Is money ruining the game?

[ICTChris]

8 minutes ago, Herman Hessian said:

would be interesting to see the demographic of those who paid for football on either; I reckon it would be an older, rather better-off profile who can a) afford it and b) aren't necessarily on board with the streaming options; fewer younger, more tech-savvy folk - with less disposable income - are going to pay up when there are free options, and they're the future audience, so there may be a future-bubble of sorts from that generational perspective ???

personally, I'm an old git, but have been perving about on the interweb for decades, so I know my way around the options, plus I'm unconscionably tight-fisted and will pay for nothing if there's an alternative 

Companies like Sky and BT are well aware of this and are continually developing products and bundles to work on this.  Also, young people have always tended to watch less television, they go out more.  

[quickoverayard]

Agents have ruined the game.... unsettling players, starting rumours etc just so they can drive prices up. Massive players ie Neymar I think yes it's a massive sum but club will make that back from signing him. It makes buisness sense.

[vikingTON]

2 hours ago, WATTOO said:

Whether people want to accept it or not, viewing football has become a luxury item which only people with a healthy disposable income can afford and like every luxury item when a deep recession hits then one of the first things to go is the "luxury item".

Go down to the pub and you can 'view football' throughout the weekend. Meanwhile the global TV money has in fact enabled Premier League clubs to actually introduce capped prices for away tickets. 

So people aren't going to "accept" that claim because it is complete and utter bollocks. 

[vikingTON]

18 hours ago, virginton said:

Never has this been more apt for a thread btw.

[AMMjag]

The moral point only stands if you completely remove your interest in the game, or worse yet just follow some junior mob every week. As well as applying the same standards to your own life - most of us have things we don't need after all.

Although it's a bit odd that you'd draw the line only when transfers start crossing into the dozens of millions rather than 'just' millions.

[pandarilla]

Never has this been more apt for a thread btw.

You're not desperate or anything though mate.

[pandarilla]

The moral point only stands if you completely remove your interest in the game, or worse yet just follow some junior mob every week. As well as applying the same standards to your own life - most of us have things we don't need after all.

 

Although it's a bit odd that you'd draw the line only when transfers start crossing into the dozens of millions rather than 'just' millions.

 

I'm not really understanding your point mate.

 

No-one has suggested that this has just came about recently.

 

'Most of us have things we don't need in our life'? Not adding up to millions of pounds I don't.

 

[Ira Gaines]

I really don't get the moral argument here. People are happy to pay for Sky and BT in their droves. They're happy to give that money to clubs. The clubs are happy to spend it.

Am I missing something?

[senorsoupe]

I don't think the television money is ruining the game as much as the "Sugar Daddy" owners is.  The fact that the government of Qatar can spend 200 million on Neymar or a Russian Oligarch can help a team hoover up the best young talent in Europe and send them out on loan forever, or an energy drink company starting a team from scratch is ruining the game more than big TV deals do.  If FPP wasn't a farce and these oligarchs and monarchs couldn't just dump cash into teams to buy players then the game would be much better off.  

[John Lambies Doos]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/01/premier-league-finances-club-by-club

 

 

Celtic must be bealing

 

[Diamonds are Forever]

48 minutes ago, senorsoupe said:

I don't think the television money is ruining the game as much as the "Sugar Daddy" owners is.  The fact that the government of Qatar can spend 200 million on Neymar or a Russian Oligarch can help a team hoover up the best young talent in Europe and send them out on loan forever, or an energy drink company starting a team from scratch is ruining the game more than big TV deals do.  If FPP wasn't a farce and these oligarchs and monarchs couldn't just dump cash into teams to buy players then the game would be much better off.  

 

I kind of agree with this, however I'm not sure how you really stop it. Loads of teams, at all levels, rely on an owner/s chucking money into the club. May not be on the same level as PSG or Man City, but the principle is the same. Where do you draw the line? An owner putting a few hundred grand into a Scottish League Two club and getting them up to the Premiership in a few seasons may not be as eye-watering, but it still ruins the competition for the other clubs involved in those leagues. Plus, Blackburn were doing this over 20 years ago, it's not a new thing. The scale has increased, but that's pretty much in line with the TV revenue increase.

I'm interested to see what affect the cost of football, and the 'football tourist' has on the game in the future. A huge part of the Premier League's growth as a product is the tribal nature of football in this country, which was based on working-class communities supporting their local club. More and more these fans are being priced out and replaced by wealthier, casual fans, and the football tourist types. I think this means fans feel less of a connection with these teams, a loss of atmosphere at games (Arsenal being the prime example), and to a wider TV audience these clubs have less identity. To me, Man Utd and Man City are now just the same in a different coloured shirt, whereas 15-20 years ago those clubs had distinct identities. Part of me thinks this will lead to a gradual disillusionment with the product in England as it all seems a bit meaningless.

I think there is some recognition that they need to 'sort' that issue of losing 'traditional fanbases', for example capping away ticket prices. And Barclays cringe worthy adverts last year about 'Thank you to the fans who make the game', or whatever it was. I think that is the area to watch, rather than some sudden collapse in TV revenue, which wont happen.

Anyway, that's my random ramblings.

[senorsoupe]

15 minutes ago, Diamonds are Forever said:

 

I kind of agree with this, however I'm not sure how you really stop it. Loads of teams, at all levels, rely on an owner/s chucking money into the club. May not be on the same level as PSG or Man City, but the principle is the same. Where do you draw the line? An owner putting a few hundred grand into a Scottish League Two club and getting them up to the Premiership in a few seasons may not be as eye-watering, but it still ruins the competition for the other clubs involved in those leagues. Plus, Blackburn were doing this over 20 years ago, it's not a new thing. The scale has increased, but that's pretty much in line with the TV revenue increase.

 

Particularly if it's a house of cards a la Gretna...

I think the problem is that the FPP rules are toothless to stop the big money sugar daddies from dumping cash into teams the way they do now.  There is no way PSG can afford Neymar and Mbappe with television, gate, and other commercial income, there is some creative accounting happening to get around the FPP rules while the likes of Man City, Chelsea, etc... are doing the same thing to get around the "rules" that UEFA pretend exist.  I know that it's not a new thing, in the 90's it was steel merchants from places like Blackburn and Ayr that were the sugar daddies, now it's Russian Oligarchs and Middle Eastern royals but it still doesn't make it right.  

[Herman Hessian]

37 minutes ago, senorsoupe said:

Particularly if it's a house of cards a la Gretna...

I think the problem is that the FPP rules are toothless to stop the big money sugar daddies from dumping cash into teams the way they do now.  There is no way PSG can afford Neymar and Mbappe with television, gate, and other commercial income, there is some creative accounting happening to get around the FPP rules while the likes of Man City, Chelsea, etc... are doing the same thing to get around the "rules" that UEFA pretend exist.  I know that it's not a new thing, in the 90's it was steel merchants from places like Blackburn and Ayr that were the sugar daddies, now it's Russian Oligarchs and Middle Eastern royals but it still doesn't make it right.  

as DaF says above though, where do you draw the line - a club operating over and above their means can f**k up competition at whatever level they are at - far below the sphere of endeavour at which PSG and the like operate; when Rovers fell out of the Football League in to the conference, we had to contend with a fucking shoe millionaire inventing a new club by way of Rushden & Diamonds - was their unfair advantage any more disproportionate than what the Arabs are doing across Europe - should it have been regulated in the interests of competitiveness ? fact is Rovers had their own albeit marginally less afluent sugar daddy, and it was his resources that eventually got us back in to the FL - was that unfair, too ?

the only way that any sort of restrictions could be implemented was if investment was capped at a nominal percentage over what the perceived "normal" level of a certain league's clubs was deemed to be, and this would have to be recalculated every season, taking in to account new sponsorship or broadcasting deals; it'd also have to be applied within the guidelines which much exist with regard to restraint of trade - i think you'd have a hard time legally or ethically preventing someone pissing money away on their favourite team if they wanted to (look at silly bollocks at Billericay for the latest incarnation)

the one thing to hold on to is how often these financially doped clubs fall on their arses - blackburn, rushden, leeds to a certain extent - and their inevitable struggles provide the richest entertainment possible for the wider football community - fŭck you, max griggs - where are your shitty club now, eh ?

[senorsoupe]

1 hour ago, Herman Hessian said:

 

the one thing to hold on to is how often these financially doped clubs fall on their arses - blackburn, rushden, leeds to a certain extent - and their inevitable struggles provide the richest entertainment possible for the wider football community - fŭck you, max griggs - where are your shitty club now, eh ?

Don't forget Rangers.....

[John Lambies Doos]

Don't forget Rangers.....

Nah, they broke the law

[senorsoupe]

Just now, John Lambies Doos said:

 

Nah, they broke the law

 

As well as spending first Dave Murray's money and then the banks money after Dave couldn't afford the fees but still wanted to buy players

[John Lambies Doos]

As well as spending first Dave Murray's money and then the banks money after Dave couldn't afford the fees but still wanted to buy players

 Aye, they basically did every low life, pond pish scam available.

 

 

They'll not be missed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dindeleux]

What does #AMF mean?

Also, did Sone Aluko really move for £7.5 million?

[itzdrk]

On 30/08/2017 at 22:06, MARYHILLISWONDERFUL said:

We should cut all the money in football by half then divide it evenly and put the half set aside into real problems in the real world, we have people out there dying from preventable diseases all across the world, children starving in Africa, people out on the streets with no home and no hope and it's all because of money! It's supposed to make the world go round but it's made the world morally wrong!

[Sergeant Wilson]

8 hours ago, Herman Hessian said:

as DaF says above though, where do you draw the line - a club operating over and above their means can f**k up competition at whatever level they are at - far below the sphere of endeavour at which PSG and the like operate; when Rovers fell out of the Football League in to the conference, we had to contend with a fucking shoe millionaire inventing a new club by way of Rushden & Diamonds - was their unfair advantage any more disproportionate than what the Arabs are doing across Europe - should it have been regulated in the interests of competitiveness ? fact is Rovers had their own albeit marginally less afluent sugar daddy, and it was his resources that eventually got us back in to the FL - was that unfair, too ?

the only way that any sort of restrictions could be implemented was if investment was capped at a nominal percentage over what the perceived "normal" level of a certain league's clubs was deemed to be, and this would have to be recalculated every season, taking in to account new sponsorship or broadcasting deals; it'd also have to be applied within the guidelines which much exist with regard to restraint of trade - i think you'd have a hard time legally or ethically preventing someone pissing money away on their favourite team if they wanted to (look at silly bollocks at Billericay for the latest incarnation)

the one thing to hold on to is how often these financially doped clubs fall on their arses - blackburn, rushden, leeds to a certain extent - and their inevitable struggles provide the richest entertainment possible for the wider football community - fŭck you, max griggs - where are your shitty club now, eh ?

Like Financial Fair Play? Rules exist about investment, they are circumvented almost as soon as they are introduced. Money is part of football, there's no point in moaning about it.

I understand both sides of this argument, but I can't understand the people who want "the bubble to burst". To what ends, why? How will Manchester City going bust improve football?