavyweights onside and that's about the limit of their investment in the community. Nothing wrong with that but I don't confuse it for charity.

 

[Chris-NCL]

I think we're missing the point in talking about nationality. You don't have to be very old to remember English businessmen like Ken Bates, the Oystons, etc.

And I know people don't like to hear it but 15 different teams have won the World Series in the past 25 years. 6 have won the Premier League. Six have won the Bundesliga, 4 have won La Liga. Of the top 100 sports contracts historically, only two have been given out in Europe, the rest are American, except a handful in Saudi. The idea that American owners don't like competition and don't invest in their players doesn't bear scrutiny.

The reality is that wherever they're from, the people who now have the money to own a top-flight football club a) don't care about the local community, and b) are out to make as much money as possible off the club, or greenwash their image, and don't care what they destroy in the process. I don't have a solution but I do think it involves government regulation and some form of salary cap.

How many Baseball teams can have a really bad season and as a result of doing that for a season or more, spend the following playing in the minor leagues?

For what it’s worth, Ken Bates ended up selling Chelsea to a Billionaire who turned them into the powerhouse that they are today. Despite his unpopularity, he is regarded as a reason as to why Leeds United never went completely bust (for the record, a large portion of their debt issues arose with not paying HMRC, which could easily be prevented without limiting clubs).
The Oystons wouldn’t be able to own Blackpool under new ownership rules, and one of the contentious issues about their ownership is that they shouldn’t have been able too under existing EFL rules that the EFL failed to hold up.

We will never ever have a salary cap because that will be viewed by the government as a way of suppressing wages which would be against both British law, and possibly ECHR as well.
On top of this, a salary cap would leave the Premier Leagues dominance/competitiveness at the risk of being overtaken by leagues such as La Liga, and Serie A.

 

[Chris-NCL]

Newcastle have more than two good players. Isak, Gordon, Bruno G, Botman & Tonali are all very high quality.

Thier complaining is because they cant spend their owners money without restrictions. To me this is them whining they can't offer stupid amounts for Vini Jr Ect.

As for the American club owners. Well thats how the league works. Ive said before the league is a collective, 20 clubs each worth 5%. If 14 clubs vote a certain way, then the dissenting clubs just need to accept it. So far the rules incorporate PSR and FFP and its unlikely to change. If Newcastle's owners have a problem with it, then it’s their problem.

I’m a Newcastle fan here.

Our squad is thin. Ok our first choice attacking lineup is pretty strong, and we have a good CB, however we have a weak point at RW. In the middle Joelinton is becoming a weak point in certain games. We still need another CB, and this is just for the 1st team.
Unlike teams like Arsenal, and Man City, we don’t have the squad depth to be competitive when injuries and suspensions kick in, to bring players off the bench, or to go deep in competitions, particularly European competitions.

Last season our injury crises meant that we had to play youth players who were not really ready to step up, instead of being able to buy players to be competitive in Europe.
You are starting to see Aston Villa tail off a bit because of their European commitments catching up with them.
For the record Aston Villa a few years ago sold Grealish to Man City for about £100m. Last summer they had to sell another of their best players to comply with PSR. They have the money to spend, they still likely have the Grealish money, but PSR timed that income out. How is that fair? They have to sell more players after selling one of their academy talents for £100m, meanwhile your club Arsenal are spending £100m hoovering up such talent?

This isn’t about me and Newcastle fans wanting to buy Mbappe, this is about us wanting a balanced squad. If we were allowed to have invested the summer before last, we would have finished in stronger position and been in Europe again.

Let’s put it this way, less than a year ago clubs like ours (it was actually Crystal Palace) proposed to change PSR so that there was a spend cap related to the highest clubs revenue. This meant that Newcastle would be allowed to spend as much as Arsenal, heck Ipswich could if their owners were inclined too. It was your club and your fellow red tops and red top sympathisers who said no.
We asked for a level playing field, you are the ones who said no.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Newcastle have more than two good players. Isak, Gordon, Bruno G, Botman & Tonali are all very high quality.

That's alright then. Newcastle have their allocation of very high quality players as permitted by arsenal, liverpool and united.

Thier complaining is because they cant spend their owners money without restrictions. To me this is them whining they can't offer stupid amounts for Vini Jr Ect.

I can't see why Real Madrid should be able to buy players for exorbitant amounts but Newcastle shouldn't wherever the money comes from.

I think your problem is that you are looking at this as though there is some sort of feudal hierarchy in football which everyone other than those at the top table should be content with.

 

[give it to gordon]

The first clubs FFP should be looking at are those with the largest debt not the ones who can spend and still be debt free.

If the bankers and the private loads were called in rags would be fine, ffp rules allow for this to happen and rags are working within ffp rules. Ffp is to stop clubs going bust








:) lololol

 

[Gordyola]

Newcastle cant complain about spenditure. Gordon, Isak, Tonali all cos 60m each. Harvey Barnes, Livarmento, Lewis Hall - close to 100m on those three.

Those complaining about Newcastle spending limitations are lamenting the fact they cant just go out and offer 2m a week to Vini Jr. How many multiples should Newcastle be allowed to spend relative to thier rivals? If the PSR shackles were turned off, then Newcastle could just offer every clubs best players 4-5 times wage increases.

Poor Newcastle. They can't tap their owner's wealth to buy a ticket to the top, and instead have rules that ensure if they are to get to the top, they must so in a more organic way.

So, it’s widely acknowledged that financial regs and the changes have been introduced to protect the established elite, of that there is now no doubt, disguised as ways of stopping clubs mounting up debt and going bust.
The elite got into the position they are in by being able to do exactly what you have described above, LFC were are mid table second division club until the Moores family with their dirty pools money poor funds into the club who were then able to buy who they wanted The rags found away around FL regs to float on the stock exchange, then poured millions into buying whoever they wanted, breaking the transfer record at will multiple times.
It was ok when Arsenal did it as Tony Adams says
Adams rated Fiszman's contribution. "I think that a significant factor, 90 per cent, in why we achieved so much is that Danny Fiszman invested £50m in the club and we were able to go to the next level," he said. "I got my first decent contract at the club, so did David Seaman, we were able to bring in Dennis Bergkamp – and that was before Arsène arrived – David Platt, Patrick Vieira, Nicolas Anelka, and were able to pay them – top players from around the world.

Yes they can’t like other history clubs tap into their owners wealth to build the business as would happen in every other industry, that welcomes inward investment, money that would filter through the pyramid, which would be good for the whole game.

 

[give it to gordon]

I’m a Newcastle fan here.

Our squad is thin. Ok our first choice attacking lineup is pretty strong, and we have a good CB, however we have a weak point at RW. In the middle Joelinton is becoming a weak point in certain games. We still need another CB, and this is just for the 1st team.
Unlike teams like Arsenal, and Man City, we don’t have the squad depth to be competitive when injuries and suspensions kick in, to bring players off the bench, or to go deep in competitions, particularly European competitions.

Last season our injury crises meant that we had to play youth players who were not really ready to step up, instead of being able to buy players to be competitive in Europe.
You are starting to see Aston Villa tail off a bit because of their European commitments catching up with them.
For the record Aston Villa a few years ago sold Grealish to Man City for about £100m. Last summer they had to sell another of their best players to comply with PSR. They have the money to spend, they still likely have the Grealish money, but PSR timed that income out. How is that fair? They have to sell more players after selling one of their academy talents for £100m, meanwhile your club Arsenal are spending £100m hoovering up such talent?

This isn’t about me and Newcastle fans wanting to buy Mbappe, this is about us wanting a balanced squad. If we were allowed to have invested the summer before last, we would have finished in stronger position and been in Europe again.

Let’s put it this way, less than a year ago clubs like ours (it was actually Crystal Palace) proposed to change PSR so that there was a spend cap related to the highest clubs revenue. This meant that Newcastle would be allowed to spend as much as Arsenal, heck Ipswich could if their owners were inclined too. It was your club and your fellow red tops and red top sympathisers who said no.
We asked for a level playing field, you are the ones who said no.

Looks like you are on your own, just like City are. No other club supported City over ffp.
Your club got into bed with the red cartel the hateful 8 club and wrote to CAS trying to get us banned.
There is no reason for our club to help your club is there.
Newcastle got into bed with the red cartel when they were skint. Now you have money you don't agree with the red cartel and even moan about City voting lol.

Personal I think all financial control should be scraped and owners can invest or take out what they want.
It worked for over a 100 years.

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Wellll, we are live at the Cincinnati Wankdome for East Midlands Ram Dodgers against the Devonshire Pilgrims, brought to you by Snickers Viagra, putting the punch in your crunch since 1994!

Side effects may cause death, compulsion to shoot school kids and voices in the head. Batteries not included and must be sold separately.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Your club got into bed with the red cartel the hateful 8 club and wrote to CAS trying to get us banned.

You mean Ashley did.

 

[Gordyola]

LIke I said, Newcastle have spent money. In Gordon and Isak they have two of the best forwards in the league. What the issue here? They cant offer Mbappe 4m a week?

If there was unrestricted spending the PL would suffer as a hole. Why do you think Barcelona and Real madrid are desperate for the ESL? Its because La Liga has no revenue sharing, and over the years Real Madrid and Barcelona have cannibalized all the wealth and left scraps for the rest. Everton can spend 40-50m on single players, teams at the bottom of La Liga cant spend that much between them.

The PL has gone from strength to strength on a rules based system. Man United tried to negotiate their own TV deal in the early 2000's and it was shot down, and rightly so. Whats the point of equal distribution of tv revneue if the revenue streams are so incidental because the Saudi Fund is pumping 10 billion anually into Newcastle United. Its also so undignified, just like the Saudo attempt to take over Golf. Apparently the Saudi's are also going to have a crack at tennis. Run a shadow competition to Wimbledon where the prize money is 10 times that of Wimbledon. You may choose to watch the Riyadh Open, but ill stick with Wimbledon.

There was unrestricted spending for most of the PL's existence, and for the entirety of the old First Division's
Arsenal benefited from this if you recall?

"What the issue here? They cant offer Mbappe 4m a week"
No, the issue here is that they can't compete with the "elite" In the summer they had to join in with the dodgy dealing of youth players with other restricted clubs and now to progress further they will need to do some clever player trading selling one of their prime assets to try and strengthen the squad Meanwhile Arse can benefit from their geographical position in the capital where they are lots of people who will over pay to watch unlike the north east

"Why do you think Barcelona and Real Madrid are desperate for the ESL"
Because they can't compete with the PL

"Everton can spend 40-50m on single players, teams at the bottom of La Liga cant spend that much between them"
Because the PL has massive income from Tv and this is a joint deal unlike La Liga NOTHING to do with FFP / PSR

Your obsessed with Newcastle being able to spend unlimited when in reality they look like they want to build a squad of top players, like the clubs that did before FFP, in the past without any limits Just like City did and were able to do so to become a well run club that built a squad to bring success and thus revenue, one that is attractive to sponsors and wins prize money and qualifies for the UCL with all the rewards that brings

Ultimately you are all in favor of FFP /PSR because it protects the position of your club and it wealth exactly what it was designed to do

 

[mexico1970]

"What the issue here? They cant offer Mbappe 4m a week"
No, the issue here is that they can't compete with the "elite"

They can compete let's face it their owners are certainly wealthy enough but they don't have to if they fix the other clubs spending so that they can compete by spending less.

 

[Chris-NCL]

Looks like you are on your own, just like City are. No other club supported City over ffp.
Your club got into bed with the red cartel the hateful 8 club and wrote to CAS trying to get us banned.
There is no reason for our club to help your club is there.
Newcastle got into bed with the red cartel when they were skint. Now you have money you don't agree with the red cartel and even moan about City voting lol.

Personal I think all financial control should be scraped and owners can invest or take out what they want.
It worked for over a 100 years.

I haven’t complained about Man City voting, my responses on here have never been an attack on Man City, or your fans.
The response you quoted in me was in response to an Arsenal fan.

Additionally, may I have it noted that under our previous owners, the club was ran on a shoestring budget, and Mike Ashley would have voted for anything that would help him sustain a Premier League club, without much outlay, much like the likes of Crystal Palaces’s, Brightons, and Brentford’s owners do now. From a fans point of view, we had so much apathy. Matchday attendance by the end was out of habit, anything off the field largely wasn’t really considered. I doubt anyone actually gave a fuck what Man City were spending, in fact if anything it was envy as Ashley has a meeting to sell to your owners before they bought you, but he by his own admission didn’t turn up, and just drank in the hotel bar in Dubai saying ‘If they want to buy the club, they can meet me here’.
For all interned and purposes, what you Man City were spending and doing was as far out of reach for us as when Chelsea were doing it, Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool etc all before them as well. It was simply not relevant, as so long as that fat **** owned us, it was a matter of time until we slid down the leagues.

 

[Gordyola]

They can compete let's face it their owners are certainly wealthy enough but they don't have to if they fix the other clubs spending so that they can compete by spending less.

Heard of PSR? Owner investment is limited
Ashley was tight as a nut I doubt there was any wasted spending

 

[mexico1970]

Heard of PSR? Owner investment is limited
Ashley was tight as a nut I doubt there was any wasted spending

I wasn't talking about Newcastle I was talking about Arsenal, it's not to Arsenal owners advantage to open the floodgates they'd have to pay even more for players than they do now.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I think we're missing the point in talking about nationality. You don't have to be very old to remember English businessmen like Ken Bates, the Oystons, etc.

And I know people don't like to hear it but 15 different teams have won the World Series in the past 25 years. 6 have won the Premier League. Six have won the Bundesliga, 4 have won La Liga. Of the top 100 sports contracts historically, only two have been given out in Europe, the rest are American, except a handful in Saudi. The idea that American owners don't like competition and don't invest in their players doesn't bear scrutiny.

The reality is that wherever they're from, the people who now have the money to own a top-flight football club a) don't care about the local community, and b) are out to make as much money as possible off the club, or greenwash their image, and don't care what they destroy in the process. I don't have a solution but I do think it involves government regulation and some form of salary cap.

While your “statistics” might be right, you’re talking about sports contracts in sports that play over 162 games in a season, often playing for 3 days in a row, with multi-billion dollar TV contracts, across multiple channels, and TV time outs every few mins to get the ad dollars flowing. They also have wall to wall TV talk programming about each game for a couple of hours before and after the game, AND this all takes place both regionally and nationally.

Ergo, you can’t compare US sports with UK sports on the metrics you describe.

However, how would you like NO TRANSFER FEES, which keep small clubs alive?

How about revenue sharing?

A draft, where the worst team get the best players next season, and only being able to protect “franchise players” every year?

A salary cap?

No relegation or promotion, just the same teams in the same league every year?

Or billionaire owners who decide all these rules, with a “League CEO” who is in their pocket to protect the billions that keep flowing TO THEM?

How about $130 (£100) tickets?

Oh and those tickets require a “seat licence” that “entitles” you to buy that ticket?

How about £10 for a 12oz beer?

How about £10 for a hot dog?

How about $250 for a parking spot for 9 games?

If we are going to laud a few things, let’s talk about the whole package, shall we?

 

[WT86]

While your “statistics” might be right, you’re talking about sports contracts in sports that play over 162 games in a season, often playing for 3 days in a row, with multi-billion dollar TV contracts, across multiple channels, and TV time outs every few mins to get the ad dollars flowing. They also have wall to wall TV talk programming about each game for a couple of hours before and after the game, AND this all takes place both regionally and nationally.

Ergo, you can’t compare US sports with UK sports on the metrics you describe.

However, how would you like NO TRANSFER FEES, which keep small clubs alive?

How about revenue sharing?

A draft, where the worst team get the best players next season, and only being able to protect “franchise players” every year?

A salary cap?

No relegation or promotion, just the same teams in the same league every year?

Or billionaire owners who decide all these rules, with a “League CEO” who is in their pocket to protect the billions that keep flowing TO THEM?

How about $130 (£100) tickets?

Oh and those tickets require a “seat licence” that “entitles” you to buy that ticket?

How about £10 for a 12oz beer?

How about £10 for a hot dog?

How about $250 for a parking spot for 9 games?

If we are going to laud a few things, let’s talk about the whole package, shall we?

You have too many points to address. We can always cherry pick. Football does some things right that American sports do wrong, no question. Yes, relegation adds competition and should stay. But there's also another side that belies this nonsense about American sports being uncompetitive and American owners not investing in players, and you're not really addressing my point about competition. In every American sport more teams win and the players make more.

And to be clear I don't think football should be changed in any way or changed by foreign owners. As I said these people just want to make money and we shouldn't let the fact some of them are on our side blind us to that. I do think the government should address massive spending to make it more competitive. It's not good for the game.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

But there's also another side that belies this nonsense about American sports being uncompetitive and American owners not investing in players, and you're not really addressing my point about competition. In every American sport more teams win and the players make more.

And, you are ignoring the fact that American sports is how it is for two main reasons:

Complete control of the game by billionaire owners who enjoy MONOPOLY status and, in baseball (where the biggest long term contracts occur), they play a 162 (minimum) game season with no relegation…and then the worst teams get the best players next year!

You cannot separate your points from the actions that create them, then tell ME that I’M the one cherry-picking!

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I do think the government should address massive spending to make it more competitive. It's not good for the game.

I think government should stay out of the game, considering the objectionable things have been found to be unlawful.

The reason it’s “uncompetitive” (even though the rest of the world thinks we have the most competitive League in the world!) is because a small cartel is dictating rules, policies and finances to the smaller clubs to ensure the big can get bigger, while trying to limit the growth opportunities of others.

 

[BrianW]

American influence over this country has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

 

[WT86]

And, you are ignoring the fact that American sports is how it is for two main reasons:

Complete control of the game by billionaire owners who enjoy MONOPOLY status and, in baseball (where the biggest long term contracts occur), they play a 162 (minimum) game season with no relegation…and then the worst teams get the best players next year!

You cannot separate your points from the actions that create them, then tell ME that I’M the one cherry-picking!

That's not really true. A fair number of NFL players make more than Haaland, for example, to play 16 "guaranteed" games. Same with MLB pitchers, who will play about 30 and rarely finish those games. Haaland plays 40-50 a year.