FFP

[pablo_picasso]

But it's not a democracy and it's not a fair process. If you are a fan of democracy, then why object to litigation (not that anybody has issued proceedings) for a judicial resolution?

For the reasons that I have already stated.

[Ads]

My post raises the inherent contradictions of your position, which I don't think you've addressed. You don't have to, I just can't reconcile it.

[edgysatsuma89]

The biggest thing that annoys me, as Paul has stated, is needing to sell academy players to balance the books, just to replace them with mercenaries. I think there should be some sort of independent panel that can give you the value of an academy player on the books rather than having to sell them. I haven't thought this through at all so there will be massive holes, but something needs to give.

[Ads]

How many academy players are good enough to play top 4? JJ has been, but to be honest, Big Tim et al, they're not up to our standard so selling them on is inevitable.

[pablo_picasso]

My post raises the inherent contradictions of your position, which I don't think you've addressed. You don't have to, I just can't reconcile it.

I just don't want to have to type out the same shit I have typed out several times already.

I just think there is already a process in place to deal with our concerns & going the legal route (potentially hinted at but not done yet, thankfully) is moving out of the democratic process that we agreed to & signed up for, which will open up a pandoras box of litigation.

I have read all sorts of negative comments on this forum towards ManC & their litigation, including wanting expulsion from the league.

And admittedly, similar views from myself as well.

So I don't think that I am being particularly contradictory...

But like I said, I understand that not everyone will agree & understand. And I fully respect theirs & your rights to disagree.

[Hookeysmith]

Like most football fans we dreamed of a Multi billionaire to buy us to release us from the perceived penny pinching ways of good old Doug.

We ended up having 3 of them and through that time we have never been able to flex our financial muscle even when we wanted to - whilst other have been allowed to with impunity.

Surely if you are able to prove you can afford it then you should be able to spend within your means. If all of the mega rich owners signed a pre nup that agrees to pay a set amount if they get bored or their actions ruin a club then what would be wrong with that?

The Redfilth are technically a Billion $'s in debt to financiers yet are allowed to spunk away millions each year on the next big shiny thing.

The doors were shut a while ago to anyone but the scum 6 - however i do hope that we are a solution and do not become another part of the problem.

[Ads]

I am just at a loss as to how "the legal route" is not democratic, yet an oligarchy of vested interests (of which were 1) somehow is. Your position seems quixotic and confused in equal measure.

[kippaxvilla2]

I know your name is Pablo Picasso but do you have to be so verbose in every post.

[pablo_picasso]

I am just at a loss as to how "the legal route" is not democratic, yet an oligarchy of vested interests (of which were 1) somehow is. Your position seems quixotic and confused in equal measure.

I think the difference is that you don't think that each club having a single vote when proposals are brought to the floor in the Premier League club meetings isn't democratic.

I do...

Granted, there are the individual politics of each club looking after their own interests, Villa included, & I agree, overall, I want the rules to change because they are unfair to some clubs, again, Villa included, but if 20 clubs have 20 votes & three quarters are needed to make changes, then that is a democratic process between the clubs. Rule of the majority. Dictionary definition of democracy.

And I may be being a little too romantic, but that is part of the problem with modern day football. All those wonderful notions of footballing romanticism are being eroded away by greed & self interest. I don't want Villa to be involved with that.

Anyway, I am tired now. I have said all I can say on the matter & some people think I am being too wordy, so I think I am going to call it a day...

[Ads]

I dont think it's democratic, hence why I've called it an oligarchy and likened it to the Res Publica. They'll be no Gracchi land reform style sysmic changes to the Premier League without radical intervention. Let's hope we're  not clubbed to death, figuratively or literally in the event it is us who leads the charge for change.

[garyellis]

I am just at a loss as to how "the legal route" is not democratic, yet an oligarchy of vested interests (of which were 1) somehow is. Your position seems quixotic and confused in equal measure.

We have followed process and probably had already worked out for reasons stated on here that was never going to work. So we move to option 2. The current rules are not achieving what they set out to do, they are creating a comfort blanket for some and a monopoly for others . It needs to change and you use the tools at your disposal to make that change. I am right behind our owners!

[paul_e]

My post raises the inherent contradictions of your position, which I don't think you've addressed. You don't have to, I just can't reconcile it.

I just don't want to have to type out the same shit I have typed out several times already.

I just think there is already a process in place to deal with our concerns & going the legal route (potentially hinted at but not done yet, thankfully) is moving out of the democratic process that we agreed to & signed up for, which will open up a pandoras box of litigation.

I have read all sorts of negative comments on this forum towards ManC & their litigation, including wanting expulsion from the league.

And admittedly, similar views from myself as well.

So I don't think that I am being particularly contradictory...

But like I said, I understand that not everyone will agree & understand. And I fully respect theirs & your rights to disagree.

The small, but very significant difference here is that we're complaining about the rules because we don't want to break them but they are making it difficult for us to plan for the Champions League. Man City broke the rules and are trying to find legal loopholes to get away with it.

[paul_e]

I am just at a loss as to how "the legal route" is not democratic, yet an oligarchy of vested interests (of which were 1) somehow is. Your position seems quixotic and confused in equal measure.

I think the difference is that you don't think that each club having a single vote when proposals are brought to the floor in the Premier League club meetings isn't democratic.

I do...

Granted, there are the individual politics of each club looking after their own interests, Villa included, & I agree, overall, I want the rules to change because they are unfair to some clubs, again, Villa included, but if 20 clubs have 20 votes & three quarters are needed to make changes, then that is a democratic process between the clubs. Rule of the majority. Dictionary definition of democracy.

And I may be being a little too romantic, but that is part of the problem with modern day football. All those wonderful notions of footballing romanticism are being eroded away by greed & self interest. I don't want Villa to be involved with that.

Anyway, I am tired now. I have said all I can say on the matter & some people think I am being too wordy, so I think I am going to call it a day...

Allowing clubs to vote for or against rules that dictate things like transfers is pretty obviously subject to greed and self-interest so that particular line feels like it should be aimed at the existence of the premier league more than anything.

[Stu]

There’s an article in the times about this now, but it’s behind a paywall.

[cdbearsfan]

Here you go mate...

https://archive.ph/nhZ6f