Topic: Ian Ayre and the indignity of being shouted down by the Premier League piss-poor

[edeyj]

Wouldn't it be great if every tiny bit of money that came into the UK were shared equally with every single club in every single league and in Wales and in Scotland and in Northern Ireland?

Imagine that. Over a period of a couple of decades, every single club could have the potential to be as successful as any other.

All the 'glory hunter' fans flocking all over the shop to support teams 300 miles away could support a local club.

That would be the golden age of football truly. You could never predict which teams would be in the top flight. You could never predict the winners of any league and the whole thing would be an amazing model of co-operation and forward thinking socialism.

Imagine it. It would be incredible. Football would never have a chance to be that competitive.

Some clubs would still be more equal than others.

[royhendo]

The thing is, Rob's only calling Whelan and others' hypocrisy into question. He's not holding Ayre up as a hero. He's just asking why people are suddenly having resort to socialist principles when they've otherwise shown exactly no tendency towards them in the past.

Ayre's just doing his job and most of the rest of the comment on the subject from other clubs is pure spin. Where was the notion of fairness when the PL was set up?

I'm all for institutionalised fairness supported by effective governance, but in its absence, you can't blame an MD for doing his job.

[kopitecrash]

Some clubs would still be more equal than others.

Of course. But the gap between one club and another would be an easier one to bridge with good management and players. It's not easy as it stands, and it would be impossible under the idea's Ayre was suggesting.

[royhendo]

Much rather it was all done behind closed doors though.

[edeyj]

Of course. But the gap between one club and another would be an easier one to bridge with good management and players. It's not easy as it stands, and it would be impossible under the idea's Ayre was suggesting.

Couldn't agree more mate. But the scenario Andy paints will never happen.

The whole shooting match has gone too far to turn back.

[Roy of the rovers]

And this isn't dewy eyed romanticism but a request for our Club, if it wishes to embarrass itself like this, to do it with a little more detail, thought and deconstruction. Just because many of the checks and balances that existed to allow teams to compete have gone does not mean that this latest challenge should get waved through by some as if Ian Ayre was some sort of Steve Jobs visionary.

Right debate lads, but backing the wrong hero in Ian Ayre. Sorry.

Ayre didn't embarrass the club

[Roy of the rovers]

Wouldn't it be great if every tiny bit of money that came into the UK were shared equally with every single club in every single league and in Wales and in Scotland and in Northern Ireland?

Imagine that. Over a period of a couple of decades, every single club could have the potential to be as successful as any other.

All the 'glory hunter' fans flocking all over the shop to support teams 300 miles away could support a local club.

That would be the golden age of football truly. You could never predict which teams would be in the top flight. You could never predict the winners of any league and the whole thing would be an amazing model of co-operation and forward thinking socialism.

Imagine it. It would be incredible. Football would never have a chance to be that competitive.

Nor should it. I don't want my money to be spent supporting West Brom, or Everton for that matter. They're our rivals, and I want to beat them

[Roy of the rovers]

A club like Exeter City or Cardiff or Portsmouth or whoever has as much right to survive and to be supported as the likes of Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool or Everton.

They do have the right to survive. It doesn't follow that LFC has to bail them out

[Graham Smith]

Ayre didn't embarrass the club

I accept that is a matter of opinion, but on the basis of the way the Club projects and markets itself (using its core support as a major selling point and all the culture and attitude that goes with that) a call for the rich to get richer, followed by all the expected natural supporters of a scheme distancing itself from LFC, in no way made this Ayre's or our Club's finest hour.

I felt embarrassed and I know many more that did too. I fully accept that those that want to see us maximise all our opportunities to the nth degree without too much concern for other Clubs won't have been.

[Graham Smith]

They do have the right to survive. It doesn't follow that LFC has to bail them out

No, but will you be happy when say 30 out of 38 Premiership matches become the equivalent of playing League One sides each week as opposed to the slightly increased chance of upsets now?

Still be happy week after week to get pleasure out beating them then? Because that is a likely comparison with the unequal to some extent PL now, with a wheat and chaff PL of the future.

[It's Jimmy Corkhill]

It's all irrelevant anyway, as it has zero-to-little chance of ever coming to fruition.

The overseas market is an area that I believe needs to be discussed though. Certain countries are only interested in seeing certain sides play. Add on to that the fact that I'm sure a load of these people would rather give their hard-earned to their club rather than the Premier League and dismissing them is a load of shit and unfair in my opinion.

[AJ4Seven]

No, but will you be happy when say 30 out of 38 Premiership matches become the equivalent of playing League One sides each week as opposed to the slightly increased chance of upsets now?

Still be happy week after week to get pleasure out beating them then? Because that is a likely comparison with the unequal to some extent PL now, with a wheat and chaff PL of the future.

Why would they become League One sides merely by lowering the revenue from foreign TV revenue?

[Red_Isle_Chap]

Whelan is a soft target for satire, but the concerns he raised are real ones which are shared - I would guess - by the majority of football fans.

And am I the only one who shudders a bit at all Rob's implied talk about the wonderfulness of 'trickledown' and how it's to the advantage of all the 'working-class' clubs like Bolton, Wolves and Wigan if the 'plutocrats' like Liverpool and Man Utd are allowed to cut themselves free and just look after themselves?  Not true of life, not true of football.

Ayre's proposals, should they ever go through, will simply kick another prop from beneath the Premier league. That's something we should all be against. When Liverpool finally win the League Title I want it to be something that's still worth winning. Not just a feeble leg-up to the only competition which really matters - the Super-6 Euro-Extravaganza Champions' Cup sponsored by Hyundai. 

What the club should be doing is leading the pack in finding a lawful way to cut the wings of the Man Citys and Real Madrids of the world. And by the way it's the Bundesliga not the increasingly tedious La Liga that Ayre should be looking to for future growth. Especially if he wants working-class people to continue to come to the stadiums themselves. And even if he couldn't care a flying fuck about them, self-interest alone should suggest that one-sided games played in front of banks of empty plastic seats won't turn on his beloved Thais and Chinese as much as he'd like.   

Totally agree Yorky, and I agree with andy and the others saying it's a bad, bad idea. Football feels like it's on it's deathbed at the moment. It's in such stark contrast to the real world that the rest of us live in it's not even funny. Just wondering aloud, when does the current tv deal end, and when are we going to see the final nail in the coffin, the individual selling of the club games by internet streaming? That's got to be just around the corner doesn't it, then what?

The FA has to realise that the game is nearing breaking point doesn't it? We've got people talking rubbish about stopping relegation, now this. The wealth needs to be spread so that the game and teams as a whole in the whole country can become on a better standing. It's not right to read the spyion kop with the norwich lads, whose team is ninth and read "i'm realistic. being 17th is a massive achievement". I genuinely felt sad reading that. But it's the fucking champions league that's done it, if we're honest. It's the insane amount of cash that teams get just for being in it. It's the utter shit that we hear now of how "finishing 4th would be a good season" and other related rubbish. The prestige of the home league has died it seems.

I'm not embarrassed by what Ayre proposed, he's just doing what the club pays him to do, it's no different than him maximising the revenue streams through the asian market (for example). I'm not shocked that the owners would be up for it either. But from a simple (and i am simple) fans perspective, it's not right.

[Graham Smith]

Why would they become League One sides merely by lowering the revenue from foreign TV revenue?

I was making the point that the disparity in financial clout would become the equivalent of PL playing League One sides even though they would both be in the same division.

[AJ4Seven]

I was making the point that the disparity in financial clout would become the equivalent of PL playing League One sides.

But Ayre wasn't discussing domestic revenue ( which I believe is far higher) so calling them L1 sides smacks of hyperbole( like your earlier claim that people would become bored of Real/Barca/Bayern games twice a year).

[Red Genius]

No, but will you be happy when say 30 out of 38 Premiership matches become the equivalent of playing League One sides each week as opposed to the slightly increased chance of upsets now?

Still be happy week after week to get pleasure out beating them then? Because that is a likely comparison with the unequal to some extent PL now, with a wheat and chaff PL of the future.

There is already wide disparity of wealth in the premier league, this disparity of wealth started its process 20 years ago, this is merely a sympton of the overall environment football exists in today, which is business heavy and sport lite.

The reality is the game already is vastly unequal with success driven by how much you have in your coffers, this proposal may not be beneficial to the competition, but then our competition don't look to benefit us either. These are the conditions of the market place with each club vying for for a position in it to promote their club (brand) to increase revenue streams in order to fund their team (the product) and make some profits.

I really don't see anything wrong with what Ayre proposed in the above context, the conditions of the business in football is highly competitive and so we'll need to be should we wish to compete off the pitch.

The issue we have is a moral one, which in football has less and less influence.

Its frustrating for the sport that football exists in such a way, but this is the reality - i don't see what options we really have, we either ethically avoid such policies and fall farther behind or aggressively explore all revenue avenues to allow ourselves to be competitive. It is not Liverpool football clubs individual responsibility to lobby change in the game but the authorities to collectively come together to level the playing field.

[Zeb]

If you're aiming for more control over internet rights, then I guess demanding shares of international television money based on existing domestic arrangements isn't a crazy negotiating position to take.

[Graham Smith]

But Ayre wasn't discussing domestic revenue ( which I believe is far higher) so calling them L1 sides smacks of hyperbole( like your earlier claim that people would become bored of Real/Barca/Bayern games twice a year).

No he wasn't he was talking about overseas revenue but the point remains the same -  but to answer your points - the uneven split of the massive overseas revenues would see the disparity I described happen or do you think it will leave all Clubs in the same position as currently?

Also, if our Club via its MD now sees European competition as more important than domestic competition then let's here the plan in full rather than dripped out in a newspaper.

I, for one, wouldn't see a European League (if that seems to be the ultimate aim) being anything other than a novelty for a couple of seasons, followed by the games against even the most glamourous of European sides becoming commonplace.

[Lo Pan]

Keeping that opportunity open is crucial to all Clubs as far as possible, it only makes the whole idea of sport and football more exciting.

I agree, but that opportunity is already dead and buried isn't it?

The future situation that people seem concerned about preventing from happening, is in fact already the existing situation in English football, but bizarrely some people can't see that.

[yorkykopite]

The thing is, Rob's only calling Whelan and others' hypocrisy into question. He's not holding Ayre up as a hero. He's just asking why people are suddenly having resort to socialist principles when they've otherwise shown exactly no tendency towards them in the past.

If that were true Roy I'd applaud him (while wanting the door always to remain open to genuine socialist coverts  )  But he's doing more than that isn't he?

by Rob Gutmann
Liverpool MD Ayre, to his credit, made no bones about the fact that he was also just batting his club’s cause. He also attempted a rationale whereby his ‘enlightened self interest’ may actually yield greater dividends for the wider Premiership family. His argument, although clearly motivated by LFC’s agenda, is not without merit.

That suggests more than merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the response. Sure, Rob goes on to say that there at least ought to be debate about what Ayre said. I agree with that. Who wouldn't? But Ayre did not present his ideas in the spirit of a 'debate'. Nor did he open a 'dialogue'. He landed what looked like an LFC-sanctioned policy statement on the bewildered doorstep of English football.

I agree with Rob's points about the fake egalitarianism of the current Premier League. I've long thought something should be done to reduce the chances of the same boring pyramid being built every season. But Ayre's proposals will simply make the pyramid even more predictable. They go off in completely the wrong direction. They even make me think that Fenway are not the best owners for Liverpool FC. If it's all about maximising revenue and fuck everybody else then we need some oil-rich, blood-soaked human-rights abuser, sugar-daddy to run our club.

[royhendo]

The thing is mate, while everyone's looking the other way the powers that be pass rulings that prejudice the kind of clubs everyone's claiming we should be fighting to support.

For example (arguably): http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/19/football-league-academies

[its cold in the stands]

i cant stand the way footy is going.
in this clip non league hereford beat first divison (or premiership these days) newcastle in the f.a cup, the fella who scores the equiliser ronnie radford was a joiner who was putting a roof on a house the day before the game and went back to finish it on the monday, the fella who scores the winner ricky george comes on for roger griffiths, griffiths broke his leg in the first 20 minutes of the game but because it was such a huge game he played through the pain until with 8 minutes left he couldnt carry on.
when i hear of all this talk of money and corporate boxes and how to generate money and maximising profits i like to find clips like this to remind me why i fell in love with the game in the first place.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/7PjZtz0JpV0&amp;feature=related" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/7PjZtz0JpV0&amp;feature=related</a>

[Paragon]

I lost all respect for Dave Whelan when he said that it would "be a shame" if Man Utd didn't win the league that season (right before Utd were due to play at Wigan). Unsurprisingly united won the match.

[scatman]

funnily enough, swiss ramble has had his say on this:

http://swissramble.blogspot.com/

[shankstheman]

An excellent read.

I wonder how many of Dave Whelan's ilk are as short-sighted as he is?

[Andy @ Allerton]

No, but will you be happy when say 30 out of 38 Premiership matches become the equivalent of playing League One sides each week as opposed to the slightly increased chance of upsets now?

Still be happy week after week to get pleasure out beating them then? Because that is a likely comparison with the unequal to some extent PL now, with a wheat and chaff PL of the future.

Exactly and this is the excuse they are looking for..

Wait a few years till every club in England bar 5 or 6 are utterly outspent, can't compete in the slightest (Even less so than now) and then say "Ah. fuck this. European Super League here we come!"

By then the fans will be so brainwashed with the 'lack of competition' they'll be all for it.

Clubs get even richer and fans don't notice they've been fleeced again (Except the 'lower clubs' but obviously their fans 'don't matter' do they as long as we're alright.)

It's all sickening. And going to get worse unless someone gets a grip of it.

[Andy @ Allerton]

I lost all respect for Dave Whelan when he said that it would "be a shame" if Man Utd didn't win the league that season (right before Utd were due to play at Wigan). Unsurprisingly united won the match.

Can agree that Whelan is a knobend, but he still has some valid points (if for the wrong reasons) and his club in the top flight are as much to blame as anyone else.

[John C]

The thing is, Rob's only calling Whelan and others' hypocrisy into question. He's not holding Ayre up as a hero. He's just asking why people are suddenly having resort to socialist principles when they've otherwise shown exactly no tendency towards them in the past.

Ayre's just doing his job and most of the rest of the comment on the subject from other clubs is pure spin. Where was the notion of fairness when the PL was set up?

I'm all for institutionalised fairness supported by effective governance, but in its absence, you can't blame an MD for doing his job.

While the money in football sickens me, we are where we are until an improved structure or indeed meltdown occurs so I agree entirely with you Roy. There's too many issues we've neglected and opportunities missed in the last 15 years or so and our MD is simply forward planning. Perhaps building his best financial model for the club to ensure growth. Growth which is in fact self derived. and deserved.


Great Article Rob G.

[Stateside Red]

Wouldn't it be great if every tiny bit of money that came into the UK were shared equally with every single club in every single league and in Wales and in Scotland and in Northern Ireland?

Imagine that. Over a period of a couple of decades, every single club could have the potential to be as successful as any other.

All the 'glory hunter' fans flocking all over the shop to support teams 300 miles away could support a local club.

That would be the golden age of football truly. You could never predict which teams would be in the top flight. You could never predict the winners of any league and the whole thing would be an amazing model of co-operation and forward thinking socialism.

Imagine it. It would be incredible. Football would never have a chance to be that competitive.

You'd have to go much further than complete revenue sharing to achieve this though. Clubs would basically have to give up their autonomy completely ... player transfers, coaches, etc. would be at the discretion of some "competition" governing body overseeing all of British football. You really want that?

[vivabobbygraham]

Whelan is a soft target for satire, but the concerns he raised are real ones which are shared - I would guess - by the majority of football fans.

And am I the only one who shudders a bit at all Rob's implied talk about the wonderfulness of 'trickledown' and how it's to the advantage of all the 'working-class' clubs like Bolton, Wolves and Wigan if the 'plutocrats' like Liverpool and Man Utd are allowed to cut themselves free and just look after themselves?  Not true of life, not true of football.

Ayre's proposals, should they ever go through, will simply kick another prop from beneath the Premier league. That's something we should all be against. When Liverpool finally win the League Title I want it to be something that's still worth winning. Not just a feeble leg-up to the only competition which really matters - the Super-6 Euro-Extravaganza Champions' Cup sponsored by Hyundai. 

What the club should be doing is leading the pack in finding a lawful way to cut the wings of the Man Citys and Real Madrids of the world. And by the way it's the Bundesliga not the increasingly tedious La Liga that Ayre should be looking to for future growth. Especially if he wants working-class people to continue to come to the stadiums themselves. And even if he couldn't care a flying fuck about them, self-interest alone should suggest that one-sided games played in front of banks of empty plastic seats won't turn on his beloved Thais and Chinese as much as he'd like.

The Bundesliga is indeed the model we should be looking to emulate for many reasons including those of ticket pricing, stadium amenities and the like, all endeavours that put the fan first and foremost.

The main reason I found Ian Ayre's comments discomforting was its tone. The condescending way he referred to Bolton as if it was some mickey mouse club and not one of the games great institutions. I have no problem with the club's MD doing his job - Sir John Smith and Peter Robinson could be ruthless - but they would never demean others and certainly never indulge in 'kite flying,' which is what this was an exercise in in truth.

A European super League is, in my view, on the horizon now. There are too many pointers in that direction. The big clubs are itching for a fight with UEFA/FIFA/Blatter over;  television rights, club v Country, meaningless friendlies,  and to be honest who can blame them for corruption is rife particularly when it comes to the carve up of television revenue and the transmitting of those pictures- hence BSKYB being such a potential cash cow for that slippery fucking snake Murdoch. NI know individual negotiations for overseas television revenue is coming and want to be in on the broadcasting of it; it's a huge opportunity for them as clubs hire them in to televise.   

All this will eventually lead to the 39th game being played in Dubai or Delhi with Sony Liverpool Reds or whatever playing Panasonic United, unless...the fans decide enough is enough, boycott or start their own teams a la Wimbledon and take the game back. Won't happen in my life time but simple evolution dictates there will be a tipping point when greed and avarice and spite will cause an explosion of such magnitude that from the ashes a new order will be born, or the game will just die as a spectator sport, instead played out on x-boxes or WII or PS 14

[AJ4Seven]

No he wasn't he was talking about overseas revenue but the point remains the same -  but to answer your points - the uneven split of the massive overseas revenues would see the disparity I described happen or do you think it will leave all Clubs in the same position as currently?


Also, if our Club via its MD now sees European competition as more important than domestic competition then let's here the plan in full rather than dripped out in a newspaper.

I, for one, wouldn't see a European League (if that seems to be the ultimate aim) being anything other than a novelty for a couple of seasons, followed by the games against even the most glamourous of European sides becoming commonplace.

So you don't think the current system for allocating Domestic revenue is also adding to the disparity( because it obviously does, with less justification than what Ayre suggested)?

Also perhaps I didn't see the full comments by Ayre but I saw no reference to a proposed Super League, & personally I don't really see Ayre's comments as having anything to do with that, I would suspect it would be more to to with the eventual "broadcasting" of individual game over the net(or PPV channels),that would be where the big money lies( & smaller clubs have a lot more to fear from that than any re-shifting of the balance of external TV revenue)

[redtel]

This topic has split us like no other. Some heavy hitters on both sides of the arguement.

Many cling to the view that the top league should give every team a chance of winning it, which they certainly can't do now if they ever could.

I look back to when Match Of The Day started in the early 60's when Liverpool v Arsenal was the first game shown in grainy black and white (no replays available).

At that time we were also embarking on our long European journey which brought us big rewards in terms of money when the home team kept the lions share of the gate.

In neither of those ground breaking events did anyone at Anfield talk about sharing the money around. On the contrary it went to build a new Anfield with better stands appearing as the seasons went by.

It also went on buying players which saw us dominate the First Division where we always finished in the top two (for many years) and finally to be all conquering Champions of Europe. My memory is not perfect but I cannot recall Shanks/Bob wanting any money shared out or the board led by John Smith.

Today the PL is being won by one of two clubs every year unless the latest sugar daddy team muscles in.

The Liverpool board would not be doing it's job if it didn't try to maximise it's income. The other clubs may knock us back  as is their voting rights. We dominated football because we maximised our income via people on seats (52,000 then) and European matches. Now we are playing catchup on teams who have more money than us by various means.

You may not like this scenario. It's not a level playing field. It never has been.

I can see why posters are worried where football is headed as more money comes in via TV , season tickets and club shops but it's going to be difficult to stop this ship now.

[DaftKev]

Basically a piece advocating face value Thatcherite trickle-down economics. As a Liverpool fan I therefore find it depressing on several levels.

Same here.

[Big Red Richie]

I think Ian Ayre has a valid point. I just don't think he said it in the right way.


If say Liverpool, Man U, Chelsea etc., have say 25 games a season moved to other kick off times (12.45/5.30)(not allowing for rearangements due to accomodate European participation) in order to suit overseas markets.  Yet Bolton only have say 10 games a season moved for the same reasons.

In my eyes, why shouldn't those teams that are getting inconvenienced, not be the ones that get the larger rewards in compensation for that inconvenience.

Also bearing in mind that those teams are the bigger pull anyway for overseas viewers, ergo. making more of the money for the Premier League financial pot in the first place.



Failing that. Every Premier League team, regardless of who they are, should all have exactly the same number of games moved for live TV broadcast, therfore equal financial share, for equal inconvenience.

While Mr Whelans boys get extra time to recouperate, we get shifted all over the fucking place to accomodate overseas TV schedulers, yet he wants everyone to get an equal share, without the inconvenience.

Simplistic?  Yes.
But thats the way I see it.


P.S. That Swiss ramble's a good eye opener.


To put it another way.

If there were two men in a factory, and they had to shift 100 boxes between themselves, every day.

If one man is shifting 60 a day, to the other mans 40.  How long is the man shifting the 60, just going to get on with it before he decides to say something like:

"I want more of the benefits, because I'm doing more of the work"......."failing that. Pull your fucking weight, and do an equal share".
(Wow. Did that take you back to school!)

[Dick Emery]

I find Whelan's comments laughable. If there is a move to be egalitarian in financial terms, why isn't the money generated by the PL shared out amongst all 92 clubs in England? Why did Chester City go bust for the sake of a few hundred grand? It's not for the good of football that these people are protecting the current mechanism. It is for the good of their own situation. Whelan himself has admitted to how much money he has pumped in to Wigan. Why should they take advantage of his largesse to the detriment of, say, Tranmere Rovers? This approach is far more unfair than spending what you earn. English football has committed itself to a certain path. As we're on that path, it is only right and fair that the money goes to those that earn it.

[SMD]

I think a lot of people are missing the point Ayre is trying to make.

If UEFA are saying that 'financial fair play' is down to spending what you make, is it really fair when there are different constraints around Europe? Either you have the same rules across the board or you have the same free for all that the likes of Barcelona and Real Madrid are entitled to.

UEFA haven't thought this through at all from the differing TV rights to Man City's footballing 'campus' sponsorship. If you want truly fair competition, everyone has to abide by the same rules.

Clubs, authorities and broadcasters need to start considering what is sustainable. It's all very good generating billions now but if the arse falls out of the sport in 10 years, what good is that money when it's gone into the pockets of players and agents?

Either you have it fair across all leagues or not at all. And honestly, UEFA and FIFA need to work on this. Ultimately, this is all off the back of fans and if we're priced out and the corporates stop caring, what do they expect to happen?

[robbie keane]

I accept that is a matter of opinion, but on the basis of the way the Club projects and markets itself (using its core support as a major selling point and all the culture and attitude that goes with that) a call for the rich to get richer, followed by all the expected natural supporters of a scheme distancing itself from LFC, in no way made this Ayre's or our Club's finest hour.

I felt embarrassed and I know many more that did too. I fully accept that those that want to see us maximise all our opportunities to the nth degree without too much concern for other Clubs won't have been.

I have to agree, we all want what is best for Liverpool but a line has to be drawn. If the game is destroyed further with the rich getting richer and the smaller clubs falling further behind I can not see how anyone can see this a s good thing.

[ronnnie yates]

there is only one way to reclaim the game to some sanity , the 39th game, no relegation,no promotion, more money for the top clubs etc etc , and that is to have a supporters strike , a show of solidarity from every league club in the premiership , to say enough is enough , fuck me it isnt the owners game its ours , every supporter in every country , that support their teams through thick and thin , it looks like one day i will walk away from this madness , but when ?

[Vulmea]

Can't be having the OP - implicit support of a model for football based on ££££  - if you can't beat them join them? - and somehow the premiership model has been good for football, driven up standards?  - its been an unmitigated disaster - its polarised the rich and poor and turned the game into a plutocracy such that the whole idea of the game is brought into question - I dont remember complaining about standards and the quality of the football I was watching 20 years ago - I dont remember needing a economics degree to predict who'd challenge for the title - I dont remember families and kids being priced out of the game - the game has lost its way and arguing about overseas TV rights just reinforces football as a business rather than a sport

Chelsea and City have demonstrated how crass the whole league is - have enough money and you win - whats the ferkin point if thats allowed to continue? The game needs controls in place to try and provide equality - and this isn't simple socialism or nostalgia - without genuine competition there's no point, no purpose to any of it -

I could get behind the idea that he's just doing his job - exploring how to maximise our income - if there was a similar and parallel argument for exploring how we create equality and fairness of competition when some clubs are vastly richer than others - not suggesting somehow the overall standard will rise by osmosis - that more money for the few will improve the lot of the many - its clearly nonsense -

The ideal behind the german model is football for the community, fan owned, cheap access - a vibrant social game to benefit everybody not just the rich and egotistical whether they are players or owners - hands up who knows what their TV rights model is?

make the game equal and the likes of chelsea and city dont exist in their current bloated grotesque form - if you can't buy your way to 'succcess' then people dont try - if you have to work at it then success is earned not bought and surely that is the model that we want to aspire to?

[JP-65]

I think a lot of people are missing the point Ayre is trying to make.

If UEFA are saying that 'financial fair play' is down to spending what you make, is it really fair when there are different constraints around Europe? Either you have the same rules across the board or you have the same free for all that the likes of Barcelona and Real Madrid are entitled to.

UEFA haven't thought this through at all from the differing TV rights to Man City's footballing 'campus' sponsorship. If you want truly fair competition, everyone has to abide by the same rules.

Clubs, authorities and broadcasters need to start considering what is sustainable. It's all very good generating billions now but if the arse falls out of the sport in 10 years, what good is that money when it's gone into the pockets of players and agents?

Either you have it fair across all leagues or not at all. And honestly, UEFA and FIFA need to work on this. Ultimately, this is all off the back of fans and if we're priced out and the corporates stop caring, what do they expect to happen?

You've nailed it, came on to say the same, but you've done it better than I could.