Reply With QuoteLet's get real...The Premier League have been bought off,we all know it....City will get a tap on the wrist nothing more....Originally Posted by redebreck
|
|
|
...shows his class...
BUMP
wtf is going on?
all gone quiet.
Musician
Let's get real...The Premier League have been bought off,we all know it....City will get a tap on the wrist nothing more....
Rowdy Yates
NADA - as we know who effectively polices far larger and more global entities than the Premier League...WADA and CAS..
Due to the below I expect almost nowt..
Geopolitical Alignment and its Commercial Implications
US-Gulf State Alliance.The United States maintains deep and long-standing security, intelligence, and economic ties with both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. These relationships are fundamental to US policy in the Middle East.
Strategic interests...The US relies on these nations for energy stability, counter-terrorism cooperation, and regional diplomatic efforts.
UK interests...Similarly, the UK government openly regards these Gulf states as vital economic and strategic allies, as evidenced by the support given by the UK government in the Newcastle United takeover process.
The Investment as soft power..The multi-billion dollar investment in Premier League football by these Gulf states is explicitly a part of their "soft power" and nation branding strategies, designed to integrate them into the global cultural and commercial fabric of the West.
Disrupting the strategy..A catastrophic legal ruling against Manchester City (e.g., relegation or expulsion) would be seen as a direct and massive rejection of this strategy, severely embarrassing the UAE and potentially straining diplomatic/commercial relations.
It's a shared financial ecosystem.
The US and UK have a massive financial stake in the stability of the Gulf States.
The largest US-owned clubs in the Premier League (Man United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea) benefit enormously from the commercial engine that the Gulf State-owned clubs (Man City, Newcastle) have created, particularly in driving up global TV rights and commercial revenues. The commercial chaos of a severe punishment for City would directly hurt the value of the US owners' assets.
So - let's ponder their potential punishment for a few minutes.... and then face the reality that it will be minuscule...relatively speaking.
These Gulf state owned clubs are effectively also acting as Trojan horses for the continued consumption of almost all Premier league clubs by US money. The distraction they offer is a godsend and from a business perspective they need to be kept in play as long as is possible.
...shows his class...
Be interesting to see what bullshit reasoning the FA/Premier League come up with.
Eventually.
Are the Bookies giving odds?
Rowdy Yates
Most of us are looking at it wrongly imo. FFP was always a trap & never what the minions were fed to begin with. Just an expedient way to try and close off the cash cow. Useful idiots in their masses all clamouring for its perceived fairness. 🤔
The FFP "Sham": Protecting the Cartel for Profit
The core criticism of FFP is that it creates a glass ceiling for upwardly mobile clubs while solidifying the dominance of the existing, high-revenue "Big Six" of which are US-owned.
1. Entrenching the Existing Elite (The Status Quo)
* The Revenue Loop: FFP rules limit spending to a club's revenue. Clubs that already have large stadiums, decades of success, and guaranteed entry into lucrative tournaments like the Champions League (which provides huge revenue) are allowed to spend enormous amounts.
* The Trap: A smaller, newly wealthy club (like the "upstarts" City or Newcastle) can only grow its spending after it has achieved consistent success and generated massive revenue, but it cannot spend aggressively enough to compete for that success in the first place.
* Preventing "Financial Doping": While the stated aim was to prevent clubs from going bankrupt, the effect is to stop new, wealthy owners from "doping" a smaller club with massive, rapid investment (like Chelsea or Man City did two decades ago) to challenge the established order. This effectively protects the market share of the high-revenue clubs.
2. The US Model: Franchise-Style Protection
The arrival of US owners—who now own or have major stakes in a majority of Premier League clubs (including Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United, and Chelsea)—is central to this theory.
* Focus on Asset Appreciation: US sports operate on a franchise model (NFL, NBA). There is no relegation, there is a hard salary cap, and revenue is extensively shared. This creates an environment of guaranteed profitability and a consistent, high valuation for the asset (the club/franchise).
* The Premier League Compromise: FFP/PSR is seen as the European compromise that achieves the same profit-protection goal without having to adopt the culturally unpopular measures of no relegation or a hard salary cap.
* It limits competitive spending, which makes the league more financially predictable.
* It reduces the risk of an aggressive new competitor (like a Gulf state or another billionaire) suddenly challenging the market position of their prized assets.
* The "Cash Cow": If competition is relatively stable and the established elite are protected from rapid disruption, the entire league becomes a more stable, appreciating cash cow for owners, which is the exact philosophy of the US sports ownership model.
3. Loophole and Enforcement Failures
The rules are seen as a sham because the wealthiest clubs have the resources to exploit them:
* Sponsorship Gymnastics: Clubs with state or owner-linked sponsors can inflate the value of those deals to legally increase their "revenue," thus increasing their FFP spending limit. This is the central accusation against Manchester City.
* The Punishment is a Fine: For a time, the ultimate punishment for breaching FFP was often a large fine. For a club with vast wealth, a multi-million-pound fine is simply the cost of doing business—a small fee paid to secure multi-billion-pound long-term success.
In short, the cynical view is that FFP was not created to make the competition fairer, but to make the Premier League a more secure, low-risk, and high-value investment for its most powerful stakeholders.
The real questions around FFP should include:
1.Who has profited the most?
2.What single group owns the majority of clubs in a league benefitting from the huge increases in revenues AND this insidiously named ‘FFP’ framework..?
When you’ve answered those questions you will know WHO really is calling the shots.
Posting Permissions