Dubstepforum.com

southstar wrote:

icanicant wrote:

southstar wrote:I think the reason i originally hated them was the way they tried to buy their way into Europe. Doesn't seem so bad now after Chelsea/City

i dont mind teams buying their way anywhere. Shakes things up. Like the prem now for instance, there is literally no other way that City could have got to a point where they are challenging for the title.

If one more club does it then Arsenal, liverpool, tottenham litterally have no chance of getting into the champions league again. The premiership isnt a competition anymore

I disagree. i would say it is more competitive than it has been for a while. Previously everyone used to talk about the big 4. Now it is more like the big 6 all competing for those four champions league spots with plenty of decent clubs applying pressure to get into the UEFA cup places as well.

Hopefully the fifa fair play rules will even it out a bit but i suspect the big boys will get round it somehow

southstar wrote:Hopefully the fifa fair play rules will even it out a bit but i suspect the big boys will get round it somehow

yeah. Man city have already got around it a bit with selling their stadium rights for well over the odds

southstar wrote:Hopefully the fifa fair play rules will even it out a bit but i suspect the big boys will get round it somehow

I can't see them doing anything other than keeping the rich clubs rich and the small clubs small. As I understand it, you're only allowed to spend a certain amount of your turnover on players right? I think it was at 60% of turnover if I remember correctly.

I had a look at some stats for this last year. From what I could find, Birmingham's annual turnover was £44m. Compare that to Man Utd who had a 6-MONTH turnover of £144m. Birmingham can spend £26.4m on players, Man Utd can spend £172.8m on players. It's not going to change anything really, even without clubs finding a way around it.

It's a shame that the premier league is how it is now. It seems you have 2 choices. Spend within your means to ensure the club will exist in the short and long term, but never stand a chance of winning anything or finishing higher than mid-table, like Wolves, or risk the very existence of the club by throwing money at the hope of one day finishing fourth. Sometimes that works (as in the case of Tottenham) and sometimes it doesn't, (as in the case of Villa, who now have massive debts). Outside of Liverpool, Tottenham, Man Utd, Man City, Arsenal, Chelsea there is a massive gap in income which means that for the most part, the highest any other team can realistically finish is 7th.

You can't even stand still without spending millions now, and all this money will bring is more unscrupulous characters looking for a quick buck (as in the case of Birmingham).

This new ruling about purchasing young players is just bizarre as well. I'm going to stop now, or I could go on all day.

That man again

who needs batman, when weve got robin?!

one more in the second half please. 3 points HAVE to be taken from nowrich!!

clifford_- wrote:who needs batman, when weve got robin?!

one more in the second half please. 3 points HAVE to be taken from nowrich!!

Seen this too many times from arsenal before, dominating but giving away gifts. Need another 3 to be safe

clifford_- wrote:
Seen this too many times from arsenal before, dominating but giving away gifts.

The words "Newcastle United" spring to mind here. A solid away win for United today, but it's about time someone took the scoring burden off Chicarito, namely a guy who's name begins with W and ends in Y.

Southampton won.

Again

wub wrote:Southampton won.

Again

As did Leeds (somehow). Also Andy o'brien refused to play for us which means he will never play for leeds again

wub wrote:Southampton won.

Again

They look unstoppable at the moment. Shocking referee in that game though

garethom wrote:
I can't see them doing anything other than keeping the rich clubs rich and the small clubs small. As I understand it, you're only allowed to spend a certain amount of your turnover on players right? I think it was at 60% of turnover if I remember correctly.

I had a look at some stats for this last year. From what I could find, Birmingham's annual turnover was £44m. Compare that to Man Utd who had a 6-MONTH turnover of £144m. Birmingham can spend £26.4m on players, Man Utd can spend £172.8m on players. It's not going to change anything really, even without clubs finding a way around it.

It's a shame that the premier league is how it is now. It seems you have 2 choices. Spend within your means to ensure the club will exist in the short and long term, but never stand a chance of winning anything or finishing higher than mid-table, like Wolves, or risk the very existence of the club by throwing money at the hope of one day finishing fourth. Sometimes that works (as in the case of Tottenham) and sometimes it doesn't, (as in the case of Villa, who now have massive debts). Outside of Liverpool, Tottenham, Man Utd, Man City, Arsenal, Chelsea there is a massive gap in income which means that for the most part, the highest any other team can realistically finish is 7th.

You can't even stand still without spending millions now, and all this money will bring is more unscrupulous characters looking for a quick buck (as in the case of Birmingham).

This new ruling about purchasing young players is just bizarre as well. I'm going to stop now, or I could go on all day.

It's not about levelling the playing field though it's about reigning in the likes of Manchester City, PSG, Malaga? Anzi who are spending significantly more than their turnover. It's weighted to the established larger teams who have greater revenue streams than to the lower placed teams in the league. The clubs who are successful, Barca Manchester United, RM etc can't compete with the spending of the Russian / Gulf OIl magnates and are merely trying to cap their spending.

scspkr99 wrote:

garethom wrote:
I can't see them doing anything other than keeping the rich clubs rich and the small clubs small. As I understand it, you're only allowed to spend a certain amount of your turnover on players right? I think it was at 60% of turnover if I remember correctly.

I had a look at some stats for this last year. From what I could find, Birmingham's annual turnover was £44m. Compare that to Man Utd who had a 6-MONTH turnover of £144m. Birmingham can spend £26.4m on players, Man Utd can spend £172.8m on players. It's not going to change anything really, even without clubs finding a way around it.

It's a shame that the premier league is how it is now. It seems you have 2 choices. Spend within your means to ensure the club will exist in the short and long term, but never stand a chance of winning anything or finishing higher than mid-table, like Wolves, or risk the very existence of the club by throwing money at the hope of one day finishing fourth. Sometimes that works (as in the case of Tottenham) and sometimes it doesn't, (as in the case of Villa, who now have massive debts). Outside of Liverpool, Tottenham, Man Utd, Man City, Arsenal, Chelsea there is a massive gap in income which means that for the most part, the highest any other team can realistically finish is 7th.

You can't even stand still without spending millions now, and all this money will bring is more unscrupulous characters looking for a quick buck (as in the case of Birmingham).

This new ruling about purchasing young players is just bizarre as well. I'm going to stop now, or I could go on all day.

It's not about levelling the playing field though it's about reigning in the likes of Manchester City, PSG, Malaga? Anzi who are spending significantly more than their turnover. It's weighted to the established larger teams who have greater revenue streams than to the lower placed teams in the league. The clubs who are successful, Barca Manchester United, RM etc can't compete with the spending of the Russian / Gulf OIl magnates and are merely trying to cap their spending.

I think the playing field needs to be levelled though. I have no real issue with the likes of Man City, Ahnzi, Malaga, etc. they're just doing what the likes of Chelsea, Man Utd, Real Madrid, Barca are doing in a shorter space of time. Hell, at least Man City actually have the money they spend, unlike 95% of clubs, including Real, Barca and Man Utd. Whilst certain prem chairmen are saying that clubs should be able to negotiate their own TV rights, Real and Barca are going against that in spain, because of the gulf between those 2 and the rest of the league has just got too big.

southstar wrote:

wub wrote:Southampton won.

Again

They look unstoppable at the moment. Shocking referee in that game though[/quote]
this

Yeah I agree with all that, the thing is that UEFA still has the big clubs lobbying for the limitations that suit them rather than ones that will level the playing field.

gutted chelsea.

i fucking hate chelsea.

clifford_- wrote:gutted chelsea.

i fucking hate chelsea.

AVB to be sacked by January?

herbalicious wrote:

southstar wrote:

wub wrote:Southampton won.

Again

They look unstoppable at the moment. Shocking referee in that game though

this

Agreed, the sending off was particularly harsh.

clifford_- wrote:gutted chelsea.

i fucking hate chelsea.

murky21 wrote: