Jump to content

The Game's Gone


NurembergVillan

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, Genie said:

Its very likely that Greenwood had done what he was allegedly doing in the recording clip many times before to prompt his partner to sense it was about to happen and record it for evidence.

Once is bad enough, but it must have been many times. Absolute vile scum.

Didn't stop her getting engaged to him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, villa89 said:

Didn't stop her getting engaged to him. 

Yep, proper **** up that is.

I have a feeling she wouldn’t have done if he wasn’t a millionaire.

Edited by Genie
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The_Steve said:

 

 

Surely surely surely it makes sense to split it between the championship clubs instead.

But then,  this is what FFP will do to them. Instead of owners willing to take a hit to their income,  they're forced to try and make as much as possible just to compete. FFP needs to do one if they want the PL to start helping the football pyramid.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, MrBlack said:

Surely surely surely it makes sense to split it between the championship clubs instead.

But then,  this is what FFP will do to them. Instead of owners willing to take a hit to their income,  they're forced to try and make as much as possible just to compete. FFP needs to do one if they want the PL to start helping the football pyramid.

The gap widens every year as the relegated teams can bank on the money and the other teams suffer who don’t get the promotion. If the league had any sense, they should just give the money to the teams not promoted. The prem teams absolutely don’t need it. The sooner we get a regulator in place to fix this greed the better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The top flight teams want the gap to widen and championship teams to be a lot worse financially than they are.

It helps to ensure that no matter how bad they are, the championship teams are worse and it greatly reduces the risk of relegation and missing out on TV money.

Make the top flight a closed shop of about 26 teams, with a few rotating between relegation and promotion each year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rds1983 said:

The top flight teams want the gap to widen and championship teams to be a lot worse financially than they are.

It helps to ensure that no matter how bad they are, the championship teams are worse and it greatly reduces the risk of relegation and missing out on TV money.

Make the top flight a closed shop of about 26 teams, with a few rotating between relegation and promotion each year.

That's what the PSR / FFP rules will always be voted through, teams aren't looking up at the big 6 thinking they'll never catch them, they're looking down at the other 72 teams thinking they'll never catch us 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MrBlack said:

Surely surely surely it makes sense to split it between the championship clubs instead.

But then,  this is what FFP will do to them. Instead of owners willing to take a hit to their income,  they're forced to try and make as much as possible just to compete. FFP needs to do one if they want the PL to start helping the football pyramid.

Wasn’t there a meeting or decision recently that more money would be trickled down to the lower leagues?

As you say, the money should be split between the Championship clubs not the PL ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Genie said:

Wasn’t there a meeting or decision recently that more money would be trickled down to the lower leagues?

As you say, the money should be split between the Championship clubs not the PL ones.

Should be split over all the EFL teams. It’d make a huge difference to some. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rds1983 said:

The top flight teams want the gap to widen and championship teams to be a lot worse financially than they are.

It helps to ensure that no matter how bad they are, the championship teams are worse and it greatly reduces the risk of relegation and missing out on TV money.

Make the top flight a closed shop of about 26 teams, with a few rotating between relegation and promotion each year.

It’s a de-facto English super league in all but name. You can see why some teams come up and just take the money. It’s anti-competition. It gets harder and harder to be competitive as a promoted team which huge transfer spends that are total risk/reward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

It’s a de-facto English super league in all but name. You can see why some teams come up and just take the money. It’s anti-competition. It gets harder and harder to be competitive as a promoted team which huge transfer spends that are total risk/reward. 

I find your views so conflicting sometimes :D

Like, this seems like you’re very much against the anti-competition seen in the Premier League, but with Forest spending too much (which was basically a catch up between what an “established” Premier League club could spend versus a promoted team with no parachute payments) your view was that they weren’t punished enough!

Which way should it be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/05/2024 at 10:05, bobzy said:

I find your views so conflicting sometimes :D

Like, this seems like you’re very much against the anti-competition seen in the Premier League, but with Forest spending too much (which was basically a catch up between what an “established” Premier League club could spend versus a promoted team with no parachute payments) your view was that they weren’t punished enough!

Which way should it be?

TBF you can reconcile those opinions fairly easily by thinking that the rules Forest were punished under were bad, but also that the rules are the rules and while they're in place Forest should have obeyed them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

TBF you can reconcile those opinions fairly easily by thinking that the rules Forest were punished under were bad, but also that the rules are the rules and while they're in place Forest should have obeyed them. 

But that they weren’t punished enough? The rules are in place, the punishment was given… and it should’ve been even harsher?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bobzy said:

But that they weren’t punished enough? The rules are in place, the punishment was given… and it should’ve been even harsher?

Yeah, fair, that part is hard to square. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/05/2024 at 10:05, bobzy said:

I find your views so conflicting sometimes :D

Like, this seems like you’re very much against the anti-competition seen in the Premier League, but with Forest spending too much (which was basically a catch up between what an “established” Premier League club could spend versus a promoted team with no parachute payments) your view was that they weren’t punished enough!

Which way should it be?

Bad rules which Forest knew to be in breach of and carried on recklessly spending. Signing 40+ players and holding off on selling names was always going to catch up with them. I’m not a fan of the current setup, but Forest did far more than us in trying to rebuild for the league. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/22/sport/inter-milan-taken-over-oaktree-spt-intl/index.html

 

Inter Milan fresh from winning Serie A, have a new majority owner. Not by takeover but from the previous owner not paying a debt with the club up as collateral. May still go to court but based on my understanding of financing agreements, Oaktree were under no obligation to renegotiate the terms and are within their rights to seize control as per their agreement.

Flagging as the number of clubs who have utilised private equity firms to plug gaps in their accounts (e.g, Everton), this case may be one that is repeated again in the next few years.

  • Shocked 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â