For the good of football, the plundering of players should be stopped

[Professor]

The poaching of Saints' players this summer has been done to death but it is symptomatic of all that is wrong with the Premier League. Of course clubs should be able to sell on players they no longer want, and players should be able to move on at the end of their contracts, or when released, if they can do better elsewhere but the garnering of players into just a few clubs at the expense of the rest has become a sickness. Man U spending £30m on a teenage FB and £60m on one player demonstrates absolutely that there is no such thing as a level playing field in this competition. It is only the failure of some expensive players, such as the £50m Torres at Chelsea, that prevents the farce of the whole thing being totally clear.

 

High cost teams may only be marginally better than low cost teams - MK Don's trouncing of Man U by 4 goals to Nil has demonstrated that - but over time the money does produce just as you would expect it to. Allowing the best players to move into just a few teams doesn't just help to strengthen the few clubs, it also weakens the rest. We now have a Premier League that is not a proper competition at all. There might as well be an 8-team league with no relegation for all that the PL has now become. Entry of a new team is now only achieved through buying your way in as Chelsea and Man City have done and any club threatening the wealthy by way of home grown talent or careful buys, is quickly stripped of its best players.

 

Is it ironic that FFP has made the situation even worse and has created the opposite of what we were told was its intention? Financial Unfair Play would be more accurate. Or was it done deliberately to benefit the wealthy clubs? But as long as the fans continue to turn up, or buy their Sky subscriptions, its impossible to see any change.

[Lallana's Left Peg]

It hasn't been a level playing field for decades to be fair.

[The9]

Master of the Obvious.

 

It is in no way "ironic" when that was the goal of the FFP for the big clubs in the first place, and bloody obvious what the effect of it would be to the extent that that notable altruist Nicola Cortese even voted against it because he knew it would guarantee that Saints wouldn't be able to spend their way to the CL the way other teams had done.

[The9]

And yes, for the good of football it should be stopped, but who's bothered about the "good of football" and in a position to do anything? No-one. The only way this can be reversed is by the majority of teams in the Prem voting for a new system (which they would only do through self-interest anyway) and the second they do that, the top clubs will be off to some pan-European Super League and the TV money suddenly dries up.

 

To be honest, if it means the English league becomes competitive again, I'm all for it, but there's no chance the clubs will.

[saint_ed]

The same could be said throughout the leagues though. Better players will always move to better clubs. Saints pre season has been pretty unprecedented though and only those in the club will know the reason it has been allowed to happen on such a large scale exit.

 

Don't forget, when we were in League 1 we were seen as the 'Man Utd' hence we were able to snap up the best players at that level and some from the Championship.

[Lallana's Left Peg]

And yes, for the good of football it should be stopped, but who's bothered about the "good of football" and in a position to do anything? No-one. The only way this can be reversed is by the majority of teams in the Prem voting for a new system (which they would only do through self-interest anyway) and the second they do that, the top clubs will be off to some pan-European Super League and the TV money suddenly dries up.

 

To be honest, if it means the English league becomes competitive again, I'm all for it, but there's no chance the clubs will.

 

I agree - we're at a stage where it is irreversible and the teams are bigger than any organisation. FFP was always about ensuring another Portsmouth didn't happen, but really what it has done is establish the status quo for a long time. What I would prefer is a set of rules that allow clubs to make losses as long as they are underwritten by the owners and wiped clean every year - that opens it up for sugar daddies and still takes away sporting 'merit' of course but it also means the old establishment can still be challenged in the way Chelsea and more recently Man City have. There is probably a big hole in my idea anyway

[Wes Tender]

A squad can only be of a certain size with restrictions on how many imported players can be in it, and a team comprises only 11 players like everybody elses'. Therefore, when these squads have taken their pick of what they perceive to be the cream of players, then there is some respite for the teams below them and then downwards through the pyramid. Take Liverpool for example, as they were the biggest predators of our best players. As they have pretty well completed their buying, it won't be until the transfer window until they might buy again. But then they'll have to release players in order to do so, so those players are available for other clubs further down the ladder. There will always be a hierarchy in football and there is little that can be done about it because of the self-interest of the big clubs militating against changes that weaken them and the vested interests of the money producers like Sky, whose ratings benefit from the glory clubs' plastic fans putting money in their coffers.

 

We are going about things in exactly the right way, by producing our star players through the academy and utilising money received from selling them to plug the gaps in the team until the next crop is good enough.

[Redslo]

The poaching of Saints' players this summer has been done to death but it is symptomatic of all that is wrong with the Premier League. Of course clubs should be able to sell on players they no longer want, and players should be able to move on at the end of their contracts, or when released, if they can do better elsewhere but the garnering of players into just a few clubs at the expense of the rest has become a sickness. Man U spending £30m on a teenage FB and £60m on one player demonstrates absolutely that there is no such thing as a level playing field in this competition. It is only the failure of some expensive players, such as the £50m Torres at Chelsea, that prevents the farce of the whole thing being totally clear.

 

High cost teams may only be marginally better than low cost teams - MK Don's trouncing of Man U by 4 goals to Nil has demonstrated that - but over time the money does produce just as you would expect it to. Allowing the best players to move into just a few teams doesn't just help to strengthen the few clubs, it also weakens the rest. We now have a Premier League that is not a proper competition at all. There might as well be an 8-team league with no relegation for all that the PL has now become. Entry of a new team is now only achieved through buying your way in as Chelsea and Man City have done and any club threatening the wealthy by way of home grown talent or careful buys, is quickly stripped of its best players.

 

Is it ironic that FFP has made the situation even worse and has created the opposite of what we were told was its intention? Financial Unfair Play would be more accurate. Or was it done deliberately to benefit the wealthy clubs? But as long as the fans continue to turn up, or buy their Sky subscriptions, its impossible to see any change.

 

Manchester United's leveraged buy out has also helped keep the league competitive. And while FFP has locked in (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lock-In-John-Scalzi/dp/0575134348/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=undefined&sr=8-1&keywords=scalzi) the current elite, it did so in a way that favored Manchester United and Arsenal more than Chelsea and Manchester City who would have been happy to continue their unlimited spending. I sometimes wonder whether FFP would ever have come into existence if it were not for Manchester United's leveraged buy out.

Edited 27 August, 2014 by Redslo

[Saint86]

The poaching of Saints' players this summer has been done to death but it is symptomatic of all that is wrong with the Premier League. Of course clubs should be able to sell on players they no longer want, and players should be able to move on at the end of their contracts, or when released, if they can do better elsewhere but the garnering of players into just a few clubs at the expense of the rest has become a sickness. Man U spending £30m on a teenage FB and £60m on one player demonstrates absolutely that there is no such thing as a level playing field in this competition. It is only the failure of some expensive players, such as the £50m Torres at Chelsea, that prevents the farce of the whole thing being totally clear.

 

High cost teams may only be marginally better than low cost teams - MK Don's trouncing of Man U by 4 goals to Nil has demonstrated that - but over time the money does produce just as you would expect it to. Allowing the best players to move into just a few teams doesn't just help to strengthen the few clubs, it also weakens the rest. We now have a Premier League that is not a proper competition at all. There might as well be an 8-team league with no relegation for all that the PL has now become. Entry of a new team is now only achieved through buying your way in as Chelsea and Man City have done and any club threatening the wealthy by way of home grown talent or careful buys, is quickly stripped of its best players.

 

Is it ironic that FFP has made the situation even worse and has created the opposite of what we were told was its intention? Financial Unfair Play would be more accurate. Or was it done deliberately to benefit the wealthy clubs? But as long as the fans continue to turn up, or buy their Sky subscriptions, its impossible to see any change.

 

Have you looked at the united line up for that match... I would struggle to pick a weaker 11, our u21's would have given them a game.

[lordswoodsaints]

The poaching of Saints' players this summer has been done to death but it is symptomatic of all that is wrong with the Premier League. Of course clubs should be able to sell on players they no longer want, and players should be able to move on at the end of their contracts, or when released, if they can do better elsewhere but the garnering of players into just a few clubs at the expense of the rest has become a sickness. Man U spending £30m on a teenage FB and £60m on one player demonstrates absolutely that there is no such thing as a level playing field in this competition. It is only the failure of some expensive players, such as the £50m Torres at Chelsea, that prevents the farce of the whole thing being totally clear.

 

High cost teams may only be marginally better than low cost teams - MK Don's trouncing of Man U by 4 goals to Nil has demonstrated that - but over time the money does produce just as you would expect it to. Allowing the best players to move into just a few teams doesn't just help to strengthen the few clubs, it also weakens the rest. We now have a Premier League that is not a proper competition at all. There might as well be an 8-team league with no relegation for all that the PL has now become. Entry of a new team is now only achieved through buying your way in as Chelsea and Man City have done and any club threatening the wealthy by way of home grown talent or careful buys, is quickly stripped of its best players.

 

Is it ironic that FFP has made the situation even worse and has created the opposite of what we were told was its intention? Financial Unfair Play would be more accurate. Or was it done deliberately to benefit the wealthy clubs? But as long as the fans continue to turn up, or buy their Sky subscriptions, its impossible to see any change.

 

Thats life im afraid,there has to be losers there has to be winners,there has to be rich there has to be poor,we have plundered players from lower clubs and we have been plundered.

All this level playing field crap is what is ruining football ,kids playing in games where nobody is a winner and nobody is a loser......complete nonsense ,it just breeds a generation of kids that dont want to win and is probably the reason the England team will get worse.

Whoever has the most money buys the best players but it doesn't guarantee success.

[Wrensup]

Manchester United's leveraged buy out has also helped keep the league competitive. And while FFP has locked in (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lock-In-John-Scalzi/dp/0575134348/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=undefined&sr=8-1&keywords=scalzi) the current elite, it did so in a way that favored Manchester United and Arsenal more than Chelsea and Manchester City who would have been happy to continue their unlimited spending. I sometimes wonder whether FFP would ever have come into existence if it were not for Manchester United's leveraged buy out.

 

What a book about a plague got to so with anything?

[Professor]

In response to Lallana's Left Peg I would just say that while the lack of a level playing field has been true during the Prem era, it wasn't always thus, otherwise Ipswich wouldn't have won the title in the 1960s, nor Derby in the 1970s. Like Ipswich, Notts Forest won the championship the year after being promoted from Div 2 and they went on to win the European Cup twice in successive seasons. Man U were relegated in the 1970s, a few years after winning the European Cup, something that is unthinkable for an 'elite' club now. Today, the best players from upcoming clubs are being plundered due to the massive wealth difference and the panic amongst the elite when they slip as Man U have done. Depressing isn't it, because I share the view that the chances of anything being done to restore a proper competition are extremely remote. But I am suggesting that the fault lies with we fans who allow ourselves to be taken in, as much as it does by the greed in the game.

[KingdomCome]

All this level playing field crap is what is ruining football

 

Sorry, but that is utter @rse water.

 

A level playing field does not mean nobody wins and nobody loses. Nobody is looking for a league where we always end in a draw and everyone gets a medal for trying, just to avoid any tears before bed time.

 

A level playing field is where each team has the possibility of rising to the top. Not an equal possibility, obviously. The movement from lower league to the top should be open. If anything, a lack of movement between the "winners" and "losers" is what engenders failure. Why bother trying if there's no possibility of achieving anything. Of course there is the incentive for the players, but where's the incentive for the club? If there's no incentive for the club, then they will eventually stop the investment, the talent pool for the top teams to pick over will reduce and overall quality reduces.

[Dalek2003]

Over time things will change. I cannot see the interest in the Premier League lasting forever. Fashions come and go. Eventually, a new league will be the 'darling' of the satellite channels supplying the Chinese and Asian audiences and the Premier League will die as quickly as its rise.

 

In the meantime, it is important for SFC to remain solvent and for the fans to enjoy the drama of a good season, a relegation fight and if it comes to it, a period of rebuilding in the Championship accompanied by promotion. I would not even contemplate breaking the 'big boy' cartel. Cortese could dream, but he was a fool to do so.

[View From The Top]

We plundered clubs in L1. Bigger clubs have always plundered smaller clubs.

[KingdomCome]

We plundered clubs in L1. Bigger clubs have always plundered smaller clubs.

 

Yes...but we have shown it's possible to get up to where we are from the lower leagues. Granted it took significant investment, but that has shown to be lucrative for the owner. To go further is impossible due to FFP and requires spending money without any chance of return.

 

Do people really not see that wanting a chance of competing doesn't require communism.

[View From The Top]

Yes...but we have shown it's possible to get up to where we are from the lower leagues. Granted it took significant investment, but that has shown to be lucrative for the owner. To go further is impossible due to FFP and requires spending money without any chance of return.

 

Do people really not see that wanting a chance of competing doesn't require communism.

Doesn't matter what we want, Sky and the BPL don't give a f**k. All that matters to them is the top clubs with their massive support in Asia.

[stthrobber]

The poaching of Saints' players this summer has been done to death but it is symptomatic of all that is wrong with the Premier League. Of course clubs should be able to sell on players they no longer want, and players should be able to move on at the end of their contracts, or when released, if they can do better elsewhere but the garnering of players into just a few clubs at the expense of the rest has become a sickness. Man U spending £30m on a teenage FB and £60m on one player demonstrates absolutely that there is no such thing as a level playing field in this competition. It is only the failure of some expensive players, such as the £50m Torres at Chelsea, that prevents the farce of the whole thing being totally clear.

 

High cost teams may only be marginally better than low cost teams - MK Don's trouncing of Man U by 4 goals to Nil has demonstrated that - but over time the money does produce just as you would expect it to. Allowing the best players to move into just a few teams doesn't just help to strengthen the few clubs, it also weakens the rest. We now have a Premier League that is not a proper competition at all. There might as well be an 8-team league with no relegation for all that the PL has now become. Entry of a new team is now only achieved through buying your way in as Chelsea and Man City have done and any club threatening the wealthy by way of home grown talent or careful buys, is quickly stripped of its best players.

 

Is it ironic that FFP has made the situation even worse and has created the opposite of what we were told was its intention? Financial Unfair Play would be more accurate. Or was it done deliberately to benefit the wealthy clubs? But as long as the fans continue to turn up, or buy their Sky subscriptions, its impossible to see any change.

 

I'm afraid the days where Saints were runners up to Liverpool in the old 1st Division are long gone. The Premier league saw to that.

 

TV money makes up the vast majority of a club's revenue, and the fan through the turnstile maybe about 20%. With all seater grounds, it's impossible to cram in more fans to make a few more quid.

 

What is wrong with the Premier League is that it is and has always been tailored to the big clubs because let's be honest, Hull City v Burnley will not draw a huge TV audience, nor will it draw advertising revenue.

 

We received well over the odds for the players we sold this season, so well done to us, but as long as we keep producing quality British youngsters, the big clubs will come calling.

 

To get any change in the league now, is essentially like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas and that is the same for FFP as it is for clubs to produce English players for the National team, the vast majority of chairman don't care about the national team.

[Goatboy]

How come this thread wasn't started when we bought SRL? Or Billy Sharp?

[Verbal Kint]

'Plundered'.

 

I don't see it that way. We've sold players for ridiculous fees this summer which if re-invested well should enable us to build a better team and a better squad. Proven Premier League players cost a fortune (rightly so) but if we put enough money into scouting then we can get better value for money abroad whilst bringing British players through the academy to maintain an English core. Clubs competing for the top 4 places can't afford to take the risks and would rather pay the proven premier league premium but we are in a more relaxed position.

 

Get the scouting department right and we have a formula for growing the club properly.

 

If we don't move forward then it's because we haven't spent the money well and we'll have no-one to blame but ourselves

[sadoldgit]

Big fish eat little fish. We "plunder" other teams players too. You simply cannot prevent players wanting to go, or going to bigger clubs. What would happen if we were prevented from leaving our jobs and going to better ones? As tough as it is, it is life and we need to get on with it.

[View From The Top]

Our players haven't been poached either. They simply been bought for big fees.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

How come this thread wasn't started when we bought SRL? Or Billy Sharp?

 

Or Jay Rodriguez. Or Nat Clyne.

 

Surely we 'poached' Lallana too?

[JPTCount]

A squad can only be of a certain size with restrictions on how many imported players can be in it, and a team comprises only 11 players like everybody elses'. Therefore, when these squads have taken their pick of what they perceive to be the cream of players, then there is some respite for the teams below them and then downwards through the pyramid. Take Liverpool for example, as they were the biggest predators of our best players. As they have pretty well completed their buying, it won't be until the transfer window until they might buy again. But then they'll have to release players in order to do so, so those players are available for other clubs further down the ladder. There will always be a hierarchy in football and there is little that can be done about it because of the self-interest of the big clubs militating against changes that weaken them and the vested interests of the money producers like Sky, whose ratings benefit from the glory clubs' plastic fans putting money in their coffers.

 

We are going about things in exactly the right way, by producing our star players through the academy and utilising money received from selling them to plug the gaps in the team until the next crop is good enough.

 

Doesn't stop teams like Chelsea spending £25m on 25 youth prospects and loaning them out. Imagine how much courtois would have cost them if A Madrid had bought him 2-3 years ago...

[wadesmith]

What we should do is get our players to sign contracts. Then we wouldn't have to sell them until we wanted to.

[CB Fry]

Yes...but we have shown it's possible to get up to where we are from the lower leagues. Granted it took significant investment, but that has shown to be lucrative for the owner. To go further is impossible due to FFP and requires spending money without any chance of return.

 

Do people really not see that wanting a chance of competing doesn't require communism.

 

We have "shown it is possible" by spending a ton of money.

 

It certainly was a pretty ordinary comeback story - nothing about our double promotion has "shown" anyone anything not already obvious. Newsflash: richest clubs more likely to be successful. The likes of Blackpool, Watford, Swansea had better stories.

 

Was us plundering other clubs for their players "for the good of football" as the original poster says?

 

We signed players like Billy Sharp for big money basically for six months work then shipped him out on loan before finally getting shot. We plundered Burnley for Jay Rod, and Twente for Tadic. Us being owned by a billionaire meant we went up while other clubs didn't. Don't really understand how we have a right to complain about the cards stacked against us when we've been in an unbelievably fortunate position for half a decade.

Edited 27 August, 2014 by CB Fry

[SarniaSaint]

In response to Lallana's Left Peg I would just say that while the lack of a level playing field has been true during the Prem era, it wasn't always thus, otherwise Ipswich wouldn't have won the title in the 1960s, nor Derby in the 1970s. Like Ipswich, Notts Forest won the championship the year after being promoted from Div 2 and they went on to win the European Cup twice in successive seasons. Man U were relegated in the 1970s, a few years after winning the European Cup, something that is unthinkable for an 'elite' club now. Today, the best players from upcoming clubs are being plundered due to the massive wealth difference and the panic amongst the elite when they slip as Man U have done. Depressing isn't it, because I share the view that the chances of anything being done to restore a proper competition are extremely remote. But I am suggesting that the fault lies with we fans who allow ourselves to be taken in, as much as it does by the greed in the game.

 

This started way before the Premier League and Sky/Murdoch. It started when the FL allowed clubs to keep all of the money from home games before that happened the away team got 25% of the money. This was pushed through by Liverpool FC. Can't remember the year but Dagliesh was player/manager always thought it was to get back at Wimbledon.

 

That's why I hate LFC and what the have done to English football.

[Viking Saint]

FFP has ring-fenced the clubs who have billionaire investors....that said (and am happy to be corrected), how many leagues of good and above standard in Europe regularly have different teams winning their league every year?? None whatsoever as far as I can see....the PL has, realistically 2-3 possible winners....the rest of us scrap around for best placings to ensure bigger slices of Sky TV's money and maybe a bit of a cup run....such is life

[Wes Tender]

Doesn't stop teams like Chelsea spending £25m on 25 youth prospects and loaning them out. Imagine how much courtois would have cost them if A Madrid had bought him 2-3 years ago...

 

I agree that it is a loophole that ought to be closed reight away. The big boys always seek to find ways of circumventing the rules, so it is down to the football authorities to stop the them.

[SW5 SAINT]

We have "shown it is possible" by spending a ton of money.

 

It certainly was a pretty ordinary comeback story - nothing about our double promotion has "shown" anyone anything not already obvious. Newsflash: richest clubs more likely to be successful. The likes of Blackpool, Watford, Swansea had better stories.

 

Was us plundering other clubs for their players "for the good of football" as the original poster says?

 

We signed players like Billy Sharp for big money basically for six months work then shipped him out on loan before finally getting shot. We plundered Burnley for Jay Rod, and Twente for Tadic. Us being owned by a billionaire meant we went up while other clubs didn't. Don't really understand how we have a right to complain about the cards stacked against us when we've been in an unbelievably fortunate position for half a decade.

 

I'm not sure the argument is just about Southampton being plundered, or themselves plundering weaker clubs for talent. I would like to see some sort of salary cap put in place, or maybe introduce the system like the yanks have, whereby the weakest in the league have first dibs on newly available talent.

[The9]

I'm not sure the argument is just about Southampton being plundered, or themselves plundering weaker clubs for talent. I would like to see some sort of salary cap put in place, or maybe introduce the system like the yanks have, whereby the weakest in the league have first dibs on newly available talent.

 

There is a salary cap, the problem is it is set unevenly to begin with and allows teams with CL income (and various other revenue generating schemes, which they are better placed to implement than other sides with less existing success) to spend a lot more than everyone else, perpetuating the problem.

 

The other suggestion, of the "draft" type situation, highlights the other problem, that the Premier League is a collection of individuals all attempting to maximise revenue independently, rather than an organisation of all members which is run for the League's benefit as a whole and not the individual clubs'. The only ways the Prem will be competitive for all teams again are if the top clubs leave, or if the top clubs agree to a form of governance which massively reduces their chances of both winning things in England AND of competing in Europe. There's no way they'll agree to the former because they're making too much money and have stacked the odds in their favour, and there's no way they'll agree to an "equality based" salary cap because it will prevent them from making more money with European success compared to other UEFA-based teams which DON'T have salary-capping.

 

Comparatively, Real Madrid and Barcelona are hoovering up the cash in Spain more than the top sides in the Prem because they negotiate their own tv deals - for some reason the top sides in England have agreed that that's not how they want to go - not sure why exactly, but Man U were completely against arranging their own deal the last time it was mooted - maybe the cost of setting that stuff up is more hassle than it's worth compared to letting the Prem do it.

 

Also, even in MLS, where the league owns the rights to distribute franchises and the clubs pretty much adhere to the "collective good", there are uneven salary caps and rules allowing different numbers of salary cap breakers in different places, and there's a skew in the numbers of people watching on tv in LA and NY compared to the likes of Salt Lake and Columbus, but that's accepted for the "greater good" of the league anyway. After all, successful teams in bigger markets = more money for all.

 

To make English football "even" again, you'd need a viable salary cap without exceptions, regulation on squad sizes and stockpiling of the much cheaper youth players, a communal pot of cash with the League determining the equal re-distribution of funds, all the teams would need to accept that there's propbably not that much chance they'd do well in Europe (and decide if and how any prize money should be reinvested evenly), all merchandise sales into a central pot, collective tv deal negotiation, and for the bigger teams to be happy that their profits would be reinvested to the benefit of the other clubs rather than just them.

 

Then there's the tranche of regulations that would be wanted to ensure youth development for the national side, and the relationship with the finances and structure of the Football League too...

 

Ain't gonna happen.

Edited 28 August, 2014 by The9

[Ed Rooney]

I think the FA should change it's rules on players being involved in the England International set up. Players can only be picked for England if they have played say 70% of their clubs matches. I think we will then see how important playing for England is to some players, or whether money really is the main attraction.

[Charlie Wayman]

The quicker a Euro Super league is created and the top four b.ugger off and leave the PL the better. It is not a solution as players will want to go there still but at least the rest of us can get on an enjoy the game even if there are fewer of us around to do that.

[NewYorkSaint]

There are lots of ways the league COULD try to implement a fairer system. Baseball in the US has a 'luxury tax' system whereby teams the exceed a certain payroll total have to pay a percentage of the excess into a fund that is aimed at developing the sport. The system I'd propose is that over 10 years you'd gradually introduce a tax on player payrolls over £100m, rising eventually to 30% of any excess. The money would be divided equally and re-distributed to all clubs in the league. Apart from that, no salary restrictions. This wouldn't completely level the playing field, but it would certainly be a step in that direction and would make the whole league more exciting.

 

An even better system, in terms of generating extra excitement, would handicap teams a point for, say, every £10m they spend over £100m (based on prior season's numbers). That would mean teams like Man City and Chelsea would be starting with 10 points to catch up. This system would give clubs that spend their money wisely a fighting chance of breaking through to the Champions League, and would penalize excessive spending for the sake of spending.

 

Yeah, I know. Won't happen. Though you could argue from Sky's perspective, it would boost viewership.

[The9]

I think the FA should change it's rules on players being involved in the England International set up. Players can only be picked for England if they have played say 70% of their clubs matches. I think we will then see how important playing for England is to some players, or whether money really is the main attraction.

 

That's ridiculous, for a start it rules out any player that plays for a side with any kind of squad depth at all, especially those playing in 3 or 4 competitons. It could prevent younger non-established players getting opportunities if players actually do insist on playing, and it hamstrings a manager's selection AND potentially impacts his opportunity to leave out established players from the squad he does have.

 

It also guarantees weakening the England squad which is looking pretty rank anyway, and if you genuinely think any of them rate playing for their country ahead of being able to maximise their income then you are astonishingly deluded. Getting the players to choose contract or country would absolutely decimate the national side, when at the moment it isn't a choice they have to make and nor should they have to.

 

Not to mention that the last people who should actually be involved in decisions about their selection (if fit) are the players themselves.

[The9]

There are lots of ways the league COULD try to implement a fairer system. Baseball in the US has a 'luxury tax' system whereby teams the exceed a certain payroll total have to pay a percentage of the excess into a fund that is aimed at developing the sport. The system I'd propose is that over 10 years you'd gradually introduce a tax on player payrolls over £100m, rising eventually to 30% of any excess. The money would be divided equally and re-distributed to all clubs in the league. Apart from that, no salary restrictions. This wouldn't completely level the playing field, but it would certainly be a step in that direction and would make the whole league more exciting.

 

An even better system, in terms of generating extra excitement, would handicap teams a point for, say, every £10m they spend over £100m (based on prior season's numbers). That would mean teams like Man City and Chelsea would be starting with 10 points to catch up. This system would give clubs that spend their money wisely a fighting chance of breaking through to the Champions League, and would penalize excessive spending for the sake of spending.

 

Yeah, I know. Won't happen. Though you could argue from Sky's perspective, it would boost viewership.

 

Interesting perspective on the salary cap, I didn't know about the baseball method - that would be a much more palatable option for the big clubs if there was a desire to do it (keep big players, pay a tax, benefit the wider community directly) - but then despite the Premier League clubs being able to vote things through on a majority, the top sides would still never agree to it and would probably rather leave the league altogether.

[CB Fry]

Because it's irrelevant and wasn't about the big clubs in the top flight. Every time this issue is discussed at any club you get these comments and it just detracts from the actual problem.

 

Yes in every league you have relatively big sides and some players can be attracted by the money. The big difference is that those big teams change each season, and it is relative. There is always hope for smaller clubs as there's a limit to what you can attract to a lower league anyway, and even cheating your way past the rules like QPR to an insanely paid championship squad doesn't guarantee anything. They were one kick of a ball from being in a horrific financial situation.

 

Meanwhile burnley spent next to nothing and were far better.

 

Too many fans get caught up in crying hypocrisy, points scoring on forums etc and focus on the actual issue is lost. This isn't about saints exclusively, this summer was a bleak message to all other clubs. Most fans support non top-7 clubs. That's what is great about our leagues, huge passionate support for many smaller clubs. How long exactly can these fans keep paying over the odds to watch rich footballers of limited talent chase a dream of finishing 8th in the premier league? It isn't enough.

 

Any good player will now bang on about the champions league within 5 minutes and want to leave. The European league has killed the competition IMO and it's unsustainable. You can bump up ticket prices and cater just for wealthier fans, but those aren't the fans that stick with you during tough times.

 

FFP will have to be adapted but it seems likely that the next decade will see a few more clubs over stretch themselves.

 

Its not just depressing about small clubs. I find it sad that a club like arsenal now celebrates 4th every year. Fans celebrate 4th. Not even bronze.

 

It hasn't killed the competition because the competition isn't dead. TV revenues have never been higher and last year's race for the title was one of the very best for decades - wide open, exciting, brilliant. How is that a dead competition?

 

You make it sound like Saints, or teams like Saints, were winning the league left right and centre before.

 

 

And making out it isn't a Saints issue is disingenuous, as is all the "for the good of football" stuff. People on here just want any old small club to succeed do they?

 

Do people really think the competition would be so much better if, say, Norwich or Bolton or Crystal Palace were in the top six instead? That's what this forum wants to see for the "good of football"?

 

Sorry, it's hard to see any of this debate beyond a temper tantrum that Saints ain't going to be in the Champions League.

 

And not winning the league, of course: all that talk of "ambition" on here rarely stretched that far: just scraping fourth to get into the Champions League. But that's only "for the good of football" of course. Not to get money for us to Lord it over smaller clubs than us. Oh no. Just for the good of football.

[sadoldgit]

The competition isnt dead but it is controlled by the clubs with the most money. The chances of a reasonable sized club being in the top 4 is nigh impossible nowdays. If Norwich or Bolton or Crystal Palace got into the top six then I assume they would do so by winning matches and providing extra competion to the top teams - no bad thing in my book.

[angelman]

The competition isnt dead but it is controlled by the clubs with the most money. The chances of a reasonable sized club being in the top 4 is nigh impossible nowdays. If Norwich or Bolton or Crystal Palace got into the top six then I assume they would do so by winning matches and providing extra competion to the top teams - no bad thing in my book.

 

True. I don't know why I m listening to Durham and Gough, but they seem to be talking (and have done so for all of today and most of the transfer window) non stop about the Champions League. There are 4 English teams involved, with 16 of the PL not involved. I don't care about the CL, save to now hope that all the English teams lose. Gone are the days when I liked to see them do well. All it does now is reinforce the differences between the haves and have nots in the PL.

[david in sweden]

In response to Lallana's Left Peg I would just say that while the lack of a level playing field has been true during the Prem era, it wasn't always thus, otherwise Ipswich wouldn't have won the title in the 1960s, nor Derby in the 1970s. Like Ipswich, Notts Forest won the championship the year after being promoted from Div 2 and they went on to win the European Cup twice in successive seasons. Man U were relegated in the 1970s, a few years after winning the European Cup, something that is unthinkable for an 'elite' club now. Today, the best players from upcoming clubs are being plundered due to the massive wealth difference and the panic amongst the elite when they slip as Man U have done. Depressing isn't it, because I share the view that the chances of anything being done to restore a proper competition are extremely remote. But I am suggesting that the fault lies with we fans who allow ourselves to be taken in, as much as it does by the greed in the game.

 

 

I can agree with the sentiment in the OP, but whereas it's hard for the majority of Prem. sides to balance their books every season.....in truth the top four /six can practically buy whoever they want because they have owners who just solve a problem by throwing money at it. Saints, (who historically have never been a rich club) have gone about it more sensibly through youth development, and careful transfers.

 

Naturally enough, good players who do well move on to " bigger clubs " and bigger salaries,(Shaw, Lallana) but that happens in all walks of life, anyway. Football fans expect loyalty from their favourites, but if someone in your office / workplace does the same .....who would begrudge them a better job?....only the envious ones, I suspect.

 

In retrospect, I don't see the " loss " of the summer transfers as a major disappointment - except (oddly) Chambers. Now we start over with team-building just as Liverpool, Man.Utd...and England will do.

 

IMO The whole FFP concept stinks, and for several years back, I've wished they would all go away and play in their own " Euro TV-land " and let the other Prem. clubs get on and play normal league games.

[Baird of the land]

I have long been in favour of a squad salary cap across Europe to address the financial distortion that has occurred.

[sadoldgit]

I am not sure how you could implement a salary cap. It must be in contravention of employment laws. Even then I am sure they would find ways around paying people more. Even if there was a slalry cap, how would you stop players wanting to go to the "big" clubs and play CL football?

[adrian lord]

Man City tried to buy the title in 76-77-78 seasons - and bought Mick Channon from us as one of the key players intended to complete the jigsaw. It was disasterous for Channon and while City had been runners up to Liverpool I think in 77, it all unravelled terribly for them too.

[angelman]

I am not sure how you could implement a salary cap. It must be in contravention of employment laws. Even then I am sure they would find ways around paying people more. Even if there was a slalry cap, how would you stop players wanting to go to the "big" clubs and play CL football?

 

 

FIFA could impose it as part of a condition of taking part in any particular competition/league. I don't think that there would be any contravention of employment laws - Rugby Union seems to do it OK, but not France, hence why all the players go there. Anyway, I think if you turned up at court and said that a wage cap of £10-20k a week was restrictive, you would be laughed out of court.

 

One of the reasons people move is for CL football, but lets be honest, money is the main factor. If all clubs could compete financially, then there would be less incentive to move for financial reasons. I would welcome a salary cap, but really can't see it happening. Are £200k+ a week wages really necessary? And if the cap was £20k, do you think that many footballers would give up and go and get another job?

[GAS]

This is I believe a very complicated and emotive subject. The Champions League and TV revenue in general and FFP have created a discord between what we know as a football competition and an inevitable elite created by money. My rambling ends with the case of Athletic Bilbaos. Just qualified for CL group stages and have a policy of only playing Basque players. Ie they have made it to the CL group stages with local lads. Obviously they are not competing in the PL but all is not lost....

[angelman]

Spain really only have 2 teams that dominate, leaving room for others to qualify for CL. In the past 10 years the teams that have finished top 4 for CL qualification

 

Real x10

Barca x10

Valencia x5

Atletico x4

Villarreal x3

Sevilla x3

Bilbao x1

Sociedad x1

Malaga x1

Betis x1

Osasuna x1

 

Germany is now as bad as the PL. In the past 5 years, Bayern and Dortmund have always finished top 4, and Shalke and Bayer have finished top 4 in four of those 5 years.

[hutch]

Cancel all types of loan. That would reduce the bloated squads of the mega rich and put a few more decent players into the "just about affordable at a pinch" pool.

 

And scrap the transfer windows. If a player's head moves to Liverpool in March he might as well take his feet with him.

 

Both are doable and would in my opinion improve the competitiveness of the league.

[CB Fry]

Spain really only have 2 teams that dominate, leaving room for others to qualify for CL. In the past 10 years the teams that have finished top 4 for CL qualification

 

Real x10

Barca x10

Valencia x5

Atletico x4

Villarreal x3

Sevilla x3

Bilbao x1

Sociedad x1

Malaga x1

Betis x1

Osasuna x1

 

Germany is now as bad as the PL. In the past 5 years, Bayern and Dortmund have always finished top 4, and Shalke and Bayer have finished top 4 in four of those 5 years.

So, a league where pretty much only two teams can ever win the league (with occasional Atleticos) is more competitive than one where five can? Riiiight.

 

You put up a great post which cuts to the heart of the bulls h it hypocrisy in this debate.

 

Plenty of grizzling about how jolly terrible money is and how the game is ruined by horrible money. But typically, as above, this is expressed by belly aching about how we can't access the champions league, which happens to the most lucrative international club competition in world sport.

 

Get the feeling most wouldn't be complaining if we were in the Champions League and had access to that filthy money ruining the game.

Edited 29 August, 2014 by CB Fry

[Turkish]

So, a league where pretty much only two teams can ever win the league (with occasional Atleticos) is more competitive than one where five can? Riiiight.

 

You put up a great post which cuts to the heart of the bulls h it hypocrisy in this debate.

 

Plenty of grizzling about how jolly terrible money is and how the game is ruined by horrible money. But typically, as above, this is expressed by belly aching about how we can't access the champions league, which happens to the most lucrative international club competition in world sport.

 

Get the feeling most wouldn't be complaining if we were in the Champions League and had access to that filthy money ruining the game.

 

Ask not if you can win the premier league but how.

[CB Fry]

Ask not if you can win the premier league but how.

Tell you what, the Scottish League have got it spot on right now.

 

The League championship is a total foregone conclusion, leaving Scottish football fans to strap in for the roller coaster thrill ride of the battle to finish third.