City suing the prem

Interesting inasmuch that their argument centres around whether or not a different company which is also owned by the club’s owners can sponsor the club - effectively allowing the owners to provide the club with as much “income” (via sponsorship) as they wish - thereby staying within the current FFP regulations.

Preventing City from doing this breaches other laws.

This has been a loophole for years and needs sorting out. City inflated the Emirates sponsorship deal years ago to get round this and it's not right.

Norpig wrote:This has been a loophole for years and needs sorting out. City inflated the Emirates sponsorship deal years ago to get round this and it's not right.

My worry is that Sluffy and Bob might get involved.

boltonbonce wrote:

Norpig wrote:This has been a loophole for years and needs sorting out. City inflated the Emirates sponsorship deal years ago to get round this and it's not right.

My worry is that Sluffy and Bob might get involved.

No not me.

I don't have any interest in such stuff.

My view fwiw is that football lost it soul long, long ago when it became apparent that money basically determined success.

I still follow BWFC because I was born in the town and have followed them from my earliest days - indeed one of my earliest recollections is being a child in my grandparents house which was close to Orlando Bridge and hearing the crowd at Burnden - particularly the roar when we scored.

Would I follow football now if I wasn't already part of my DNA, I don't believe I would.

What connection have I got to it when nearly every big club like City, United, Chelsea, etc have foreign owners, the vast majority of their players are in effect foreign mercenaries and here because that is where the money is and clubs like Bolton can only compete if we did the same.

What exactly is then my connection to the club apart from the name (and even then the Reebok is situated in Horwich and not 'true' Bolton)?

Why would I support say Tesco and hope say Aldi and Sainsburys perform badly, or be loyal to say BMW and hope all Fords and Vauxhalls break down - I'd be mad to do so, so why do I want Bolton - a club financed by non-Bolton owners (ok there's Mike James but stay with me) a non-Bolton manager and a first team playing squad with all non-Bolton players - to do well (and spoil my day when they don't) as opposed to any other teams that also don't have non-Bolton owners, managers or players?

I'm basically following brand loyalty aren't I and my loyalty is in economic terms 'totally elastic' meaning I'll follow them until the day I die no matter what they do.

Rationally it doesn't make any sense does it?

City, Newcastle and PSG basically have the National Wealth funds of mega oil rich countries behind them - how do you compete with that?

City can afford to tie up the Premier League in court for decades if they choose to - how is that fair to other teams like Bolton?

This isn't the sort of football that I care about.

I'll just stick to seeing football as a game (which it is - ever if everyone else chooses to be in denial of the fact) and be happy when we win and a bit down when they don't, and intrigued as to how much the owners are prepared to piss their money away chasing their dreams via 'my' club.

I have to say, it's building up into a right old mess.
Should keep the back pages busy. Maybe even the front pages.

Perhaps it is time the big boys went off to the Super league? Let them all spend as much as they want and then get bored when they're playing the same teams week in week out with no actual fans in the stadium.

Sod 'em. Some great Wanderers stuff here.

I think the financial fair play rules are a joke. I don’t see how they can be lawful and it makes no sense. Surely the Premier League wants clubs to attract the best players, why restrict what clubs can do in the transfer market? I don’t know any other industry or sport that stops an owner from investing in his own club or company. 
We all know that these rules were introduced to protect the established elite. It allows the giants to be able to spend far more and have an advantage over smaller clubs. How can any smaller club ever advance and compete if they can only spend what they make in revenue? 
And how can it be right that Mike Ashley was deemed fine as an owner when he just pocketed the profits from Newcastle whilst City who have been incredible in developing the area around the stadium, have pumped huge money into the community and into making City the best team in the world. I hope City win their case and the charges against them are dropped.

Its not fair though is it Mad Dog? There's already a massive gulf in the Prem with the teams like City that have unlimited resources. If they could just spend what they want then you may as well give them the title for the next10 years now.

The Championship is just as bad, the teams that come down or have been down in the last few years have a massive advantage due to the parachute payments.

There has to be some kind of restriction on what clubs can spend otherwise what's the point of trying to get to the Prem if you have no chance of ever competing because the super rich clubs have all the best players and win everything in sight every year.

This is threatening the prem payment to the EFL putting clubs like BWFC at risk and in the longer term likely to lead to the severance of the link

Norpig wrote:Perhaps it is time the big boys went off to the Super league? Let them all spend as much as they want and then get bored when they're playing the same teams week in week out with no actual fans in the stadium.

I was dead set against this at the time but now I'm thinking fook it why not? We can have a proper league then without the likes of man city, united etc ruining it!

Norpig, but City are nowhere near the biggest spenders in the past 5 years. Last 5 years the net spend of the top 6 clubs has been Chelsea £800m, Man Utd £694m, Arsenal £638m, Spurs £537m, Man City £485m, Villa £382m. United have shown that even if you spend a fortune it doesn’t guarantee you will finish in the top 4. City haven’t won the league in the last four seasons because they have spent the most, they have done it because they are brilliantly run, a great manager, excellent signings.

Mad Dog wrote:Norpig, but City are nowhere near the biggest spenders in the past 5 years. Last 5 years the net spend of the top 6 clubs has been Chelsea £800m, Man Utd £694m, Arsenal £638m, Spurs £537m, Man City £485m, Villa £382m. United have shown that even if you spend a fortune it doesn’t guarantee you will finish in the top 4. City haven’t won the league in the last four seasons because they have spent the most, they have done it because they are brilliantly run, a great manager, excellent signings.

Mad Dog those figures are for transfers. If you include the cost of wages, agent fees etc I'd be willing to bet City spend far more than even Chelsea. Obviously most of those figures are confidential and therefore difficult to verify but I don't believe they have done it all purely on brilliance. I don't dispute that they ARE a brilliant team with an outstanding manager but the old saying of 'talent goes where the money is' still holds true. Don't forget that many of the charges City face involve failing to declare the true extent of their spending in paying people, notably Roberto Mancini whose contract was allegedly entirely false as it omitted several 'bonus' payments and other fees he and his agent received.

Lucky Peter, City weren’t the only team to pay agent fees, wages, etc. I bet you any money City didn’t spend as much as Chelsea or United.

I’m cancelling my YouTubeTV and Peacock subscriptions (networks I use to watch the Premier League games in the US). It’s just so incredibly boring and predictable now. When Villa and Palace are the most impressive stories from last season it’s very broken. I’m out until the cheating stops and it becomes a legitimate competition again, which will never happen until the Disney clubs fuck off and start their rebranded Super League (I think I’m in a minority of fans who actually wish for this).
Strictly League 1 and the Whites for me next season.

“Strictly League 1”. Now there’s an idea.

finlaymcdanger wrote:“Strictly League 1”. Now there’s an idea.

I'll watch a few Prem games, but it doesn't really hold my interest. I've no skin in the game, so it's pretty much just passing the time. Even Euro 2024 holds very little interest. I'd need to have a flutter to bother watching.
The Prem is vastly overrated.