So, Big Philly G wants change....

[blurred]

I prefer the non-franchise model. But then I'm British, so it's what I'm used to. It's far from perfect, and there's lots that could be done to improve it, but it's my preferred option.

[seanworth]

I prefer the non-franchise model. But then I'm British, so it's what I'm used to. It's far from perfect, and there's lots that could be done to improve it, but it's my preferred option.

Accepted. I tend to lean towards the NFL model and not so much the NHL, NBA and especiallly MLB model. Baseball is basically run by the owners and has many of the same problems as football. Hockey is my sport but I will openly admit, it is run by buffoons.

Bladder. That name alone makes me question the non franchise model.

I basically see a great game, that is so mismanaged, so corrupted and so greedy that the game is is being compromised. The game itself should be the no. 1 issue. Nothing is bigger than the game. In football (soccer), in which I can't say is entirely the fault of the non franchise model (I don't don't know), the players and certain teams are treated as being bigger than the game itself all to the detriment of the other teams, players and fans. Ultimately the sport is compromised and hurt as a result.

Why? Is it because they are simply incompetent or just plain greedy? Far from perfect is the understatement of the year.

[blurred]

But we're also looking at this from a very Anglo-centric, top of the pyramid way. Is it so corrupted in Sweden, where a condition of club ownership is that 50% + 1 share must be owned by the supporters? Or similar in Germany? Our problems of redistribution of wealth must seem minuscule compared to a lot of eastern european football federations; they'd dream of having our problems rather than the corruption, bribery and criminal involvement in their game? Or the fan violence that inflicts their stadia?

Yes there's a lot that can be improved, but there's a great deal that can be said for the state of the game in the UK, too.

[Lord Kangana]

The ability to generate money by a minority isn't a ringing endorsement of a sports health, merely the ability to generate money by a minority.

[blurred]

The ability to generate money by a minority isn't a ringing endorsement of a sports health, merely the ability to generate money by a minority.

I was talking more about the fact that attendances are booming, that we sustain more professional clubs than any other country, that some of these clubs have been around in their communities for over 100 years, that the infrastructure (certainly in the top two flights) is very good, that investment is being made to improve it, new stadia are being built and safety in grounds is better than ever, income to the game is rising to record levels... Most countries would kill to have a game in that state.

[seanworth]

and there's people starving in Ethopia.

[Lord Kangana]

But that isn't the specific health of our game, its an indicator to the wealth of the country it operates in. As for the longevity of clubs in our communities, I give you one Peter Kenyon:

The economics of the game today don't work. I think its inevitable that there will be consolidation. We know that corner shops have gone, and that now everyone shopsat supermarkets. Its happened across every industry. It will happen in football.

Is Kenyon unrepresentative of perhaps about 7 clubs in this country who are pursuing the "global brand" model? Who are tied to The City, merchandise, revenue initiatives.

Tell me, what incentive is there for a club like Liverpool, for example, to maintain the status quo(or even make things more equitable) , given that even they are starting to feel the pinch?

[Tombwfc]

Alternatively they could just re-evaluate the distribution of TV money as it is, stop the ridiculous "pay per match" fee that skews the distribution even further and tell the big clubs to nick off if they don't like it.

Great idea, let's tell the big clubs to bin off the collective bargaining agreement and everyone can look after themselves, shall we? You think that the 'per match' fee skews the distribution of money? Let's see how much Manchester United and Bolton would get for their TV deals if they negotiated them separately. While you might think it iniquitous, I'd be amazed if Bolton would get anywhere near the £18m they got for TV in 06/07, for instance, and the fact that United got 'only' £5m or so more that year doesn't seem all that 'ridiculous' or 'skewed' to me.

There's a great deal that can be done for financial regulation in football, and redistribution of wealth, but I really think you're barking up the wrong tree if it's the facility fee that you're going after. Get rid of the TV system in place now, and the situation will get ten times worse. Juventus get more in their TV deal than the bottom 5 clubs put together in Italy. The amount that Real Madrid get from TV is staggering. Remove the system that we have in England and it'd get a great deal worse.

All clubs should get an exactly equal share of the total "TV money pot".

A wage cap and transfer spending cap should be introduced. A maximum squad size should be introduced, though this is happening to an extent.

Clubs should not be allowed to change managers mid-season.

Thats just for starters.

1) Based on what?

2) Why?

[BWFC_Insane]

Alternatively they could just re-evaluate the distribution of TV money as it is, stop the ridiculous "pay per match" fee that skews the distribution even further and tell the big clubs to nick off if they don't like it.

Great idea, let's tell the big clubs to bin off the collective bargaining agreement and everyone can look after themselves, shall we? You think that the 'per match' fee skews the distribution of money? Let's see how much Manchester United and Bolton would get for their TV deals if they negotiated them separately. While you might think it iniquitous, I'd be amazed if Bolton would get anywhere near the £18m they got for TV in 06/07, for instance, and the fact that United got 'only' £5m or so more that year doesn't seem all that 'ridiculous' or 'skewed' to me.

There's a great deal that can be done for financial regulation in football, and redistribution of wealth, but I really think you're barking up the wrong tree if it's the facility fee that you're going after. Get rid of the TV system in place now, and the situation will get ten times worse. Juventus get more in their TV deal than the bottom 5 clubs put together in Italy. The amount that Real Madrid get from TV is staggering. Remove the system that we have in England and it'd get a great deal worse.

All clubs should get an exactly equal share of the total "TV money pot".

A wage cap and transfer spending cap should be introduced. A maximum squad size should be introduced, though this is happening to an extent.

Clubs should not be allowed to change managers mid-season.

Thats just for starters.

1) Based on what?

2) Why?

Not sure what you are asking.

In general what I would try and do is increase competition and reduce the gaps between clubs. In an ideal world any club in the top flight should have some chance of winning the league. And there should be fluctuations of fortunes rather than some clubs dominating and others struggling.

The managers part is simple because I find the current trend of binning off managers before they get a proper chance distasteful. And yes we'd have gone down had that rule applied when Lee was boss, I accept that. But still think making clubs more responsible for their decisions will improve the situation. A team like Spurs were they ever in trouble, could buy themselves out or pay expensive managers to sort out their mess. The lesser clubs would not have the same luxuries necessarily.

[Tombwfc]

I wanted to know what you'd base the cap on.

The managers thing just wouldn't work on any level, it's probably not even legally viable.

Also, lets use Spurs as an example since you brought them up....

Last season around this time they wanted shut of Ramos, and wanted Redknapp, who wanted to go to them, but was managing Pompey. Under your system that wouldn't be allowed, but it's not unrealistic to suggest that the two parties could've already worked out a deal for him to go. Do you really think it's benificial for anyone to have Redknapp managing a side knowing that in the summer he'll be going to a rival club, and also a manager knowing he's going to be sacked at the end of the season? They obviously wouldn't be committed, and what happens when they play each other?

Besides, saying that the clubs treatment of managers is distasteful is like saying players have no loyalty. It's a two way street and they're both as bad as each other. They all feck each other over in order to do the best for themselves. Brown will no doubt feel hard done to if Hull bin him off, but if he'd been offered the Sunderland job in the summer he'd have not thought twice about going.

[BWFC_Insane]

I wanted to know what you'd base the cap on.

The managers thing just wouldn't work on any level, it's probably not even legally viable.

Also, lets use Spurs as an example since you brought them up....

Last season around this time they wanted shut of Ramos, and wanted Redknapp, who wanted to go to them, but was managing Pompey. Under your system that wouldn't be allowed, but it's not unrealistic to suggest that the two parties could've already worked out a deal for him to go. Do you really think it's benificial for anyone to have Redknapp managing a side knowing that in the summer he'll be going to a rival club, and also a manager knowing he's going to be sacked at the end of the season? They obviously wouldn't be committed, and what happens when they play each other?

Besides, saying that the clubs treatment of managers is distasteful is like saying players have no loyalty. It's a two way street and they're both as bad as each other. They all feck each other over in order to do the best for themselves. Brown will no doubt feel hard done to if Hull bin him off, but if he'd been offered the Sunderland job in the summer he'd have not thought twice about going.

I would just have a flat cap. Equality.

As for not being legally viable, I agree, but this is more an "ideal situation" and I realise it won't ever happen.

But I take your point about "2 way streets" but this would be a 2 way street, managers wouldn't be able to walk out half way through a season.