so man city and chelsea are the only clubs in world football who have sugar daddies in charge
what about Malaga? what about the money Barca and Real spend and make up for by not paying their taxes.
ffs real are pretty much funded by the bank of spain
what about the various russian clubs who are funded by oil barrons and compete in the CL??
these rules are being put in place incase the likes of abramovich or your sheikh get bored/ do a runner and leave the club financially fooked
Wake up! These guys aren't spending their own personal money
This Spanish duopoly as you called it has created the two times European Champions and current World Champions not to mention the best club side I’ve ever seen in Barcelona. The ‘exciting’ Premier League with its influx of foreigners has created an entertaining competition but at the expense of the national team.
The rule isn't being brought in just because of City Paul
Makes sense to live within your means, things are all rosy now but all these clubs going bust shows that may not always be the case.
If these rules are fully adhered to real & Barca will be the only competition,the likes of Malaga could never have the opportunity. Do people really want the monopoly of the old sky 4 gorging on the CL trough to return?
Rangers, Leeds and Pompey had trouble because of debts they couldn't pay but rather than targetting clubs that borrow beyond their means, Platini is trying to stem new, debt-free investment.
Think it's designed to allow smaller teams a chance to reach the top with: skill, great management and a long-term patient strategy that will also see the development of local players..... rather than just throwing money at something for shallow, instant success
Why shouldn't an Everton or Stoke supporter say dream of the day when they too can have their turn?
--------------------------
stoke deserve nothing ever.
Paul, i know it's highly unlikely but what if roman or the sheik suddenly pulled all their cash and walked away leaving the clubs with a crippling wage bill they could in no way sustain???? Would you be so blase about it then.
How shallow is the success of a team who only need to beat one other like Celtic or Real Madrid?
Think it's designed to allow smaller teams a chance to reach the top with: skill, great management and a long-term patient strategy that will also see the development of local players..... rather than just throwing money at something for shallow, instant success
How does a "patient team" like say tottenham expect to compete at the top when these rules just mean all the other teams above them can still outspend them?
Paul, i know it's highly unlikely but what if roman or the sheik suddenly pulled all their cash and walked away leaving the clubs with a crippling wage bill they could in no way sustain???? Would you be so blase about it then.
What if the banks gave the Glazers 7 days to settle United's debts?
The OP sounds like he`s just dug out his 1998 season VHS and realised it could all go t1ts up again
Stocke have got a lot more committed fans than Arsenal have.
PPLF
It's hard to set aside self-interest when relating to these discussions. I suspect our positions of principle would be reversed if we both supported the other Manchester club.
Trying to distance myself for United's interests, I do think FFP makes sense in terms of trying to keep the game sustainable. However, I don't think regulation of the game should stop there. It would be healthy if more of the revenue from TV were recycled around the game - e.g. if some of the European competition money went back to all clubs. It would be great if the governing bodies acted to legislate parasitical owners out of the game, to keep seats affordable, to insist on a larger quota of home-grown players (and to protect smaller clubs' investment in youth from rich club vultures). I think there are a lot of ways of making football healthier from grass routes upwards, narrowing the gap between the rich clubs and the rest, and making it easier for relatively smaller clubs to challenge for trophies thanks to hard work and creative management.
Of course a sugar daddy can pluck a small club from nowhere and make them join the elite. But that just makes things good for the fans of the previously small club. It doesn't make the sport as a whole any less elitist. It doesn't change the paradigm of a game where self-perpetuating money rules. For that reason, I'd support all the other kinds of regulation I listed, whereas I don't see zillionaires bestowing the riches on random clubs as a healthy thing.
"What if the banks gave the Glazers 7 days to settle United's debts?"
They`d $hit themeselves, call pan-am and book a one way flight to tampa and flog the club to the highest bidder hopefully
Boris, united can afford to service their debt's under the bank agreements. Why would the bank renege on this??
and arsenal have better fans than city
your fans cant even face the right way
your fans cant even face the right way
It's not a case of being blasé Earl,I've been following City for decades without any real hope of ever seeing any sort of success other than the odd promotion here and there.I see many other supporters of other clubs say how they wouldn't want it for their club but if they really were put in the same position I don't believe their attitude wouldn't change.I wouldn't of missed it for the world and I don't really care if anyone thinks its shallow,ive had my fill of watching Jamie Peacock thank you very much
How shallow is the success of a team who only need to beat one other like Celtic or Real Madrid?
----------------------------
Celtic's time has passed and the gap between all teams in Scotland is smaller than it's been for years.
The problem in Spain is how the TV money is split, that's their problem and they need to sort it.
Germany have already taken the initiative (just as they have economically BTW) and currently have their own FFP rules (50+1 rule). It's taken a while to bare fruit but now they have some of the lowest average ticket prices, highest attendances, one of the most competitive leagues out there and the overall quality of the League is rising year on year.
"arsenal have better fans than X"
One of the criteria on an admittance sheet to Broadmoor.
Celtic's time has passed and the gap between all teams in Scotland is smaller than it's been for years.
--------------------------------------
not so sure about that what with thier only rivals gone
Paulpowersleftfoot (U1037)
I think any fan of any club would be a bare faced liar if they said they wouldn`t want city`s spending power, as much as it butchers every fibre of my being to admit it!
As an orient fan i would not want tht sort of money in my club
Dean Cox > Silva
Sign in if you want to comment
Platini,the enemy of the also ran
Page 1 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 3/7/12
so man city and chelsea are the only clubs in world football who have sugar daddies in charge
what about Malaga? what about the money Barca and Real spend and make up for by not paying their taxes.
ffs real are pretty much funded by the bank of spain
what about the various russian clubs who are funded by oil barrons and compete in the CL??
these rules are being put in place incase the likes of abramovich or your sheikh get bored/ do a runner and leave the club financially fooked
posted on 3/7/12
Wake up! These guys aren't spending their own personal money
posted on 3/7/12
This Spanish duopoly as you called it has created the two times European Champions and current World Champions not to mention the best club side I’ve ever seen in Barcelona. The ‘exciting’ Premier League with its influx of foreigners has created an entertaining competition but at the expense of the national team.
posted on 3/7/12
The rule isn't being brought in just because of City Paul
Makes sense to live within your means, things are all rosy now but all these clubs going bust shows that may not always be the case.
posted on 3/7/12
If these rules are fully adhered to real & Barca will be the only competition,the likes of Malaga could never have the opportunity. Do people really want the monopoly of the old sky 4 gorging on the CL trough to return?
posted on 3/7/12
Rangers, Leeds and Pompey had trouble because of debts they couldn't pay but rather than targetting clubs that borrow beyond their means, Platini is trying to stem new, debt-free investment.
posted on 3/7/12
Think it's designed to allow smaller teams a chance to reach the top with: skill, great management and a long-term patient strategy that will also see the development of local players..... rather than just throwing money at something for shallow, instant success
posted on 3/7/12
Why shouldn't an Everton or Stoke supporter say dream of the day when they too can have their turn?
--------------------------
stoke deserve nothing ever.
posted on 3/7/12
Paul, i know it's highly unlikely but what if roman or the sheik suddenly pulled all their cash and walked away leaving the clubs with a crippling wage bill they could in no way sustain???? Would you be so blase about it then.
posted on 3/7/12
How shallow is the success of a team who only need to beat one other like Celtic or Real Madrid?
posted on 3/7/12
Think it's designed to allow smaller teams a chance to reach the top with: skill, great management and a long-term patient strategy that will also see the development of local players..... rather than just throwing money at something for shallow, instant success
How does a "patient team" like say tottenham expect to compete at the top when these rules just mean all the other teams above them can still outspend them?
posted on 3/7/12
Paul, i know it's highly unlikely but what if roman or the sheik suddenly pulled all their cash and walked away leaving the clubs with a crippling wage bill they could in no way sustain???? Would you be so blase about it then.
What if the banks gave the Glazers 7 days to settle United's debts?
posted on 3/7/12
The OP sounds like he`s just dug out his 1998 season VHS and realised it could all go t1ts up again
posted on 3/7/12
Stocke have got a lot more committed fans than Arsenal have.
posted on 3/7/12
PPLF
It's hard to set aside self-interest when relating to these discussions. I suspect our positions of principle would be reversed if we both supported the other Manchester club.
Trying to distance myself for United's interests, I do think FFP makes sense in terms of trying to keep the game sustainable. However, I don't think regulation of the game should stop there. It would be healthy if more of the revenue from TV were recycled around the game - e.g. if some of the European competition money went back to all clubs. It would be great if the governing bodies acted to legislate parasitical owners out of the game, to keep seats affordable, to insist on a larger quota of home-grown players (and to protect smaller clubs' investment in youth from rich club vultures). I think there are a lot of ways of making football healthier from grass routes upwards, narrowing the gap between the rich clubs and the rest, and making it easier for relatively smaller clubs to challenge for trophies thanks to hard work and creative management.
Of course a sugar daddy can pluck a small club from nowhere and make them join the elite. But that just makes things good for the fans of the previously small club. It doesn't make the sport as a whole any less elitist. It doesn't change the paradigm of a game where self-perpetuating money rules. For that reason, I'd support all the other kinds of regulation I listed, whereas I don't see zillionaires bestowing the riches on random clubs as a healthy thing.
posted on 3/7/12
"What if the banks gave the Glazers 7 days to settle United's debts?"
They`d $hit themeselves, call pan-am and book a one way flight to tampa and flog the club to the highest bidder hopefully
posted on 3/7/12
Boris, united can afford to service their debt's under the bank agreements. Why would the bank renege on this??
posted on 3/7/12
and arsenal have better fans than city
your fans cant even face the right way
posted on 3/7/12
your fans cant even face the right way
posted on 3/7/12
It's not a case of being blasé Earl,I've been following City for decades without any real hope of ever seeing any sort of success other than the odd promotion here and there.I see many other supporters of other clubs say how they wouldn't want it for their club but if they really were put in the same position I don't believe their attitude wouldn't change.I wouldn't of missed it for the world and I don't really care if anyone thinks its shallow,ive had my fill of watching Jamie Peacock thank you very much
posted on 3/7/12
How shallow is the success of a team who only need to beat one other like Celtic or Real Madrid?
----------------------------
Celtic's time has passed and the gap between all teams in Scotland is smaller than it's been for years.
The problem in Spain is how the TV money is split, that's their problem and they need to sort it.
Germany have already taken the initiative (just as they have economically BTW) and currently have their own FFP rules (50+1 rule). It's taken a while to bare fruit but now they have some of the lowest average ticket prices, highest attendances, one of the most competitive leagues out there and the overall quality of the League is rising year on year.
posted on 3/7/12
"arsenal have better fans than X"
One of the criteria on an admittance sheet to Broadmoor.
posted on 3/7/12
Celtic's time has passed and the gap between all teams in Scotland is smaller than it's been for years.
--------------------------------------
not so sure about that what with thier only rivals gone
posted on 3/7/12
Paulpowersleftfoot (U1037)
I think any fan of any club would be a bare faced liar if they said they wouldn`t want city`s spending power, as much as it butchers every fibre of my being to admit it!
posted on 3/7/12
As an orient fan i would not want tht sort of money in my club
Dean Cox > Silva
Page 1 of 8
6 | 7 | 8