Football: VARying degrees of dissatisfaction inside.

[Heartofice]

45 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

We haven't spent insane money, every player we have bought is worth more than we paid, we have developed what we did have in house already, we qualified for the champions league pretty much at the first time of asking, but we will have to sell while city and chelsea and man utd spend insane money indefinitely to ensure its impossible to break into the top 6 long term.  This has nothing to do with sustainability and everything to do with keeping a closed shop.

I'm not a fan of FFP, and absolutely one of the reasons the clubs agreed to it was because it created more of a closed shop and kept them at the top. At the same time though, it's hard to have any sympathy for Newcastle fans crying about not being allowed to spend their Oil Theocracy sugar daddy's cash on over priced players. FFP is there to prevent exactly that situation and it's kind a shame that something like that wasn't introduced long ago. Instead we've already had Abramovic and City group warp the market. 

Ironically Newcastle have proved that you can make progress if you play by the FFP rules and start to do things right. They went from almost certain relegation candidates to Champions league when Howe came in, and they did it with 'sensible' transfers and good coaching. If you can shoot up the table just by bringing in proven prem quality players who fit a tactical style, rather than spunking money on badly thought out transfers over and over again then you have pretty much shown everyone how to do it. 

We'll have to see how FFP hits City, if they get found to be guilty of those 115 charges then it could be big big trouble for them. Even United are having to be cautious on how they spend now. 

[ljkeane]

22 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Even United are having to be cautious on how they spend now. 

United’s problem is that £90 million of the £105 million allowed losses have to be covered by the owners, which I doubt the Glazers have been willing to do. If Ratcliffe’s putting some money in it’s probably fine.

[baxus]

2 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

isn't it a universal truth that big teams get decisions more than not across all sports/leagues?

Rumours that we are going to have to sell Bruno and Isak to balance our books show how utterly stupid FFP is. 

We haven't spent insane money, every player we have bought is worth more than we paid, we have developed what we did have in house already, we qualified for the champions league pretty much at the first time of asking, but we will have to sell while city and chelsea and man utd spend insane money indefinitely to ensure its impossible to break into the top 6 long term.  This has nothing to do with sustainability and everything to do with keeping a closed shop.  

Sure, refs are more likely to "protect" star players from rough fouls and you have more star players in big teams, but would you say that Jones being sent off after his foot rolled off the ball and he stepped on opponents shin while Kluivert's direct step on opponent's shin not even deemed a foul is an example of big team getting decisions?

Man City, Chelsea and especially Man United have more income than Newcastle, and more creative accountants when it comes to showing expenses. If they want to be in the same position, Newcastle should poach United's marketing team or City's or Chelsea's accountants. Owners just pouring in buckets of money is not the way things should be done, despite your wishes. Players you pay with those buckets of money require more buckets of money in wages and clubs should be as self-sustainable as possible, not rely on their owners whims. What happens to Newcastle United if they are allowed to spend insane amounts of money and at some point down the line Saudi royalty become personae non-grata in British sports, just like Abramovich was? Or are you really going to tell me you don't see a scenario in which that happens? No human rights violations there, no democracy issues etc.? 

And cry me a river on having to sell if you want to buy. I've seen Liverpool having to sell Suarez, Coutinho, Torres and a whole other bunch of players all the way back to Michael Owen, in order to finance their purchases. Guess what? It's not the end of the world, and if Newcastle can't do it then they have no business being near the top. At the end of the day, if you are so good at developing players, have a couple of Coutinhos of your own, buy them at 10 million, turn them into world-class players (Coutinho at Liverpool was world-class, beyond a shadow of doubt) and sell them for 100+ million a couple of years late. That should set you up nicely.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

I'm not a fan of FFP, and absolutely one of the reasons the clubs agreed to it was because it created more of a closed shop and kept them at the top. At the same time though, it's hard to have any sympathy for Newcastle fans crying about not being allowed to spend their Oil Theocracy sugar daddy's cash on over priced players. FFP is there to prevent exactly that situation and it's kind a shame that something like that wasn't introduced long ago. Instead we've already had Abramovic and City group warp the market. 

It's not as if top clubs were the only ones to have a say in FFP creation. I don't remember "smaller" clubs raising their hands against it. It's there to keep all clubs from spending over their means, and I'd say that "smaller" clubs need help on that more than the "big" clubs.

Letting Abramovich and City group do what they did was a mistake. Thinking that mistake would be corrected by letting Newcastle owners do the same is like saying that every athlete should be allowed to use doping since there are athletes that are caught for doping.

[BigFatCoward]

36 minutes ago, baxus said:

 

Letting Abramovich and City group do what they did was a mistake. Thinking that mistake would be corrected by letting Newcastle owners do the same is like saying that every athlete should be allowed to use doping since there are athletes that are caught for doping.

 

If FFP is remains as is Liverpool, Man Utd and to a slightly lesser extent Arsenal will always have a huge in built advantage because of their history and income generation (Chelsea and City are historically nothing and as soon as the money from their owners is gone they are fucked if it happens). 

I don't think that's fair in the same way prime ministers and business leaders sending their kids to Eton and Harrow is fair and dominate the upper echelons of society indefinitely.  It excludes mobility, i have no interest in watching the same 6 teams dominate, i felt the same before Newcastle had money. I'd give Villa as a prime example (a much bigger club than either Chelsea or City) but because the other 2 got in early with their money they now get to keep pumping more and more money in while Villa are limited to what they can spend, and hence how they can compete. 

[ljkeane]

27 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

I don't think that's fair in the same way prime ministers and business leaders sending their kids to Eton and Harrow is fair and dominate the upper echelons of society indefinitely.  It excludes mobility, i have no interest in watching the same 6 teams dominate, i felt the same before Newcastle had money. I'd give Villa as a prime example (a much bigger club than either Chelsea or City) but because the other 2 got in early with their money they now get to keep pumping more and more money in while Villa are limited to what they can spend, and hence how they can compete. 

It's not fair. The only way to make it 'fair' would be to go American style and get rid of relegation, probably introduce revenue sharing, a salary cap and some sort of draft of youth talent (which probably isn't legal). That'd be pretty shit.

Having said that with recent tv deals even mid table Premier League sides are amongst the richest teams in world football. It's unlikely the smaller clubs in the league could ever truly compete at the top but there's really nothing stopping the likes of Newcastle, Villa, West Ham etc from being really good teams if they're well run. Would they have to be better run than the likes of Liverpool, United and Arsenal? Yeah, but it's achievable.

What's stopping them from having a chance to compete for a title on the back of that is City having done what you'd like Newcastle to be able to do and pouring so much money in that the level required to win the league is at a pretty ridiculous number of points.

Edited January 22 by ljkeane

[BigFatCoward]

14 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

What's stopping them from having a chance to compete for a title on the back of that is City having done what you'd like Newcastle to be able to do and pouring so much money in that the level required to win the league is at a pretty ridiculous number of points.

Since i'm bored shitless of Man City winning the league every year, that's exactly what i want, whether its Newcastle or whoever.  

[A Horse Named Stranger]

For most parts yeah. But it's not as static as you suggest. Let's look at Germany (I'll give you five minutes to get the Bayern laugh out of your system. Ready? Ok.)

I'll just list the biggest football clubs in Germany according to membership (there's a pretty good correlations between membership and fans).

1. Bayern (~316k) (I know, I know)

2. Dortmund (190k) (they've climbed recently they had been trailing their fierce rivals like forever)

3. Schalke (180k)

4. Frankfurt (135k)

5. Köln  (130k)

6. H$V (100k)

7.Gladbach (100k)

8.Stuttgart (90k)

9.Union (65k) (this one I found extremely surprising, I'd have bet heavy money on Hertha being ahead of them)

10. Freiburg (63k) (also kinda surprising as Freiburg is a rather small town, and they first won promotion into the Bundesliga in the 1990s, Stuttgart and Karlsruhe are/were the big boys that area, and Mannheim)

11.Hertha (50k) (again baffling they have fallen behind Union. Hertha has been the big club in the Capitol in like forever)

12.Werder (48k)

13.St. Pauli (35k (including horses)) (kind surprising, thought we'd be lower)

14. Nürnberg (30k) (would have expected them higher as one of the big clubs historically)

15 Leverkusen (30k) (didn't expect them to be that high. They are a plastic club, with more traditional clubs like Köln and Düsseldorf literally at their doorstep, but I guess you can buy love if you have Bayer cash backing you)

16.Düsseldorf (29k)

17.Kaiserslautern (28k) (club with a big tradition, quite a few of the '54 WC played there. Pretty much the only game in town, alas a pretty weak economic area).

18.Dresden (27k) (second Eastern club, and one with tradition (and a super disgusting fan scene))

19. TSV 1860 Munich (26k) (the original footballing club from Munich (and as their fans like to tell you, the club for the real folks from Munich). But decades in obscurity have taken its toll)

20. Rostock (25k) (the other big Eastern club with a disgusting fan scene)

I'll stop here.

Schalke and the Volkspark bastards should really be in the top 6+. Fact is they aren't. They have had years of mismanagement, that had seen them drop out of the Bundesliga. They used to play European football regularly well into the 2010s. They then overspend (or rather spend on the expectations of playing European football), failed to meet their sporting targets, were stuck with overpaid underperformers and had entered the doom spirals of the rat race losers. Anyway, Schalke had been the second biggest club in the country (and still are third). H$V was/is the big club from Northern Germany. Big (boneheaded) fanbase, (one of) Bayern's main competitioners in the 1980s. Both clubs have a lot of very favourable circumstances going for them. But poor decissions can bring down big clubs, if they do United/Chelsea level of stupid things, without outside money.

[baxus]

42 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

If FFP is remains as is Liverpool, Man Utd and to a slightly lesser extent Arsenal will always have a huge in built advantage because of their history and income generation (Chelsea and City are historically nothing and as soon as the money from their owners is gone they are fucked if it happens).

What's your suggestion then? Let's reset everything, make everyone equal, scrap previous success both on and off the field, and make Newcastle takeover year zero, when everything and everyone starts from scratch? When I started following Liverpool in late '90s Newcastle were above them in the table in that period. Newcastle even played in CL qualifiers (Partizan Belgrade knocked them out of '03/04 qualifiers). During that period Liverpool has brought in some promising players like Coutinho, Sterling, Suarez etc., improved them significantly, then sold them in order to fund signing new players that they thought would push the club forward. That approach has turned Liverpool into the only long-term rival to City in their period of dominance. Arsenal are now trying to do the same, and are using the same approach. Even from the purely sports perspective, why would Newcastle be allowed unlimited spending?

And yes, FFP is tied directly to clubs' incomes. And yes, that's the proper metric. You earn this much, you can spend this much, you can get this much into debt. We will agree that implementation often leaves a lot to be desired, but is not a bad system. No, Saudis should not be allowed to dump billions in Newcastle, and that would benefit Newcastle United most of all since it would not put the club at risk of shutting down if their owners lose interest in their shiny new toy.

Grow your club, increase income, then spend more and improve your squad. Newcastle's problem is not FFP, it's piss poor management under previous ownership that has left the club in such a sorry state, financially.

43 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

I don't think that's fair in the same way prime ministers and business leaders sending their kids to Eton and Harrow is fair and dominate the upper echelons of society indefinitely.  It excludes mobility, i have no interest in watching the same 6 teams dominate, i felt the same before Newcastle had money. I'd give Villa as a prime example (a much bigger club than either Chelsea or City) but because the other 2 got in early with their money they now get to keep pumping more and more money in while Villa are limited to what they can spend, and hence how they can compete.

No, it doesn't exclude mobility, it just excludes instant success. Put in the work and improve your club. There is no guaranteed success, as can be seen by the fact that Villa and Nottingham, though champions of Europe back in their day, have played each other in Championship a couple of seasons ago.

Once again, your solution to the problem of City and Chelsea is allowing everyone to do the same, instead of punishing City and Chelsea.

And just for conversation sake, what criteria have you used to come to the conclusion that Villa is a much bigger club than either Chelsea or City?

[baxus]

43 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

Having said that with recent tv deals even mid table Premier League sides are amongst the richest teams in world football. It's unlikely the smaller clubs in the league could ever truly compete at the top but there's really nothing stopping the likes of Newcastle, Villa, West Ham etc from being really good teams if they're well run. Would they have to be better run than the likes of Liverpool, United and Arsenal? Yeah, but it's achievable.

But it is not achievable in a season or two or three, and that's the problem BFC has (or at least that's my impression).

It takes a lot of work over a longer period of time to bring the club to top level, along with some luck and, last but not least, money. No one is banning "smaller" clubs from spending money. Clubs are banned from spending money they don't have. And no, the fact that Saudi royal family has unlimited funds does not mean that Newcastle United have unlimited funds, and even if owners were willing and able to just pour millions into the club there's no guarantee that'll happen next year when club is heavily reliant on that money (because of wages etc.).

[Heartofice]

Almost everyone hopes that City don’t win everything, but how do you separate out footballing and organisational quality from just money spent. 
 

United and Chelsea have spent A LOT on players recently and it hasn’t helped them. It might have made them worse in fact. 
 

Money on players isn’t the be all and end all, yes as I mentioned before, wage bill is a decent proxy for league position but there are outliers. 
 

Plus, how much of City’s success is down to the Pep factor? They were far from all conquering before he arrived, and may be in trouble when he leaves. Their recruitment is also generally very good, and they have brought players through from the academy.

FFP is not punishing for clubs investing in training facilities and stadiums, but it does concern itself with clubs going nuts with player transfers. As it should be. 
 

Clubs need to be taking a longer term view of success, built up over many seasons. Look at what Brighton have managed to achieve in a short space of time, by having a good recruitment system. Maybe in over a decades time if they kept it up they would be consistent top 4 challengers. Chelsea and United are examples of how top clubs can absolutely fuck it up and leave space for smaller clubs to take their place. 

[Consigliere]

FFP did not really affect mobility. It's not like it was a case of half the league being potential title challengers before FFP came along. Football has never been set up to promote parity. FFP in England is actually more lax compared to the other top leagues and UEFA competitions (even the upcoming squad cost rules are going to be more lax in England) - the rationale being that the PL wants the likes of Villa, West Ham etc. to be able to have more leeway in spending.

[polishgenius]

14 minutes ago, baxus said:

And just for conversation sake, what criteria have you used to come to the conclusion that Villa is a much bigger club than either Chelsea or City?

 

I dunno about much, but before Roman took over Chelsea had 1 league title, 3 FA cups, and no European Cup/CL wins (they'd won the cup winners a couple tiems). City before their takeover had 2 league titles, 4 FA Cups, and no EC/CL (one CWC). Villa have, to date, 7 League wins (still more than Chelsea), 7 FA cups, and a European Cup. 

They've also spent more time in the top flight than either and had a bigger stadium than either until City were gifted the Commonwealth Games stadium. 

You could make a pretty strong case that Chelsea had overtaken them by the time of the takeover, being regulars in the European spots and having had a title challenge and a couple FA cup runs, and having outstripped their revenue, but City were a yo-yo club until they got the new stadium and a mid-table club after that till the takeover. Villa weren't immune to mid-table finishes and the odd relegation but that was seen as underachievement. 

[ljkeane]

They’re also the biggest club in England’s second biggest city. 

[BigFatCoward]

1 hour ago, baxus said:

 

And just for conversation sake, what criteria have you used to come to the conclusion that Villa is a much bigger club than either Chelsea or City?

What Polish Genius said, and its just something inherently you know if you followed English football in this country for nearly 50 years.  

obviously the 'size' of a club is subjective, and other than Arsenal i'd imagine everyone has different clubs ranked differently.  But Chelsea and City, pre injection were not big by any metric really, not particularly successful, not a particularly big following, overshadowed by other teams in their cities.   

Edited January 22 by BigFatCoward

[polishgenius]

On the other hand

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Clubs need to be taking a longer term view of success, built up over many seasons. Look at what Brighton have managed to achieve in a short space of time, by having a good recruitment system. Maybe in over a decades time if they kept it up they would be consistent top 4 challengers. Chelsea and United are examples of how top clubs can absolutely fuck it up and leave space for smaller clubs to take their place. 

No, not really.

 

In a sane world, they'd be forced to cut their wage bills rather drastically instead of adding new 100m signings each season. And they would have entered the doom cycle of failing to meet sporting targets, resulting in decreased spending power and need to cut expenses by now. Sell and sell to buy.

Chelsea's day of reckoning might not be too far off, but with United, I don't see it looming at all.

[baxus]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

United and Chelsea have spent A LOT on players recently and it hasn’t helped them. It might have made them worse in fact. 
 

Plus, how much of City’s success is down to the Pep factor? They were far from all conquering before he arrived, and may be in trouble when he leaves. Their recruitment is also generally very good, and they have brought players through from the academy.

 

Clubs need to be taking a longer term view of success, built up over many seasons. Look at what Brighton have managed to achieve in a short space of time, by having a good recruitment system. Maybe in over a decades time if they kept it up they would be consistent top 4 challengers. Chelsea and United are examples of how top clubs can absolutely fuck it up and leave space for smaller clubs to take their place. 

United and Chelsea are poorly run clubs at the moment and, unless they snap out of it quickly they might drop off far from the top (Chelsea obviously being in danger more than United).

Please, remind me which players have City brought from the academy? Only one that comes to mind at the moment is Foden. Anyone else?

While I do agree their recruitment system is top notch, I don't see Brighton actually challenging for top 4 until they stop selling their top players every single time someone comes knocking.

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

 

I dunno about much, but before Roman took over Chelsea had 1 league title, 3 FA cups, and no European Cup/CL wins (they'd won the cup winners a couple tiems). City before their takeover had 2 league titles, 4 FA Cups, and no EC/CL (one CWC). Villa have, to date, 7 League wins (still more than Chelsea), 7 FA cups, and a European Cup. 

They've also spent more time in the top flight than either and had a bigger stadium than either until City were gifted the Commonwealth Games stadium. 

You could make a pretty strong case that Chelsea had overtaken them by the time of the takeover, being regulars in the European spots and having had a title challenge and a couple FA cup runs, and having outstripped their revenue, but City were a yo-yo club until they got the new stadium and a mid-table club after that till the takeover. Villa weren't immune to mid-table finishes and the odd relegation but that was seen as underachievement. 

We're not talking about pre-takeover Chelsea and Man City, we're talking about those clubs today.

Twenty years ago, Villa were bigger (or more successful, if we use that measurement) than both, but today I'm not sure that's the case, with City winning a CL and Chelsea winning it twice, both clubs winning multiple league titles etc.

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

What Polish Genius said, and its just something inherently you know if you followed English football in this country for nearly 50 years.  

obviously the 'size' of a club is subjective, and other than Arsenal i'd imagine everyone has different clubs ranked differently.  But Chelsea and City, pre injection were not big by any metric really, not particularly successful, not a particularly big following, overshadowed by other teams in their cities.   

Once again, not talking about pre injection Chelsea and City.

There was a point in time when Nottingham Forrest were the most successful club in England. That hasn't quite held up, and I'm not sure Villa being a much bigger club than City and Chelsea has, either.

[Darryk]

17 minutes ago, baxus said:

We're not talking about pre-takeover Chelsea and Man City, we're talking about those clubs today.

Twenty years ago, Villa were bigger (or more successful, if we use that measurement) than both, but today I'm not sure that's the case, with City winning a CL and Chelsea winning it twice, both clubs winning multiple league titles etc.

It's obviously not the case today, Polish Genius is obviously talking historically, and he's right. Villa are traditionally one of the great English clubs and have one of the highest trophy hauls in English history.

As for Chelsea, there's a reason people refer to them as "Millwall with money".

[baxus]

Well, we are talking today, not 20 years ago.

EDIT:

Even if we are talking trophy hauls, I'm not sure Villa is above Chelsea and City. That has nothing to do with my personal preference, I don't have a horse in that race.

EDIT2:

Just checked, both Chelsea and City have 9 major trophies (34) more than Villa (25)

Edited January 22 by baxus

[polishgenius]

BFC's point is that Chelsea and City's success has been artificially inflated by money over where they would be relative to Villa. It's obviously impossible to say where they would have gone without the injection, and Chelsea in particular were in a good spot at the time, but factoring in where they are with the injection isn't gonna help make that judgement at all.