bellwhiff wrote:It’s pretty easy to grasp if you have a reasonable level of intelligence. Why should a club with greater resources be limited because another team hasn’t? Football by definition isn’t an equal sport. The whole point is to be better. If you can afford it, you should be able to spend it. Making everyone the same isn’t the way forward.
I’m fairly confident in my level of intelligence, which is why I might think it’s more complicated than that, albeit I am leaning to agree with you that teams who generate more should be able to spend more.
My worry is that this would create other problems in the game. If football was built on hard capitalism then the Stags would have certainly gone to the wall by now, even with JRs deep pockets.
Would you advocate the idea that Premier League clubs shouldn’t give handouts to teams further down the pyramid? Someone posted on here that we currently get about £800k a year through handouts.
Surely expecting handouts from more successful clubs is akin to a welfare system? Is this also football communism? The same logic applies to both circumstances, it you can afford it then spend it, if you can’t then don’t.
You didn’t address the restriction of trade comments either. Are the rules telling players that they can not earn a living from football?
Using Stockley as an example, he is still getting paid and only has to do half the work unless someone else signs him. Is this what you mean by football communism as we have a system where everyone gets paid even if they have nothing to do?
Another thought, if someone else does sign him, then does that mean a different player has to have his ability to earn restricted because there won’t be room in squad of his new club?
I’m not being obtuse here, I am genuinely interested in the discussion.