Desert Eagle
Punjabi Dude
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2006
- Messages
- 17,569
Great time for a hard cap, when our team is in shambles and requires a full rebuild.
Except for players at a certain club that will make 'arrangements'.Will price a lot of players out of coming to the League, no?
Bore off you fecking WUM. Also Villa voted against it as well but that doesn’t fit your anti Utd agenda so you’ve conveniently left them out.Odd that Utd and City are the two grouped together in opposition, given the other big clubs have now "closed the gap". You'd think you'd be voting alongside your peers, Liverpool, Arsenal and ahem, Spurs, rather than with a vastly wealthy club who clearly and obviously outspend you. It makes no sense.... cough...
Yep, don’t like this at all. Not to mention it gives 115 charges FC an even bigger advantage when they break the rules.This will only favour the Spanish clubs.
Pretty much. Always reminded of Gascoigne picking Spurs over us because they brought his mum a house.Except for players at a certain club that will make 'arrangements'.
Exactly. You're one disgruntled City player/agent away from under-the-table payments being blown into the open. Plus, you know, tax evasion on the part of both club and players.A club like City may still try to get away with under-the-table payments to agents and the like but its much easier to detect and potentially punish that than it is to fight an army of the world's most expensive lawyers to prove that a sponsorship deal signed with a Bahamas based crypto company owned by a Singaporean based holding company silently controlled by a Dubai based investment firm whose shadow owner is Mansour's fourth cousin is 30% over market rate.
Ultimately, this kind of thing would effectively cap City's spend on players roughly at its current level and other clubs would be able to make up that difference and compete with them on a more level playing field.
Great post! Couldn't agree moreExecs in Madrid, Barcelona, Munich and Turin are laughing their holes off.
Years spent trying to weasel their way to a Super League so they can compete with the Premier League, all for nothing because now the league is going to kneecap itself for them. The only thing England has going for it when trying to entice players from picking nicer, warmer, more glamorous places to live and play, is the strength of the Premier League - this is going to take away that advantage and in ten years time, when the best players in the world are all playing in La Liga and Serie A, the same smaller clubs who are bitching about fairness now, will be moaning about why their TV revenues and prize money revenues have fallen through the floor.
You don't make something better by forcing the most successful parts of it to be more like it's least successful parts.
Allowing City to do what they did is what fecked football. This "solution" is just going to punish clubs who spent decades being "big clubs" without ever breaking the game, while allowing the likes of City to carry on with their cheating regardless of any new rules.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
The second sentence shows you why the first sentence won't happen.Exactly. You're one disgruntled City player/agent away from under-the-table payments being blown into the open. Plus, you know, tax evasion on the part of both club and players.
Not trying to WUM, I just got absolutely shouted down by multiple people on here for daring to suggest Utd were the leagues biggest spenders. Just thought it was interesting that that appears to have been supported here. Not everyone who disagrees with you is winding you up, you know.Bore off you fecking WUM. Also Villa voted against it as well but that doesn’t fit your anti Utd agenda so you’ve conveniently left them out.
Look at the Lance Armstrong case; some people who came forward were also complicit in the blood doping; they just wanted to see the world burn as well.The second sentence shows you why the first sentence won't happen.
I called you a WUM because that’s exactly what you are. I’ve seen numerous posts from you on here that contain some sort of sly dig at Utd. So the question is, why sign up to a Man Utd forum in the first place? Sad as feck if you ask me but you do you.Not trying to WUM, I just got absolutely shouted down by multiple people on here for daring to suggest Utd were the leagues biggest spenders. Just thought it was interesting that that appears to have been supported here. Not everyone who disagrees with you is winding you up, you know.
And I didn’t mention Villa because I didn’t know about Villa, but don’t let that affect your assumption that I’ve deliberately left them out. I can only assume their owners are looking to spend, and spend big in the near future.
I think you should reread my posts. The majority are on the politics forum, and the majority of the footballers ones are generally about random players, and /or Ipswich, . Again, I’m allowed to have an opinion and as I say it’s interesting to view Utd’s actions today in relation to some of the claims that were made a couple of weeks ago. It doesn’t tally, in my opinion.I called you a WUM because that’s exactly what you are. The majority of your posts on here contain some sort of sly dig at Utd. So the question is, why sign up to a Man Utd forum in the first place? Sad as feck if you ask me but you do you.
I mean this with respect, Man Utd have spent an incredible amount of money to be as sh*t as you are. That you might need to spend smarter rather than harder in the future is no bad thing IMO, would anyone have sanctioned that Antony deal if there was a spending cap?Execs in Madrid, Barcelona, Munich and Turin are laughing their holes off.
Years spent trying to weasel their way to a Super League so they can compete with the Premier League, all for nothing because now the league is going to kneecap itself for them. The only thing England has going for it when trying to entice players from picking nicer, warmer, more glamorous places to live and play, is the strength of the Premier League - this is going to take away that advantage and in ten years time, when the best players in the world are all playing in La Liga and Serie A, the same smaller clubs who are bitching about fairness now, will be moaning about why their TV revenues and prize money revenues have fallen through the floor.
You don't make something better by forcing the most successful parts of it to be more like it's least successful parts.
Allowing City to do what they did is what fecked football. This "solution" is just going to punish clubs who spent decades being "big clubs" without ever breaking the game, while allowing the likes of City to carry on with their cheating regardless of any new rules.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Add Casemeiro, Mount, OnanaI mean this with respect, Man Utd have spent an incredible amount of money to be as sh*t as you are. That you might need to spend smarter rather than harder in the future is no bad thing IMO, would anyone have sanctioned that Antony deal if there was a spending cap?
No lawyer is getting you off the fact that you spent $150M in a year you should have spent $50M. This rule is harder to break than "you can only spend "legitimate" income", because expenditure is harder to maskNot sure this gonna works with City. They have a team of world best lawyers on their side helping them broke all the FFP rules for both EUFA and PL. So far nothing happened to them.
Even when they are charged with 115 charges their owner came out gave an interview basically laughed off the PL charges.
Oh, teams spend stupid even with spending caps. Then you're fecked for a decade, instead of a seasonI mean this with respect, Man Utd have spent an incredible amount of money to be as sh*t as you are. That you might need to spend smarter rather than harder in the future is no bad thing IMO, would anyone have sanctioned that Antony deal if there was a spending cap?
Still need more details, and what help it will be to clubs and fans, but I agree completely. I hated the stupid money we were pissing away that could have been used on our stadium, training facilities and academy than buying overpriced shit players.I mean this with respect, Man Utd have spent an incredible amount of money to be as sh*t as you are. That you might need to spend smarter rather than harder in the future is no bad thing IMO, would anyone have sanctioned that Antony deal if there was a spending cap?
They can make spending 150M "officially looks like 50M"?No lawyer is getting you off the fact that you spent $150M in a year you should have spent $50M. This rule is harder to break than "you can only spend "legitimate" income", because expenditure is harder to mask
Man United won several titles and competed with the best in Europe for close to two decades after the formation of the PL. During this time we were far richer in relation to the rest of the footballing world than we are today, and at no point during that 20 years, did we come close to breaking football in the way it has been broken since a state was allowed to buy into the league. The money we have spent trying to keep pace with them is of course ridiculous, but it has been spent on book and above board, in a fruitless attempt to challenge a competitor playing by no such rules.I mean this with respect, Man Utd have spent an incredible amount of money to be as sh*t as you are. That you might need to spend smarter rather than harder in the future is no bad thing IMO, would anyone have sanctioned that Antony deal if there was a spending cap?
No lawyer on Earth is going to be able to prove what an Abu Dhabi owned football club has payed into an Abu Dhabi based bank account.No lawyer is getting you off the fact that you spent $150M in a year you should have spent $50M. This rule is harder to break than "you can only spend "legitimate" income", because expenditure is harder to mask
You can't make transfer spending smaller. Because there is another club on the other side, that for the purposes of FFP and shrewd business, is better off accurately reporting their income.They can make spending 150M "officially looks like 50M"?
Agree with this. All this "hard cap" is going to do is make the league more mediocre and spread talent back to the big clubs abroad. This isn't the NFL where there are only 30 teams and a draft set in place to encourage parity from the start, and it's not going to stop City from doing any cheating anyways.Execs in Madrid, Barcelona, Munich and Turin are laughing their holes off.
Years spent trying to weasel their way to a Super League so they can compete with the Premier League, all for nothing because now the league is going to kneecap itself for them. The only thing England has going for it when trying to entice players from picking nicer, warmer, more glamorous places to live and play, is the strength of the Premier League - this is going to take away that advantage and in ten years time, when the best players in the world are all playing in La Liga and Serie A, the same smaller clubs who are bitching about fairness now, will be moaning about why their TV revenues and prize money revenues have fallen through the floor.
You don't make something better by forcing the most successful parts of it to be more like it's least successful parts.
Allowing City to do what they did is what fecked football. This "solution" is just going to punish clubs who spent decades being "big clubs" without ever breaking the game, while allowing the likes of City to carry on with their cheating regardless of any new rules.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
No it won'tAgree with this. All this "hard cap" is going to do is make the league more mediocre and spread talent back to the big clubs abroad. This isn't the NFL where there are only 30 teams and a draft set in place to encourage parity from the start, and it's not going to stop City from doing any cheating anyways.
This is essentially the PL owners looking to take a bigger slice of the pie now that the league is bringing in more money than ever before. It has nothing to do with "competition"
You absolutely can put tens of millions in agent costs and signing bonuses “somewhere else”, which they very likely did with Haaland.You can't make transfer spending smaller. Because there is another club on the other side, that for the purposes of FFP and shrewd business, is better off accurately reporting their income.
That’s also nonsense again though, you absolutely can have some players on 200k /week that in reality are on 200k + 120k in Abu Dhabi Sponsoring, similar with their management. We already know they did it Mancini, and Pep staying at Man fecking City for almost a decade tells some story; yet he makes less than Simone…. SureWages is a bit more difficult, however player value is openly known. You can't squeeze Mbappe, Haaland, De Bruyne, Bellingham, Vinicius Jr, Ter Stegen and a few others into the same team and claim you're only paying £10m in wages per year. There's smaller room for you to get away with funky behavior.
So, maybe you can make 150M look like 140M, if you're desperate enough. Beyond that, it's not going to work.
Won't the league of equals where every team can match the other as advertised by Skysport be thee dream?Execs in Madrid, Barcelona, Munich and Turin are laughing their holes off.
Years spent trying to weasel their way to a Super League so they can compete with the Premier League, all for nothing because now the league is going to kneecap itself for them. The only thing England has going for it when trying to entice players from picking nicer, warmer, more glamorous places to live and play, is the strength of the Premier League - this is going to take away that advantage and in ten years time, when the best players in the world are all playing in La Liga and Serie A, the same smaller clubs who are bitching about fairness now, will be moaning about why their TV revenues and prize money revenues have fallen through the floor.
You don't make something better by forcing the most successful parts of it to be more like it's least successful parts.
Allowing City to do what they did is what fecked football. This "solution" is just going to punish clubs who spent decades being "big clubs" without ever breaking the game, while allowing the likes of City to carry on with their cheating regardless of any new rules.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Anyone who signed Haaland would have had to pay the same money to agents and his da. That's why they carefully structured his contracts from Salsburg to Dortmund to City.You absolutely can put tens of millions in agent costs and signing bonuses “somewhere else”, which they very likely did with Haaland.
But again you run into problems with tax evasion. If you as a player are playing in the UK and you are playing for a PL club, unless I'm mistaken, you owe tax on income received from your club for playing in said country. So unless you're (in conspiracy mode) thinking many players are up for fecking with the HRMC by hiding income paid to an Abu Dhabi account...That’s also nonsense again though, you absolutely can have some players on 200k /week that in reality are on 200k + 120k in Abu Dhabi Sponsoring, similar with their management. We already know they did it Mancini, and Pep staying at Man fecking City for almost a decade tells some story; yet he makes less than Simone…. Sure![]()
A lot of what you've written in this thread echoes my thoughts exactly. It does beg the question why we are against the cap, but as someone wrote somewhere else perhaps it's in part because it should skyrocket the price of football clubs and might make it even harder / impossible to shift the glazers: if state owned clubs can't get around the wage cap it should in theory ensure clubs with massive revenue like United are "forced" to remain profitable and therefore become more stable investments.And if the current reason the PL brings in so much money, is it being more competitive than Serie A/Bundesliga/La Liga (I mean, City's made a mockery of that notion in recent years but let's pretend for a second), then instituting this sort of salary cap makes the league even more competitive by spreading talent around, which should bring in more revenue to compensate for the spending cap... right?
Aye, but one club can pay it by very selective means, as in Etihad airlines can pay it as a sponsorship deal.Anyone who signed Haaland would have had to pay the same money to agents and his da.
Doesn’t have to go into an Abu Dhabi account though does it? It can simply be a sponsorship deal paid into your UK account.But again you run into problems with tax evasion. If you as a player are playing in the UK and you are playing for a PL club, unless I'm mistaken, you owe tax on income received from your club for playing in said country. So unless you're (in conspiracy mode) thinking many players are up for fecking with the HRMC by hiding income paid to an Abu Dhabi account...
This is the part many don’t seem to understand. Mancini could be paid extra for “consulting”. And you can give the likes of Haaland huge signing-on fees, especially when you buy a player at below market rate rate through a release clause or an expiring contract.No lawyer is getting you off the fact that you spent $150M in a year you should have spent $50M. This rule is harder to break than "you can only spend "legitimate" income", because expenditure is harder to mask
Oh, teams spend stupid even with spending caps. Then you're fecked for a decade, instead of a season
Madrid was not interested in Haaland they were all in for MbappeAye, but one club can pay it by very selective means, as in Etihad airlines can pay it as a sponsorship deal.
There’s a reason he ended up at City & not Madrid man.
It really depends on what the clubs do with the money they'd save on wages. If they make ticket prices lower then great but it it's just more dividends for shareholders, feck that, I'd rather the players get the dosh.The money that PL teams spend on wages is obscene. You only have to look at the comparable wages in other teams around European football. I am in favor of this. For us it might also make the club be a bit more sensible in terms of the contracts they hand out, which in turn will make it easier to shift underperforming players
I’m gonna believe Romano in fairnes over kaiser from the caf.Madrid was not interested in Haaland they were all in for Mbappe