Premier League 2019-20 part II

[Chimaera]

There's no completely fair way to adjudicate the money for either system. You could go the La Liga route, and that means the rich continue to get rich. You could more equitably share the revenues, and that means that the lower tier sides in the top might overspend their means and end up in critical and financial jeopardy. There's an article floating around from a week or two ago, about how West Ham could basically be in serious trouble were they to go down financially. Now, West Ham isn't a small club. They have a massive (albeit not a good football experience), relatively new stadium. They have a big supporter base. They're in London. But they've also tried to spend like they're the 5th or 6th biggest team, while not seeing a return on many of their player investments. They've paid big wages, agent fees, whacked managers, etc. Yet, if they had invested better, maybe they could have sold a player or two for a profit. Maybe developed better youth talent moving through. Maybe not gone through a few of the managers.

They're not the only ones, other clubs down near the bottom (Villa is probably example 1B this season, with Fulham being example 1B last season) have spent heavily, probably unwisely, and they're going to pay for it.

The issue at hand with the EPL tv deal is less that it brings in more money equitably, it's more that they now have more competitors for the same talent pool. If there's a decent striker or two available from France that's looking to move to the EPL, now there are 4 or 5 clubs who can match the money, who can afford it. That means the club able to get it over the line probably is spending much more in wages than they used to need to spend. Teams are bidding against themselves and their direct competitors (with justification). I mean, take Haller or Joelinton. Who in their right mind would have spent 40-45 million pounds on either even 3 or 4 seasons ago? Now? Sure, they're expensive, but other clubs would have been in for them. Maybe not completely Joelinton, but someone would have been after them at some point. So you have teams paying way more than they probably should for players who probably aren't worth it (I think Haller's a decent player, but I think the money is ridiculous). Knowing if they don't go out and get a player or two, their direct rivals will do so. So, the success of the league is getting clubs in too deep.

 

[Chimaera]

I'm not saying it doesn't happen in NA sports. Subban has gotten monkey chants, and there has been plenty of reports in basketball, football, baseball, and soccer too. It's just less overt IMO. You don't see fanbases calling other fanbases antisemitic slurs or homophobic slurs, at least not nearly as much, where in Europe you can here the chants in games. It's the level of overtness that is the difference to me.

I mean, I think you see some of that more based upon the direct supporter to supporter rivalries. There's more tribalism that isn't as much the case. You sit next to fans of different teams in all American sports. In Europe, you're penned off. You're separated. Heck, before TV and following a club when they went away, supporters in Liverpool would go to whichever team was home. The Merseyside Derby used to let supporters sit wherever. Now? No chance.

If I go to a Caps game, I'm likely to see fans from whatever team they're playing. If I go to the NFL team in DC, I'm likely to see more opposing fans than locals. DC is transient, and the owner is awful, but it's just kinda how it is. So, it's hard to be too against an opposing fan, if I'm likely to sit next to them.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I mean, I think you see some of that more based upon the direct supporter to supporter rivalries. There's more tribalism that isn't as much the case. You sit next to fans of different teams in all American sports. In Europe, you're penned off. You're separated. Heck, before TV and following a club when they went away, supporters in Liverpool would go to whichever team was home. The Merseyside Derby used to let supporters sit wherever. Now? No chance.

If I go to a Caps game, I'm likely to see fans from whatever team they're playing. If I go to the NFL team in DC, I'm likely to see more opposing fans than locals. DC is transient, and the owner is awful, but it's just kinda how it is. So, it's hard to be too against an opposing fan, if I'm likely to sit next to them.

I'll take Blues/Blackhawks as an example. Most of the fans are fine, but in a lot of the games, you are bound to see drunken idiots on each side start a fight with each other. You don't hear fans chanting slurs at them though.

At a Chiefs/Patriots game in KC, my wife prior to meeting her and her female friend who are both Patriots game, were getting heckled pretty bad by drunken idiots to the point where they don't really have interest in going back. It was the game where the Chiefs won and everyone wondered if that was the start of Brady's downfall a few years ago. I would characterize NA sports fans as much more in that drunken idiot group, where the problems in Europe seem a bit different, but maybe that's just because of how the media frames it.

 

[Chimaera]

Oh, there are still plenty of drunken idiots in Europe. Some of the stuff happening with the racism and the bigotry is definitely encouraged by alcohol.

Sure, there's dumb stuff said at sports here in the US. I've definitely had stuff said to me when I've been to games in Pittsburgh or Philly. I've even see some people get a beer tossed at them. But I've also never really felt completely unsafe either. It's a weird situation.

 

[Havre]

Clubs making poor decisions isn't a reason to change the system. La Liga is in my opinion ruined. The PL isn't perfect, but you got a lot better shot at doing a Leicester or actually having 5-6 teams that could realistically win the league over a 10 year period. Part of the reason is because you don't have the silly system they got in Spain (aren't they changing it to be more like the PL?). Obviously more to it in Spain- Madrid vs Catalonia etc.

Also when you go down in England you still get some extra money for a period to make sure clubs are in a better position to phase out contracts etc. that are not sustainable in the Championship.

I wish CL money would be distributed to all teams in the league the money stems from. Then you wouldn't get the socialist system that I don't like in the NHL, but you would get even more competitive leagues while at the same time incentivising clubs to build up commercial revenue etc.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Clubs making poor decisions isn't a reason to change the system. La Liga is in my opinion ruined. The PL isn't perfect, but you got a lot better shot at doing a Leicester or actually having 5-6 teams that could realistically win the league over a 10 year period. Part of the reason is because you don't have the silly system they got in Spain (aren't they changing it to be more like the PL?). Obviously more to it in Spain- Madrid vs Catalonia etc.

Also when you go down in England you still get some extra money for a period to make sure clubs are in a better position to phase out contracts etc. that are not sustainable in the Championship.

I wish CL money would be distributed to all teams in the league the money stems from. Then you wouldn't get the socialist system that I don't like in the NHL, but you would get even more competitive leagues while at the same time incentivising clubs to build up commercial revenue etc.

I always find it funny that in NA sports, it's much more of a socialist system in terms of revenue sharing and salary cap, and in Europe it's much more of the laissez-faire capitalism system.

 

[robertmac43]

I also don't know what clubs are expected to do when some of these incidents occur outside of the stadium. You can't really control that behavior, you can't enforce the racism out of someone.

This is where educating fans should become more of a priory. The prem is partnered with 'kick it out' I believe, but I don't know what that entails other than the teams wearing shirts that say no to racism every now and again. About Us

 

[bleedblue1223]

This is where educating fans should become more of a priory. The prem is partnered with 'kick it out' I believe, but I don't know what that entails other than the teams wearing shirts that say no to racism every now and again. About Us

Yes, but it's way too big of an issue for sports clubs to solve. I think they have a part to play, but it should be a pretty minor part. I don't see a racist changing his opinion because of an initiative by a sports club. I think the clubs should do it to promote the culture that they want for the club though.

I think for some of these initiatives, the people in charge just sort of pat themselves on the back for doing something good, but in reality, they aren't really doing much. Maybe I'm just too much of a cynic though.

 

[Havre]

I always find it funny that in NA sports, it's much more of a socialist system in terms of revenue sharing and salary cap, and in Europe it's much more of the laissez-faire capitalism system.

Yeah. It is odd. Even if "socialism" in "Europe" (Europe hardly got one system of anything) is very often misunderstood in NA.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Yeah. It is odd. Even if "socialism" in "Europe" (Europe hardly got one system of anything) is very often misunderstood in NA.

No, I agree, just how I wouldn't say the States are laissez-faire, I wouldn't characterize Europe as socialist. Europe just leans more towards the socialism spectrum than the States, but in sports economics, they flip.

 

[robertmac43]

Oh, there are still plenty of drunken idiots in Europe. Some of the stuff happening with the racism and the bigotry is definitely encouraged by alcohol.

Encouraged yes, but it's still a deeper societal issue for most areas of the world. It seems sports is just a place fans believe they can vent and get away with lashing out some of the beliefs they closet in every day society. The drunkenness encourages them but it's no excuse for the behaviors (not that you were insinuating that it was).

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

I think it's hilarious that apparently the one reason to justify a totalitarian state is making sure millionaire footballers don't have to hear a handful of fools say stupid stuff. Not terrorism, not rampant drug trafficking or corruption, nope, 5 louts making monkey sounds.

Neither England nor Bulgaria nor Croatia nor Hungary or Italy can stop people from opening their mouths in whichever way they want in a massive public event attended by many thousands of people short of applying the type of crowd control that would turn stadiums into concentration camps.

It's an unpleasant reality that things happen we don't want to happen, people believe things you don't like, people say things you find offensive. It's neither the end of the world nor a reason to question everything or slander entire countries.

 

[Chimaera]

It’s less about the incident occurring. It’s more the head in the sand result.

It’s hard for everyone involved to take real ownership of responsibility to correct the problems.

Clubs need to do more to police it, but so do supporters. Education at the youth level is critical, but supporters need to turn in bad fans.

 

[Jersey Fresh]

I'd love to read this article about West Ham being "in trouble" if they get relegated. They're top 20 in global revenue and they have plenty of assets to offload. Think they'd manage just fine.

If the Davids f*cked off even better.

 

[Chimaera]

West Ham accounts describe Premier League survival as a financial ‘necessity’

Not much more reliable than the Guardian.

 

[Jersey Fresh]

There's a canyon wide difference between your assertion that they would "basically be in serious trouble" (an ominous, but ultimately meaningless phrase) and that article. Kind of seems like you just read the headline and walked away.

"Relegation from the Premier League is the greatest threat to West Ham’s financial wellbeing, according to accounts..." - Uhhhh, yeah? Losing that broadcast revenue is a kick in the balls.

"...and maintaining access to the broadcasting money available to Premier League sides is “an absolute necessity for the future wellbeing of the club” - Yes, any sustained period in the Championship would decimate the books. Going down and popping back up the PL is hardly a death knell (which by the way, already happened in 2011 when the club were in wayyyy worse financial condition). There are plenty of assets in the squad right now that would return good money, and those parachute payments soften the blow.

"The report adds that “the group’s principal risk remains that of the football club being relegated … with the serious financial consequences which follow” - Yes, there are serious financial consequences to getting relegated. And no, West Ham would not be in "serious trouble".

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

Everyone desperate for the games to come back eh lol.

 

[Jussi]

NENT Group (Viasat channels) signed a new extension for the rights to the Nordic countries for 2022-2028. According to The Athletic, they paid two billion euros.

 

[Chimaera]

There's a canyon wide difference between your assertion that they would "basically be in serious trouble" (an ominous, but ultimately meaningless phrase) and that article. Kind of seems like you just read the headline and walked away.

"Relegation from the Premier League is the greatest threat to West Ham’s financial wellbeing, according to accounts..." - Uhhhh, yeah? Losing that broadcast revenue is a kick in the balls.

"...and maintaining access to the broadcasting money available to Premier League sides is “an absolute necessity for the future wellbeing of the club” - Yes, any sustained period in the Championship would decimate the books. Going down and popping back up the PL is hardly a death knell (which by the way, already happened in 2011 when the club were in wayyyy worse financial condition). There are plenty of assets in the squad right now that would return good money, and those parachute payments soften the blow.

"The report adds that “the group’s principal risk remains that of the football club being relegated … with the serious financial consequences which follow” - Yes, there are serious financial consequences to getting relegated. And no, West Ham would not be in "serious trouble".

You're really trying to argue semantics, more so than the key point. West Ham would be in financial trouble if they were to go down. If you want to argue over whether or not a 'threat' and financial trouble are vastly different things, I don't really have the time for you. Here's the basic question. Would they be in financial difficulty were they to go down? The answer is clearly yes. They've spent unwisely, have a high payroll and have a number of players who would leave if they were to go down. That turnover, and then reclaiming players to stay up if they did come back up would mean a massive problem. 2011's landscape is much different than 2020.

But the idea that you're trying to argue that there's a difference between consequences and trouble. Wow we're really grasping.

Could they recover? Sure, parachute payments and a large fan base would solve some of the problems in the short term. But considering the ownership is clearly questioning some of the spending, I think it's a bigger issue than you want to admit.

I think if anything, the statements from ownership lead towards the belief that they're upset where the money has gone, and feel the financial outlook needs to be adjusted. If they went down, that's going to make it even harder.

 

[maclean]

I think it's hilarious that apparently the one reason to justify a totalitarian state is making sure millionaire footballers don't have to hear a handful of fools say stupid stuff. Not terrorism, not rampant drug trafficking or corruption, nope, 5 louts making monkey sounds.

Neither England nor Bulgaria nor Croatia nor Hungary or Italy can stop people from opening their mouths in whichever way they want in a massive public event attended by many thousands of people short of applying the type of crowd control that would turn stadiums into concentration camps.

It's an unpleasant reality that things happen we don't want to happen, people believe things you don't like, people say things you find offensive. It's neither the end of the world nor a reason to question everything or slander entire countries.

Stadiums already are fairly prison-like. All the security checks making sure you don't even bring in a water bottle, security guards everywhere, then everyone has pyrotechnics anyways, makes racist chants anyways. I think this points to one of the main reasons the situation is so different than in NA - in NA sports is commercial, it is a product that you buy a ticket to and expect to follow the rules laid down by owners who you have no relationship to. In Europe clubs were originally formed as grass-roots organisations and though they have grown into behemoths, there is still a sense of ownership among the fans (in some cases even actual ownership). What this entails is that fans feel the right to act however they want in many situations - that no one should be able to dictate how they act. Coupled with the general racist attitudes among those powered by conglomerated testosterone and alcohol, there is no feeling that they should hold back, and in contrast a feeling that they all feel the same way. But it is also a society-wide thing. In the US if you started chanting something racist at a game, there's a much bigger chance you're going to get punched in the face or outed for it and lose your job say.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Billy Gilmour has been officially promoted to the senior squad for Chelsea.

 

[YNWA14]

Hendo getting the respect he deserves

 

[hatterson]

The replies to that are.....special.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Stadiums already are fairly prison-like. All the security checks making sure you don't even bring in a water bottle, security guards everywhere, then everyone has pyrotechnics anyways, makes racist chants anyways. I think this points to one of the main reasons the situation is so different than in NA - in NA sports is commercial, it is a product that you buy a ticket to and expect to follow the rules laid down by owners who you have no relationship to. In Europe clubs were originally formed as grass-roots organisations and though they have grown into behemoths, there is still a sense of ownership among the fans (in some cases even actual ownership). What this entails is that fans feel the right to act however they want in many situations - that no one should be able to dictate how they act. Coupled with the general racist attitudes among those powered by conglomerated testosterone and alcohol, there is no feeling that they should hold back, and in contrast a feeling that they all feel the same way. But it is also a society-wide thing. In the US if you started chanting something racist at a game, there's a much bigger chance you're going to get punched in the face or outed for it and lose your job say.

I think the main difference in America is that I attend a sporting event as an individual - maybe in the company of a few friends or family members but ultimately as a private party. Psychologically that means I will behave in a way that assumes a level of personal accountability which means shame and embarrassment set in fairly easily for most people with bourgeois habits. That also means it's fairly easy to hold me responsible - if security guards come into my area to remove me, they will typically not encounter any resistance. People will look on, they don't know me, they don't care about me.

In Europe, football support is a collective activity. Supporters groups have a level of cohesion somewhere between political movement and street gang. But even if you aren't part of such a group - the mere act of going into a ground and watching the game from a supporters' area (rather than say the main stand) has a way of making you part of a mob where your sense of personal responsibility is significantly diminished. There is a special energy and dynamism to crowds that act and understand themselves as such and it's very rare to see this in North American pro sports, but very common in European sports. Security guards would be foolish to enter supporters areas to remove a fan during the game. When they try, it's almost a given they will suffer in some form. More likely they will defer to cops in riot gear who themselves will only succeed if they use batons and pepper spray liberally. Fans know this and as a result there's less inhibition to acting in a completely debased fashion. Being a protected part of a mob is liberating, both in a good and bad way. It's part of what makes supporting such an adrenaline rush and thrill, but it also makes you something other than what you are in your normal life.

 

[Jersey Fresh]

You're really trying to argue semantics, more so than the key point. West Ham would be in financial trouble if they were to go down. If you want to argue over whether or not a 'threat' and financial trouble are vastly different things, I don't really have the time for you. Here's the basic question. Would they be in financial difficulty were they to go down? The answer is clearly yes. They've spent unwisely, have a high payroll and have a number of players who would leave if they were to go down. That turnover, and then reclaiming players to stay up if they did come back up would mean a massive problem. 2011's landscape is much different than 2020.

But the idea that you're trying to argue that there's a difference between consequences and trouble. Wow we're really grasping.

Could they recover? Sure, parachute payments and a large fan base would solve some of the problems in the short term. But considering the ownership is clearly questioning some of the spending, I think it's a bigger issue than you want to admit.

I think if anything, the statements from ownership lead towards the belief that they're upset where the money has gone, and feel the financial outlook needs to be adjusted. If they went down, that's going to make it even harder.

Again, the article you posted doesn't come close to making the assertion that you are. What does "financial difficulty" mean? Be specific. What does that look like? Financial *trouble* and "they're going to lose money" (i.e., consequences to relegation) ARE vastly different things and the connotations of the former, especially within the context of world football, have a lot more to do with a club's ability to recover than any short-term pain from relegation. West Ham's ability to bounce back up from the Championship is not the same as Wigan's. You allude to this yourself and then pivot to "ownership is clearly questioning some of the spending" as if the thing that logically follows from that is to not spend to get back up to the Premiership (which, again, is *exactly* what they did in 2011). When West Hams spends three consecutive years in the Championship we can talk about the long-term outlook of the club.

Had I known your point could be distilled down to "getting relegated means they're going to lose a lot of money", I'd have ignored you and moved on.

By the way, the biggest problem with West Ham spending poorly is the involvement of the owners themselves. If they left the spending to qualified football people instead of what David Sullivan's idiot son learned on Football Manager they'd be a lot better off. They should be "clearly questioning" themselves in the mirror.