@michael54625373@SamBrow74823937@Sjopinion10 Yeah we’re already in that situation mate 😂 just take a look at our net spends for the last 10 years against teams we’re expected to compete against, without Klopp and relying on signings we made before covid, not much would’ve been won.
@SamBrow74823937@Sjopinion10 I remember when Simon used to bemoan people wanting to lose even more money than they are (“what business bases itself on how much money they lose”) - he’s changed his tune in the last couple years, maybe after a few nice lunches.
@chrisw333@KieranMaguire@Iziein Yeah emphasis on somewhat 😂 but it’s at least linked to the club in some form. I also don’t like the loopholes clubs use selling assets to themselves, but again more restrictions not less to fix that happening.
@chrisw333@KieranMaguire@Iziein That same logic can be applied to your clubs ability to spend now, based on the money that’s earnt by the club. Ultimately you’d just prefer the same system but based on money that the owners have from other businesses/avenues. Atleast one is somewhat influenced by sporting merit
@chrisw333@KieranMaguire@Iziein Anchoring I agree with but even his suggestion is flawed - who are the top 3 clubs? Is it in terms of revenue? What if a team fudges the numbers only to be caught years later? What about teams owners who can’t afford to lose that - It’s still not an even playing field for them?
@chrisw333@KieranMaguire@Iziein If you want a level playing field, you’d need more restrictions not less. Say there’s a 200m difference in wealth between club an and b, but a 10 billion difference in owner wealth, allowing spend based on the latter will obviously create more disparity.
@DanielHensel01@Spurs_Optimist From a team sport perspective though (which football still is just about), all of them have restrictions on investment. If money flows into the game from outside of it, it just causes massive inflation.
@rwxjnr I’d argue that’s always been a possibility and reality in any given season over the last 30 years. But the last 15 years when rules have existed compared to the first 15 years, there’s been more competition for the top spots in the league.
@rwxjnr PSR was brought in 13 years ago though - for us to get to the point of competing and winning a league for the first time in 30 years we did have to take those risks vs a city team that could afford to buy and bench as many players as they wanted. Agreed that laziness crept in tho
@KieranMaguire@Iziein Investors/owners are not going to willingly put 100’s of millions in a 0% escrow account for their tenure of owning a club (as losses wouldn’t stop). And if they do go bankrupt as an owner, good luck smoothly getting that money.
@JamesPearceLFC@AndyNaylorBHAFC@David_Ornstein Let it never be forgotten just how much of a terrible job Richard Hughes has done at this club. Imagine if he got just 10% of the scrutiny legends of the club like Salah got from journos such as James.
@jdnufc_@tapintobs But they do - by proxy they can’t invest in players because they’re traded without fees, and a salary cap by definition is more restrictive than football’s wage structure…because it’s capped…which is a restriction.
@jdnufc_@tapintobs Your argument was no other business in the world restricts investment like football, I’m merely pointing out other sports have similar if not higher levels of restriction. American sports have more restrictions, and that produces more variety of winners. Restrictions = bad tho?
@LukeEdwardsTele The irony being you’re advocating for two completely different ends of the spectrum.
Fairness = more restrictions on spend, equally weighted.
Owners spending their personal wealth = the same ability for distortion club to club, but on much larger scales.
Which do you want?
@jdnufc_@tapintobs So how can American sports owners invest to grow their team if they’re hamstrung by salary caps and have a draft system? By investing in infrastructure, which premier league clubs can also do without any restrictions. So American sports are equally, if not more restricted than ⚽️