its days like today

[MisterC]

Its days like today when I almost lose complete interest in professional football as a sport. It seems that with the vast sums of money being paid for both transfer fees and players wages it has lost a lot of its appeal.

A team like city come in and spend £500m, win the title (if not this year then next) and the whole game becomes a farce. As much as I love spurs and I dont expect to win every game, it almost becomes pointless to aim to finish 4th because its the best you can possibly hope for.

I find it depressing to think that with the money other teams are spending its almost impossible for a great club like spurs to have a chance of winning the league. It has been bought for years and shows no sign of changing, whereas we have struggled our way up for years to become the nearly men.

Non-League football and the lower leagues currently have a much more interesting competition as they have no real stand out team year on year and the possibility of a team transforming its fortunes through hard work and good management is far greater than just a billionaire funding a dream team to play with.

We are witnessing the death of football under the guise of the most compelling competitions known to man. We are being told how football has never been better but its rotten to the core with corruption and money. We are slowly approaching a European super league for the super rich

Sadly I agree I haven't seen one game yet this season which is a 1st for 30 years, and I renewed my Membership doh! :bang:

 

[jambo]

I think with the financial fair play rules it shows some sort of positive action to try and address this issue in football today but with most systems they implement there will be ways round them. I remember hearing not long ago and I may be mistaken that with Man City and their spending that seems like it will never end, to balance up their books their stadium is sponsored by a company owned by City's owners and for a stupid amount of money.

The main problems for Chelsea and City is when the owners do decide to sell. The only people that can afford to buy them clubs are people with stupid amounts of money. Any reasonable businessman etc that would like to run the club as Levy does will have no chance when you remove the sponsorship they have (City) which is only a dilution to the wages/transfer fee's they pay because it comes from the owners other company's and when they have had their fill will be removed.

I will echo the comments of others that it's 11 vs 11 on the day.

Investing in a decent youth set up pays dividends in the end as it worked for Barca, Man Utd and other clubs that have been near the top. Yes, they have invested heavily as well but barca have been on top, so have Utd with the core of the squads emerging from the youth system.

These people will get bored eventually and it will be swings and roundabouts but thats football nowadays.

 

[ultimateloner]

I find it naive those who think that Chelsea/Man City will just crumble when the owners get tired of it. If you had paid billions out for an asset would you let go of it easily? And how likely is it that's just for pleasure like a Ferrari? - it isn't. The purchase is made because PL has alot of commercial potential.

Secondly the idea of wage cap would never work for a sport like this. Its global, with many leagues all operating with their own rules. What would happen if PL puts a wage cap? Everyone will go play in Spain/Italy instead. One person's misery is another's opportunity. This would never happen - until the day there is 1 SUPER league that someone posted above; thats where the sport will become unified like basketball or American Football. Only one entity.

 

[Ionman34]

I've been saying this for years, but a wage cap is not the solution - rich clubs will simply pay a low wage, but pay out massive signing on bonuses in place of wages.

The draft system America uses is interesting, but relies on a group of players being selected every year into a pool. That pool usually comes fro college team players. It doesn't work here because a) the clubs already own the player's registrations and b) there is no clear line as to when a player would be ready for 'the draft'.

What football needs is a sort of financial draft system.

From what I understand, the draft system in the States works by giving the lowest placed club in a League the first pick in the draft.

What is needed is an 'allowance' system, whereby a clubs spending on transfers and wages is determined by their success the previous year.

The more success a club enjoys, the less it can spend the following year on wages and transfers. So if a club wins the League, they are allowed to spend the least the following year.

Not only would this solve the billionaire problem, it would have other benefits too:

Scouting - clubs would naturally have to improve their scouting networks to unearth emerging talent as it would be cheaper to bring in a talented youngster with potential than an established international. It wouldn't preclude clubs buying internationals but it would give clubs pause - do they spend their 'allowance' on young talent, or spunk it all on one or two established internationals?

Grass-roots football - would benefit from youngsters being given more of an opportunity to move up the levels because there are fewer internationals blocking their paths. Plus, if more clubs are looking to the lower levels for players, those levels will have more money pumped into them, allowing them to spend on football infrastructure at the grass-roots.

Competition - football would become competitive again, because it would no longer be a foregone conclusion as to which teams are going to enjoy success. Let's say Man City win the League. The year after their 'allowance' means they can only afford to sign one international player. Aston Villa finish eighth and their allowance gives them enough money to sign three internationals. This will make Aston Villa more competitive this year and close the gap on Man City. And even if the gap isn't closed that year and Man City go on to win the League again, that menas that for another year, they will be restrained on how many players they can bring in - giving the chasing pack another chance to lose the gap.

Entertainment - with the uncertainty of which club is going to enjoy success this year, the League becomes much more exciting. Every game becomes important.

Financial stability - With an allowance of this nature, clubs won't be able to simply spend year after year after year, pumping money in and running up unmanageable debt. It would also allow greater financial planning at boardroom level. Plus which, any prize money doesn't disappear into the black hole of wages and transfers on the balance sheet - it can actually be used to improve clubs and infrastructure.

Protection for the smaller clubs - with the successful clubs restrained in the amount they can spend, it means that the less successful clubs will have a greater chance of holding onto their marquee player. And a situation may evolve in which the smaller clubs may actually be able to offer better terms to players. This will give them breathgin space to plan how to improve and go up the ladder.

Wages - wages would naturally drop as clubs try to wirng the best deal out of players. By being restrained, they simply won't be able to throw money at players anymore, with the consequence that wages would drop.

Everyone speaks of the amount of money in football now being the problem - it isn't. It's the way in which money is being spent that is the problem. If a billionaire oil tycoon came to UK and poured £500 million into grassroots infrastructure, I'd be the first to thank them - hell, I'd be calling for him to get a knighhood. But some oily bastard coming in, taking over a single club at the top level and simply buying all the honours is a stain on the face of football and his predations must be shackled.

An absolutely excellent post. Repped.