Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 13
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
EUFA EURO 2024 - Group Stage ⚽ EPL 24/25 starts Aug 17
And all I see from you is suggestions that diminish competitiveness in the league.All this could all be true.
So far I've only seen you make suggestions that diminish competitive integrity.
Those that earn to give to those that don't.
If you have a suggestion that doesn't do that I'll be more receptive.
So you don't want champions league money redistributed to those not in the champions league, but you want premier league money redistributed to those not in the Premier league.That may be true. And I don't think PSR works.
Not being able to spend profits from further back than the 3 year rolling window is BS. Those clubs aren't going broke.
They're making an accounting loss, not trading insolvent.
But I also don't agree with redistributing prizemoney from European competitions to those not competing.
I think the PL should provide funds to the EFL and below.
Fostering amateur grassroots lower tier pro football invests in the future players of the EPL.
That works as the AFL/NFL/NBA have draft systems as well.And all I see from you is suggestions that diminish competitiveness in the league.
The AFL has diminished competitive integrity through the salary cap and draft, MLB does, NFL does, NBA does.
If diminished competitive integrity is what is needed to avoid a situation where only two or three clubs have a chance to ever win something then I see that as a good thing.
Completely different. One gives revenue you have earned as a club for excelling at a higher level than others, and for competing against Europe's best clubs and gives it to teams you are competing against who haven't earned that money.So you don't want champions league money redistributed to those not in the champions league, but you want premier league money redistributed to those not in the Premier league.
Do you not see the inconsistency in your position?
For me both "diminish competitive integrity" (whatever that is) but both would be good for the game.
No negatives apart from making the league more even and competitive. That's a pretty huge positive right there.That works as the AFL/NFL/NBA have draft systems as well.
Draft, salary cap and harder fixtures equalise the competition.
It wouldn't work in football because every other nation in Europe would still be operating under the free market principles.
In transfer windows you buy who you want having agreed a price and wages with club and player.
England going to a salary cap without the draft measures will only result in the best footballing talent overlooking Chelsea, Liverpool etc and choosing Madrid, Milan, Juve, Atletico etc. Diminishing the English game. Lesser performances in European competition leading to lower coefficients, less places. More diminished returns.
All leading to lower TV revenue with networks less inclined to pay for the rights to a diminished product that less people are engaged with. It has nothing but negatives with no obvious positives.
Completely different. One gives revenue you have earned as a club for excelling at a higher level than others, and for competing against Europe's best clubs and gives it to teams you are competing against who haven't earned that money.
The other is giving to lower tiers in the pyramid to invest in the future of the game.
Kyle Walker isn't City captain if he wasn't able to develop with 4 loans, 3 of which were to lower tiers. Kane isn't England captain without developing with lower league loans. You get the gist.
It would make it more competitive.No negatives apart from making the league more even and competitive. That's a pretty huge positive right there.
If you cannot see the difference I cannot help you.Giving the revenue you get from qualifying and competing in the Premier league to those clubs that aren't currently good enough to compete in it.
They are the same thing. And both good for the game imo.
If you add up all the money the Premier League distributes to clubs and organisations outside the Premier League, you get to about 16 per cent of the more than £3billion a year it earns in media-rights income every year. But do not forget that about half goes into payments designed to encourage promoted clubs to invest in talent when they join the league — the idea being that parachute payments act as a relegation-insurance scheme.
The EFL wants to scrap them, put that money in the solidarity pot, combine the four leagues’ media-rights incomes and share 25 per cent of that much bigger number with the EFL’s 72 clubs.
This, it claims, would reduce the current “cliff edge” between the Premier League and the Championship. In 2019, for example, the Premier League’s bottom club, Huddersfield Town, had central receipts of £96million, while Norwich City, top of the Championship, earned £8million.
The EFL believes if you share 25 per cent of the leagues’ combined media wealth, you halve that gap, thereby removing the need for parachute payments, which only force non-recipient clubs to spend unsustainable amounts of money simply to compete.
The Premier League, however, does not want to give up its parachute payments or share quite that much of its broadcast income. It points out that no league on the planet is that generous and giving so much away would threaten its position as the world’s most successful domestic football competition. And if you do that, there would be less money for the rest of the pyramid anyway.
To quote EFL Chairman Rick Parry - “The Championship [second tier] is a financial basket case. Pre-Covid it was spending 106 per cent of turnover and had debt of £1.7bn. That’s the most expensive lottery ticket on the planet and it’s led by irresponsible behaviour chasing the dream.”
“One of the biggest contributors to the distortion are the parachute payments. The £1.6bn coming down over three years is correct but £850,000,000 is in parachute payments,” he added.
“They’re not parachute payments. They’re trampoline payments because those clubs are three times more likely to be promoted again.
“That’s not healthy for the Premier League. What it needs, frankly, is more Brentfords and Brightons. It’s about the sustainability of clubs throughout the pyramid.”
If they could bring that in within the next month, that'd be greatSo deduct Everton & Forest points but bring in a luxury tax before rulings are made on City & Chelsea…. How convenient.
The haves and have nots.
Ha ha.
That's because other than you and me, no-one cares. You were nailed on to post the results and make out they meant anything. I was nailed on to laugh at your stupidity.