Jump to content
Adblockers - please click ×

OutByEaster?

Moderators
  • Content Count

    18,342
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    42

OutByEaster? last won the day on September 25 2019

OutByEaster? had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

14,587 Excellent

About OutByEaster?

  • Rank
    Legend

Profile Information

  • Location
    At large.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The problem isn't the amount of money coming into the game, it's what they do with it. Player salaries, transfer fees, payments to agents. Football is currently raking in billions of pounds - the game is financially light years away from the way it was even twenty years ago - there are umpteen billions of pounds coming in and it's possible that those numbers could still stretch - and yet, very few clubs make a profit. Manchester United made a profit of £18.88m last year on turnover of £630m. They have debts of over £400m and they're looking at spending more than couple of hundred million pounds on players this summer. Barcelona are on the verge of being broke - they're barely solvent - they're the second richest club in the world - they've furloughed their staff - they're looking to buy Neymar this summer for £180m.. It doesn't matter how much money is coming into the front door if you're just throwing it straight out of the window. We are reliant on the useless crooks at UEFA and FIFA and the FA to find ways to ensure that clubs use some of that money to protect themselves against the unexpected and to make sure that their unique status as assets within their communities, as cultural objects as much as economic ones are secured. Here's a couple of very simple things that would be better than we have now: Don't let any club make a signing while they have debt - clubs without debt don't collapse. Put a cap per team on wages across the league that is identical for every team. Let owners put in as much money as they like as long as it doesn't create debt. Set up a membership fund for Premier league teams who would pay in each season so that there's cash in the bank for the unexpected. Anything but the absolute carnage we have at the moment, where in the first year of a super-duper-extra-massive-multi-billion pound TV deal, some clubs make a marginal profit, then gradually throw that money into players they can't afford. The problem has become that football relies on permanent, infinite growth to support its demands and if that growth is interrupted, even momentarily, it collapses. And absolutely no one is talking about changing it - everyone involved is making money and none of them give a f**K about fans, football clubs or the long term health of the game. There's an article in one of the papers today where different experts were invited to talk about how to fix football - in amongst it, three of them suggested that we needed to play more young English players - the ignorance is staggering, they're at the Somme with a dustpan and brush.
  2. But it's already over inflated to a dangerous degree - the game can't cope with the slightest interruption because every club is already operating on the edge of collapse - and what's more, every club is encouraged to operate on the very edge of collapse, the mantra is that as long as you're growing your top line, growing the league, the reach, then screw the bottom line, screw your actual health as a going concern. This virus has most effect on those that already have existing health conditions - football is completely failing to recognise that its current situation is to a large extent down to how sick it was to start with and I can't see anyone out there looking at ways to make it healthier in the future.
  3. Even if it's not voided it's extremely unlikely we'll be able to attend. It's likely that we won't be able to attend games well into next season too - it'll be very interesting what clubs do about season tickets in that circumstance.
  4. That'll be the EPA that Trump gutted on day one of his Presidency, now a lapdog to the energy industry? Trump now has free rein to distribute his corporate socialism on a friends and favours basis to his hearts content.
  5. Trump has sacked the man responsible for overseeing his 2 trillion dollar corporate bailout.
  6. The virus is more dangerous for those with pre-existing health conditions, like asthma or diabetes or living in the USA.
  7. Has anyone heard a single word, even a hint, from anyone involved in the game - from the league, from the PFA, from FIFA, from UEFA, from owners, from players, from pundits, from the media, anywhere at all, even a whisper of them changing the way the game works so that it's not this vulnerable in future? We hear that we might lose clubs, we might lose leagues, players must take massive pay cuts, there might be mass redundancies, there's a threat to thousands of jobs - all on the back of one missed TV payment - but we don't hear one word about changing things to make sure it doesn't happen again. Now is absolutely the time to be discussing ideas like a league fund where each Premier league team puts in a million a year so there's money centrally for a rainy day. Now is the time to discuss scrapping FFP and putting in salary caps and limits on agents and transfer fees. Now is the time to talk about governing football clubs by their debt, not their top line. Now is the time to talk about making it possible for success to come at sensible budgets, to reduce the reliance on endlessly growing TV deals, to reduce the risk to footballing business's that by design at the highest levels within the game operate right on the edge of their existence. The unseemly scramble for money has exposed the rotten core of our league; its grubby reliance on cash, the way it uses and drains fans, players and anyone who comes into contact with it, the way it's governed to ensure that every club strains for finance and that those that draw in the biggest TV numbers are protected at all times.Coronavirus has given the world a peek behind the curtain of football and what we see is sordid, crooked and massively flawed. All this on the back of the continuing idea that Manchester United will spend £100m on Jaden Sancho as soon as the window opens, that big clubs will make big deals, that Jim White will cream himself over the yellow ticker on deadline day, that players will earn £500k a week. All this on the idea that as soon as things are back to normal, they'll carry on exactly as they are and we'll learn absolutely nothing, change absolutely nothing. It's all very well restarting the machine, even in empty stadiums, but those aren't the only doors that seem to be closed - and no one is talking about opening the game up.
  8. Sunderland furloughing their players is very interesting - if they aren't paying the additional 20%, then no Sunderland player now earns more than £2,500 per month. In cases like that, can players simply refuse and terminate their contracts? What's to stop Manchester United putting their squad on Furlough and telling Alexis Sanchez that until the end of May, his currrent salary of around £1,600,000 a month will be reduced to £2,500 a month?
  9. Thoughts are with Laura at this difficult time. (I hope he's okay.)
  10. Bayern are back in training along with some other German clubs. Groups of five, working on exercises where they can maintain distances - but training. Money talks.
  11. It's a pleasure to be able to say - doesn't it seem strange to see Villa Park with empty seats?
  12. In an ideal world, someone like FIFA or UEFA should be taking charge for the good of the game. I'd like to see them impose something along these lines: FIFA to make direct contributions out of its own coffers to protect the most vulnerable leagues. In the UK, telling the TV companies that they appreciate there isn't any football - but asking them to commit to paying one third of the agreed amount - in exchange the TV companies would get increased access and a permanent lifting of the Saturday three pm blackout - those companies that refused would never be considered for TV rights again, worldwide. Every Premier League owner/owning company asked to put in £20m from their own pocket - this cannot be leveraged against the club as debt, or leave the club indebted to the chairman/owner - If must be a gift investment. This is asking people that can afford it to invest in their own business's - like you having to buy a new fence after a storm. Any chairman not willing or able to do this should see their club docked ten points at the start of next season. Premier league players then being asked to add £100m by proportion of their clubs wage bill - so Manchester United might pay £10m while Sheffield United might pay £3m. Season ticket holders being asked to give up 50% of the money owed to them for unplayed games - roughly 350,000 season ticket holders all giving up something in the region of £70 each - another £20m+ i think that would be fair - I think it would spread the pain across every stakeholder in the game and I think it would be possible. Of course, it became a flight of fancy the second I mentioned FIFA or UEFA taking charge.
  13. It was reported that he was applauded by his crew as he left the ship. I've just read Trump's overnight musings - he's looking to reduce the measure he has in place at Easter? The man is a nutcase - he's killing more Americans than Bin Laden.
  14. Agreed. I don't get how those two sentences fit together. The first bit makes sense - furlough the workforce and the govt pays so the football club or its billionaires don't have to - they can keep the money to help offset the losses caused by no football. Players taking pay cuts is immaterial to that - at smaller clubs it's not - it's vital if they're to keep their heads above water if you're Walsall - for Liverpool it's not, for just about everyone in the Premier league it's not - they can afford not to furlough their non-playing staff regardless. There's absolutely no indication whatsoever from Premier league clubs that they will use a 30% pay cut for players to take other staff out of furlough. The proposed 30% pay cut in the Premier league isn't there to save jobs, it's there to try to offset the losses as far as is possible so that the owners don't have to take a loss on the chin. As is very often the case with a corporate structure the word "jobs" can almost always be substituted with the word "profit". Salah earning 50% less isn't going to change the owners decision on furloughing - it might make Liverpool more profitable in the long term, but that's about all it'll do. The clubs are giving £1m each to the NHS - and they're trying to claw back £20m a week from player wages - that money will go straight into their own coffers. It's typical of the corporate doctrine - when there's profit, it's absolutely kept within a very small circle of individuals, but when there are losses they're socialised - players paying wages back, the govt paying furloughed staff, the people of the UK bailing out its banks - rugged individualism for you and me, socialism at the top. What the players are suggesting is that they take home full pay, and pay the tax on that, which will benefit the country, and then donate in excess of £20m to the NHS - in that scenario, the players are better off because they can do that with a smaller cut to their incomes, the nation is better off because it gathers the tax and the NHS is better off because it gets a bigger direct donation. It's a question of who you think needs the money most - and for parts of football, that boils down to the players, the nation and the NHS on one hand or Roman Abramovich on the other. As for the use of tax, in the example you give - we are Westminster - we are the people who are buying those things - we voted for a group of people to spend the money in the way we wanted, that's democracy. Now personally I don't like a lot of the things we voted for and I think our democracy is incredibly skewed - but tax is a good measure of the success of any democracy - in a really well functioning democracy we should be happy and proud to pay our taxes - because they pay for the things we wanted. In this case, if you're not keen on the things the government is spending tax on, vote for a different government - but right now, in a crisis, I think we're spending it in areas that have a clear and obvious benefit.
×
×
  • Create New...
Â