• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Totally Unofficial 2021/22 Premier League Thread (NWT)

I was listening to the football show this morning on Sirius XM and they were discussing how European and EU labor and business law is the reason you'll never really see an American style salary cap structure in European soccer. It's basically just illegal and too difficult to force each country into a single agreement so if say the premier league tried some type of base level salary cap to even the playing field, players would just move to Italy and Spain.
 
dcnelso said:
I was listening to the football show this morning on Sirius XM and they were discussing how European and EU labor and business law is the reason you'll never really see an American style salary cap structure in European soccer. It's basically just illegal and too difficult to force each country into a single agreement so if say the premier league tried some type of base level salary cap to even the playing field, players would just move to Italy and Spain.
Click to expand...

I wonder how FFP, as bogus as it is, plays into such laws?
 
BTB said:
I'm not making the argument for or against punishment. I'm simply noting that it's not at all surprising that big businesses are run like big businesses by business people focused on enriching themselves and their investors. While Brasky feels it gives him the moral high ground to support a club that didn't join the super league, my view is that as fans, we don't have to answer for the actions of owners we didn't select and have no control over.

I imagine we would all (or at least most) support the 50% plus 1 model. It is almost certainly a big part of why Bayern and Dortmund were not part of the initial announcement. But that's not likely to happen and the games will continue. Am I really supposed to put aside my interest in the team and players that play the game I love because the owners are who we all knew they are? Of course not.
Click to expand...

Yes you do. And this is a bigger conversation, but the absolution people feel from the sins of their teams/employers/religion/governments/etc is one of the biggest problems our society faces.

If you work for a company who's business model ruins the lives of others, then you are complicit in their sins. The spreadsheets you submit may seem inconsequential, but they contribute to the actions of the company.

If you support a sports team who's predatory owners wide their ass with the tradition of the sport you claim to love, and you continue to spend money which enriches those owners, then you are complicit. You are supporting their behavior.

I'm not saying you have to stop supporting your club, but you should be vocal in forcing change. Stop spending money that directly benefits them, send an email or engage with the club via social media. Do not take up this attitude that your sports fandom is not connected to the owners of your team. Because they are. You prop them up.
 
I'd love to hear some rebuttals to this thread on Twitter:

@AnnieEaves





Many fans so preachy about points deductions cheered on the Glazers for years whilst Manchester United supporters battled away. They mocked and laughed as the Glazers brought trouble... or made no attempt to understand.

Then when greed threatened wider football, including their clubs, they found their outrage instead of mockery... and were joined by United fans, who helped stop it.

Now they giddily salivate for points sanctions, many of them because they’ve remembered the rivalry which made them so thrilled about the Glazers restricting Manchester United in the first place. Save me your morality.
 
BillBrasky said:
Yes you do. And this is a bigger conversation, but the absolution people feel from the sins of their teams/employers/religion/governments/etc is one of the biggest problems our society faces.

If you work for a company who's business model ruins the lives of others, then you are complicit in their sins. The spreadsheets you submit may seem inconsequential, but they contribute to the actions of the company.

If you support a sports team who's predatory owners wide their ass with the tradition of the sport you claim to love, and you continue to spend money which enriches those owners, then you are complicit. You are supporting their behavior.

I'm not saying you have to stop supporting your club, but you should be vocal in forcing change. Stop spending money that directly benefits them, send an email or engage with the club via social media. Do not take up this attitude that your sports fandom is not connected to the owners of your team. Because they are. You prop them up.
Click to expand...

this is a fair argument for backing way off from sports fandom tbh

one example - https://www.npr.org/2021/02/27/9720...ant-workers-have-died-in-qatars-world-cup-pre
 
dv7, I honestly can't remember: how did the Glazers buy United if they had to leverage the club in such a manner? Why wasn't it stopped?
 
siff said:
dv7, I honestly can't remember: how did the Glazers buy United if they had to leverage the club in such a manner? Why wasn't it stopped?
Click to expand...

the Glazer family took out loans from among other "investors" JP MORGAN (Ed Woodward worked there and with the Glazers on this at the time, so I have no doubt that snake was leading the ESL this week until it collapsed and he announced his resignation) to buy stocks and the loans were secured by the value of Manchester United

Then once the Glazers bought enough shares to effectively own the club they threw all the debt of their private entity "Red Football" onto Manchester United, a club that had not been in debt since pre-World War II

Since then they've done the financial shell game tactics of reorganizing debt, but always keeping the club the one of the hook for the debt and not themselves.

And for their trouble they take out divided payments of multiple millions each year for each kid (there are 5 of the little parasitic bastards).
 
Last edited:
deacvision7 said:
the Glazer family took out loans from among other "investors" JP MORGAN (Ed Woodward worked there and with the Glazers on this at the time, so I have no doubt that snake was leading the ESL this week until it collapsed and he announced his resignation) to buy stocks and the loans were secured by the value of Manchester United

Then once the Glazers bought enough shares to effectively own the club they threw all the debt of their private entity "Red Football" onto Manchester United, a club that had not been in debt since pre-World War II

Since then they've done the financial shell game tactics of reorganizing debt, but always keeping the club the one of the hook for the debt and not themselves.

And for their trouble they take out divided payments of multiple millions each year for each kid (there are 5 of the little parasitic bastards).
Click to expand...

Thanks. Are the Premier League members required to sign off on club sales? the EFL? Even in Franchise Heaven, the NFL, members have to approve transfers in ownership.
 
deacvision7 said:
the Glazer family took out loans from among other "investors" JP MORGAN (Ed Woodward worked there and with the Glazers on this at the time, so I have no doubt that snake was leading the ESL this week until it collapsed and he announced his resignation) to buy stocks and the loans were secured by the value of Manchester United

Then once the Glazers bought enough shares to effectively own the club they threw all the debt of their private entity "Red Football" onto Manchester United, a club that had not been in debt since pre-World War II

Since then they've done the financial shell game tactics of reorganizing debt, but always keeping the club the one of the hook for the debt and not themselves.

And for their trouble they take out divided payments of multiple millions each year for each kid (there are 5 of the little parasitic bastards).
Click to expand...

This is a good summary of the situation a lot of clubs have found themselves in with awful owners.

An extended metaphor I've been using is comparing this "crisis" to the 2008 financial crisis, wherein money was exceptionally cheap and bad banks lent bad money, started doing some second order bad things like credit default swaps and mortgage backed securities on the back of those first order bad mortgages and loans, and it wasn't any one precipitating event that brought the house of cards down, just a bubble that eventually had to burst.

These bad owners who use clubs to service their debts can blame COVID all they want, but look at the way the clubs operations and finances are actually run, it's all a huge mess.

And to suggest that a cabal of billionaires who would try and circumvent market regulations further and establish their own privately funded and managed league is somehow Marxist, rather than the very definition of a neoliberal (read: market isn't the problem, it's how we operate in it, and if we just tweak things socially or culturally or economically a little, we can still continue to extract profits endlessly) bandaid on an underregulated market is just WILD to me. DeacMan has long been one of our dumber posters, but this most recent take has to take the cake. Flabbergasting stuff.
 
TownieDeac said:
This is a good summary of the situation a lot of clubs have found themselves in with awful owners.

An extended metaphor I've been using is comparing this "crisis" to the 2008 financial crisis, wherein money was exceptionally cheap and bad banks lent bad money, started doing some second order bad things like credit default swaps and mortgage backed securities on the back of those first order bad mortgages and loans, and it wasn't any one precipitating event that brought the house of cards down, just a bubble that eventually had to burst.

These bad owners who use clubs to service their debts can blame COVID all they want, but look at the way the clubs operations and finances are actually run, it's all a huge mess.

And to suggest that a cabal of billionaires who would try and circumvent market regulations further and establish their own privately funded and managed league is somehow Marxist, rather than the very definition of a neoliberal (read: market isn't the problem, it's how we operate in it, and if we just tweak things socially or culturally or economically a little, we can still continue to extract profits endlessly) bandaid on an underregulated market is just WILD to me. DeacMan has long been one of our dumber posters, but this most recent take has to take the cake. Flabbergasting stuff.
Click to expand...

Exactly, but - and, admittedly, this is above my pay grade - they seem to be guilty of financial behavior that has devastated (and dissolved) other clubs.
 
The end game of capitalism is monopoly and oligarchy. That’s exactly what the Super League is.
 
BillBrasky said:
The end game of capitalism is monopoly and oligarchy. That’s exactly what the Super League is.
Click to expand...
Meh

I'm far from a full fledged capitalist but this is overly simplistic and as basic as saying "the USofA ain't no socialist country, buddy!"
 
You can change your shoes, hairstyle, clothes, car, religion, musical taste, nationality, and even spouse; but you can never EVER change your football club.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top