Football: The odds are not even

[A Horse Named Stranger]

14 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

 

I know what you're saying, but my point was actually the opposite. That Pep is great and all but operating on anything resembling a fair playing field (not even level, just a bit closer and without constant cheating) Klopp would have at least three titles. 

Those things are not mutually exclusive.

A lesser manager Liverpool probably would've won a few more league titles. A fairer playing field, Liverpool probably also would'Ve won their extra titles.

It's really a question how many points you think Pep is worth over the course of a season. Personally, I think 6-10 points extra is not highballing (basically 3-4 wins). If you put a sub-standard manager (Lampard) instead of Pep on the touchline, then the number of points increases. Unfortunately, I don't see them messing things up that badly with their next appointment.

Edited June 12, 2023 by A Horse Named Stranger

[Dolorous Gabe]

52 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I know what you're saying, but my point was actually the opposite. That Pep is great and all but operating on anything resembling a fair playing field (not even level, just a bit closer and without constant cheating) Klopp would have at least three titles. 

If Pep had gone to United or Chelsea instead of City he'd had have won just as many trophies for those clubs.

Football hasn't been played on anything resembling a fair playing field in multiple decades.

[Heartofice]

I mean where Man City get their money from and just how quickly they have shot up from where they are does not make it a level playing field. But I’m now at the point past caring, none of the clubs are playing by ‘fair rules’ and money is money and you still need to spend it wisely and you need good coaching, good players and a good manager to do well.

Just looking at Chelsea and United it’s pretty obvious that money on its own isn’t the sole determining factor, even if it’s very important. Chelsea have spunked a ton of cash and had a horrible season, United have been throwing money everywhere and never moved forward. 
 

I’ve no doubt when Pep leaves they will have a few seasons where it falls apart a bit and they have their post Fergie moment. 
 

I guess I just don’t care that much any more, the whole system is so distorted that worrying about the few clubs at the top blaming each other seems to inconsequential 

[baxus]

Thinking that Liverpool or United or whoever "back in the day" won on a level playing field is plainly delusional.

Amounts of money were not as big as today and the market to sign players from was smaller but there were always clubs with more money, more influence etc.

[Raja]

100m seems like way too much money for a player. sigh.

I don't think Pep at United or Chelsea has the same amount of success because both those clubs don't have the structure that city do.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Raja

[Heartofice]

It all seems a bit amusing for the big clubs to complain about unfair playing fields when the biggest distortion is between them and the rest of the football pyramid. Honestly who gives a shit if City can spend a little bit more than United and they do so on inflated commercial figures when the numbers thrown around for one player would keep most league one sides in business for years. 

[Winterfell is Burning]

2 hours ago, baxus said:

Thinking that Liverpool or United or whoever "back in the day" won on a level playing field is plainly delusional.

Amounts of money were not as big as today and the market to sign players from was smaller but there were always clubs with more money, more influence etc.

True, and that happens everywhere. There's a difference between big clubs having influence and money and Russian gangsters and oppressive dictatorships with a literal license to print money spending unlimited amounts to win, though 

[baxus]

17 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

True, and that happens everywhere. There's a difference between big clubs having influence and money and Russian gangsters and oppressive dictatorships with a literal license to print money spending unlimited amounts to win, though 

Once Russian gangsters and oppressive dictatorships with a literal license to print money are allowed to buy football clubs and are given freedom to do as they please, complaining about them is nothing more than hypocrisy.

[Raja]

Ah yes, because it's us fans that allow that to happen

[Consigliere]

I agree that football has never been a level playing field. The leagues were simply never designed with parity in mind so some clubs always made more money than others and were able to attract better players and have better academies. Location has also been a factor - generally speaking, it's easier to attract better players if the club is located in a big city.

However, it's silly to just brush off the unfairness of clubs like City, PSG and Chelsea under Abramovich. Criticising them is not hypocrisy. The difference between clubs like United, Liverpool, Arsenal etc. vs City, Chelsea and PSG is that the former group operated within their means and had to work for their sponsorship money rather than have it handed to them on a silver platter.

Whereas clubs like Chelsea under Abramovich, City and PSG had operated for years under some of the biggest losses in football history, were paying out more in wages than the clubs generated in gross revenue (PSG still does this) while still throwing big money at transfer and agent fees. The likes of United, Liverpool, Arsenal etc would've gone bankrupt had they operated in the same manner. City and PSG are also being propped up by bullshit related-party sponsorships which they never had to actually earn and hiding the true cost of their expenses by making use of their state run parent companies i.e. City Football Group and QSI.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Consigliere

[A Horse Named Stranger]

David Squires agrees

[Raja]

what consigliere said

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, Consigliere said:

Whereas clubs like Chelsea under Abramovich, City and PSG had operated for years under some of the biggest losses in football history, were paying out more in wages than the clubs generated in gross revenue (PSG still does this) while still throwing big money at transfer and agent fees. The likes of United, Liverpool, Arsenal etc would've gone bankrupt had they operated in the same manner. City and PSG are also being propped up by bullshit related-party sponsorships which they never had to actually earn and hiding the true cost of their expenses by making use of their state run parent companies i.e. City Football Group and QSI.

While I agree that Chelsea and City and PSG were able to be propped up by bullshit accounting and distorted finances to try and compete and I hate it, at least part of me has very little sympathy for clubs like United or Liverpool who can rely on decades of past success, being big clubs at the time of the Premier League introduction and large fan bases to prop them up and continue the closed shop. It's the closed shop that is really the problem and systems in place to prevent any real interlopers into the top table.

I think it says a lot that the only way for teams to compete against the established big clubs is for them to be taken over by oil rich countries.

I would love for a far more equal system to be introduced that doesn't just mean that its borderline impossible to win anything unless you have access to insane amount of money, but i know that is long past a dream. Either way I don't see United or Liverpool or Arsenal as being the victims in any shape or form. 

[polishgenius]

4 hours ago, baxus said:

Thinking that Liverpool or United or whoever "back in the day" won on a level playing field is plainly delusional.

 

I didn't say level. I specifically clarified that I didn't mean level. I said fair, in the sense that City are blatantly cheating. 

I also specifically said Guardiola is obviously a great coach who is a huge part of the success. All I'm saying is if City had to play by the same rules as everyone else, he wouldn't have as many titles. I don't think that's controversial.

Edited June 13, 2023 by polishgenius

[baxus]

Well, it's not fair if a club has more money than 1 or maybe 2 rivals out of 19, regardless if we're talking hundreds of thousands or tens of millions.

The problem with what City (but not only City) is doing at the moment is that they are spending unsustainable amounts of money. I mean, 70M for Keita or 80M for Maguire is just as bad as what City is doing, though the City is doing that more often and their transfer flops don't affect them too much.

City is not worse than other clubs because they're spending a lot of money, but because of their "creative" accounting to hide their unsustainability and pretending to want to clear their name as soon as possible while doing their absolute best to prolong the whole process.

[baxus]

2 hours ago, Raja said:

Ah yes, because it's us fans that allow that to happen

No one said it was fans who allowed it, but there are structures in place who need to approve new owners and those structures are put in place by clubs who can be quite easily influenced by fans. If you think fans have no say and are powerless to object, I'd like to remind you of the recent Superleague fiasco.

2 hours ago, Consigliere said:

However, it's silly to just brush off the unfairness of clubs like City, PSG and Chelsea under Abramovich. Criticising them is not hypocrisy. The difference between clubs like United, Liverpool, Arsenal etc. vs City, Chelsea and PSG is that the former group operated within their means and had to work for their sponsorship money rather than have it handed to them on a silver platter.

Whereas clubs like Chelsea under Abramovich, City and PSG had operated for years under some of the biggest losses in football history, were paying out more in wages than the clubs generated in gross revenue (PSG still does this) while still throwing big money at transfer and agent fees. The likes of United, Liverpool, Arsenal etc would've gone bankrupt had they operated in the same manner. City and PSG are also being propped up by bullshit related-party sponsorships which they never had to actually earn and hiding the true cost of their expenses by making use of their state run parent companies i.e. City Football Group and QSI.

You are aware that United is not that far behind City when it comes to spending on signing players or their wages (De Gea, Sancho, Varane and Casemiro all among 10 highest paid players in the league, with Martial and Bruno in top 20)? United have given the likes of Sanchez 400k/week years ago, for god's sake.

Regarding debt - Tottenham, Arsenal, Man United and Liverpool are among 10 clubs with highest debt, so this whole "they are spending within their means" is just not true.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend Chelsea, PSG and City. I do think what they're doing is against the sport should stand for, but let's not pretend that the rest of the clubs are these precious little angels.

[Consigliere]

5 minutes ago, baxus said:

You are aware that United is not that far behind City when it comes to spending on signing players or their wages (De Gea, Sancho, Varane and Casemiro all among 10 highest paid players in the league, with Martial and Bruno in top 20)? United have given the likes of Sanchez 400k/week years ago, for god's sake.

I am aware. You are aware that in the first few years of state ownership, City were operating on eye-watering losses, paying out more in wages than the club was generating in gross revenue while continuing to spend heavily on transfer and agent fees. United never did that; they spent within their means, did not have to rely on fake sponsorships and doesn't have 115 charges of FFP breaches against them.

 

5 minutes ago, baxus said:

Regarding debt - Tottenham, Arsenal, Man United and Liverpool are among 10 clubs with highest debt, so this whole "they are spending within their means" is just not true.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend Chelsea, PSG and City. I do think what they're doing is against the sport should stand for, but let's not pretend that the rest of the clubs are these precious little angels.

How many of those clubs have fake sponsorships? How many of those clubs are using state-owned parent companies to hide the true cost of expenses? Yes, all those clubs are operating within their means and servicing their debt with income that's legitimately earned, unlike City.

[Spockydog]

1 hour ago, baxus said:

No one said it was fans who allowed it, but there are structures in place who need to approve new owners and those structures are put in place by clubs who can be quite easily influenced by fans.

Such as? 

How would this mythical structure have worked wrt Newcastle? How could fans have influenced that takeover? 

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Spockydog

[Raja]

44 minutes ago, baxus said:

No one said it was fans who allowed it

You called complaning about it 'hypocrisy' - hypocrisy by whom? By us?

Edited June 13, 2023 by Raja

[Whiskeyjack]

7 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I guess I just don’t care that much any more, the whole system is so distorted that worrying about the few clubs at the top blaming each other seems to inconsequential 

Think its pretty ridiculous to say the whole system is bad, so lets just pretend all of the top clubs are equally bad.  There are rules in place, and seems pretty likely that City are going around them.  What they're doing is an extra level of shady.

That said -

1 hour ago, Consigliere said:

I am aware. You are aware that in the first few years of state ownership, City were operating on eye-watering losses, paying out more in wages than the club was generating in gross revenue while continuing to spend heavily on transfer and agent fees. United never did that; they spent within their means, did not have to rely on fake sponsorships and doesn't have 115 charges of FFP breaches against them.

Feel like this is also a skewed way of looking at things.  When you tie a spending limit to revenue, its a pretty massive advantage for the teams with the highest revenue.  Kind of convenient for clubs like United (and all of the other top clubs), because it stacks the deck in their favor and helps to keep them on top.

Realistically, the best way to actually have a fair system would be to have both a cap and a floor that applies across the Premier League.  Problem is, the way football is structured, with promotion and relegation, as well as different leagues in different countries, would likely be extremely complicated to put into place.  Cap would have to be high enough that you aren't creating a system where teams in other countries can easily outbid the English teams for all of the top talent (which is even more challenging now that the Saudi league is getting involved), and yet low enough to actually help the smaller clubs be competitive.  Floor would have to be high enough to make it something the players would even consider, but also low enough that a team getting promoted from the Championship could reach it.

Honestly seems kind of impossible. 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Whiskeyjack