Wheres the 115 gone???

[CCTV]

How many £millions do you reckon the Premier League has taken in payments from City's owners to quietly sweep the 115 under the big carpet??.....

Mad thing is the PL has taken hundreds of millions, if not billions, from LFC to allow cituae cheat.

LFC the only big european club in the UK, Manu & Arsenal the other big clubs in the UK, effectively have their revenue shared fairly so there's fairer competition, then the PL allows cheats and rich owners to upset the fairness.

Sadly it's the kind of governance you'd expect in these modern times, and nowhere near the worst of it.

[redebreck]

Mad thing is the PL has taken hundreds of millions, if not billions, from LFC to allow cituae cheat.

LFC the only big european club in the UK, Manu & Arsenal the other big clubs in the UK, effectively have their revenue shared fairly so there's fairer competition, then the PL allows cheats and rich owners to upset the fairness.

Sadly it's the kind of governance you'd expect in these modern times, and nowhere near the worst of it.

Where can this information be found?
Not doubting any of it, just thinking about posting it on e.g. facebook

[CCTV]

Where can this information be found?
Not doubting any of it, just thinking about posting it on e.g. facebook

Not sure you'd find it one link tbh.

The PL uses socialism/fairness in its distribution of revenue to promote competition/fairness in the league.

This fairness has created the need for parachute payments at the bottom of the league, and it has seen 13 to 14 of the top 20 richest clubs in football come from the PL.

It has also allowed unfairness into the game with wealthy owners and cheats. Here clubs can use owner wealth to buy who they like, and we've seen cituae dominate the league in recent times.
Its an odd governance.

In Spain, the revenue is generated more on merit. They don't need parachute payments for the relegation teams. They have dominated European football, as the league is more-stable/less-competitive and they are assured of Euro-Footy & get the lions share of domestic revenue. Spanish teams in the 21s century outperforming themselves in the 20th century.

Heres one article I found on the topic.

However, there is quite a big difference in revenue between the two leagues. In the 2021/22 season, LaLiga generated around $1.5 billion in TV revenue to split amongst their 20 teams. This is obviously a massive figure. Nevertheless, the Spanish league is also very much a three-headed monster when it comes to money.

Barcelona, Real Madrid, and Atletico Madrid receive significantly more money than the remaining Spanish clubs. In fact, the trio rake in a combined $481 million. This is about a third of all revenue shared by LaLiga.

While the LaLiga figures are impressive, Premier League revenues are astounding. During the same timeframe, England’s top flight teams received about $3.1 billion in TV revenue. That’s more than double what LaLiga generated. Unsurprisingly, the Premier League ‘Big Six’ were at the top of the financial table; however, the money was split far more evenly compared to LaLiga.

For instance, Manchester United only generated roughly $7.8 million more in TV revenue than West Ham United. The Red Devils are one of the most popular clubs in the entire world. West Ham, on the other hand, most likely would not make the top 20 in global popularity.

Relegated Norwich made more money than Sevilla
Comparing the two leagues also gets very interesting. For instance, Norwich generated about $118 million in revenue while finishing bottom of the Premier League in 2021/22. This TV revenue is more than any of the 17 LaLiga teams received. Only Barcelona, Real Madrid, and Atletico Madrid received more revenue than Norwich last season.

https://worldsoccertalk.com/tv/how-laliga-tv-revenue-compares-to-premier-league-money-20221230-WST-413859.html

So, using the above figures as a snapshot in time, here's how I'd see it.

Under PL fairness every club gets about 5% of the pot.

In a la liga like split, LFC, Manu & Arsenal would get about 11% each. 33% total.

3 clubs each giving up 6% of the pot each year for PL fairness compared with Real, Barca & Atletico.

18% x $3.1 billion = $558,000,000

So, over half a billion a year from 3 bigger clubs to fund fairness in the PL.

Whilst cituae have cheated the league like fuck, on rules brought in after Chelsea.

Approximately $186,000,000 a year for us to fund fairness in the PL.

Using a quick online calculator, roughly.
£137.5 mill a year.
€159 mill a year.

[Crimson Dynasty]

Not sure you'd find it one link tbh.

The PL uses socialism/fairness in its distribution of revenue to promote competition/fairness in the league.

........

So, using the above figures as a snapshot in time, here's how I'd see it.

Under PL fairness every club gets about 5% of the pot.

In a la liga like split, LFC, Manu & Arsenal would get about 11% each. 33% total.

3 clubs each giving up 6% of the pot each year for PL fairness compared with Real, Barca & Atletico.

18% x $3.1 billion = $558,000,000

So, over half a billion a year from 3 bigger clubs to fund fairness in the PL.

Whilst cituae have cheated the league like fuck, on rules brought in after Chelsea.

Approximately $186,000,000 a year for us to fund fairness in the PL.

Using a quick online calculator, roughly.
£137.5 mill a year.
€159 mill a year.

You're confusing, conflating and getting quite a number of things wrong, while your logic and arguments hardly make any sense at all in the large picture.

Firstly, the Premier League's revenue sharing model is a revenue distribution model that affects broadcast revenue - that is, money generated from the TV rights and broadcasting/streaming rights deals.
It doesn't affect other streams of revenue a club might have - like their own merchandising streams, non-league-related revenue-generating investments, nor even gate the match-day gate receipts.
All those are kept (and presumably re-invested into the respective clubs) by the clubs themselves.

That's why you (still) have a club like Manchester United still able to buy every expensive players and fund very expensive transfers despite their poor league performances and standing - because they have a much more robust revenue source system by virtue of being the biggest and most popular club (by fanbase and worldwide) and having facilitated that into a lucrative stream of revenue.

Ditto ourselves and how FSG have managed to reorgnize how our own club generates revenue outside the League's TV deal revenue.
So while our matches or the Manchester United matches would likely fetch more eyeballs and ratings (advertising rating money) for the League and the respective broadcasting partners - and thus higher revenue than an Brentford v. Bournemouth match - that revenue is what gets distributed more evenly to benefit teams whose matches don't get as many eyeballs and ad revenue.
What doesn't get affected by this revenue distribution system is our other sources of revenue which is why the Big clubs remain "Big" while other lesser teams struggle to compete and remain relevant.
It's also the reason you'll see other teams trying to build bigger stadiums for their home matches, because....again....matchday gate receipts....not distributed.


Now on the comparison to La Liga, even the article you linked to points out the fact that it's effectively a 3-team league or a 3-horse race (Really more of a 2-horse race with an occassional cameo from Atletico).

Their distribution system is less even and weights more heavily to these big 3 teams, for which reason is it any surprise that it's effectively a 3-team (thus, really a non-competitive) league?
It should also not surprise that also partly because of that, the level of TV rights revenue they're able to command relative to the Premier League is not-surprisingly Half of what the Premier League can get from broadcasters.
(obviously the fact that the League is English and English is the lingua franca in most parts of the world plays a heavy role, but the notion that the Premier League is more competitive than La Liga also plays a bigger role as well. (We'll ignore put aside for the time being that the title has been won by only 2 teams over the last 8 seasons, but effectively its been competitive with up to 4 teams in that time)).

You seem to dislike this revenue distribution system which is admittedly the league's clunky, inelegant and imperfect way of trying to offset the massive revenue-generating and spending power of the bigger clubs imbalance relative to the smaller clubs own power.
But then, how does re-configuring to be more like the even more uneven and disproportionate La Liga model make things any better - and really not much more worse (i.e. more uneven and less competitive)?

By your logic, (and following the La Liga model) the big 6 would get even more from the pot of the TV rights revenue money....ON TOP of the already more diverse and accessible revenue streams they have outside of that, that those smaller clubs don't have.
What do you think happens to the league's competitiveness then?

Last season we had Newcastle (and for a brief moment) Forest breaking into the big 6 competitive places and race for Eueorpean competition while traditional powerhouses and actual Big 6 clubs Manchester United and Tottenham were left out in the cold finishing 15th and 16th in the league (although competing in a European competition final. Go figure).
Just that fact alone makes the Premier League a more attractive proposition and distribution rights deal partner for an AppleTV, Amazon Prime or a Fubo than La Liga.
And that wouldn't be possible at all without a (more) fair revenue distribution model.
(I'll put aside again for the moment, the fact that Newcastle are joining the ranks of the 'big 6' (small 'b') by virtue of their new oil money ownership and the likelihood that they too in the future will have as robust as revenue source system as other traditional Big 6 clubs have been able to develop with stable (read: wealthy) ownership).

The fact that you keep conflating it with 'Socialism' and referring to it partly as such, is part of the problem here with your misunderstanding of how the system works (or doesn't).

[CCTV]

Mad thing is the PL has taken hundreds of millions, if not billions, from LFC to allow cituae cheat.

LFC the only big european club in the UK, Manu & Arsenal the other big clubs in the UK, effectively have their revenue shared fairly so there's fairer competition, then the PL allows cheats and rich owners to upset the fairness.

Sadly it's the kind of governance you'd expect in these modern times, and nowhere near the worst of it.

Where can this information be found?
Not doubting any of it, just thinking about posting it on e.g. facebook

Not sure you'd find it one link tbh.

The PL uses socialism/fairness in its distribution of revenue to promote competition/fairness in the league.

This fairness has created the need for parachute payments at the bottom of the league, and it has seen 13 to 14 of the top 20 richest clubs in football come from the PL.

It has also allowed unfairness into the game with wealthy owners and cheats. Here clubs can use owner wealth to buy who they like, and we've seen cituae dominate the league in recent times.
Its an odd governance.

In Spain, the revenue is generated more on merit. They don't need parachute payments for the relegation teams. They have dominated European football, as the league is more-stable/less-competitive and they are assured of Euro-Footy & get the lions share of domestic revenue. Spanish teams in the 21s century outperforming themselves in the 20th century.

Heres one article I found on the topic.



So, using the above figures as a snapshot in time, here's how I'd see it.

Under PL fairness every club gets about 5% of the pot.

In a la liga like split, LFC, Manu & Arsenal would get about 11% each. 33% total.

3 clubs each giving up 6% of the pot each year for PL fairness compared with Real, Barca & Atletico.

18% x $3.1 billion = $558,000,000

So, over half a billion a year from 3 bigger clubs to fund fairness in the PL.

Whilst cituae have cheated the league like fuck, on rules brought in after Chelsea.

Approximately $186,000,000 a year for us to fund fairness in the PL.

Using a quick online calculator, roughly.
£137.5 mill a year.
€159 mill a year.

There's a proposition from me, a question for link/data/source and an answer given.

A figure has been produced based on a linked article.

You're confusing, conflating and getting quite a number of things wrong, while your logic and arguments hardly make any sense at all in the large picture.

Firstly, the Premier League's revenue sharing model is a revenue distribution model that affects broadcast revenue - that is, money generated from the TV rights and broadcasting/streaming rights deals.
It doesn't affect other streams of revenue a club might have - like their own merchandising streams, non-league-related revenue-generating investments, nor even gate the match-day gate receipts.
All those are kept (and presumably re-invested into the respective clubs) by the clubs themselves.

That's why you (still) have a club like Manchester United still able to buy every expensive players and fund very expensive transfers despite their poor league performances and standing - because they have a much more robust revenue source system by virtue of being the biggest and most popular club (by fanbase and worldwide) and having facilitated that into a lucrative stream of revenue.

Ditto ourselves and how FSG have managed to reorgnize how our own club generates revenue outside the League's TV deal revenue.
So while our matches or the Manchester United matches would likely fetch more eyeballs and ratings (advertising rating money) for the League and the respective broadcasting partners - and thus higher revenue than an Brentford v. Bournemouth match - that revenue is what gets distributed more evenly to benefit teams whose matches don't get as many eyeballs and ad revenue.
What doesn't get affected by this revenue distribution system is our other sources of revenue which is why the Big clubs remain "Big" while other lesser teams struggle to compete and remain relevant.
It's also the reason you'll see other teams trying to build bigger stadiums for their home matches, because....again....matchday gate receipts....not distributed.

Now on the comparison to La Liga, even the article you linked to points out the fact that it's effectively a 3-team league or a 3-horse race (Really more of a 2-horse race with an occassional cameo from Atletico).

Their distribution system is less even and weights more heavily to these big 3 teams, for which reason is it any surprise that it's effectively a 3-team (thus, really a non-competitive) league?
It should also not surprise that also partly because of that, the level of TV rights revenue they're able to command relative to the Premier League is not-surprisingly Half of what the Premier League can get from broadcasters.
(obviously the fact that the League is English and English is the lingua franca in most parts of the world plays a heavy role, but the notion that the Premier League is more competitive than La Liga also plays a bigger role as well. (We'll ignore put aside for the time being that the title has been won by only 2 teams over the last 8 seasons, but effectively its been competitive with up to 4 teams in that time)).

You seem to dislike this revenue distribution system which is admittedly the league's clunky, inelegant and imperfect way of trying to offset the massive revenue-generating and spending power of the bigger clubs imbalance relative to the smaller clubs own power.
But then, how does re-configuring to be more like the even more uneven and disproportionate La Liga model make things any better - and really not much more worse (i.e. more uneven and less competitive)?

By your logic, (and following the La Liga model) the big 6 would get even more from the pot of the TV rights revenue money....ON TOP of the already more diverse and accessible revenue streams they have outside of that, that those smaller clubs don't have.
What do you think happens to the league's competitiveness then?

Last season we had Newcastle (and for a brief moment) Forest breaking into the big 6 competitive places and race for Eueorpean competition while traditional powerhouses and actual Big 6 clubs Manchester United and Tottenham were left out in the cold finishing 15th and 16th in the league (although competing in a European competition final. Go figure).
Just that fact alone makes the Premier League a more attractive proposition and distribution rights deal partner for an AppleTV, Amazon Prime or a Fubo than La Liga.
And that wouldn't be possible at all without a (more) fair revenue distribution model.
(I'll put aside again for the moment, the fact that Newcastle are joining the ranks of the 'big 6' (small 'b') by virtue of their new oil money ownership and the likelihood that they too in the future will have as robust as revenue source system as other traditional Big 6 clubs have been able to develop with stable (read: wealthy) ownership).

The fact that you keep conflating it with 'Socialism' and referring to it partly as such, is part of the problem here with your misunderstanding of how the system works (or doesn't).

No £/€/$ figures given

You're over use of conflation aside, let me break down my argument.

There are 3 bigger clubs in La Liga & PL.
Real, Barca & Atletico and LFC, Manu & Arsenal.

The big La Liga 3 get roughly 33% of the money distributed by La Liga.
The big PL 3 get roughly 15% of the money distributed by the PL.
The disparity of the distribution is based on the PL being fairer to promote competition domestically. That's the PL line.

As said earlier
The PL uses socialism/fairness in its distribution of revenue to promote competition/fairness in the league.
&
In Spain, the revenue is generated more on merit.

Using the La Liga 3 share from the 2021/22 season, as a snapshot, as said,

3 clubs each giving up 6% of the pot each year for PL fairness compared with Real, Barca & Atletico.

18% x $3.1 billion = $558,000,000

Over half a billion a year from 3 bigger clubs to fund fairness in the PL.

Approximately $186,000,000 a year for us to fund fairness in the PL.

Using a quick online calculator, roughly.
£137.5 mill a year.
€159 mill a year.

Now whilst this disparity between fairness and meritocracy exists between the leagues, the PL does so under the idea that fair sharing its money generates better competition.
And whilst publicly operating under this fairness model, it has seen Chelsea blow the market open first, and then Cituae break the rules setup to prevent a reoccurrence of same.

Now if you'd like to be specific about what's conflated, or incorrect in the above proposition or argument. Make a rebuttal.

[Crimson Dynasty]

......
You're over use of conflation aside, let me break down my argument.

There are 3 bigger clubs in La Liga & PL.
Real, Barca & Atletico and LFC, Manu & Arsenal.

The big La Liga 3 get roughly 33% of the money distributed by La Liga.
The big PL 3 get roughly 15% of the money distributed by the PL.
The disparity of the distribution is based on the PL being fairer to promote competition domestically. That's the PL line.

As said earlier
The PL uses socialism/fairness in its distribution of revenue to promote competition/fairness in the league.
&
In Spain, the revenue is generated more on merit.

Using the La Liga 3 share from the 2021/22 season, as a snapshot, as said,

3 clubs each giving up 6% of the pot each year for PL fairness compared with Real, Barca & Atletico.

18% x $3.1 billion = $558,000,000

Over half a billion a year from 3 bigger clubs to fund fairness in the PL.

Approximately $186,000,000 a year for us to fund fairness in the PL.

Using a quick online calculator, roughly.
£137.5 mill a year.
€159 mill a year.

Now whilst this disparity between fairness and meritocracy exists between the leagues, the PL does so under the idea that fair sharing its money generates better competition.
And whilst publicly operating under this fairness model, it has seen Chelsea blow the market open first, and then Cituae break the rules setup to prevent a reoccurrence of same.

Now if you'd like to be specific about what's conflated, or incorrect in the above proposition or argument. Make a rebuttal.

Here's my rebuttal.

Virtually everything you've written about how the Premier League revenue sharing system works is wrong.
Especially the part where you claim that the big 3 in the Premier League get 15% of the total pot like in La Liga.
Where did you get that number or claim from?
It's totally and completely Incorrect.

That may be how it's distributed in La Liga, but as I've already pointed out, the Premier League's system is entirely different from that.

And you keep comparing it to "socialism" which either indicates you don't know what that word means, or you simply don't understand how the system works. Probably both.

So let's break it down from the source(s):-

From:-
https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/691073

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_League_parachute_and_solidarity_payments#: ~:text=Premier%20League%20broadcasting%20rights,-The%20Premier%20League&text=50%20per%20cent%20equa lly%20shared,as%20%22Merit%20Payments%22).)

https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/4325409/premier-league-central-payments-to-clubs-202425-season

"The Premier League distributes its UK broadcasting monies to its member clubs in the following way: 50% is split equally, 25% is based on the number of television appearances with a stipulated minimum amount (called facility fees) and 25% based on where that club finishes in the league (called merit payment). The overseas broadcasting monies received from broadcasters outside the UK is distributed equally amongst the clubs too. "

You see the part I've bolded and underlined?
The one that outlines that there's a part of the distribution payment that's based on where in the league a team finishes (called the "merit payment")? The fact that this exists means it's NOT Socialism.

How well you do, and where you finish in the league affects how much of the payment you get.

That's now how Socialism works.
That's what defines a meritocracy.

It's also obviously meant to incentivize competition and competitiveness in the league - of which it's fair to say there is more of in the Premier League than there is in La Liga.

Secondly, none of the money that any of the clubs make....OUTSIDE the Premier League's broadcast rights or streaming rights deal is affected by this revenue sharing model.

Which means that all the money that LFC makes from all of its other revenue sources are NOT affected.
That's money the club makes from T-shirt and merchandise sales, money made from the gift shops all over the world, money made from gate receipts, private investments in euiqities and funds and that sort of thing like the Mancs have.

It's strictly money from the television rights deal, which all teams are deemed to contribute to equally by virtue of having their matches (that they all play in) be broadcast all over the world, or at least be potentially broadcastable around the world.

So the system takes into account that all teams contribute into the pot by playing matches that are broadcast (and which broadcasters and streamers pay the league for), as epitomized by the 50% portion that's split equally to all clubs, followed by a 25% portion that's determined by how many appearances a club makes (a number that's determined by the broadcasters based on which matches they want to show, which in turn is admittedly based on the respective clubs' popularity worldwide as it affects which matches most people will want to watch the most), and finally that last 25% that is merit-based and is there to try and encourage competitiveness in the league and give teams an incentive to be more competitive and do better each season.

All of which undercuts your insinuation and claim that LFC are in any way funding "City's rule-breaking" in any way.

And since you seem so bothered by it, "CONFLATION" means confusing two things together to either be the same or interchangeable when they're not.

For example:-

'CCTV keeps conflating how the Premier League revenue sharing system works with Spain's La Liga revenue sharing model - even though the two systems are totally different with how they distribute the pot with La Liga's system clearly weighted to benefit the big 3 clubs more, while the Premier League's system is more equitable with a small percentage apportioned to how clubs perform (versus how "big" they are or whether they are part of any "big" three).

So for example, while Manchester United might be considered part of the "Big 6" in the Premier League, last season they received a smaller share of the revenue pot than non-Big 6 team Newcastle* because the latter finished much higher than them in the league table.

But chances are that Manchester United still grossed more as a business entity than Newcastle by virtue of being a bigger and more valuable club with much much more and robust revenue stream sources outside the league than Newcastle has (aside from their wealthy owners, whose wealth is strictly not considered a part of their day-to-day operating business revenue sources. But that's a different (PSR) discussion).

(*assuming both clubs had the same number of appearances broadcast, which is also a factor in how much clubs get, that is)

In contrast, Valencia could finish higher than Athletico or Real Madrid in La Liga but still receive less than them in their revenue sharing model because Valencia are not part of their Big 3 group that automatically get more than other clubs.'


You see the difference?

I can use "confusing" if you prefer, but it seems to me like you're focusing on the wrong thing here.

[CCTV]

Again, no figures.

1) I'm talking about how the PL takes money and distributes it based on fairness
&
Whilst doing so, it has allowed unfairness into the league via rich owners & cheats.
Ergo LFC has funded cheating in the PL as a big club.
And compared the PL distribution with La Ligas which is less evenly distributed.

Do you disagree that the PL shares money more evenly than La Liga ?
Is it shared the same in La Liga, or even more fairly/evenly/equally in La Liga ?

What is your answer.

2) Describing this distribution of means/revenue in the PL as more socialist/fairness in contrast with La Liga seems fair to me.
If you disagree with that adjective, what adjective do you think best describes a more even sharing of revenue ?

3) do you disagree that the PL has allowed unfairness into the league via rich owners & cheats ?

I think you should answer those 3 questions to try and make your position here clear.

I've done a quick calculation of the figures, and provided a link that states explicity the PL shares revenue more fairly than la liga. This is generally accepted in football.

You've provided a link
https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/691073

Total revenue sharing for PL in 2017/18

Total 2,419,583,748.

Top of the league that year
Cituae 149,438,654
Bottom of the league that year
West brom 94,666,492

LFC 145,904,609
Manu 149,767,145
Arsenal 142,042,073
Combined = 437,713,827

18.09% of the revenue for the big 3 clubs in PL

So a 6.03% share of revenue for the PL big 3 that year.
Other 17 teams get a 4.8% share of revenue on average say.
An about 5% share of revenue to each team.

In La Liga big 3 get around a 3rd of revenue as per the linked article.
11% share each say on average.
Leaving 3.9% shares on average to the other 17 teams.

Further analysis of figures tend to support what I said. PL clubs get about 5% each.

And big 6 my fucking hole,
Real, Barca & Atleti have a parity with LFC, Manu & Arsenal.
Chelsea, Cituae & Spurs do not have parity.

[Crimson Dynasty]

Again, no figures.

All the figures necessary are in the links I provided. Straight from the source.
And you even used some of them yourself.

1) I'm talking about how the PL takes money and distributes it based on fairness
&
Whilst doing so, it has allowed unfairness into the league via rich owners & cheats.
Ergo LFC has funded cheating in the PL as a big club.

Not through the revenue sharing system it doesn't.

Your argument seems to be that by the mere act of allowing rich owners to own clubs in the Premier League (FSG are a rich owner, by the way, in case you weren't aware), that the league is allowing unfairness that is therefore somehow funded by LFC.

In order to own a club in the league you have to run it under the league rules and regulations.
If they do cheat or breach those rules as you seem to be implying they are, you have to prove they're doing so, which the league is ostensibly trying to do in City's case as they have done in the case of other clubs like Chelsea and Everton last season.

Do you disagree that the PL shares money more evenly than La Liga ?
Is it shared the same in La Liga, or even more fairly/evenly/equally in La Liga ?

What is your answer.

This was never in disagreement.
Read my first comment in response to this. And the one after it.

I hate repeating myself for people who wilfully misunderstand and misinterpret what others are saying.

2) Describing this distribution of means/revenue in the PL as more socialist/fairness in contrast with La Liga seems fair to me.
If you disagree with that adjective, what adjective do you think best describes a more even sharing of revenue ?

It's not only NOT "fair". It's inaccurate and WRONG.
I already explained how.

You seem not to know what the word "socialism" means.

Merit and achievement don't count in a fully socialist system.
That's not the case in a revenue-sharing system that LITERALLY and has "merit" as part of their explanation in explaining part of how their system works ("Merit Payments").

Stop being obtuse.

50% of the revenue is shared equally - that's the 50% that represents the fact that all teams participate in the league and contribute matches from which the collective revenue is drawn.

The other 50% is NOT.

And they explained how so and it also includes the merit-based portion that awards revenue based on league-standing finish position.

Why are you ignoring that part?

You can't take the 50% of the explanation that fits your argument and case then ignore the other 50% and pretend like it doesn't exist or factor into it.

3) do you disagree that the PL has allowed unfairness into the league via rich owners & cheats ?

By having rich owners owning clubs in the league?
Yes I disagree.

And they have a system in place for dealing with "cheats" when they're found. See : Chelsea FC, Everton FC, Manchester City FC....

Again, FSG - our club owners are rich owners.
Not as rich as others, but they do own clubs that are valued in the BILLIONS on both sides of the pond.
That's wealthy.

Does it follow that if a particular owner is rich that they are therefore also "cheats"?

And also how do you propose they deal with this "unfairness"?
No more rich owners allowed to own clubs?

That would mean no FSG owning our club (And thus no CL #6 or title #20)

Now suddenly who wants a "socilialist" system?

You've provided a link
https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/691073

Total revenue sharing for PL in 2017/18

Total 2,419,583,748.

Top of the league that year
Cituae 149,438,654
Bottom of the league that year
West brom 94,666,492

LFC 145,904,609
Manu 149,767,145
Arsenal 142,042,073
Combined = 437,713,827

18.09% of the revenue for the big 3 clubs in PL

So a 6.03% share of revenue for the PL big 3 that year.
Other 17 teams get a 4.8% share of revenue on average say.
An about 5% share of revenue to each team.

What you did here is mind-boggingly STUPID.

You just cherry-picked what you wanted, to have it say what you wanted it to say.

The clubs you highlighted got higher revenue than other clubs becuase they finished higher in the league than the other clubs.
Not because they are the "big 3" (or big 6) or whatever.

Tottenham got a higher cut (144,446,238) than Arsenal did (142,042,073) (because they finished higher than them in the league.)

Why did you ignore that?

And then you try to make it seem like Tottenham like other clubs, got only 4.8%, like you averaged the other clubs to have recieved when the truth is it was 5.9% in their case (also higher than Arsenal's 5.8%)

Again,.....why ignore that?
Except that it doesn't fit your argument (Which is wrong)

The reason clubs got apportioned revenue like is because it's according to, and based on the rules for the sharing, which in this case also factored where the clubs finished in the league table.
NOT because they were or weren't a "big 3" club.

Manchester United - one of the "big 3" - got a lower revenue share amount last season than Everton or Brentford last season.
You know why?
Because their "big 3" membership got suspended?

No, it was because they finished lower in the league.

That alone completely dismantles your argument.

But I'm guessing you wanted some "socialism" for Manchester United as a "big 3" club member that just happened to fall on hard times last year, huh?

Nothing I posted supports anything you said, unless you cherry-pick it and twist it the way you tried to do here - which you would have succeeded in passing off if you were dealing with someone who didn't know exactly what you were doing.

You're terrible at this and I'd suggest you give up while you're ahead.

Further analysis of figures tend to support what I said. PL clubs get about 5% each.

And big 6 my fucking hole,
Real, Barca & Atleti have a parity with LFC, Manu & Arsenal.
Chelsea, Cituae & Spurs do not have parity.

It seems like you don't even know what the meaning of the word "parity" is neither.

But I'm not going to get into that particular malfunction.

[CCTV]

All the figures necessary are in the links I provided. Straight from the source.
And you even used some of them yourself.



Not through the revenue sharing system it doesn't.

Your argument seems to be that by the mere act of allowing rich owners to own clubs in the Premier League (FSG are a rich owner, by the way, in case you weren't aware), that the league is allowing unfairness that is therefore somehow funded by LFC.

In order to own a club in the league you have to run it under the league rules and regulations.
If they do cheat or breach those rules as you seem to be implying they are, you have to prove they're doing so, which the league is ostensibly trying to do in City's case as they have done in the case of other clubs like Chelsea and Everton last season.





This was never in disagreement.
Read my first comment in response to this. And the one after it.

I hate repeating myself for people who wilfully misunderstand and misinterpret what others are saying.




It's not only NOT "fair". It's inaccurate and WRONG.
I already explained how.

You seem not to know what the word "socialism" means.

Merit and achievement don't count in a fully socialist system.
That's not the case in a revenue-sharing system that LITERALLY and has "merit" as part of their explanation in explaining part of how their system works ("Merit Payments").

Stop being obtuse.

50% of the revenue is shared equally - that's the 50% that represents the fact that all teams participate in the league and contribute matches from which the collective revenue is drawn.

The other 50% is NOT.

And they explained how so and it also includes the merit-based portion that awards revenue based on league-standing finish position.

Why are you ignoring that part?

You can't take the 50% of the explanation that fits your argument and case then ignore the other 50% and pretend like it doesn't exist or factor into it.



By having rich owners owning clubs in the league?
Yes I disagree.

And they have a system in place for dealing with "cheats" when they're found. See : Chelsea FC, Everton FC, Manchester City FC....

Again, FSG - our club owners are rich owners.
Not as rich as others, but they do own clubs that are valued in the BILLIONS on both sides of the pond.
That's wealthy.

Does it follow that if a particular owner is rich that they are therefore also "cheats"?

And also how do you propose they deal with this "unfairness"?
No more rich owners allowed to own clubs?

That would mean no FSG owning our club (And thus no CL #6 or title #20)

Now suddenly who wants a "socilialist" system?



What you did here is mind-boggingly STUPID.

You just cherry-picked what you wanted, to have it say what you wanted it to say.

The clubs you highlighted got higher revenue than other clubs becuase they finished higher in the league than the other clubs.
Not because they are the "big 3" (or big 6) or whatever.

Tottenham got a higher cut (144,446,238) than Arsenal did (142,042,073) (because they finished higher than them in the league.)

Why did you ignore that?

And then you try to make it seem like Tottenham like other clubs, got only 4.8%, like you averaged the other clubs to have recieved when the truth is it was 5.9% in their case (also higher than Arsenal's 5.8%)

Again,.....why ignore that?
Except that it doesn't fit your argument (Which is wrong)

The reason clubs got apportioned revenue like is because it's according to, and based on the rules for the sharing, which in this case also factored where the clubs finished in the league table.
NOT because they were or weren't a "big 3" club.

Manchester United - one of the "big 3" - got a lower revenue share amount last season than Everton or Brentford last season.
You know why?
Because their "big 3" membership got suspended?

No, it was because they finished lower in the league.

That alone completely dismantles your argument.

But I'm guessing you wanted some "socialism" for Manchester United as a "big 3" club member that just happened to fall on hard times last year, huh?

Nothing I posted supports anything you said, unless you cherry-pick it and twist it the way you tried to do here - which you would have succeeded in passing off if you were dealing with someone who didn't know exactly what you were doing.

You're terrible at this and I'd suggest you give up while you're ahead.




It seems like you don't even know what the meaning of the word "parity" is neither.

But I'm not going to get into that particular malfunction.

Oh, dear.

I took the link you provided and provided basic analysis of the figures.

Based on 17/18 PL season, teams got around 5% each.

6% for PL big 3 & 4.8% on average for the other 17.
In la liga its 11% for the big 3 & 4% on average for the other 17.

Going from my about 15% share to 18%.
We get a lesser cost of $155 million to each of the big 3 clubs.

I know that if Real, Barca & Atleti were taking one set of 3 clubs into a super league it would be
LFC, Manu & Arsenal
over
Chelsea, Cituae & Spurs
You seem to think those 3 are equal to the big 3 in the PL big6....

[Kev0909]

Chelsea hit with 74 charges related to alleged breaches of agent regulations by the FA; charges relate to period between 2009 to 2022, when Roman Abramovich owned club; charges primarily relate to events between the 2010/11 and 2015/16 seasons; Chelsea have until September 19 to respond

does it even matter ? from what's happened with city, it's basically like the EU/US telling russia they're naughty boys and putting some sanctions on them that doesn't do shit