Disgacefull!

[whitestomper45]

It's a really difficult one, because how would you actually implement a 'rich PL supporting poor smaller clubs' rule? Give every club in the lower leagues a fixed amount? Have a 'bail out' fund? Either way, clubs would then just overspend either over and above their current income plus their 'PL donation', or spend recklessly knowing that the 'bail out fund' was there to save them if they fked it up.

No I think the major blame lies on the EFL, their ownership tests must be much more rigorous - for example they will only allow a takeover if the new owner signs a contract to state that all existing debts will be met (i.e. none of this 'buy it for a pound' BS). But even then the EFL will probably struggle because a lot of this is actually down to business rules. I suspect that if the EFL did try to do something like that it would be challenged in court because currently there is no law to control how businesses are bought and sold (anyone remember BHS?), and so, as most league clubs are also limited companies, any attempt to curtail how clubs (i.e. football businesses) are bought and sold would be very difficult to enforce.

So whilst the answers, and the blame apportioning, seem obvious, because football clubs are actually just businesses like any other, it's really not that simple at all.

No I think the major blame lies on the EFL, their ownership tests must be much more rigorous - for example they will only allow a takeover if the new owner signs a contract to state that all existing debts will be met (i.e. none of this 'buy it for a pound' BS). But even then the EFL will probably struggle because a lot of this is actually down to business rules. I suspect that if the EFL did try to do something like that it would be challenged in court because currently there is no law to control how businesses are bought and sold (anyone remember BHS?), and so, as most league clubs are also limited companies, any attempt to curtail how clubs (i.e. football businesses) are bought and sold would be very difficult to enforce.

So whilst the answers, and the blame apportioning, seem obvious, because football clubs are actually just businesses like any other, it's really not that simple at all.[/QUOTE]

Agree with that Taff. Aside from useless self serving over ambitious owners like we and others have suffered, I also blame agents and players for the greed.. Take Rooney joining Derby "we sold the ground back to ourselves" County, for 100K a week in this league!!! obviously still a greedy ginger cnut, the excuse is, it's made possible by additional sponsorship revenues! Who from 32 Red? maybe Leeds should ask for more of them.. we are top of the league, regularly on TV, bigger crowds... How do his sponsors feel about his latest "caught in a hotel" moment

I know many lads in league 1 and 2 are probably worse off than National league players but look at Salford, signed the other Rooney last season FFP ha EFL are useless to allow: Derby/Bury/Bolton/Villa/QPR and more to carry on the way they have. Supposed to be regular audit checks.

[ganpati23]

The gazzillions swimming around in the English Premier league ... Scum pay a Sanchez nearly half a fecking million quid a week to sit on the bench/play for the reserves...go on holiday...Average players in the Premier league earning £3+ million a year...

Two of our oldest clubs - founder members in fact - one gone the other going, One week of Sanchez's pay would have kept Bury afloat for two years FFS!!

I understand that the Premier league is a big draw and gets the Sky pie, But surely the likes of Scum, City, Spurs, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool to name a few could cough up a little bit of their mega riches to keep our grass roots game going?

Absolutely disgusting that this is happening.

The EFL / EPL should get closer and work out a way of dividing the untold TV riches a little more fairly?

As a Gooner, I agree. The clubs playing in Europe (who thus get an advantage making it harder for other clubs to break in) should pay a small percentage of their Euro money into an FA-run fund to allow the FA to buy out failing clubs, get in some accountants and get them back to break even and then sell them.

That's a very good idea.

[ganpati23]

Maybe they do, maybe they dont, for once I declare I don't give a sh1t. The honour of the game is what drove the original post, not the nationality of a player or a group of players of any one club.

It won't change anything, money is the great god, not the "beautiful game". That died with the advent of the Premiership and the baleful presence of Sky.

Agreed. When I first started supporting the Arse in the late '70s, our first XI had 6 Paddies (3 north, 3 south) and one Jock - the entire back five and Brady.

Don't see how that's much different to now.

[Tichi1]

You said a short while ago that there weren't many things we would agree on. Well, this is certainly one of the few......but (yeah, always a but!)........isn't that greedy, over-paid, insular, fantasy league where we all want our club to be? And if we get there, do you think our owner (whoever that might be at any point in time) would behave honourably, as you suggest (and I agree) they should?

Part of me wishes we were in the PL, but for all the unfairness in this division, (parachute payments for failed PL clubs, FFP rules that fail to control PL excesses etc), a big(ger?) part thinks it's more honest, fairer and more true to what the game used to be (and still could/should be) than the PL will ever be any time soon.

Couple of things we agree here on then, 'cos I agree completely with your last paragraph too.
Not been on here for a few days as I am staying in Eastleigh now for a few days - so might see you for a beer or two while I'm down?