Sign in

Andrew James

@a-bluejay.bsky.social
1.1K followers 2.1K following 1.2K posts

Internationalist based in Cheshire, UK. Strongly averse to irrationalism in public policy but in favour of the same in art and to allow MCFCTID! Admirer of a fine phrase bringing wisdom from the past. No direct donations- already set up thro charities.

PostsRepliesMedia
Reposted by Andrew James
Stop Rosebank @stopcambo.bsky.social · 07/10/2026
This is a message for @andyburnham.bsky.social
7280161
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 07/10/2026
I know we won't agree but many thanks for the discussion
010
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 07/10/2026
You suggest that City did it too quickly financially but in football terms it was incredibly effective, & rules are rules, but they've changed for the better for infrastructure & they should change to allow sustainable investment for more clubs to compete at the highest level(+ costcap re inflation)
100
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 07/10/2026
Yes, rules are rules and processes will be processes, but it remains that City spent similar money to the other top teams, who improved dramatically to compete with City & had created a highly sustainable club with the net spend much less in the last few years and income easily able to sustain it.
100
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 07/10/2026
Established teams already compete thro reputation, status, likelihood of success... they shouldn't do it purely thro holding back sustainable investment for others. Having a historic fan (& wider customer) base isn't an excuse to keep winning thro keeping other teams less able to compete financially
100
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 07/10/2026
The process will be the process. But my view remains that competition in football is good, investment to add more teams to ability to compete at the top is good (sustainable)- I hope Villa & Newcastle find a way. Inflation is already ridiculous & wont stop & a 'squad cost cap' is desperately needed.
100
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 07/10/2026
Panel found against but do you think the City investment could have been done in a compliant way? There seems precedent that the AD govt, like Rwanda, Qatar, Saudi, could independently decide to promote the country thro supporting nat business to sponsor AD owned sporting excellence within't rules
100
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 07/10/2026
Agreed, good in principle and shame they didn't have the foresight for the north Londoners
000
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 07/10/2026
And more to the point the league competitiveness suffered. As an aside, economically it would have had a deflationary effect on player costs to counter newcomers and investment in Europe- but not justified.
000
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 07/10/2026
Agreed in principle (forgive me, I find the timing a little suspect). Always felt it was a shame that Arsenal & Tottenham had to pay a footballing price for a sensible investment.
100
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 07/10/2026
You seem to be more knowledgable than me so I'm genuinely interested in your view of these questions not just re City but more widely. Although I obviously accept I have an existing opinion it's good to test it and consider the wider issues.
000
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 07/10/2026
Is it better that the rules have changed to exclude infrastructure or is it unfair to Arsenal & Tottenham?
100
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 07/10/2026
That money- instead of servicing Glazers debt- could have been used for fans- lower prices etc if rules prevented it. The rules have changed to exclude infrastructure- so Utd's stadium won't be included. And the Blackburn investment question, should that have been prevented?
200
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 07/10/2026
What are your views on the £1 billion debt of Utd? How is that allowed under sustainability rules? Asking for a Utd fan
100
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 07/10/2026
Agree there shouldn't be 'unlimited investment' & consequent inflation but as a fan I'm happy that games are much more competitive when teams can compete on equal financial basis so would prefer a 'squad cost cap' system with sustainability checks.
000
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 07/10/2026
Thanks for that. It's a really interesting relationship between building sporting success & business investment. "building a club" clearly means both- especially internationally. What are your views on the Blackburn investment? Should it have been prevented by similar rules?
200
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 07/10/2026
That's kind of my point! No-one can argue that rules wont be rules. Obviously City owners, accountants & lawyers thought they stayed within the letter but the panel strongly disagreed...& processes will be processes. But the rules are anticompetitive & City competed with similar money to other teams
000
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 07/10/2026
We'll have to disagree on whether the rules were 'intended' to hold down less rich clubs from investment, but that is certainly the effect on Newcastle&Villa at present & why they'd be illegal outside sport. Utd are allowed to be £1b in debt so not convinced about how effective at sustainability.
100
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
Not saying it wasn't legit under the no regs system. Just saying the attempt to prevent investment by others wasn't legit (illegal in any other business). City ended up spending very similar amounts to the other rich teams- less than Chelsea & United to compete equally financially for the league
100
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
So can you confirm that you think that the rules in question did not protect teams who got their money before the regs from investment in other teams? - to protect the 'status quo'? The fact that red teams weren't very good at spending theirs is another issue entirely.
200
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
Whether rules were broken is a technical issue- But rich clubs claiming it was morally 'unfair' that City had the same money as them (just did much better with it) is hypocrisy. City tried to get past the unfair rules and have or haven't on appeal failed to get past them.
100
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
Rules will be rules regardless of their nature Some gain a competitive advantage by making the rules to benefit themselves, some seek to match that competitiveness and may fall foul of the anti-competition rules... or not. -football improves with competition- anti-competitive rules help no-one
100
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
The originally rich (rich before regs) teams installed the financial regs to protect themselves from fair financial competition after they got scared by the investment into Chelsea. That would be illegal in any other business. Of course they haven't broken the rules there to protect their advantage
100
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
City have transformed English football from top to bottom and competing with City (spending similar money to the teams that became rich when there were no financial regs) has improved every team & player in the Prem
100
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
Are you aware that the Prem rules are designed to keep the rich teams rich and keep out competition from the others? That they'd be illegal in any other business for anti-fair-competitiveness? I'd have thought the best place for fair competition is sport.
100
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
Are you from one of the Trump linked teams? He loves a rule I've heard You may have seen I hate all billionaires but particularly in this circumstance the hypocrisy of those backing Trump.
100
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
Red cartel it is then! United by any chance? Those with the £1 billion debt who spent more than city are are still crap?
100
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
Are you a red cartel fan whinging about someone able to compete on an equal financial footing (& be much better) or a less rich club fan blaming the team that tried to succeed against the anti-competition rules instead of the rules that keep you down?
100
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
United fans may wish to add a clause that stops their owners fleecing the club....
000
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
Re City: Infrastructure is excluded from the new regs. Why? because the old regs were anti-competitive & bad Only way for fair financing on the pitch is a "squad cost cap" allowing clubs to invest to compete. As the video says- the new rules still there to protect the status quo ie: already wealthy.
100
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
New football financial regs still there to defend the 'status quo'- ie: the clubs that are already wealthy: www.youtube.com/shorts/u_CXF...
youtube.com
Premier League’s New Financial Fair Play Rules Explained
YouTube video by The Rest Is Football
000
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
Infrastructure is excluded from the new regs. Why? because the old regs were bad. The only way for fair financing on the pitch is a "squad cost cap" incl transfers & salaries- is & always was. Linked as closely as poss to UEFA competitors & frozen if poss to allow as many to catch up to it as can.
000
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
City raised similar money to Utd, Chelsea, Liverpl (could've raised more), not upset with those? Why? Because their money came from before the regs? 'cos they weren't as good? City transformed English football from top to bottom. Arsenal are much better because of competing with City. Trained Arteta
500
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
I'm fine with banning all outside jobs for refs. Taking an outside job doesn't mean you're corrupt- PGMOL approved it &, as you're a 'rules is rules' guy, you'll be fine with that- but it's an unnecessary distraction. Can't remember Oliver ever making an unfair decision in City's favour- evidence?
000
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
It's absolutely vital to separate English clubs from their present owners- and that includes Arsenal (greatly admired for the beautiful game in the Wenger era) from Kroenke & his Trump links. None of us elect our owners... But equal spending rights remain vital for a level playing field in sport.
010
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
Arsenal's main sponsor is Emirates! Rules will be rules regardless of their nature Some gain a competitive advantage by making the rules to benefit themselves some seek to match that competitiveness & may fall foul of the anti-competition rules... or not & rule-makers will seek their pound of flesh
100
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
Thread shut- All billionaires are bad. Totally agree with banning them all- equally! Your billionaire gives money to Trump so don't mention children & Epstein. And no-one supports Trump without supporting his attempted destruction of democracy, his wars & vital support for Netanyahu. Ban them all!
131
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
Bribing refs is certainly not fair- think your imaginary pile-on is getting the best of you there. Sham club? bollocks. Formed in 1894- even you can't blame Abu Dhabi investment for that. When in the Third Division in 2012 average crowd of 28,261. You Prem-only glory hunters don't have a clue
200
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
Man Utd fans call City fans 'cheats' for beating them repeatedly with similar (often less) money! In reality Utd set up anti-comp rules (illegal outside sport) to protect themselves from financially fair competion & are now morally indignant that City tried to compete on an equal financial footing
010
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
No, they insisted on anti-competition rules illegal in any other business (5 yrs in prison) & then got themselves into £1 bn pounds of debt One gives money to Trump & one's a racist 'patriot' Brexiter living in Morocco. And then bleat that you got beaten by a Team spending the same money as you
110
Reposted by Andrew James
Max B 💙 🔶 🇺🇦 🇬🇧 🇪🇺 @maxbrockbank.com · 05/10/2026
Standing up to the balaclava nonces. Inspiring.
511446548
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 05/10/2026
True you don't. Rules will be rules regardless of their nature Some gain a competitive advantage by making the rules to benefit themselves, some seek to match that competitiveness and may fall foul of the anti-competition rules... or not. & those who made the rules will have their pound of flesh
000
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 05/10/2026
The trad wealthy clubs made their money with zero regulation, made the Prem to max wealth & then investment started coming in, first to Chelsea & they panicked & brought in the regs.
000
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 05/10/2026
FFP designed to protect the rich clubs from competition. If was designed to protect finances why does it allow for Utd to be £1 billion in debt? City spent similar amounts to those available to the trad wealthy clubs & were completely financially sustainable spending less than others in recent yrs
210
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 05/10/2026
I reiterate; I'm not the one moralising Rules will be rules regardless of their nature Some gain a competitive advantage by making the rules to benefit themselves, some seek to match that competitiveness and may fall foul of the anti-competition rules... or not.
100
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 05/10/2026
Good idea- change the subject, glory in a bit of power of retribution and make false analogies Armstrong took drugs- the correct analogy is if he'd spent too much on his bike. Still not understanding your moral defence of rules that deliberately protect existing wealthy clubs & limit competition.
100
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 05/10/2026
You're the moraliser & yet you agree with the rules that are manifestly unfair & get all upset that City were able to spend similar to the originally wealthy teams & had the audacity to do it better Investment from City transformed the Prem into the best league & vastly improved English football
100
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 05/10/2026
which bit you disputing?
200
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 05/10/2026
"Business"- the phrase is "fair competition". Ask Newcastle & Villa fans how fair your rules are that are forcing them to sell their players to the richer clubs. City spent similar money to that available to the wealthy clubs & beat them on a level financial basis. That's what's really got to you
100
Andrew James @a-bluejay.bsky.social · 05/10/2026
Rules will be rules is a fact regardless of the nature of those rules. Some gain a competitive advantage by making the rules to benefit themselves, some seek to match that competitiveness and may fall foul of the anti-competition rules... or not. Accept regs- just get off your high horse
010