Listen man, I don't know who's hurt you in the past, but if Perez can't financially bully one of the richest clubs in the world for their best player without this Super League, then #WeAreAllPerez.I just read Perez interview, I don't know if it's lost in translation, but a couple of contradictions.
The Super league was brought about by the Pandemic, we've been working on it for 3 years.
Signing Mbappe and Haaland is not possible without the super league, we might sign Mbappe this summer ( he does know he shouldn't talk like that about another teams player )
Rather than pressing on with his ideas becasue he cannot afford the big fee's, why doesn't he look into reducing these ridiculous fee's and wages. Should people be earning 500 grand a week for kicking a ball, especially if it puts the clubs into dept? You can't say that's market value if it's killng the clubs.
This idea that these clubs need more money to fix their problems is laughable. It's like discovering your pool has a leak and deciding that the best solution is to continually build bigger and bigger pumps to increase the flow of water in. These clubs can't continually find new revenue streams/supporters to fleece to out earn their drunken sailor style spending on players and wages. The 'super clubs' are the ones who created the very system that is now biting them in the ass.Fair play to those fans sounds like it was all done peacefully lets hope people keep this going and it doesn't lose momentum.
Perez is a clown you are bang on @Mr C this idea that football isn't sustainable you can't run a football clubs on a turnover over £700m a year is just madness. These clubs need a reality check business works both ways you need to control your costs and also look at sensible ways to increase your revenues. Constantly increasing prices can't continue has the pandemic finally burst the bubble. The transfer system is broken and has been for a long time the inflation since Neymar moved to PSG has been ridiculous and it needs bringing back in line with something more sustainable.
This idea that these clubs need more money to fix their problems is laughable. It's like discovering your pool has a leak and deciding that the best solution is to continually build bigger and bigger pumps to increase the flow of water in. These clubs can't continually find new revenue streams/supporters to fleece to out earn their drunken sailor style spending on players and wages. The 'super clubs' are the ones who created the very system that is now biting them in the ass.
List of Most Expensive Transfers
To your point, check out the difference between the market value and the transfer fees eventually paid (especially for Dembele). Insanity!
It's also a problem with the fans, @jsp * you have said on here you don't care about prices, we just need the players. So this attitude needs to change too.
The 120 odd million being quoted for Sancho last summer was crazy, and I'm glad we didn't pay it.
*Might not have been you, but you get the point.
Without being an expert on FFP, I believe under the current regulations a club cannot accrew a certain amount of debt over 5 years, which Barca would've/are going to fall foul of. Regardless, the FFP I am in favour of needs to stop the Barca style unsustainable spending and the Glazer style hostile/debt ridden takeover models. If, clubs can only spend a percentage of earnings on players, are banned from making payments to agents, and cannot go into debt except for capital projects such as stadium builds/renewals, new owners would be forced to invest in infrastructure at the club that would exist past their involvement. Don't forget, the Abu Dhabi group don't buy City if they weren't gifted the stadium and brokered a deal with Manchester city council.
If you abolish the current transfer system, then you end up with a US model of amateur drafts/trades with guaranteed contracts which will kill football. Take a club like Dortmund for example; they bought Sancho, Haaland, Bellingham for cheap, developed them and are set to cash in to the tune of 300m. They've taken the risk and allocated resources to further their improvement, why should their return on those players be capped at 50m if someone will pay twice that? There is money in football through TV deals and the like, and the only way unfashionable clubs get more than their share is by developing and selling players to those clubs who take in more than their share. That's the only way the money travels down the pyramid.
Take United for example. Would you be happy if we were only able to get 50m for Ronaldo? Or, only able to offer the same 50m for Kane/Haaland as everyone else despite selling 7-8 academy players for 10-15m each and therefore having an extra 100m available to spend over our rivals?
I'd be paying a bomb for a monthly subscription, when i want to actually watch a fraction of the games. I might watch the odd big game, but in general I'd find time for united, but no one else at my age.
So I'd rather a scheme where I can just pay to watch united.
The Man Utd website should host the games.
Could but highly unlikelySurely there has to be some sort of fine as a slap on the wrist from the powers that be in the case of the PL they’ve clearly broken one of the rules about entering non approved competitions.
If Juventus, Madrid and Barca don’t drop it soon UEFA could come down very tough on them.
Could but highly unlikely
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.