Of course fines will make a difference. If the idea is to punish the owners rather than the clubs fines are the only way to do so. The value of a club is determined by the health of it's balance sheet, just like any other business. The owners are the people who hold the majority of shares in the business and if the value of their business is reduced then the value of their share holding is reduced proportionally. It's not rocket science.
Excluding them from European Competitions would also reduce their income of course but it would also reduce the value of the t v deals if certain clubs who attract big audiences are excluded so clubs who were not part of the cartel would also be affected financially.
Yeah,only if the fine is £200 million each.
Well, obviously a fine of £200 million would be more of a punishment than a fine of £100 million. But less than a fine of £300 million. So, sorry, but I don't get your point. A fine, whatever the size of it, would affect the value of the club, and therefore have an impact on the value of the owner's shareholdings. Which is why UEFA basically hold all the cards. They could, if they chose, exclude clubs from their competitions. But of course that would also reduce the value of the t v deals.
Irrelevant anyway because it seems the Premier League clubs have more or less said that points deductions or fines are off the table. Obviously the 14 are getting damp knickers because they realise that without the big 4 (they could live without Arsenal or Spurs) the value of their "product" is seriously diminished and they would all, in the end, be worse off financially. What a conundrum.
Why Is There Only One Monopolies Commission. Isn't That A Monopoly?
Well, obviously a fine of £200 million would be more of a punishment than a fine of £100 million. But less than a fine of £300 million. So, sorry, but I don't get your point. A fine, whatever the size of it, would affect the value of the club, and therefore have an impact on the value of the owner's shareholdings. Which is why UEFA basically hold all the cards. They could, if they chose, exclude clubs from their competitions. But of course that would also reduce the value of the t v deals.
Irrelevant anyway because it seems the Premier League clubs have more or less said that points deductions or fines are off the table. Obviously the 14 are getting damp knickers because they realise that without the big 4 (they could live without Arsenal or Spurs) the value of their "product" is seriously diminished and they would all, in the end, be worse off financially. What a conundrum.
The 'should do's' and the 'will do's' are poles apart.
I agree about the other 14 clubs needing the big six. Which is why they, at their meeting, agreed a points deduction would only hit the fans. Which of course really meant 'fuck the fans, it will hit us in the pocket'.
Despite all the contrition I've heard from owners and pundit fans across the board. We'll have to wait and see when push comes to shove. Like a hospital trust making an unreserved apology when someone croaks from a fuck-up.
Oh that's ok then....you said sorry. That makes all the difference.
Dave from Stockport might say that he'd back United having a European ban for two years now. But if UEFA actually did it he'd be moaning his tits off demanding an appeal.
only1salty wrote: ↑Thu Apr 22, 2021 10:44 am
They have broken the rules. They have signed a contract to join a breakaway league. Several of the teams have been negotiating this for 3 years according to Perez.
I must confess my first thought was points deduction is not fair on the fans but...
Clubs that go into administration because the management have spent too much cash get points deducted. Its not the players or the fans fault then either but this is routinely applied every season.
So points deduction, massive fine (most of which should be given to League 1,2 and the pyramid as solidarity payments) and bring in a 50+1 rule.
The 50 + 1 rule works fine in Germany because they've always had it. But where is the money going to come from to acquire the 51% share holding which would be necessary ? I can't imagine the money brokers queuing up to hand millions of pounds over to fan groups, can you ?
Only needs to be voting rights - not ownership. Different share classes
Well, obviously a fine of £200 million would be more of a punishment than a fine of £100 million. But less than a fine of £300 million. So, sorry, but I don't get your point. A fine, whatever the size of it, would affect the value of the club, and therefore have an impact on the value of the owner's shareholdings. Which is why UEFA basically hold all the cards. They could, if they chose, exclude clubs from their competitions. But of course that would also reduce the value of the t v deals.
Irrelevant anyway because it seems the Premier League clubs have more or less said that points deductions or fines are off the table. Obviously the 14 are getting damp knickers because they realise that without the big 4 (they could live without Arsenal or Spurs) the value of their "product" is seriously diminished and they would all, in the end, be worse off financially. What a conundrum.
The 'should do's' and the 'will do's' are poles apart.
I agree about the other 14 clubs needing the big six. Which is why they, at their meeting, agreed a points deduction would only hit the fans. Which of course really meant 'fuck the fans, it will hit us in the pocket'.
Despite all the contrition I've heard from owners and pundit fans across the board. We'll have to wait and see when push comes to shove. Like a hospital trust making an unreserved apology when someone croaks from a fuck-up.
Oh that's ok then....you said sorry. That makes all the difference.
Dave from Stockport might say that he'd back United having a European ban for two years now. But if UEFA actually did it he'd be moaning his tits off demanding an appeal.
Ahh yes, the contrition. Not genuine you say. And I have to agree. It's about as genuine as the whingeing pleas from the bloke in the dock hoping to avoid a spell in one of Her Majesty's finest.
The Super League, or whatever it will be called in it's next incarnation, won't just go away. Cut away the crap and what the "big" clubs are saying is that they are the ones who bring in the lion's share of subscription money and so they deserve a bigger slice of the pie. Difficult to disagree, except that without the smaller clubs they have no competition to be "big" in. So where is the line drawn ? That is the conundrum which needs to be resolved if a similar situation is to be avoided further down the line. And, ffs, there are already strident voices resurrecting the idea of allowing the terrorist lovers and sectarian bigots from Glasgow into the league. Oh, and then the 18 team league has been mentioned again. So on it goes.
Why Is There Only One Monopolies Commission. Isn't That A Monopoly?
The 50 + 1 rule works fine in Germany because they've always had it. But where is the money going to come from to acquire the 51% share holding which would be necessary ? I can't imagine the money brokers queuing up to hand millions of pounds over to fan groups, can you ?
Only needs to be voting rights - not ownership. Different share classes
That's true enough. But I imagine there would be significant resistance from the majority stakeholders who have a financial interest if they were to be potentially outvoted by those without one. Assuming of course that each share class had the same vote value which I guess would have to be the case for the scheme to operate in the way it is intended to.
Why Is There Only One Monopolies Commission. Isn't That A Monopoly?
don't think a fine will work but its the way it will probably go
the arsenal cunt said any fine his out side interest will pay so will not effect Arsenal at all
so how do you control someone who is happy to pay the fine does not effect the club and it disappears in a tax avoidance scheme of some sort
the only way to hurt them is drop them down a few divisions or points deduction this year and next
also if you believe it the twat from Spain is saying they all are still in it and will happen at some stage, that alone should force the powers at be to punish now and punish hard
Well, obviously a fine of £200 million would be more of a punishment than a fine of £100 million. But less than a fine of £300 million. So, sorry, but I don't get your point. A fine, whatever the size of it, would affect the value of the club, and therefore have an impact on the value of the owner's shareholdings. Which is why UEFA basically hold all the cards. They could, if they chose, exclude clubs from their competitions. But of course that would also reduce the value of the t v deals.
Irrelevant anyway because it seems the Premier League clubs have more or less said that points deductions or fines are off the table. Obviously the 14 are getting damp knickers because they realise that without the big 4 (they could live without Arsenal or Spurs) the value of their "product" is seriously diminished and they would all, in the end, be worse off financially. What a conundrum.
If it`s going to be a fine,it should be big,that`s all I am saying.
It`s got to be a transfer embargo and a year ban from Europe,whenever that team qualifies.
Dagger wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 10:02 am
don't think a fine will work but its the way it will probably go
the arsenal cunt said any fine his out side interest will pay so will not effect Arsenal at all
so how do you control someone who is happy to pay the fine does not effect the club and it disappears in a tax avoidance scheme of some sort
the only way to hurt them is drop them down a few divisions or points deduction this year and next
also if you believe it the twat from Spain is saying they all are still in it and will happen at some stage, that alone should force the powers at be to punish now and punish hard
all about opinions
I heard David Bernstein, ex FA Chairman say yesterday that an un-named breakaway club from England are in desperate financial trouble.
I'm guessing either the Arse or Spuds. Much more likely the Spuds because of the cost of the Bageldrome.
So imo a fine should increase in severity in alphabetical order.
The 'should do's' and the 'will do's' are poles apart.
I agree about the other 14 clubs needing the big six. Which is why they, at their meeting, agreed a points deduction would only hit the fans. Which of course really meant 'fuck the fans, it will hit us in the pocket'.
Despite all the contrition I've heard from owners and pundit fans across the board. We'll have to wait and see when push comes to shove. Like a hospital trust making an unreserved apology when someone croaks from a fuck-up.
Oh that's ok then....you said sorry. That makes all the difference.
Dave from Stockport might say that he'd back United having a European ban for two years now. But if UEFA actually did it he'd be moaning his tits off demanding an appeal.
Ahh yes, the contrition. Not genuine you say. And I have to agree. It's about as genuine as the whingeing pleas from the bloke in the dock hoping to avoid a spell in one of Her Majesty's finest.
The Super League, or whatever it will be called in it's next incarnation, won't just go away. Cut away the crap and what the "big" clubs are saying is that they are the ones who bring in the lion's share of subscription money and so they deserve a bigger slice of the pie. Difficult to disagree, except that without the smaller clubs they have no competition to be "big" in. So where is the line drawn ? That is the conundrum which needs to be resolved if a similar situation is to be avoided further down the line. And, ffs, there are already strident voices resurrecting the idea of allowing the terrorist lovers and sectarian bigots from Glasgow into the league. Oh, and then the 18 team league has been mentioned again. So on it goes.
I agree that Man U,Liverpool and Chelsea(maybe) do bring in the majority of the money,but I am not sure about the other 3 Clubs.
So why should they have a bigger cut over the likes of us,Everton,Leeds,Leicester and Villa?
Spurs have won 2 League Cups in the last 30 years,why are they now deemed one of the bigger Clubs?Leicester have matched them and won a PL too and could add another pot next month.
They have no right.
There are so many arguments on so many fronts on this subject
Well, obviously a fine of £200 million would be more of a punishment than a fine of £100 million. But less than a fine of £300 million. So, sorry, but I don't get your point. A fine, whatever the size of it, would affect the value of the club, and therefore have an impact on the value of the owner's shareholdings. Which is why UEFA basically hold all the cards. They could, if they chose, exclude clubs from their competitions. But of course that would also reduce the value of the t v deals.
Irrelevant anyway because it seems the Premier League clubs have more or less said that points deductions or fines are off the table. Obviously the 14 are getting damp knickers because they realise that without the big 4 (they could live without Arsenal or Spurs) the value of their "product" is seriously diminished and they would all, in the end, be worse off financially. What a conundrum.
If it`s going to be a fine,it should be big,that`s all I am saying.
It`s got to be a transfer embargo and a year ban from Europe,whenever that team qualifies.
So what would you do?
As Whisky points out, any punishment that really hurts them will also hurt everybody else. The pragmatic approach is to recognise when your snookered and just play a safety shot.
