New European Super League

Discussion in 'General Football & Other Sport' started by The Voice of Reason, Apr 19, 2021.

  1. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    It seems a strange analogy to make in this case as surely many Tories would be in favour of suppressing workers' wages in order to appease business owners! Though there would also be some Tories that would be more in favour of letting the free market decide such things.

    Also, are you one of moog's?! @wfcmoog

    http://wfcforums.com/index.php?threads/new-european-super-league.58278/page-7#post-2991764

    "You're like a working class guy who votes Tory because he thinks he's got more in common with JRM than a guy 2 pay grades below him."
     
  2. wfcmoog

    wfcmoog Tinpot

    Maybe the hat just fits.
     
  3. a19tgg

    a19tgg Squad Player

    The point I was trying to make is that you’re talking about young working class kids being denied the dream of earning big money, yet on the other hand you’re saying hardly any players earn the big money. The reality is nobody but a handful of people out of the 6bn in the world will ever get to that position in the first place, and if they do a salary cap wouldn’t prevent them from being rich anyway.
     
  4. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    How would it make the product better for you as a fan?

    The owners should be capable of evaluating financial risk without the enforcement of a salary cap. If one club can not afford to pay a player £x, but a second club can, then simply the first club will not and should over-stretch themselves to match it. There are plenty of clubs that manage themselves sustainably already, e.g. Norwich and Burnley, while avoiding blowing their internal wage structure and financial planning.

    I'm not against business owners making a profit at all. If I were in the position of say the Glazers or Fenway Sports Group then I'd absolutely love a wage cap in football. However, I'd have also thought that those who consider themselves a typical working class man would rather things be in favour of the workers/players than the owners.

    But as a neutral right now, I'd generally say just let the market do its thing (within reason). It's up to the owners to manage their business to make as much profit as they can in a sustainable way within the current framework, and it's up to the workers to earn as much as the market will pay them.
     
  5. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    Except @a19tgg tried to make the hat fit while trying to claim I was actually arguing something which runs counter to the analogy.

    When you used it it was a bit of a stretch, but at least it had some vague resemblance to the context in which it was used.
     
  6. a19tgg

    a19tgg Squad Player

    But that’s the problem and what makes football unique to business. Businesses go bust all the time, obviously nobody cares but those involved. Left to their own devices clubs/owners can’t manage themselves properly and go bust and that affects the fans of the clubs like you or I. If clubs could manage themselves we wouldn’t need fit and proper and FFP, but even those aren’t enough and they still can’t do it properly. Yes, in normal business you want things in favour of the typical working class man, but that doesn’t apply to footballers or anyone involved at the top level. Worrying about things like that when it comes to football players is where the previous analogy comes in.
     
  7. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    Those two things aren't mutually exclusive; they are not on different hands.

    If I was a business owner I'd be in favour of a cap. If I was a player I'd be against it. As a neutral I'd say let the market decide and so let the players get paid the maximum amount as possible that the market is willing to pay them.

    Also, there are still different levels of rich - Wayne Rooney's net worth is $170million, that still pales in comparison to Malcolm Glazer's $4billion.
     
  8. a19tgg

    a19tgg Squad Player

    A salary cap can cut both ways anyway. In the NFL things like reserve kickers (who literally do nothing) have a guaranteed minimum salary. Most normal working class people would be happy with a wage guaranteed for 5 years way, way, way above the national average.
     
  9. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    That's not really true though is it. How many football clubs have actually gone bust and completely disappeared in recent years?

    Sure, a few have gone in to administration and fallen down a division or two, but they're still there. There'll always be new owners or investors somewhere.

    The fit and proper test is fair enough, but that's not to do with salary caps. If someone is in the position to purchase a football club and has reasonable credentials then it's up to them.
     
  10. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    You're on to whataboutism there - a minimum salary is a different thing to a salary cap.

    You were arguing for a salary cap.
     
  11. Burnsy

    Burnsy First Team

    It’s ridiculous to allow people from those clubs back on committees with the same aim?

    The clubs should be allowed to have new people put forward for these roles - but the mindset has to change.
     
  12. a19tgg

    a19tgg Squad Player

    Yes and you’re arguing for the normal working class man? How is that not whataboutism when talking about PL footballers?
     
  13. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    The normal working class man surely has more chance of them or someone they know being a player than an owner, so surely they'd rather £x revenue be split 80/20 players/owners than say 60/40 players/owners.
     
  14. a19tgg

    a19tgg Squad Player

    It’s getting a bit absurd now, I mean it depends on what you class a top player as being, but if we say there are 3 per club then obviously they outnumber owners by 3 to 1.

    The average working class man is neither ever going to be one, or ever going to know one, player or owner.
     
  15. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    Firstly, there is still nothing inherently wrong with the clubs having tried to act in their own best interest, but then not succeeding and changing their minds. All the representatives of the clubs on such committees will be trying to do the same. Such committees would cease to exist very quickly if representatives were booted off every time such a thing happened. Representatives of PL clubs didn't lose their places on committees when attempts to introduce 5 subs was blocked. This stuff happens. Let the debate continue.

    "But the mindset has to change" - why? All clubs will be trying to act in their best interests, both the top and the bottom ones. Of course that won't change. They'll continue to debate and try to reach consensus on different issues. That doesn't happen by excluding people just because you disagree with their opinions.

    The clubs will probably put different people forward for these roles anyway, e.g. with Woodward stepping down, but that's by the by really, they'll still be representing their clubs.
     
  16. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Squad Player

    If they can find a way to cut costs, including the ridiculous wages in the EPL, then I would hope that the cost of the "product" would also drop.

    If you are worried about the plight of the working man, it's the price of the "match day experience" and TV subscriptions that has taken elite football away from the common man imho.
     
  17. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    Yeah say they outnumber owners 3 to 1, and those 3 will also be much more likely to be from working class backgrounds. How many PL club owners are there from working class backgrounds? Maybe 2 (Joe Lewis and David Sullivan)?
     
  18. a19tgg

    a19tgg Squad Player

    But football doesn’t = employment. The average working class man not lucky enough to be one of the 0.000000000001% gifted with the talent to make it as a footballer can go and make their fortune in the real world, as either an owner or an employee if they wish. As an owner they can make as much money as they want, and as en employer they can earn as much money as they possibly can.

    The average working class man who happens to make it as a footballer can be rich beyond their wildest dreams, salary cap or no salary cap. The average working class man who somehow amasses the billions required to buy a football club can also make money from a football club, salary cap or no salary cap.

    In no way does a salary cap in football, one tiny sliver of essentially what makes up the entire opportunity out there in the world, in any way negatively affect the normal working class man.
     
  19. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    That would be very unlikely, all things being equal.

    The owners will be selling their product for as much as the market will pay. That is the main driver.

    While the market still pays the same then the clubs will still receive the same amount.

    The way in which costs would be cut would be if the market starts paying less for the product (e.g. lower TV audiences and matchday attendances). This in turn will reduce the club's revenues, which in turn would force them to only be able to offer lower wages.

    Any other way round e.g. a salary cap would just see businesses reducing their costs but keeping it as profit - they would not pass those cost savings on to the consumer unnecessarily (or if they do then it would only be a small fraction of the amount saved).

    Also, as per my conversation with a19tgg, the wages in the EPL are not "ridiculous" - they are fair for the tiny amount of elite performers in such a lucrative global industry as determined by the market.
     
  20. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    It does if you're a young Wayne Rooney or Marcus Rashford, who started off as normal working class men (well, boys).

    You're not proposing a salary cap for owners though are you? And how would one be feasible anyway?

    Chances are the footballers will be more likely be from working class backgrounds than the owners. Playing football as a job is anyway still much more like a working class occupation than running a club, at all levels of the pyramid.

    The average salary for a League Two player is only about £60k p/a, in the Conference about £30k. Many of them will only have brief careers. Even PL players could be said to still be working class, even if they get rich from it - they are the masses, the proletariat doing the manual labour. Someone like Jamie Vardy would have been working class their whole lives, even in to adulthood, until basically overnight suddenly they aren't. Or you might have Ricardo Fuller, briefly earning £millions in the PL until they end up playing for Nantwich Town.

    The owners are the even smaller elite who have gained possession of the means of production.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2021
  21. Burnsy

    Burnsy First Team

    A temporary or even permanent change to 5 subs would have been for all, not a select few. The argument isn’t the same.

    And it’s not a case of removing these people because they’ve brought ‘opinions’ that have been disagreed with. They’ve conspired with others outside of the PL and national game and signed contracts to that end. It’s a matter of trust with these individuals involved. They are part of a group who look after their own interests AND the interests of the group/company/league. That is literally what they signed up to. When the ‘board’ are unanimous in their outlook that these individuals have wilfully and actively ignored that and looked out for their own interests alone, then ramifications of this nature are correct and expected.

    This would happen at any company in any sector.
     
  22. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    "Conspired" is a spin which could be put on any group of teams who discuss any idea amongst themselves before finalising a proposal to put forward. Such conversations would be happening all the time.

    It may have "been for all", but it would not have been of equal benefit to all. It was a proposal put forward which benefits some more than others, the same as most proposals.

    "It's a matter of trust" - psh, as if all execs at PL clubs don't already know that the execs of the companies they're in competition with are also ultimately acting in their own best interests. In fact the thing they will all probably be all be "trusting" or evaluating, first and foremost is the fact that all those they are in discussions with will be acting in their own best interests. It would be foolish to think otherwise. That's just the assumed starting point - the end point is reaching a consensus, which happens after the initial discussions and negotiations. Such a process was what happened here - there were negotiations, and a conclusion was reached. Simple. Standard.
     
  23. Burnsy

    Burnsy First Team

    Then why weren’t they open about the negotiations? Why did very few people at these clubs know about them? Why were players and coaches who’s agreed participation in such a venture willingly kept in the dark? You can scoff at the trust issue all you like and some of what you say is of course the manner in which they will act - but there are limits to it and if they don’t like that or are unwilling to accept it, then they have no business being there. Simple. Standard.

    I work for a media company in one of their branches of business. I sit on 2 cross-branch committees. I can assure you of exactly how someone would be viewed if they acted as these individuals have (reportedly) done and what the ramifications would be. They’d be removed (temporarily), investigated and the results upheld. Those branches of the business would be invited to replace them and given scope for the criteria involved for that new individuals selection.

    The grey area here is are the PL of the knowledge that these exact individuals knew the actions of their owners? Seems to me the PL are trying to slalom their way through potential punishments to try and find ones that only affect owners and this is as close as they can get.

    Are you of the mind that these clubs shouldn’t be punished? Or if you are, how would you go about it?
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2021
  24. reids

    reids Squad Player

    [​IMG]

    Said without irony on the same day Real Madrid announce the signing of Alaba on a 5 year, €400k a week contract that also includes a €20-30m sign on fee.
     
  25. Lloyd

    Lloyd Squad Player

    What does that actually mean? In what way is football unsustainable? The mug fans (like me!) who shell out for season tickets, merchandise, Sky TV etc etc will sustain it in the same ways they always have done. The fact that the majority of the fans now live in the Middle or Far East is of no concern to club owners
     
    lowerrous likes this.
  26. a19tgg

    a19tgg Squad Player

    Well a good example would’ve probably been what would’ve happened to us if we hadn’t gone up this season.
     
  27. The Voice of Reason

    The Voice of Reason First Team Captain

    :eek:
     
  28. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    We'd have to sell a bunch of players to bring in cash and trim the wage bill, but the club would still survive.
     
  29. Lloyd

    Lloyd Squad Player

    We might have been short of a few bob for a while but we wouldn't be unsustainable. The very few football clubs that have gone bust have done so because of crooked or incompetent owners - not down to the market
     
  30. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    I'm pleased the Super League isn't happening, but if it can't be proven that they've broken a regulation which warrants a specific punishment then I'm not convinced that they should be punished and in what way.

    It already seems likely that a number of the execs involved in such plans will carry the can and be replaced. There are no legal grounds to remove the owners.

    The clubs will also have clearly learned some big lessons from this and will have suffered punishment through some damage to their reputations. Going beyond that without a firm legal footing starts to reek of attempts at a mob lynching.

    The clubs will still be members of the Premier League, and so should have as much say as everyone else.
     
  31. a19tgg

    a19tgg Squad Player

    Anyway, wealthy club owners make vast profits anyway, it’s the clubs that get laden with debt as a result. The glazers have taken, what a billion out of the club?
     
  32. a19tgg

    a19tgg Squad Player

    Plenty have gone into administration, plenty have had to sell their grounds to stay afloat. You must have a very short memory.
     
  33. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    Yep, and they generally don't cease to exist, but just go into administration, drop down a division or two and get new owners. I thought loads of our fans love the lower leagues anyway and would rather salt-of-the-earth hard-working local lads, rather than "overpaid", fancy-dan foreign primadonnas? They should be positively begging for the Pozzos to run us in to the ground so we can go bust and get sent back to shoestring-budget League One clogger mediocrity.
     
    Lloyd likes this.
  34. lowerrous

    lowerrous Squad Player

    See my post above (488).
     
  35. 99mph

    99mph 4th Prediction league 2011/12

    Anyone seen the comments made by Florentino Perez in his latest interview? The man is delusional.

    Comments like:

    "There are games that nobody watches, it is hard for me to watch them. From Spain, England and Italy."

    "We have to produce competitive matches. It is a way for young people to watch the games on their mobile phones. The better the matches, the more TV companies will pay."


    Football needs to not pander to that market/crowd that will only watch these box-office matches. Otherwise the sport will become gimmicky like the other sports that sold out to big TV deals and are now struggling to keep people interested - coming up with wacky ideas to force interest and entertainment. Remember Bernie Ecclestone and his artificial rain and shortcut ideas to force each F1 race to be more interesting?
     
    hornetfan likes this.

Share This Page