Yes, the C³

Richard Murphy says:
April 20 2021 at 4:21 pm
I sustainable club paying tax on its profits has a going term future that is of much more overall use to society than one that maximises PAYE payment by being unsustainable

Reply
Trevor Nash says:
April 20 2021 at 5:33 pm
So the workers should get less so that the club owners can make a profit?

Richard Murphy says:
April 21 2021 at 7:59 am
In this case, yes

The capitalists must make more profit so that the tax take is lower.

Whut?

Especially since this is what the European Superleague was trying to achieve in the first place.

13 thoughts on “Yes, the C³”

  1. I sustainable club paying tax on its profits has a going term future that is of much more overall use to society than one that maximises PAYE payment by being unsustainable

    Congratulations to anyone who understood that gibberish

  2. For any other business, he’d be celebrating how the workers had benefited at the expense of the fat cat owners.

  3. The clubs at the top of the game aren’t unsustainable. Sure they may spend more than they can afford and lose money, but they can turn the taps off by selling players and not renewing contracts (which are usually short term). That may cost them league position (cf Leeds United) but the club continues.

  4. looks like johnson did kaibosh it- suggesting a “legislative bomb”. But there’s a review in progress and at least the G suggests that the German model of 50 p.c fab owned clubs could be imposed.

  5. I have little interest in soccer, but it seems to me that there are two types of sport – professional and amateur. For the former, decisions will always be influenced to a great extent by financial considerations. If you don’t like this fact, nobody will force you to watch.

  6. @Adrian: that headline must be about right though. Real and Barca are broke, Arsenal and Spurs must be toiling with a fair part of their income being from crowds: no crowds of late. Chelsea and ManC are rich men’s playthings so losses aren’t the end of the world. But Liverpool and ManU are clubs that the owners desperately want to be hugely profitable without taking the risks of capitalism. Shazam: form a cartel! (N.B. Boris was right in his description of it: not often I get to say that.)

    I’ve no idea how the finances are at Atletico or the three Italian clubs, but probably they are unhealthy.

    Murph recommends that a God-like figure (who can he have in mind?) should impose order on the chaos.

  7. Dearieme, he sees elite football (and the viability of the existing main teams) as a public service.

    There is decent-enough amateur football in every town which you can watch for free, assuming watching football is a public essential.

  8. @dearieme : He’s not not actually wrong, but god only knows how many years – decades even – behind the curve. Though English clubs have never really made profits anyway – owners were prohibited from paying significant dividends from the off, so why bother to make the effort in the first place?

    All clubs have had no crowds. So that revenue stream went straight up the swanny. Official merchandise from the club shop – not essential so it was closed, so that vanished as well, save for what could be done online. All that was left was the income from the broadcasters.

    The funny thing there is that the broadcasters seem to have demanded a rebate when the league season halted, and then restarted – with many subscribers thinking that the cash would be better spent elsewhere, not surprisingly. There’s also a slightly weird bit of thinking in having all the games played consecutively, Friday evening through to Monday evening – as if a fan of a particular club would watch any match involving any club.

    The PL TV money is distributed fairly evenly – particularly when compared to Italy or Spain. No club’s position is good right now, but the Spanish and Italian ones must be pretty bloody awful. And they’re the ones that haven’t stepped back just yet.

  9. Bojo Bunter the Baffoon & Richie the Dick have a lot on common. They can’t see a bandwagon they don’t want to climb up on. At least with Bunter there’s a motive. It’s something absurdly trivial distracts attention from his trashing the economy. What’s the Dick’s. Or is it just that he’s a dick?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *