- It’s not the fact that Forest were fined £750,00: the question is still “Why?”
- Are Arsenal, Man Utd and Liverpool just an entitled red cartel?
By Tony Attwood
“What if an infinitely rich owner bankrupts the Premier League?”
It is a question we have been pondering off and on for a couple of years, but now it has turned up in a media article – in the Guardian in fact. Sadly they don’t try and answer the question, and I wonder why, because it is a jolly good question, and highly pertinent if you read the recent outpourings from ManC.
For as they also point out “football is so magnetic that it has drawn the interest of too many who see it not as a sport, not as cultural expression, but as an entity from which they may profit.”
It was Der Spiegel who spilt the beans, publishing an email from ManC’s top legal man, Simon Cliff, who quoted ManC’s chair, Khaldoon al-Mubarak, speaking of the fact that ManC could and would oversee the destruction of the rules and organisation of football by suing everyone “for the next 10 years,” presumably only stopping once football looked as they wanted it to look, rather than as everyone else wanted it to look.
So now, as they say, the cards are on the table. Put another way, the ManC position is now, “you do football our way or you don’t do it” And they take that position because these are people who have never had to step down, accept defeat or even see the other side’s point of view. They haven’t in the past, they are among the richest people in the world, and they don’t see why they should listen to anyone else now.
Indeed it is probably a good idea to ignore the current fight and just focus on the endgame, because football as it is now, is not part of the vision of the biggest player. “Our way or no way” is their objective it seems. A bit like a child who takes his ball away in fact.
As I have oft proposed, there is of course another way. Clubs that don’t like the ManC approach but want to continue in the current manner, can simply resign en masse from the Premier League and go and set up their own league, just as happened in 1992 when they left the Football League.
That was 1992, and one of the clubs main ideas was the reduction in the number of games they had to play each season. So the league size was cut and the number of league games dropped to 38. League Cup games could use junior and reserve players – and that solved the problem.
Except that now we have multiple expanding European competitions too, expanding both in their own size and in the number of them, and in the regulations that say that clubs have to play in these competitions and put out their best team. So that victory was lost.
It is probably good that the media is not mentioning the clubs’ way out, either because like PGMO it is considered a subject unsuitable for human consideration, or because someone somewhere is threatening to sue them if they do. Which in turn would mean that just as we lost the free press when it was “agreed” that PGMO is not a suitable subject for criticism in the media, so we are losing them again when “what the clubs who don’t want to be bullied and directed by ManC do.
In fact it is interesting that solving the ManC problem also solved the PGMO problem – a new League with a new provider of referees, PGMO is apparently on the edge of total financial disaster and most certainly will not be missed.
And this could indeed be a moment not just for reforming the League in order to get rid of the ManC problem (by having those clubs that want to, to resign, and set up a new league of their own) but also to fix the internationals problem. Indeed it is interesting that at this very moment the New York Times is running an article, “Why international football is under attack like never before.”
As the article points out, “A string of high-profile players have since agreed that something has to give, and the comments of Maheta Molango, chief executive of the Professional Footballers Association (PFA) players’ union last month indicated that it could be the international game that finds itself most vulnerable in the push for reform.”
As things stand those of us who finance football through having a season ticket have to accept that the game we have paid to see will stop (as it has last month and this month) again Novermber and March. And then the players desperately needing a break have to play again in June as the Nations League comes to an end and because there were a few seconds when there might be no football the Fifa Club World Cup gets going.
This is insanity, and when something is insane, eventually a few people who are sane enough and willing to, will change matters simply by walking away and doing their own thing. New League, New International Regulations. I can’t wait..
Tony and Tim
“It was Der Spiegel who spilt the beans, publishing an email from ManC’s top legal man, Simon Cliff, who quoted ManC’s chair, Khaldoon al-Mubarak, speaking of the fact that ManC could and would oversee the destruction of the rules and organisation of football by suing everyone “for the next 10 years,” presumably only stopping once football looked as they wanted it to look, rather than as everyone else wanted it to look”.
I alluded to this threat the other day when I said the following to Tim in answer to his question: “What are Arsenal’s shareholders going to do?”
Rather sarcastically I suggested that: “I suppose they could threaten everyone and anyone that wont let them do everything they want to do with bankruptcy, as per Man City? I mean, that’s how it works isn’t?”
Tim seemed astonished and responding with:
“Really? Is that a serious comment?”
Well, as I said then, yes it was, and it still is.
If:
“Khaldoon al-Mubarak, speaking of the fact that ManC could and would oversee the destruction of the rules and organisation of football by suing everyone “for the next 10 years”
Isn’t a threat of bankruptcy for anyone who dares to challenge them in their pursuit of a complete monopoly of the premier league, I don’t know what is.
Maybe Tim could explain exactly what Khaldoon al-Mubarak did mean when he said this?
I still believe that if each club pf the PLfacing City115 would justs end in the second string tam or their U23 players, the issue would be settled in a manner of a couple of seasons. City would win the PL, but with no real opposition. Any incursion into the CL would definitely suffer as the City115 players would lack real game time. The viewing public internationally would get bored, betting would be down and at some point the negative publicity would become unbearable.
Hi Nitram,
I’d love to help you out, but Khaldoon Al Mubarak doesn’t confide in me.
From memory his comments are from around the time UEFA charged MCFC with FFP breaches in, or around, 2014. I believe, in part, his comments were an expression of the frustration he felt dealing with UEFA. I seem to remember it being reported that UEFA had been monitoring MCFC and the feedback from UEFA was that MCFC were complying with FFP, until at the last moment UEFA decided they hadn’t – MCFC claimed they moved the goalposts.
Of course, the above relies on my memory being accurate about something from a decade ago, that wasn’t an important event in my life, and anyway my information was based on what I read in the British media; please note, both are suspect.
Unlike key contributors to Untold, I don’t get heartburn about a Premier League club challenging the legality of Premier Leagues rules. Clearly MCFC’s challenge had some legal merit. I do find it odd that so many people seem to think the Premier League should be able to pass illegal rules!
I don’t buy into the narrative that MCFC are out to bankrupt or destroy the Premier League. In my opinion, MCFC had a much better chance of severly damaging the Premier League when they joined up with a few other English clubs to form the European Super League.
Tim
Thanks for your reply.
Basically none of us knows, but we can all surmise from what is said and done. From what we hear and what we read.
Whether I am right or wrong:
– I absolutely believe that Man City simply want to be allowed to spend any amount of money they want with no restrictions.
-I think it is an absolute fallacy that, as some City fans would have us believe, Man City are on some sort of crusade on behalf of everyone else to break the fictional red cartel. We earned our status at the top table without any help from Man Utd or Liverpool thanks very much
-Man City are doing this for one reason and one reason only. They want to monopolise the Premier League.
-Man City hadn’t won a thing since 1976, then suddenly spent ONE BILLION net on players alone over ten years. ONE BILLION. You can think that is all fair and above board as much as you want. I’m afraid I don’t.
-Al Mubarak said what he said, (as above) and it sounds very much like a big bully boy threat to me. You can excuse it as frustration as much as you like. Maybe everyone else is getting a little frustrated with Man City? I take it with your rules of engagement you think that also justifies anything the PL or the Clubs may say or do as well then?
Neither you nor I can prove or disprove anything sat here tapping away, but I’ve read a lot and as far as I’m concerned if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I tend to think it’s a duck.
I know I know, that would hardly stand up in court, but from where I sit tapping away Man City look like, sound like, and act like, very very rich, entitled, self serving bullies, who simply throw their toys out of the pram whenever anyone has the audacity to question their Modus Operandi.
I also know that after being on this Planet for over 60 years that the very very wealthy rarely lose.
Every body has a price and very few have the finances to beat them anyway, even if they wanted to.
Time will tell, but I wont hold my breath.
Hi Nitram,
MCFC’s owners are like all the other owners; their motivation is self-interest.
It’ll be interesting to see how clubs vote on the APT issue(s), especially if, by some mechanism that I can’t envisage, shareholder funding has to be bacckdated.
It really would be ironic if accounting charges against MCFC aren’t proven and they are only fined in the “115 Case”, but Arsenal’s shareholder funding causes them to fail PSR and they lose the Premier League, to either MCFC or Liverpool, because of it. I’m sure Arsenal’s shareholders would just accept that, although I’m also sure the Arsenal fanbase would be really, really pissed off.
No need for MCFC to bankrupt the Premier League, if the largely American owned clubs, like Arsenal, are going to abandon it and form a new league. I’m pretty sure this new league won’t be too successful if Saudi Arabia and the UAE fund the current Premier League sufficiently to ensure its success. If this happens, I wonder what the Arsenal stadium name will become?
Anyway, we wait to see how it all pans out.
Tim
“It really would be ironic if accounting charges against MCFC aren’t proven and they are only fined in the “115 Case”, but Arsenal’s shareholder funding causes them to fail PSR and they lose the Premier League, to either MCFC or Liverpool, because of it. I’m sure Arsenal’s shareholders would just accept that, although I’m also sure the Arsenal fanbase would be really, really pissed off.”
Yes they would, and rightly so.
This is how I see it put in a nutshell as best I can.
Man City want to be able to finance their club with unlimited unsanctioned, sponsorship deals from whoever they want, be it a totally independent source or more likely one from within the umbrella of their ownership group. If, for example KAM cars think putting a logo on the sleeve is worth £200 Million, man city believe they should be able to accept it, no questions asked.
In other words whatever money Man city want they can get by simply getting another sponsor. It’s a money tree.
Yet perversely, if a club wants a loan, be it at mates rates or whatever, they have limits to abide by? And that’s even though it is a loan that they will eventually have to repay, unlike the sponsorship money that Man city receive which is in reality a gift, or as I like to call it, financial doping.
And irony upon irony the only reason clubs like Arsenal are even taking out these big loans in the first place is to compete with the financially doped Man City
So not only do Man City want limitless sponsorships deals, fake or otherwise, enabling them the buy whoever they want, whenever they want, without a iota of financial jeopardy, they also want to restrict their opponents from getting money in order to at least try and compete.
And they’re doing all this for everybody else. A crusade on numpty called it.
So Tim, given you have obviously been all over this, please tell me, if everyone else capitulates, and Man City get everything they want, please explain how any other team can possibly dislodge Man city from where they are?
How? Please explain because I fail to see how they will be able to.
Hi Nitram,
Your views are shared by many, even maybe the vast majority.
As far as I know, to date, MCFC have operated under the APT rules – I may, subsequently, be proven wrong in a year, or two, when the Premier League charge MCFC for breaching APT rules for the years: 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024.
I read that MCFC were especially unhappy with the extended APT rules that were inroduced at the start of 2024 and warned the Premier League that they thought the rules were unlawful; the Premier League pushed ahead anyway and MCFC took legal action.
We know that there was some merit to MCFC legal action and we also know from the released documentation that the Premier League were warned by their own legal counsel regarding the legality of the APT rules, but the Premier League pushed the rules through anyway.
If I may digress for a moment, here’s what I find so funny, no, actually disheartening. The Premier League have been found to have created a set of rules that breach the country’s competition laws, and yet a large number of people are blaming MCFC for trying to bring down the Premier League. These are often the same people that want to see MCFC punished for the alledged 100 + rule breaches, even if the false accounting can’t be proven. If people are concerned with rules then this is an illogical position to hold, but it’s entirely consistent if the real aim is to hobble MCFC at any cost.
How can any team dislodge MCFC?
If MCFC are found guilty of the fraud charges I don’t think this will be an issue.
If those charges can’t be proved and MCFC are only found guilty on the non-cooperation charges there is still light at the end of the tunnel. I believe the top footballing people at MCFC are excellent – as a team, arguably the best in the Premier League and at least one of those three is into his final season, and MCFC’s greatest ever manager might be going too. Losing Txiki and possibly Pep will be a big blow. Look what happened to Man Utd and Arsenal for context.
There is a certain hysteria about MCFC dominating the Premier League. Yes, they’ve done four-in-a-row, and since Guardiola’s arrival I think they’ve won six of eight titles, but several of those titles were very, very tight. Do the vast majority of the Arsenal fan base feel they have been dominated over the last two seasons? I don’t think so! I hear lots of Arseanl fans saying they are as good, if not better than MCFC. That doesn’t sound like a dominated fanbase to me and I’m sure Liverpool’s fanbase thought the same under Klopp and maybe they will under Slot too.
Of course, the Premier League could put in measures to create a fairer league. Subject to the laws of the land, they might be able to: introduce an absolute wage cap, not one based on a percentage of turnover, or introduce an absolute transfer cap set at a low enough level that it didn’t benefit the better financed clubs like MCFC, Arsenal, Liverpool and Man Utd. Of course, this won’t happen because while it might curtail MCFC it will also handicap the other three teams mentioned, and that hasn’t been the direction of economic travel since league match shared gate receipts were scrapped.
Tim
Some interesting observations, but one comment you made got me really thinking: “There is a certain hysteria about MCFC dominating the Premier League”.
Well, it was more one word really, ‘Hysteria’.
Am I really being ‘hysterical’ to believe that Man City’s aim is to totally monopolise the Premier League?
I don’t think so, and on the back of your thoughts on this I have submitted an article to Tony explaining why I don’t believe I am hysterical.
When it goes up, indeed IF it goes up I would appreciate your thoughts.
Hi Nitram,
Do I think MCFC’s owners want to monopolise the Premier League? Yes, I’m sure they want to win it every year, just like any other owners and fanbases want their club to. I don’t, however, think that’s the right question to ask. I think the more valid question is , “Do I think they will monopolise the Premier League and my answer to that is most definitely, “No”. I think MCFC have just hit a purple patch with Pep and his two amigos. When he leaves the performances will drop – much like MCFC were under Mancini and Pellegrini, well maybe a bit better than that!
Nitram, if I see the your article I’ll happily comment, other commitments permitting.
Tim
“Do I think they will monopolise the Premier League and my answer to that is most definitely, “No”
But they already are, and they are still not happy. My article has gone up. Take a look if you can and then tell me they are not aiming to monopolise the Premier league.
Whether they do are not is another matter, but that appears to be their aim.