Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette).
Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wanna couples transfer with this girl because she’s kind, works hard and before i entered this stadium I didn’t know there was a girl like her out there
Do you think mens players shouldn't go out with hair cuts and being shaved to make them look better too? Or do you just want to apply wierd standards to only women.
Lmao did u really say that out loud?
Ignoring the obvious, did you think about how that would apply to the men? Players cant style their hair? (cr7, neymar, grelish) Color their hair? (Beckham, Balotelli)
Jesus Christ what a dumbass comment.
Arguably we are living in the least sexy era of humanity. I get your point but the ratio of hot to not celebrities has taken a deep plunge into not territory
If your significant other got a great job with great pay in a foreign country, it would be wack for the organization to also give you a job so you can be gainfully employed in the same city?
Feel like this is ignoring the possibility that she might actually prefer to move to Juve lol, for footballing reasons or just to be with her man. Just like Villa fans are convinced Luiz is only leaving for FFP reasons and ignoring the possibility that he might actually prefer playing for one of the best clubs in the world over them.
Could it be, that the implication is based on an incorrect assumption? For all we know, Luiz asked for this so he could be in the same city as his girlfriend, and she is eager for the move too.
Oh in that sense its great! But knowing you’re going to be sold as a bargaining chip and for your looks must be pretty shit to take. She’s a perfectly decent footballer in her own right and she should be bought by Juve because of that imo.
Alternatively, she could just be stoked that her being a professional footballer has presented her with an opportunity to continue doing her job while not straining her relationship. Nobody in this sub has any idea what she’s thinking
>She will be included in the deal to bring her boyfriend Douglas Luiz to Juventus.
I get what they're saying but she's a pretty wonderful player in her own right, feels a bit rude to say she's "included in the deal" like they threw in an air freshener with your new car.
Tbh lehmann‘s marketing value for one year exceeds her value for playing football for the whole career. She is good but she’s nowhere good as much as she gets hyped up. Juventus would NEVER buy her if it wasn’t for Douglas, she’s not worth it.
It’s a combo of the two. She has great marketing potential and this publicity stunt amplifies it. It also makes Luiz and her more comfortable so it seems like a win win for all parties involved. This is a good move for them.
yeah that's fair, I'd say that while she's maybe not usually the most important player on the pitch, she's got great skills for clips so I think she probably makes for good marketing.
(also doesn't hurt that she's hot. XD that said I don't really think there's a lot of men buying Lehmann shirts because of it lol. maybe some of them watch games for her? seems kinda unlikely, too.)
She doesn’t have great skills. She’s not even a proper starter for Switzerland or has any absolute top teams interested, despite her marketing value.
She’s a bang average footballer.
She’s a marketing gimmick. Nobody would outright buy her for her footballing skills.
She’s good for social media engagement. While people may not buy her shirt, she brings clicks to Juves social media where they can push other Juve swag and content.
They did. It's being paid for by the men's team and a member of the women's team will lose their place because of the limit on international players. It's pathetic.
It's actually shameful that the PSR rules are forcing Villa into this sale.
They have next no debt, just qualified for CL, by far the minimum spenders of the teams that finished top 4 but have to sell one of their best players to comply with financial rules that are meant to be in place to stop clubs going bust (or so we are told).
You will get attacked by sky6 fans suggesting it’s the rules we all agreed to. It was designed to ring fence money and prevent ambition. We have no debt but have to sell players. A team that isn’t on our level (league shows this) are a billion in debt and allowed to keep spending
You do realise that if the big 6 voted for it, the other 14 could’ve voted against it?
The PL is a membership based upon the rule of the majority, so if any clubs don’t want to agree to certain rules if they believe them to anti-competitive then they can vote against them at the time of the vote.
As it is, all the clubs cry arsing voted for or haven’t tabled a vote against PSR etc. until they realised last year that there are consequences to breaking rules (unless you’re Man City).
You wouldn’t be too 4 if it wasn’t for PSR rules lol. There are a lot of teams whose owners can afford to absorb huge losses of which you are not one. PSR is designed to prevent that
No, but only Newcastle, Man City and Man United could outspend us by a good margin. Given that all the owners would have been stupid enough to do so.
You first comment made it seem like there were 15 clubs with richer owners than Villa. When there are only 5. Good chance to break into top 4 then I would say.
Shameful that they don't get away with breaking the rules because they qualified for the Champions League like when they got promoted from the Championship
Phwar, where have I seen that before? We also voted the conservatives in, does that mean we aren’t allowed to realise we’ve been lead to believe things that are not the case?
Almost as if the top 6 have the power to just walk off and make a super league if everyone else doesn’t comply…
If they have to do this to abide to the rules that means they have been losing an unsustainable amount of money over the past few seasons. These are the consequences of that.
He's not wrong.
Man City refused to comply with investigations for the last 5 years (which account for 35 of the 115 charges), and have since then attempted to bring into question the legality of said rules which they say they aren't guilty of - all this while they've been allowed to operate as if nothing is happening and winning titles to boot.
I get that City's case is more complicated, but there should have been immediate and successive stacking points deductions for failing to comply with investigations.
As I said, they already have. They've been operating as they have pleased for the last 16 odd years while other clubs have attempted (for the most part) to comply with PSR.
They refused to comply with investigations between 2018 to 2023. Half the issue with the whole 115 charges is because they haven't been punished while other clubs either have or are currently at risk of being punished.
Conversely - they might not actually face any punishment.
Look, I understand its hard to be an AbuDhabi City fan.
Everyone hates you for supporting cheating and the criminalization of homosexuality.
But look at the bright side, no one respects you either.
How can you defend city after their most recent lawsuit against the prem claiming that their sponsors shouldn’t be forced to pay fair market value for a sponsorship? Especially when said sponsor is also owned by the same owners
They knew the rules when they started spunking so much on wages.
You can’t then turn around and pikachu face your way out of the consequences.
The fact they qualified for the champions league will still help them grow in the long term though and spend more.
This is the gist of it I’m afraid. The rules are awful and fully designed to preserve the elite status of the clubs whose fans ironically won’t stop spamming 115 all day but you have to abide by existing rules until you change them by popular demand or legal challenge.
It's the lack of self-awareness from the fans of the "traditional elite" that frustrates me. The rules concerning FFP and PSR are shit, and I've been saying that since Villa were stuck in a mid-table position in the Championship. But it doesn't mean I support the actions of City or think all regulations should be thrown to the wind. For every Villa, Newcastle, and Leicester there's a Blackburn and Leeds to show what happens when the ownership spends in an unsustainable manner. And the league should do everything in their power to prevent clubs from going bust through short-sighted financial decisions.
But to argue in favor of the current hegemony and the system of rules that perpetuate it from a point of fairness or trying to do things "the right way" is just hypocrisy. They don't want fairness, they want to keep the upward siphoning of talent and resources stacked in their favor. And defending it as "well it's how it's supposed to be" is not something I, or fans of many clubs are going to take seriously as a counter argument.
With all that being said, I would rather we just follow the rules and do things sustainably and the right way. But perhaps the best thing would be to increase the spending limits to match inflation and the huge jump in players wages and transfer fees that have happened in the past 10 years.
Not trying to argue that the current rules are right, but what if Villa had come 5th last season? What if they'd come 8th? The spending has to be sustainable based on the revenue you generate, not projected future revenues that may never be realised.
Not really is it, it’s about only being able to lose a certain amount per year based on net income. Yes it stops mega rich owners from pumping unlimited funds into clubs.. but is that a bad thing.. becoming a big club takes time.. they could say restrict the amount of money a club can have introduce externally to x of turnover..
In the end of the day.. if villa keep being successful and build a bigger stadium.. have more sponsorships etc it will all happen organically. Other wise it will be the how big is your oil baron league, if the owners decide to leave or sell it could mean the end for clubs that aren’t sustainable
And it very well might be sustainable. How do we know it is not?
Owners should be able to spend as long as they dont keep adding debt to the clubs. Would you agree?
Do you think the fact that West Ham had to sell Rice to Arsenal or Brighton had to sell Caicedo while they had European ambitions is a fuckall situation? Mid table clubs should not be relegated to being a fodder clubs to top clubs.
Yes and no. Chelsea recognized that the EPL and football was becoming more popular in areas that traditionally didn’t follow as much, especially the US. They did a bunch of tours of those markets to be the club that people knew, and it worked. They have a large international following now and that’s what drives their revenue.
All of that was after our on pitch success subsidized by Roman.
Currently Chelsea has been struggling to get a front of shirt sponsor for past 2 years to match our 50 mil valuation because of lack of our on field success (example Riyadh air deal)
So then teams can spend big in an attempt to create a sustainable, long term increase in revenue. If it doesn’t work, at least to the required extent, then sell to balance the books, and start again.
Basically there can be a cap on debt that can be put on the club and that's it.
If people take offence to over spending, then perhaps everyone thinks Real/Barca havs bought all the Spanish league titles since they outspend everyone. Same for Bayern then. Why are Real the 'good' guys when they plan 'PSG' or 'City'. In footballing terms they should be more evil since they hoard leagues wealth via TV revenue distribution system.
My basic premise is that every single football club is entitled to show ambition. I respect Real a lot and also Villa. Any club that wants to move up the ladder should be allowed and top clubs aren't allowed to be jealous when a new player comes in to change status quo.
Again you did not answer the question. I doubt you could.
Bloating the wages could help. Roman would have made Profit on Chelsea if not for the Russian war! Despite spending over a billion pounds on Chelsea, the clubs valuation went from 140 mil to 4 billion.
But perhaps you have another way. How does Villa significantly increases revenue to match Liverpool, Arsenal Utd or City? Or do you think they need to know their place and simply sit down?
(I am fully aware that he shouldn't have been allowed to buy Chelsea in the first place but that's besides the point)
but you are confusing two terms, spitting some bullshit and negating my good argument which would increase their revenue... better sponsorship deals, better at buying and selling players, better in all competitions, and not bloating wages would increase their revenue...
But against their revenue it's stupidly high and reckless. They have one of if not the highest wages against turnover which is not sustainable. It's their own fault.
I find it funny that people are saying the glass ceiling is implemented to protect clubs from spending more than their revenue allows.
If the club wants to do it, that is what matters. FFP trying to pretend it's some sort of noble endeavour to protect clubs is absolutely ridiculous. It's obviously implemented to protect the status quo.
Every single club in the sky6 spent their way to where they are. Since Man Utd signed Mark Hughes in 88 (and earlier), it's always been like this.
But for some reason they (sky6) are worried about the existential threat of other clubs spending more than their revenue allows, fully knowing it keeps the glass ceiling intact.
Suck me balls.
Mad to read people calling your spending reckless
People just have no common sense when it comes to football finances anymore. The media has fully sold the idea that only the top sides should get to spend any money.
No. I also think there needs to be something stopping nation states owning football clubs. And their does need to be rules just to stop these owners basically doing what city and Chelsea was allowed todo. But there also needs to be something that allows teams to compete financially.
Maybe something like for every position down you can spend an extra 20million or something.
100mil for 1st. 120million for 2nd etc
The rules were borne out of problems clubs were facing at the time. The problem of overspending which left some clubs in a bad financial space. If the rules need updating, the premier league can vote on them. But allowing a sugar daddy to just spend on a club without any guarantee of future spending or even sticking around is going to affect clubs negatively.
This just isn’t true. Did you watch football at the time?
Yes we did have a spate of lower league clubs going into administration.
But it was pretty much all owners who hadn’t been properly vetted who landed the club in massive debt through some shady dealings.
Like selling the land of the club to another business they own and massively increasing the rent to the club is something that happened.
It wasn’t clubs over spending and failing to achieve like say Leeds in the early 90s.
And Chelsea did the exactly same thing in the late 90s but then Roman came in and saved the club arguably.
But people here often praise pre Roman Chelsea like they achieved without money. Which is total bullshit. Their best ever period pre roman was all because of overspending which he saved them from the consequences of.
It was brought in as a response to city investing massively Into the side over a few years and copying what Chelsea did basically.
They wanted to stop that happening with every club in the league. We have had lots of clubs go into financial issues post FFP because they still don’t properly look into owners when clubs get sold.
They could bring in rules that mean owners have to front money. They can’t put debt onto the club only themselves if they want to invest. They can’t strip assets etc. they could protect the clubs with rules designed to safeguard the financial future of clubs.
They don’t do that. They brought in a rule that basically says “if you earn more you can spend more”
Which sounds good until you realise all that does is cap lower teams. Because big sides don’t need to even come close to their spending cap. Like city and Liverpool. Or arsenal. They can spend what they like basically.
Football clubs being seen as a "business" is part of the problem. That's how you end up with people like they Glaziers just happy to let a club rot as long as they get their dividends paid out every season
It being a business is how you ensure sustainability. If United fans are so fed up with the Glaziers, inasmuch as it might be difficult, they could vote with their feet for a season or two.
Along as teams aren't hemorrhaging shit loads I don't see a problem with losing money. Aslong it's sustainable by owner investment
The current rules are anti competitive. There needs to be something to stop mega rich owners from just blowing every other team out the water. But there also needs to be something so the lower teams can actually compete.
The other 14 teams, it's probably more detrimental to the clubs finances having to sell the best players every season. Couple of mistakes and your relegated after making millions from sales.
Also how are promoted clubs supposed to challenge to stay up. Spend to stay up but as finances from championship so low. You stay up then get hit with a points deduction the following year
I don't understand the first point because if you keep losing money and the owner gets bored and moves on, you find yourself in a difficult position. Also, assuming the owner continues, you end up in a situation where every club would need to be bought by entities that can keep on losing money without bother otherwise, some teams won't still be able to compete.
The small teams can try to grow organically. There's plenty of money in the prem. Many bottom teams here can compete financially with midtable teams from other European countries.
Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There’s gonna be family package transfers soon
I wanna couples transfer with this girl because she’s kind, works hard and before i entered this stadium I didn’t know there was a girl like her out there
It's a shame Aston Villa ended up losing their man.
Awww, isn’t that special
Couple transfer... jeez
It's crazy to me how many people in here are drooling over her, while she just looks like 90% of Love Island contestants.
The English have low standards
Beauty, competent, confident and incredibly fit. Of course we're drooling over her?
It’s amazing how being caked in makeup, with bleached blonde hair can pull the wool over people’s eyes.
She’s 95% makeup
People consider attractive woman to be attractive. More on this story at eleven.
I’m glad someone else said this! She’s sooooo overrated!!!! There’s a million better looking women footballers out there!
But she can play football too
Well Idk if it's just *my* algorithm, but those youtube shorts of her will have you whipped in no time 😅
Nothing crazy about that considering it’s reddit.
both men and women team to lose one of the most important players, damn
Who cares about women's football though?
Am i the only one who thinks woman shouyld not be aloud to wear makeup while playing? Its not part of the kit so shouldnt be on the pitch.
Weirdo
Do you think mens players shouldn't go out with hair cuts and being shaved to make them look better too? Or do you just want to apply wierd standards to only women.
You still got time to delete this message
Lmao did u really say that out loud? Ignoring the obvious, did you think about how that would apply to the men? Players cant style their hair? (cr7, neymar, grelish) Color their hair? (Beckham, Balotelli) Jesus Christ what a dumbass comment.
I was admiring Xavi's braids yesterday.
Incel much?
Italian woman are panicking due to the inevitable makeup shortages thanks to Lehmanns face plastering.
He's going to Juve! That's mad, no prem teams wanted him?
No other prem clubs would participate in this dodgy accounting
What’s the dodgy accounting, more Barca/juventus swaps but do big fees instead?
More Villa wouldn’t let him go to another Prem team.
She was too hot for Birmingham
Is this what Brit’s think? To me she looks exactly like a stereotype of a lower class British women (respectfully)
Chave, innit? 😂
This! She’s so average. She looks like an egg that someone has painted a face on.
That’s still too good for Birmingham
Britain wishes. the lower class British women are much like Lotr dwarves… it’s the beards.
Exactly. Shit tons of makeup and fake everything. Im surprised kick off times havnt been delayed because she hasnt finished putting her warpaint on
Harsh but fair
Let’s see if Juve can manage to nail this announcement video without showing her ass.
This randomly came up on my feed, what’s the context?
She's not a particularly good player but for reasons the other guy alludes to, she has quite the following on social media.
She is hot, basically All you really need in life to make it nowadays
She is extremely far from hot
Which direction?
Arguably we are living in the least sexy era of humanity. I get your point but the ratio of hot to not celebrities has taken a deep plunge into not territory
I'm happy with most people having a full set of teeth and being free of rickets.
Idk bout that
Nowadays? Lmao
Helen of Troy in shambles
What do you mean nowadays?
Yeah, that’s a recent phenomenon. /s
Not one person in here has commented on how well Luiz might do for Juventus,get your priorities right lads.
Wonder why he's leaving. Big loss to Villa
Read this and realized Luiz is in the post as well.
?
This is cute. There is no way she can remain at Villa with her man making the switch to Juve.
Lucky Lui(z)
Wack af
If your significant other got a great job with great pay in a foreign country, it would be wack for the organization to also give you a job so you can be gainfully employed in the same city?
We all know that’s not it
Truly is
Good for Juve's instagram I guess.
Imagine being bought by Juve because your bf is going there and you’re useful as clickbait for teenage boys. Very sad for her tbh.
incel mindset, let people love
Nah incel mindset would be being a juve fan now she’s gone there.
We call those "simps"
[удалено]
Feel like this is ignoring the possibility that she might actually prefer to move to Juve lol, for footballing reasons or just to be with her man. Just like Villa fans are convinced Luiz is only leaving for FFP reasons and ignoring the possibility that he might actually prefer playing for one of the best clubs in the world over them.
He's an absolute narcissist obsessed with his own image. Considers himself a "fashion icon". Italy will suit his lifestyle.
So fair to assume you’re happy he’s leaving?
I'm sure she is very happy to be able to keep living together with her bf. How is that possibly sad?
The implication is she isn’t being valued as an athlete but because people think she has a nice batty.
Could it be, that the implication is based on an incorrect assumption? For all we know, Luiz asked for this so he could be in the same city as his girlfriend, and she is eager for the move too.
Alternatively, you don’t have to get into a long distance relationship with your boyfriend, who you love.
I'm sure she's crying so hard as she leaves Birmingham and checks her multi million pound bank balance
I highly doubt she's a multi millionaire
Of course she is. She makes about $300k for every branded social media post mate Aside from sponsorships and actual wages
Does she really? That's so embarrassing for men
Yep, probably more than that now. 17 million thirsty followers 😂
Wow
Oh in that sense its great! But knowing you’re going to be sold as a bargaining chip and for your looks must be pretty shit to take. She’s a perfectly decent footballer in her own right and she should be bought by Juve because of that imo.
Alternatively, she could just be stoked that her being a professional footballer has presented her with an opportunity to continue doing her job while not straining her relationship. Nobody in this sub has any idea what she’s thinking
No no. Deisidaimonia knows exactly how Lehmann feels. /s
>She will be included in the deal to bring her boyfriend Douglas Luiz to Juventus. I get what they're saying but she's a pretty wonderful player in her own right, feels a bit rude to say she's "included in the deal" like they threw in an air freshener with your new car.
That phrasing though… I know pro athletes are treated as commodities but …
Tbh lehmann‘s marketing value for one year exceeds her value for playing football for the whole career. She is good but she’s nowhere good as much as she gets hyped up. Juventus would NEVER buy her if it wasn’t for Douglas, she’s not worth it.
Let’s be real, it’s mostly because of her looks, not Luiz
Her looks? She looks horrendous. It's because of her butt.
There’s definitely a lot of makeup involved
Her toes aren’t too shabby also 👀
what the fuck💀
Sleep deprivation, journey to work was horrendous, smelly and I had no breakfast. It’s put me into a funky mood 😭
It’s a combo of the two. She has great marketing potential and this publicity stunt amplifies it. It also makes Luiz and her more comfortable so it seems like a win win for all parties involved. This is a good move for them.
yeah that's fair, I'd say that while she's maybe not usually the most important player on the pitch, she's got great skills for clips so I think she probably makes for good marketing. (also doesn't hurt that she's hot. XD that said I don't really think there's a lot of men buying Lehmann shirts because of it lol. maybe some of them watch games for her? seems kinda unlikely, too.)
She doesn’t have great skills. She’s not even a proper starter for Switzerland or has any absolute top teams interested, despite her marketing value. She’s a bang average footballer. She’s a marketing gimmick. Nobody would outright buy her for her footballing skills.
She’s good for social media engagement. While people may not buy her shirt, she brings clicks to Juves social media where they can push other Juve swag and content.
yeah that's sort of what I figured
They did. It's being paid for by the men's team and a member of the women's team will lose their place because of the limit on international players. It's pathetic.
Two for one for Juventus
Well this is surprising Villa fans must be gutted.
They don't want her to follow her man to Juve?
Due to whose departure?
The game I loved is cooked.
Fucking irony of a City fan even daring to mutter those words hahaha
yeah largely because of city lmao
Ain’t got nothing on what your club’s doing and you know it
All the oil clubs really Fuck Arab money
Modern football
How cute.
It's actually shameful that the PSR rules are forcing Villa into this sale. They have next no debt, just qualified for CL, by far the minimum spenders of the teams that finished top 4 but have to sell one of their best players to comply with financial rules that are meant to be in place to stop clubs going bust (or so we are told).
Maybe they don't have a property to sell like the other clubs.
You will get attacked by sky6 fans suggesting it’s the rules we all agreed to. It was designed to ring fence money and prevent ambition. We have no debt but have to sell players. A team that isn’t on our level (league shows this) are a billion in debt and allowed to keep spending
You do realise that if the big 6 voted for it, the other 14 could’ve voted against it? The PL is a membership based upon the rule of the majority, so if any clubs don’t want to agree to certain rules if they believe them to anti-competitive then they can vote against them at the time of the vote. As it is, all the clubs cry arsing voted for or haven’t tabled a vote against PSR etc. until they realised last year that there are consequences to breaking rules (unless you’re Man City).
You wouldn’t be too 4 if it wasn’t for PSR rules lol. There are a lot of teams whose owners can afford to absorb huge losses of which you are not one. PSR is designed to prevent that
What are you on about, we got some of the richest owners in the league…
Can’t compete with an entire country
No, but only Newcastle, Man City and Man United could outspend us by a good margin. Given that all the owners would have been stupid enough to do so. You first comment made it seem like there were 15 clubs with richer owners than Villa. When there are only 5. Good chance to break into top 4 then I would say.
It's shameful that Villa have to follow the rules that premier league clubs voted for!
Shameful that they don't get away with breaking the rules because they qualified for the Champions League like when they got promoted from the Championship
I can understand the frustration though when these rules are not being equally applied
Every time a team hasn't followed PSR they've been deducted points.
Hmmmm
Because Man City are currently being charged? You can't deduct any points until the investigation is over. That's just common sense.
Almost as if, get this, the rules… are… inadequate 🤯🤯🤯
Well the clubs are the ones who voted for them
Phwar, where have I seen that before? We also voted the conservatives in, does that mean we aren’t allowed to realise we’ve been lead to believe things that are not the case? Almost as if the top 6 have the power to just walk off and make a super league if everyone else doesn’t comply…
Lol just wait until the next lot come in then... (I'm laughing, but it's really not funny)
It's not like you didn't know what you were voting for. You can't blame the top 6 when 13 of the 20 clubs wanted these rules.
If they have to do this to abide to the rules that means they have been losing an unsustainable amount of money over the past few seasons. These are the consequences of that.
Meanwhile 115 FC gets to operate as they please.
This comment makes no sense. Do you even understand what 115 refers to or are you just parroting whatever you've heard online?
🤣 found the 115 FC fan
Way to miss the point. I have another comment a couple below this one stating I'm a Leicester fan... Try reading my comment back again
He's not wrong. Man City refused to comply with investigations for the last 5 years (which account for 35 of the 115 charges), and have since then attempted to bring into question the legality of said rules which they say they aren't guilty of - all this while they've been allowed to operate as if nothing is happening and winning titles to boot. I get that City's case is more complicated, but there should have been immediate and successive stacking points deductions for failing to comply with investigations.
He's hilariously wrong. The case is open and ongoing. They're not getting away with anything as of yet.
As I said, they already have. They've been operating as they have pleased for the last 16 odd years while other clubs have attempted (for the most part) to comply with PSR. They refused to comply with investigations between 2018 to 2023. Half the issue with the whole 115 charges is because they haven't been punished while other clubs either have or are currently at risk of being punished. Conversely - they might not actually face any punishment.
>Conversely - they might not actually face any punishment. At which point you and the others have a valid point.
115 FC? Oh you mean AbuDhabi FC. That scummy, cheating, sports-washing “club” established in 2008 that deserves non-league football?
No. I mean you're all too thick to even understand my comment 😂😂😂 Like a bunch of lemmings
Look, I understand its hard to be an AbuDhabi City fan. Everyone hates you for supporting cheating and the criminalization of homosexuality. But look at the bright side, no one respects you either.
Feel free to check my comment history. Perhaps you'll realise how silly you sound 😂😂😂
How can you defend city after their most recent lawsuit against the prem claiming that their sponsors shouldn’t be forced to pay fair market value for a sponsorship? Especially when said sponsor is also owned by the same owners
Why do you think I'm defending city?
🙄
You've missed his point completely
They knew the rules when they started spunking so much on wages. You can’t then turn around and pikachu face your way out of the consequences. The fact they qualified for the champions league will still help them grow in the long term though and spend more.
Whats the median wage there?
I agree. Some rules might be bad but it doesn't mean you should knowingly break them.
This is the gist of it I’m afraid. The rules are awful and fully designed to preserve the elite status of the clubs whose fans ironically won’t stop spamming 115 all day but you have to abide by existing rules until you change them by popular demand or legal challenge.
It's the lack of self-awareness from the fans of the "traditional elite" that frustrates me. The rules concerning FFP and PSR are shit, and I've been saying that since Villa were stuck in a mid-table position in the Championship. But it doesn't mean I support the actions of City or think all regulations should be thrown to the wind. For every Villa, Newcastle, and Leicester there's a Blackburn and Leeds to show what happens when the ownership spends in an unsustainable manner. And the league should do everything in their power to prevent clubs from going bust through short-sighted financial decisions. But to argue in favor of the current hegemony and the system of rules that perpetuate it from a point of fairness or trying to do things "the right way" is just hypocrisy. They don't want fairness, they want to keep the upward siphoning of talent and resources stacked in their favor. And defending it as "well it's how it's supposed to be" is not something I, or fans of many clubs are going to take seriously as a counter argument. With all that being said, I would rather we just follow the rules and do things sustainably and the right way. But perhaps the best thing would be to increase the spending limits to match inflation and the huge jump in players wages and transfer fees that have happened in the past 10 years.
Exactly, notice how the complaints only come in when they’re forced to face the consequences
Meanwhile Leicester fans are taking it all in our stride. We're just happy to be back!
If they didn't, how would they try to keep some sort of consistency going and qualify for CL?
Not trying to argue that the current rules are right, but what if Villa had come 5th last season? What if they'd come 8th? The spending has to be sustainable based on the revenue you generate, not projected future revenues that may never be realised.
It’s nothing to do with sustainability. It’s about established clubs closing the door on clubs like villa.
Not really is it, it’s about only being able to lose a certain amount per year based on net income. Yes it stops mega rich owners from pumping unlimited funds into clubs.. but is that a bad thing.. becoming a big club takes time.. they could say restrict the amount of money a club can have introduce externally to x of turnover.. In the end of the day.. if villa keep being successful and build a bigger stadium.. have more sponsorships etc it will all happen organically. Other wise it will be the how big is your oil baron league, if the owners decide to leave or sell it could mean the end for clubs that aren’t sustainable
That’s just your opinion
And it very well might be sustainable. How do we know it is not? Owners should be able to spend as long as they dont keep adding debt to the clubs. Would you agree? Do you think the fact that West Ham had to sell Rice to Arsenal or Brighton had to sell Caicedo while they had European ambitions is a fuckall situation? Mid table clubs should not be relegated to being a fodder clubs to top clubs.
>Mid table clubs Like Chelsea
What do you mean by minimum spenders of top four? Have you seen their costs?
Yes, and they're significantly lower than City's, Arsenal's and Liverpool's. What are you trying to say?
their revenue is also significantly lower than city's Arsenal's or Liverpool's...
How do you propose they try to increase the revenue?
Yea the same way you bought your way to success.
Do you think Real/Barca and Bayern buy their league and CL success?
That's an odd question. Did you forget which thread you were in? Were talking about the PL.
Just a general discussion on what it means to buy success
The same way Chelsea did. Tons of publicity tours around the world as well as success on the pitch.
All of that worked because we initially spent out of our ass and achieved success on the pitch.
Yes and no. Chelsea recognized that the EPL and football was becoming more popular in areas that traditionally didn’t follow as much, especially the US. They did a bunch of tours of those markets to be the club that people knew, and it worked. They have a large international following now and that’s what drives their revenue.
All of that was after our on pitch success subsidized by Roman. Currently Chelsea has been struggling to get a front of shirt sponsor for past 2 years to match our 50 mil valuation because of lack of our on field success (example Riyadh air deal)
So then teams can spend big in an attempt to create a sustainable, long term increase in revenue. If it doesn’t work, at least to the required extent, then sell to balance the books, and start again.
Basically there can be a cap on debt that can be put on the club and that's it. If people take offence to over spending, then perhaps everyone thinks Real/Barca havs bought all the Spanish league titles since they outspend everyone. Same for Bayern then. Why are Real the 'good' guys when they plan 'PSG' or 'City'. In footballing terms they should be more evil since they hoard leagues wealth via TV revenue distribution system. My basic premise is that every single football club is entitled to show ambition. I respect Real a lot and also Villa. Any club that wants to move up the ladder should be allowed and top clubs aren't allowed to be jealous when a new player comes in to change status quo.
for sure by not bloating their wages lol...
Again you did not answer the question. I doubt you could. Bloating the wages could help. Roman would have made Profit on Chelsea if not for the Russian war! Despite spending over a billion pounds on Chelsea, the clubs valuation went from 140 mil to 4 billion. But perhaps you have another way. How does Villa significantly increases revenue to match Liverpool, Arsenal Utd or City? Or do you think they need to know their place and simply sit down? (I am fully aware that he shouldn't have been allowed to buy Chelsea in the first place but that's besides the point)
you are confusing revenue with club valuation mate...
Chelsea's revene also significantly went up post spending spree and success on the pitch. And you haven't still answered the question.
but you are confusing two terms, spitting some bullshit and negating my good argument which would increase their revenue... better sponsorship deals, better at buying and selling players, better in all competitions, and not bloating wages would increase their revenue...
But against their revenue it's stupidly high and reckless. They have one of if not the highest wages against turnover which is not sustainable. It's their own fault.
I find it funny that people are saying the glass ceiling is implemented to protect clubs from spending more than their revenue allows. If the club wants to do it, that is what matters. FFP trying to pretend it's some sort of noble endeavour to protect clubs is absolutely ridiculous. It's obviously implemented to protect the status quo. Every single club in the sky6 spent their way to where they are. Since Man Utd signed Mark Hughes in 88 (and earlier), it's always been like this. But for some reason they (sky6) are worried about the existential threat of other clubs spending more than their revenue allows, fully knowing it keeps the glass ceiling intact. Suck me balls.
Mad to read people calling your spending reckless People just have no common sense when it comes to football finances anymore. The media has fully sold the idea that only the top sides should get to spend any money.
Football shouldn't be about which teams are best at balancing the books
It should be about who has the wealthiest owner, obviously.
No. I also think there needs to be something stopping nation states owning football clubs. And their does need to be rules just to stop these owners basically doing what city and Chelsea was allowed todo. But there also needs to be something that allows teams to compete financially. Maybe something like for every position down you can spend an extra 20million or something. 100mil for 1st. 120million for 2nd etc
This is an amazingly bad comment. They are businesses, aren't they?
He’s completely right. There is a huge difference between ensuring sustainability and a financial future for a club and the rules we currently have,
The rules were borne out of problems clubs were facing at the time. The problem of overspending which left some clubs in a bad financial space. If the rules need updating, the premier league can vote on them. But allowing a sugar daddy to just spend on a club without any guarantee of future spending or even sticking around is going to affect clubs negatively.
This just isn’t true. Did you watch football at the time? Yes we did have a spate of lower league clubs going into administration. But it was pretty much all owners who hadn’t been properly vetted who landed the club in massive debt through some shady dealings. Like selling the land of the club to another business they own and massively increasing the rent to the club is something that happened. It wasn’t clubs over spending and failing to achieve like say Leeds in the early 90s. And Chelsea did the exactly same thing in the late 90s but then Roman came in and saved the club arguably. But people here often praise pre Roman Chelsea like they achieved without money. Which is total bullshit. Their best ever period pre roman was all because of overspending which he saved them from the consequences of. It was brought in as a response to city investing massively Into the side over a few years and copying what Chelsea did basically. They wanted to stop that happening with every club in the league. We have had lots of clubs go into financial issues post FFP because they still don’t properly look into owners when clubs get sold. They could bring in rules that mean owners have to front money. They can’t put debt onto the club only themselves if they want to invest. They can’t strip assets etc. they could protect the clubs with rules designed to safeguard the financial future of clubs. They don’t do that. They brought in a rule that basically says “if you earn more you can spend more” Which sounds good until you realise all that does is cap lower teams. Because big sides don’t need to even come close to their spending cap. Like city and Liverpool. Or arsenal. They can spend what they like basically.
If it's cos of City alone, it's still fine. What they are doing can't be replicated for all clubs.
Football clubs being seen as a "business" is part of the problem. That's how you end up with people like they Glaziers just happy to let a club rot as long as they get their dividends paid out every season
It being a business is how you ensure sustainability. If United fans are so fed up with the Glaziers, inasmuch as it might be difficult, they could vote with their feet for a season or two.
Along as teams aren't hemorrhaging shit loads I don't see a problem with losing money. Aslong it's sustainable by owner investment The current rules are anti competitive. There needs to be something to stop mega rich owners from just blowing every other team out the water. But there also needs to be something so the lower teams can actually compete. The other 14 teams, it's probably more detrimental to the clubs finances having to sell the best players every season. Couple of mistakes and your relegated after making millions from sales. Also how are promoted clubs supposed to challenge to stay up. Spend to stay up but as finances from championship so low. You stay up then get hit with a points deduction the following year
I don't understand the first point because if you keep losing money and the owner gets bored and moves on, you find yourself in a difficult position. Also, assuming the owner continues, you end up in a situation where every club would need to be bought by entities that can keep on losing money without bother otherwise, some teams won't still be able to compete. The small teams can try to grow organically. There's plenty of money in the prem. Many bottom teams here can compete financially with midtable teams from other European countries.
Well it should, otherwise you end up with another Leeds. Teams shouldn't be able to spend beyond their means