Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
That doesn't have to be the choice. Ideally I would rather than the German model where the fans have to own half the club but that is going to happen any time soon. So I would rather than the self-sustaining business model so that the future of a club isn't dependent on money that comes from outside the club and clubs which look long-term and develop their facilities are rewarded.
This isn't about protecting the little guy. The Champions League has distorted competition but the answer to that isn't to distort it even further by allowing one club to spend billions of pounds more. That makes the inequality worse. Not every club isn't going to get these rich owners. In the end there will be a handful of clubs bankrolled by the billionaires and the difference between them and the rest will be even more vast. You won't get clubs like Everton and Spurs breaking into that top 4.
Then there would be no point because there will be nothing you can do to match them, no footballing or business achievement to get where they are. They will have revenue that will never be available to you no matter how much you invest in your stadium, your team and your future.
|
I disagree, the rich clubs can't buy all the players, money gives them an advantage nothing more. Yes look at Germany, where one club dominates the rest or Spain where it's two. By not allowing rich owners to invest you're protecting the status quo, why do you think Chelsea are so against the likes of man city, for the good of the game or the good of the owner?