I actually don't think FFP will change anything to be honest.
It will stop another 'City' from happening, because of the time frame, but it will not help level the playing field, which was one of it's objectives.
The likes of United, Real, Barca, Milan's, Juve and Bayern are pretty much going to be up there all the time because they can live within their means, and still be successful.
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
VC where have I posted that fergie was being unethical?
..............
So, he isn't being unethical? Make your mind up.
--------
Did I say he was being unethical? I said his comments were ill advised.
.......................
So, what was your point of the shirt sales issue?
Not the shirt sales themselves but going against the premier league charter which was signed up to.
Agreeing on something and then reneging because the extra income is needed to help pay "silly amounts" of interest.
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
Not the shirt sales themselves but going against the premier league charter which was signed up to
................
And what was your point in that?
What relevance was it to SAF's comments on Cities spending?
The extra income is not via the sale of the actual shirts directly... But how much those extra shirts are worth to Nike... Which is the projection they'd use to arrive at a figure to pay Man Utd.
If we get taken over by Qatar and go down the same route as them I for one will pack it in.
Agreeing on something and then reneging because the extra income is needed to help pay "silly amounts" of interest.
.....................
Tell me, what part of 'United do not make any more money no matter how many shirts we sell', don't you still understand, despite three of us clearly explaining it to you?
The relevance is tied in with many other points on here... It's the man utd fans that are targeted with these new kits... thereby "fleeced" in order to help pay for the loans and interest payments..
Whatever you say about man city they haven't done the same to their fans.
So fergie saying "silly money" is just being a little bit bitter.
The extra income is not via the sale of the actual shirts directly... But how much those extra shirts are worth to Nike... Which is the projection they'd use to arrive at a figure to pay Man Utd.
...............
And what has that remotely got to do with SAF's comments on Cities spending?
Tell me, what part of 'United do not make any more money no matter how many shirts we sell', don't you still understand, despite three of us clearly explaining it to you?
------
Look at it this way (numbers are not accurate)
Business scenario a means Nike sell 300 million shirts
Business scenario b means Nike sell 180 million shirts
Which one would Nike pay more to hold the rights for?
If man utd had sought to impose the charter there's no way the deal would be paying the same as they are now.
It's the man utd fans that are targeted with these new kits... thereby "fleeced" in order to help pay for the loans and interest payments..
..........................
This has no relevance to City spending money. None at all.
You have a problem with our fans spending money.
What a weirdo.
And what has that remotely got to do with SAF's comments on Cities spending?
-----
That at least city are spending without :
A) playing a part in fleecing the fans
B) taking money out of football
Uh-oh vidic on the name calling trail again.
Basically city's spending is not
A) hurting the fans
B) taking money out of football
It is fundamentally a good thing.
If man utd had sought to impose the charter there's no way the deal would be paying the same as they are now.
.................
So what? This still has nothing to do with SAF's comments on Cities spending.
United shirt sales are totally irrelevant to Manchester City, other than the fact they would like to match them.
To repeat :
Basically city's spending is not :
A) hurting the fans
B) taking money out of football
It is fundamentally a good thing.
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 2 minutes ago
To repeat :
Basically city's spending is not :
A) hurting the fans
..................
I never said it was.
.......................
B) taking money out of football
........................
Again, I never said it was.
Fundamentally a good thing?
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 4 minutes ago
Fundamentally a good thing?
................
Not for Liverpool. You can just about survive within your means, but you can't compete with Chelsea and City. You are now three seasons with out CL football.
Great for us, because we can compete with them.
So you're saying it is fundamentally a good thing?
Also in association to the above post from you it can be concluded that man utds spending
A) could be hitting fans harder
B) is taking money out of the game
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 2 minutes ago
So you're saying it is fundamentally a good thing?
....................
Work out why it isn't good for Liverpool, then you will finally figure out why it isn't fundamentally good for football.
I don't think you can figure it out though. It really isn't hard.
Of course, I will be very happy to explain this to you. I shouldn't have to though.
Why don't you do a thread on the Liverpool board, and ask you own fans if they think Cities and Chelsea's endless pots of cash is good for your club.
It's fundamentally good for football, in total.
Leaving club rivalries aside you have concluded the same.
Thereby fergies comments were ill advised as even you disagree with him.
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 32 seconds ago
It's fundamentally good for football, in total.
Leaving club rivalries aside you have concluded the same.
...............
No, I have not.
Once you figure out why it isn't good for Liverpool, you will figure out why it isn't good for any one else.
I will give you some hints.
United can compete with both City and Chelsea.
Arsenal can live well within their means and compete for the CL as well.
Forget this notion about what you think City is putting into football, it is for ther own gain, it doesn't help anyone else.
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 9 minutes ago
Thereby fergies comments were ill advised as even you disagree with him.
.............
No, I do not disagree with him, I think his comments are spot on.
I said, they were not necessary. Please learn how to read, that way I will not have to keep correcting you.
Sign in if you want to comment
FFP, silly money etc...bitter
Page 12 of 14
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14
posted on 15/5/12
I actually don't think FFP will change anything to be honest.
It will stop another 'City' from happening, because of the time frame, but it will not help level the playing field, which was one of it's objectives.
The likes of United, Real, Barca, Milan's, Juve and Bayern are pretty much going to be up there all the time because they can live within their means, and still be successful.
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
VC where have I posted that fergie was being unethical?
..............
So, he isn't being unethical? Make your mind up.
--------
Did I say he was being unethical? I said his comments were ill advised.
.......................
So, what was your point of the shirt sales issue?
posted on 15/5/12
Not the shirt sales themselves but going against the premier league charter which was signed up to.
Agreeing on something and then reneging because the extra income is needed to help pay "silly amounts" of interest.
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
Not the shirt sales themselves but going against the premier league charter which was signed up to
................
And what was your point in that?
What relevance was it to SAF's comments on Cities spending?
posted on 15/5/12
The extra income is not via the sale of the actual shirts directly... But how much those extra shirts are worth to Nike... Which is the projection they'd use to arrive at a figure to pay Man Utd.
posted on 15/5/12
If we get taken over by Qatar and go down the same route as them I for one will pack it in.
posted on 15/5/12
Agreeing on something and then reneging because the extra income is needed to help pay "silly amounts" of interest.
.....................
Tell me, what part of 'United do not make any more money no matter how many shirts we sell', don't you still understand, despite three of us clearly explaining it to you?
posted on 15/5/12
The relevance is tied in with many other points on here... It's the man utd fans that are targeted with these new kits... thereby "fleeced" in order to help pay for the loans and interest payments..
Whatever you say about man city they haven't done the same to their fans.
So fergie saying "silly money" is just being a little bit bitter.
posted on 15/5/12
The extra income is not via the sale of the actual shirts directly... But how much those extra shirts are worth to Nike... Which is the projection they'd use to arrive at a figure to pay Man Utd.
...............
And what has that remotely got to do with SAF's comments on Cities spending?
posted on 15/5/12
Tell me, what part of 'United do not make any more money no matter how many shirts we sell', don't you still understand, despite three of us clearly explaining it to you?
------
Look at it this way (numbers are not accurate)
Business scenario a means Nike sell 300 million shirts
Business scenario b means Nike sell 180 million shirts
Which one would Nike pay more to hold the rights for?
If man utd had sought to impose the charter there's no way the deal would be paying the same as they are now.
posted on 15/5/12
It's the man utd fans that are targeted with these new kits... thereby "fleeced" in order to help pay for the loans and interest payments..
..........................
This has no relevance to City spending money. None at all.
You have a problem with our fans spending money.
What a weirdo.
posted on 15/5/12
And what has that remotely got to do with SAF's comments on Cities spending?
-----
That at least city are spending without :
A) playing a part in fleecing the fans
B) taking money out of football
posted on 15/5/12
Uh-oh vidic on the name calling trail again.
posted on 15/5/12
Basically city's spending is not
A) hurting the fans
B) taking money out of football
It is fundamentally a good thing.
posted on 15/5/12
If man utd had sought to impose the charter there's no way the deal would be paying the same as they are now.
.................
So what? This still has nothing to do with SAF's comments on Cities spending.
United shirt sales are totally irrelevant to Manchester City, other than the fact they would like to match them.
posted on 15/5/12
To repeat :
Basically city's spending is not :
A) hurting the fans
B) taking money out of football
It is fundamentally a good thing.
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 2 minutes ago
To repeat :
Basically city's spending is not :
A) hurting the fans
..................
I never said it was.
.......................
B) taking money out of football
........................
Again, I never said it was.
posted on 15/5/12
Fundamentally a good thing?
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 4 minutes ago
Fundamentally a good thing?
................
Not for Liverpool. You can just about survive within your means, but you can't compete with Chelsea and City. You are now three seasons with out CL football.
Great for us, because we can compete with them.
posted on 15/5/12
So you're saying it is fundamentally a good thing?
Also in association to the above post from you it can be concluded that man utds spending
A) could be hitting fans harder
B) is taking money out of the game
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 2 minutes ago
So you're saying it is fundamentally a good thing?
....................
Work out why it isn't good for Liverpool, then you will finally figure out why it isn't fundamentally good for football.
I don't think you can figure it out though. It really isn't hard.
Of course, I will be very happy to explain this to you. I shouldn't have to though.
Why don't you do a thread on the Liverpool board, and ask you own fans if they think Cities and Chelsea's endless pots of cash is good for your club.
posted on 15/5/12
It's fundamentally good for football, in total.
Leaving club rivalries aside you have concluded the same.
posted on 15/5/12
Thereby fergies comments were ill advised as even you disagree with him.
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 32 seconds ago
It's fundamentally good for football, in total.
Leaving club rivalries aside you have concluded the same.
...............
No, I have not.
Once you figure out why it isn't good for Liverpool, you will figure out why it isn't good for any one else.
I will give you some hints.
United can compete with both City and Chelsea.
Arsenal can live well within their means and compete for the CL as well.
Forget this notion about what you think City is putting into football, it is for ther own gain, it doesn't help anyone else.
posted on 15/5/12
comment by Redinthehead -at least we didn't finish 13th (U1860)
posted 9 minutes ago
Thereby fergies comments were ill advised as even you disagree with him.
.............
No, I do not disagree with him, I think his comments are spot on.
I said, they were not necessary. Please learn how to read, that way I will not have to keep correcting you.
Page 12 of 14
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14