PL Opposition Tidbits

[Beamrider]

The BBC is carrying the video that Foster and Partners have put together. To be fair, it looks very impressive based on the visuals from the ground level / inside the complex.
It also looks like a 20-year plus project. Think Peel's plans for Liverpool and Birkenhead, which have barely progressed in 20 years
And the stadium alone, and the public realm around it, will cost a lot more than £2bn - the inflation alone over the realistic development period will balloon the cost.
The land-grab alone will take more than 5 years - they are basically proposing to re-purpose everything between the current Old Toilet and Trafford Park (the industrial estate). That means losing all their parking capacity and getting rid of the freight terminal and all manner of light industry (and, presumably, the related jobs).
And the reason they think they can build it quickly is because it will be a pre-fab.
Not happening.

 

[Beamrider]

Its even more laughable and unrealistic that they are winning the game 3-0 in that picture of the new stadium.

There's another one of a kid wearing a Mainoo shirt, next to a bloke in a Keane shirt. The idea that they are not selling Mainoo and that he will become a club legend like Keane. LMFAO.

 

[Fabio]

It genuinely looks like butlins promo shot

 

[bluebell]

So we are saying its gonna cost £4-5bn when all said and done as it includes land they don't own and take 5 years. There will be local objections which will take time to resolve. They are already constricted by heavy debts and PSR will not help them.
On the field they're a banter club, how long will overseas fans show interest in them and sponsors remain keen, and can they sell out a 100k arena in 5 years if they are as relevant as they are today?
I think who ever owns LFC club will undertake further expansion when there isn't the necessity to make investment in public infrastructure

 

[darkstarexodus]

But wouldn’t letting certain clubs spend what they want, even if it is taxed, just lead to inflated prices and not really benefitting other teams, because the higher transfer costs would outweigh any tax distribution?

I think it might work if there was no such thing as a transfer fee.

I’d probably go the other way and have a fixed amount that all teams could spend on transfers and wages, with no wiggle room to go above it - and make that amount not so high as most teams couldn’t spend it - say £100m on transfers per season and no more.

What you're suggesting is a hard salary cap, similar to that in several North American sports like the NHL and NFL. I completely agree that this would be the most equitable solution, if we wanted to create a league where all teams have a comparable chance to win. The problem is that the Premier League isn't a closed shop and a cap would need to be universal across all the European leagues in order to avoid talent leakage. Even then, the Saudis would seem more appealing than they do now. (It's also not clear that equity among teams is a priority the way it is in North American franchised sports).

A luxury tax (aka a "soft cap") allows spending over the limit but with significant financial penalties for doing so (in some cases dollar-for-dollar; every 1$ above the cap yields a $1 tax penalty). If there's a wages-plus-transfer-fees limit of $250m (just making it up) per year and City want to spend $400m, it will cost them $550m with the $150m in taxes getting shared among those clubs below the limit.

This will be inflationary over time - but so is everything else - but the collected "taxes" then get redistributed down the chain to those clubs not spending over the limit. To ensure that the gap between the Premier League and the Championship doesn't grow further, you'd probably have to redistribute down a couple divisions (to League 2?).

The reason why PSR doesn't work IMO is that clubs that miss out on the Champions League have just gutted their incomes and now have to consider selling players. How can Villa or Newcastle, for example, ever expect to break into the top 4 consistently when one missed year means they have to sell stars? United can't afford to tank a couple years while letting youth emerge without cancelling the Xmas party and staff lunch programs. It's absurd. PSR entrenches the top teams indefinitely, which is counter to any notion of equity.

 

[StevieM]

What you're suggesting is a hard salary cap, similar to that in several North American sports like the NHL and NFL. I completely agree that this would be the most equitable solution, if we wanted to create a league where all teams have a comparable chance to win. The problem is that the Premier League isn't a closed shop and a cap would need to be universal across all the European leagues in order to avoid talent leakage. Even then, the Saudis would seem more appealing than they do now. (It's also not clear that equity among teams is a priority the way it is in North American franchised sports).

A luxury tax (aka a "soft cap") allows spending over the limit but with significant financial penalties for doing so (in some cases dollar-for-dollar; every 1$ above the cap yields a $1 tax penalty). If there's a wages-plus-transfer-fees limit of $250m (just making it up) per year and City want to spend $400m, it will cost them $550m with the $150m in taxes getting shared among those clubs below the limit.

This will be inflationary over time - but so is everything else - but the collected "taxes" then get redistributed down the chain to those clubs not spending over the limit. To ensure that the gap between the Premier League and the Championship doesn't grow further, you'd probably have to redistribute down a couple divisions (to League 2?).

The reason why PSR doesn't work IMO is that clubs that miss out on the Champions League have just gutted their incomes and now have to consider selling players. How can Villa or Newcastle, for example, ever expect to break into the top 4 consistently when one missed year means they have to sell stars? United can't afford to tank a couple years while letting youth emerge without cancelling the Xmas party and staff lunch programs. It's absurd. PSR entrenches the top teams indefinitely, which is counter to any notion of equity.

Yeah, PSR isn’t perfect - but the fact that it has Utd contemplating selling their top youngsters and City curtailed, means it’s having some sort of positive effect, in my opinion.

Problem with a soft cap is, the likes of City and Newcastle won’t care about the “tax”, while getting a few million extra probably won’t help half the teams in the league.

I don’t think there is a perfect solution.

 

[Beamrider]

Incidentally, the rumours have it that Chelsea have circumvented PSR this year by selling their women's team to themselves. That's a rumour that's been doing the rounds for a while and isn't really news. What IS news, is the suggestion that they sold it for north of £100m, which is the most ridiculous bullshit I have ever heard.
Its income last year was £8.8m, and it made a loss of £4.1m. It owes £12m to other group companies (shareholder loan funding of its losses to date).
Genuinely, you would have to pay me to take it off their hands.
I suspect the PL hasn't charged them (yet) because they are nervous about the costs of litigation and are waiting on 130. If they win that, I can see them going to town on Chelsea. If they lose, I can see the clubs demanding that heads roll, particularly whoever signed off their rumoured £45m in legal fees last year pursuing all those charges.

 

[darkstarexodus]

View: https://x.com/thegaffer1969/status/1899408620619477379?t=ID7xEqV7fcK1ILDQIRCHVQ&s=19

 

[darkstarexodus]

Yeah, PSR isn’t perfect - but the fact that it has Utd contemplating selling their top youngsters and City curtailed, means it’s having some sort of positive effect, in my opinion.

Problem with a soft cap is, the likes of City and Newcastle won’t care about the “tax”, while getting a few million extra probably won’t help half the teams in the league.

I don’t think there is a perfect solution.

United being forced to sell their homegrown players (like Chelsea with Gallagher and Mount) isn't a good thing. And City was hardly curtailed in this past transfer window.

I'd rather City and Newcastle be taxed for their spending than find ways to circumvent the system.

There isn't a perfect solution but I feel strongly a luxury tax is the best of the options on the table.

 

[StevieM]

United being forced to sell their homegrown players (like Chelsea with Gallagher and Mount) isn't a good thing. And City was hardly curtailed in this past transfer window.

I'd rather City and Newcastle be taxed for their spending than find ways to circumvent the system.

There isn't a perfect solution but I feel strongly a luxury tax is the best of the options on the table.

They aren’t being “forced” though - that’s a false narrative and neither were Chelsea - they brought that upon themselves by going fucking crazy in the transfer market.

If their youth were “good” no way they’d sell.

The answer is simple - don’t buy shit overpriced players and instead stick with bringing through the youth players.

Also, it’s nothing new for each team - Chelsea have been selling stacks of youth players for ages.

I don’t think City wouldn’t try to find ways of over-spending and avoiding paying the tax - it’s their nature. They’d likely buy them through one of their other entities and sell at a deflated price to themselves or such nonsense.

I agree though - a hard cap would only work if it were Europe wide - in saying that, if it was set at something like £100m - there’s only about 4 or 5 teams in Europe that could do that anyway, so maybe it wouldn’t be that much of an issue. Any player that pretends they’re going to Saudi for anything other than money is a bare-faced liar.

For a soft cap, if it was point deductions rather than a tax, maybe that would work - forfeit a point for every £10m spent over the cap.

Or maybe a combo of both point reduction and tax - I could get onboard with that.

 

[Squiggles]

I guess you could counter - in their case - that they've spent outrageously for years and it's not really helped either.

They really do need to strip everything back, get rid of the dead wood and hope they can get some really good young players in to change things around.

The alternative is to do what Barca did and sell everything in sight to try and remain competitive. Ironically in Barca's case, it's the academy that ended up bailing them out.

Tend to agree. Interesting enough, United are meant to have a lot of decent prospects coming through. It's one of the few crumbs comfort their fans have right now.

 

[darkstarexodus]

View: https://x.com/MaxPollard92/status/1899404468724097313?t=a85PtbrD8IDILJG-RT3r9g&s=19

That's it. I'm going back to finding memes and reels to share to bury my pain.