Football: The odds are not even

[Consigliere]

I did not fail to address that point. In fact, I've said it twice already (and now a third time) that the playing field has never been a level one. Even back in the days before commercialisation went wild, before an influx of foreign players into leagues and with clubs relying primarily on match day income, it was the clubs that were located in the major cities that were the biggest beneficiaries simply by having a bigger fanbase, bigger stadiums and bigger talent pool to draw from and the most popular clubs in those cities benefited the most from that. That's why it's usually the case that the clubs located in major cities dominate the trophy lists in most leagues.

The only way to achieve the parity that people wish for is to 1) scrap the current transfer system and implement an NFL-style system or 2) keep the current transfer system in place but set a hard cap on wages and transfer spending that's low enough to negate the financial advantage of the wealthy clubs and accept that there will be an exodus of top level talent to other leagues.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Consigliere

[baxus]

No one is claiming that City would be where they are if they weren't cheating. It's obvious that helped them out a lot. I think it was Whiskeyjack who said that they have 2 starting lineups at their disposal after buying everyone they set their eyes on, that doesn't happen when spending sustainably, considering that they've only sold a few players for relatively big money and only in the last season or two (Sane, Sterling, Zinchenko, anyone else?).

But it's quite ironic when complaints like that come from supporters of other big clubs who have basically been in the same position compared to the rest of the league. Also, City's owners investing in their squad is not different from other clubs' owners investing their own money in their squads in the past. I stand corrected, nowadays City owners can't do that without breaking a shitload of arbitrary rules since "big clubs" have set up their shops and are trying to prevent others from doing the same.

[Iskaral Pust]

I think @Consigliere is saying that City, PSG, Chelsea, (NUFC next?) are problematically unfair because their advantage was unearned and removed all normal meritocratic hazard, and it was dropped on them contrary to supposed rules agreed by all clubs and with a competition-distorting suddenness.  This debate started as early as Blackburn Rovers.  All of the other big clubs earned their advantage by earning enough success at some point that increased their fan base, and then managed to sustain that somewhat consistently over a long period to let a compounded benefit accrue over decades.  Those gains accrued slowly and they could be frittered away — look at Leeds, Forest or Villa.

There’s obviously no level playing field.  The CL has been the biggest source of financial disparity within the PL (and the other biggest leagues), while the PL marketing is the biggest source of financial disparity between countries for clubs outside the CL.  At least CL participation has been meritocratic rather than an accident of geography.  But fundamentally the system allowed an earned advantage to accumulate and become self-reinforcing over time, which has created a near-unassailable top-10 of elite European clubs who have enough financial infrastructure, brand value and embedded market share of fans that they’re unlikely to be displaced unless they have a massive or sustained failure — Juve even rebound from relegation.  This kind of accrued benefit existed before the CL but became more deeply entrenched — as with most of the entertainment industry, the broader reach of entertainment distribution in the past ~30 years created a new winner-take-all concentration at the top of the pyramid at the expense of the rest.

@Whiskeyjack complains about the persistence of advantage, while @Consigliere focuses on the merit, hazard and only slow accumulation of t advantage.  US sports is unusually collectivist in forcing redistribution to avoid compounding the benefits of success, which is very difficult to extend to a much larger and more heterogeneous network of clubs.

For me, in the big picture, all sports is a trivial drama for amusement.  It’s enjoyable to follow so long as there is impressive skill, physicality and team coordination blended with competitive uncertain outcomes and variation and reinvention of strategy and tactics.

City and PSG represent insidious sports-washing and a killer of competition: all of their domestic games are the same one-sided procession.  IMO these are bigger problems than the unearned advantage of a free-spending clean owner elbowing their club’s way into contention without making it a foregone conclusion.  Chelsea was the same as City and PSG, just a notch lower on each dimension; now Boehly seems moves them away from sports-washing and is too incompetent so far to make his money lift them above normal competition.

[baxus]

6 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

I think @Consigliere is saying that City, PSG, Chelsea, (NUFC next?) are problematically unfair because their advantage was unearned and removed all normal meritocratic hazard, and it was dropped on them contrary to supposed rules agreed by all clubs and with a competition-distorting suddenness.  This debate started as early as Blackburn Rovers.  All of the other big clubs earned their advantage by earning enough success at some point that increased their fan base, and then managed to sustain that somewhat consistently over a long period to let a compounded benefit accrue over decades.  Those gains accrued slowly and they could be frittered away — look at Leeds, Forest or Villa.

But how did these other big clubs get to the point to earn enough success? By bringing in great managers and great players, building the club infrastructure (training grounds, stadiums etc.), which all meant significant investments at the time.

What makes that different from City owners bringing on great managers, signing great players, building the stadium etc.? That they did it in a shorter period of time? Or that the amounts of money in football nowadays are insane compared to those when Liverpool was turning into a successful club? The principle is the same. It's just that nowadays some people have sat down and said it's no longer allowed and brought on some limitations to what can and can't be done and failed miserably in controlling who breaks those restrictions.

And now everyone is pretending to be shocked that City broke the rules. What's even worse, the whole process is being dragged on and on and on, and all the while City is allowed to keep competing and winning stuff. They either have broken the rules and need to get booted out of the league or they haven't and this whole thing needs to be put to bed. We don't want to watch them winning trophies for 3-4 more years and wonder if they'll get to keep them or not once the "trial" is over.

[BigFatCoward]

17 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

I think @Consigliere is saying that City, PSG, Chelsea, (NUFC next?)

i think we should be left out of this, we are hardly dropping money bombs all over the place, everything i see coming out of the club is that they are making huge attempts to stay within FFP.  Our spending thus far has been positively reserved. 

I do find the 'big clubs' earned their position bizarre, its no different from Eton etc all churning out future leaders, because the children of past leaders are the only ones who can afford to go their.  None of their historic success is connected in any way to anybody currently at the club.  Having said that, fuck City and Chelsea. 

[The Sunland Lord]

The established, most supported teams like Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal etc. operated based on the principles on which the Premier League was established in 1992. If you believe that's unfair, then you are going a step further and claim that the English football "sold out" in 1992 and the takeover in 2003 of Chelsea by Abramovich, and later the oil states' takeover of Man City and now Newcastle are just a nail in the proverbial coffin of fairness in English football.

If you believe the principles on which the league was established were fair then you have a legitimate grievance that some clubs don't play by these rules because simply were taken over by wealthy owners who go around the rules. Add the charges against Man City (and the conclusion that will eventually follow) on top of this second stance.

[baxus]

23 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

The established, most supported teams like Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal etc. operated based on the principles on which the Premier League was established in 1992. If you believe that's unfair, then you are going a step further and claim that the English football "sold out" in 1992 and the takeover in 2003 of Chelsea by Abramovich, and later the oil states' takeover of Man City and now Newcastle are just a nail in the proverbial coffin of fairness in English football.

If you believe the principles on which the league was established were fair then you have a legitimate grievance that some clubs don't play by these rules because simply were taken over by wealthy owners who go around the rules. Add the charges against Man City (and the conclusion that will eventually follow) on top of this second stance.

So, 1992 is where we draw the line? That is the point at which everyone gathered and said: "Ok, everything that happened up until this point is cool, but from now on owners can no longer invest money to buy success"?

[Raja]

1 hour ago, baxus said:

And now everyone is pretending to be shocked that City broke the rules.

I don't know what alternate universe you're living in - people are not shocked that City broke the rules, at least no one here was surely? There was a whole UEFA investigation into it that couldn't charge due to the time that had elapsed since the alleged infractions. City paid a 10 million euro fine for it too.

In addition, like consiglere has pointed out *several* times - it has not been a level playing field, but it is only City that have been accused of paying Roberto a secret salary not disclosed to anyone and inflating values of sponsorship deals & funneling money into the club from the gulf state. All the while not being open with UEFA & the PL about their finances, which are also charges levelled against them.

It's not about owners investing money into clubs, and your characterization that it is about that is quite facile.

[Raja]

My brain can't reconcile this stuff.

Yaya sanogo & park, where are you? I miss you.

[baxus]

13 minutes ago, Raja said:

In addition, like consiglere has pointed out *several* times - it has not been a level playing field, but it is only City that have been accused of paying Roberto a secret salary not disclosed to anyone and inflating values of sponsorship deals & funneling money into the club from the gulf state. All the while not being open with UEFA & the PL about their finances, which are also charges levelled against them.

So, not a level playing field is ok when certain clubs come out on top but not when others do?

Sure, it's against the rules and they should be punished and I'd like to see them stripped of trophies and knocked to the lowest league possible. That still doesn't mean that "old money" clubs and their supporters have the right to moral outrage.

18 minutes ago, Raja said:

I don't know what alternate universe you're living in - people are not shocked that City broke the rules, at least no one here was surely? There was a whole UEFA investigation into it that couldn't charge due to the time that had elapsed since the alleged infractions. City paid a 10 million euro fine for it too.

Yeah, there was a whole UEFA investigation that was handled appallingly. And the punishment was laughable. It's nothing more than bullshit posturing.

The whole "yeah, we should get the result for these 115 charges of breaking the rules within 3-4 years" story from PL is a bloody disgrace. More bullshit posturing and pearl clutching from assholes who approved the purchase of the clubs by people who we are now saying should not own clubs in the first place.

By the way, why is it "Russian gangsters and dictators with license to print money" who are the problem? Why is the American who dumped 600M£ in a single year and "explained" it with extremely dodgy accounting tricks perfectly fine? Might it be because he provided us with laughs throughout the season instead of winning 5 of last 6 titles and a handful of cups?

[The Sunland Lord]

59 minutes ago, baxus said:

So, 1992 is where we draw the line? That is the point at which everyone gathered and said: "Ok, everything that happened up until this point is cool, but from now on owners can no longer invest money to buy success"?

That's the point when the current system of distribution of revenue was established.

[Raja]

10 minutes ago, baxus said:

So, not a level playing field is ok when certain clubs come out on top but not when others do?

It isn't. No idea where you've picked up the fact that it's okay.

11 minutes ago, baxus said:

Sure, it's against the rules

Good. You've finally figured out what's the problem.

Not sure why we needed 2-3 pages to get here.

[Consigliere]

Luke Edwards reporting that Newcastle are in talks with Inter for Barella. Edwards mentions a fee of £50m but I can't see Inter selling Barella for that price and if they are then I'd expect half a dozen other clubs looking to get in on that action. £50m for Barella would be a steal.

[The Sunland Lord]

 

1 hour ago, Consigliere said:

Luke Edwards reporting that Newcastle are in talks with Inter for Barella. Edwards mentions a fee of £50m but I can't see Inter selling Barella for that price and if they are then I'd expect half a dozen other clubs looking to get in on that action. £50m for Barella would be a steal.

Looks like this holds some water. Ausilio is in England to listen to multiple clubs according to Di Marzio. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Holy last minute goal...

[The Sunland Lord]

There are some rumours that United are into signing Rasmus Hojlund.

[baxus]

16 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

That's the point when the current system of distribution of revenue was established.

But we are not talking about distribution of revenue, are we?

We're talking about the possibility of an owner saying: "I'm investing this butload of money into the club to sign players we need to stay in the league or win the league/cup/European trophy" that has been there up until some point where the clubs, the leagues and FAs collectively said: "Oh, it's a no-no from now on."

I get the need to ensure clubs are run responsibly but the current system does not work, as we can see from the example of Manchester City. They have been doing whatever they pleased for over a decade and we have all known there's something fishy there and now the charges have finally been filed, we are told that the whole process will take 3-4 years to finish. It's stupid. If the rules are enforced in such a ridiculous manner then remove those limitations and let's have a free for all and see what club remains standing in a decade or two.

16 hours ago, Raja said:

Good. You've finally figured out what's the problem.

Not sure why we needed 2-3 pages to get here.

Not sure why YOU needed 2-3 pages to get there. I have been saying that City should be punished and that their actions were against the rules all along.

I have zero problems with them being punished, it's this whole moral superiority and pearl clutching bullshit that I find ridiculous. Hopefully, you won't need 2-3 pages more to understand that.

[AncalagonTheBlack]

https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/revealed-liverpools-2023-24-premier-league-fixture-list

Opening weekend fixtures

All times BST

Friday 11 August

20:00 Burnley v Manchester City

Saturday 12 August

Arsenal v Nottingham Forest 12:30

Bournemouth v West Ham United 15:30

Brighton v Luton Town 15:00

Everton v Fulham 15:00

Sheffield United v Crystal Palace 15:00

Newcastle v Aston Villa 17:30

Sunday 13 August

Brentford v Tottenham 14:00

Chelsea v Liverpool 16:30

Monday 14 August

Manchester United v Wolves 20:00

Edited June 15, 2023 by AncalagonTheBlack

[BigFatCoward]

36 minutes ago, AncalagonTheBlack said:

https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/revealed-liverpools-2023-24-premier-league-fixture-list

Opening weekend fixtures

All times BST

Friday 11 August

20:00 Burnley v Manchester City

Saturday 12 August

Arsenal v Nottingham Forest 12:30

Bournemouth v West Ham United 15:30

Brighton v Luton Town 15:00

Everton v Fulham 15:00

Sheffield United v Crystal Palace 15:00

Newcastle v Aston Villa 17:30

Sunday 13 August

Brentford v Tottenham 14:00

Chelsea v Liverpool 16:30

Monday 14 August

Manchester United v Wolves 20:00

So Arsenal to top the table after the first round of fixtures?  Burnley will have their promotion bounce and keep it acceptable. 

the 'big 7' all on TV on the first weekend.  

Current odds 

City 8/11, Liverpool 17/2, Arsenal 9/1, Man Utd 11/1, Newcastle 16/1, Chelsea 16/1, Spurs 66/1

Spurs seem very long odds for what was likely a one off shitty season.  Arsenal likely signing Rice (who i don't rate anywhere near 100 million, but he is what they need) could make them a bit of a steal.  Depends how they react to blowing it, do they come back determined, or do a Liverpool?

Edited June 15, 2023 by BigFatCoward

[Raja]

Not sure we can compete if City are seriously interested