no-one but their own (small) fanbase
----------------------------------------------
You don't remember football from the 60s & 70s do you Siempre
Siempre can't remember what he had for breakfast judging by some of his recent comments.
, how fan bases of the 60's are relevant when they were more or less confined to domestic fans not global audiences now.
If you want to believe that the big clubs will stand aside and let you take over then you are niave indeed.
The fact is you could have a perfectly profitable european competition without City, Zenit, PSG and Aznhi. You could not have one without United, Madrid , Barca and Bayern.
Coming from a United fan that is either a wum reply or a masterclass in irony.
...................................
It is true, other clubs do not want you to have unlimited transfer and wage budgets...
Why Chelsea and City fans find this so surprising is a complete mystery.
............................
City have 500m followers, we would be missed.
...........................
Does the M stand for Manchester?
..........................
As long as you understand, then alls well!
..........................
For the hard of thinking, I have provided a simple version of FFP;
The Clubs who generate more money can spend more money.
The Clubs who generate less money have to spend less money.
The United's of the world get all the best Players and win all the major prizes which earns them more money to spend on even better players.
The gap widens.
FFP kills competition.
Fresh money stimulates competition.
"The United's of the world get all the best Players and win all the major prizes which earns them more money to spend on even better players."
and thats precisely why the big clubs will fight tooth and nail to make sure they are enforced. Who do you think help draft the rules ?
His Younger Bruv Is Meant To Be Even Better
As simple to understand as that is - don't hold your breathe that U'td fans will understand it.
(well they do - just suits to ignore it)
I didnt ignore it and I agree with what he says, they are the antithesis of fair, but they are coming in whether you like it or not.
Actually Siempre, I'm lead to believe Chelsea are in line with it but I don't think EUFA will strictly enforce it anyway!
Chelsea are definitely getting there and I was more qualified in respect of them, but City are 5 years away at least from complying, even longer if the Etihad deal is downgraded.
If they aren't strictly enforced, the big clubs will just walk away and start their own european league. The blue print is already in place.
The United's of the world get all the best Players and win all the major prizes which earns them more money to spend on even better players.
............................
The United's and whoever are up there with them competing... the flavour of the month so to speak. Getting into the cl places would open up the possibilities of very good young players going to them and with some good management and purchases they could progress further and even slowly become part of that elite.
Without FFP
The gap widens.
lack of FFP kills competition.
Clubs having to actually work with a budget stimulates competition and stops crazy inflation on transfer fees and wages.
A unanimously agreed single budget would be fine.
But no-one is proposing that are they?
What is being proposed is a cementing of the pecking order.
comment by RVP's Left Foot - 26/05/1999 (U11781)
posted 15 hours, 25 minutes ago
Fellaini, are you against the rules happening or not?
===
I can see the positives....but also the negatives.
It should be a one club, one vote decision for the PL clubs and Championship clubs. I will favour the bigger clubs but help the smaller clubs also.
My main concern would be league 1&2 clubs seeing.less money transfer through large transfer fees.
Whilst I can understand the push for FFP from Man Utds and Arsenal's perspective, is there genuinely any other clubs that can claim they were denied a title winning chance due to Roman's and the Sheik's spending? Certainly not Liverpool, who've barely featured in a title race for twenty odd years. Nor Tottenham, who last lifted it back in the day's of Blanchflower. Even less so Newcastle who've won practically nothing in my lifetime.
But what we have seen since Roman's arrival is an unprecedented level of interest worldwide, fueling the fan bases of all the clubs mentioned. Staggering sums are now being paid by TV companies for screening rights. Sponsorship deals are defying the recession, as more and more companies seek an association with the Premiership.
Coincidence? Well maybe. But maybe a large part of this can be attributed to Roman raising the bar in terms of top talent being attracted to these shores and others being compelled to follow suit or even outdo. Eventually, maybe with a few tweaks in terms of owner guarantees, equilibrium will be restored, the laws of supply and demand and survival of the fittest dictate that. But I think the league needs to think long and hard before stopping current and new investors from adding their funds or we could be killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
And what of the alternatives? Siempre talks of a European Super League. Invitation only, presumably no promotion and relegation. A collection of the current elite, padded out by teams who's historical success still dictates their current income. But would the likes of Liverpool, Tottenham, Benfica, Dynamo Kiev etc. really walk away from their respective FA's and sign up to that?
How would those clubs sell the idea to their fans when they'd be just basically making up the numbers? Cannon fodder for the current powerhouses, facing seasons where a tenth placed finish represents success. Will that be the time when clubs are forced to accept that the bottom line of the trading results means more than trophies?
Everton, Tottenham, Villa could have made the CL more times if it wasn't for sugar daddy clubs, so all this talk about sugar daddies breaking up the regular top 4 is nonsense. The fairest way is to have an equal budget but that would never work because football is a global sport. FFP would still be fairer, close the gap between richest/poorest clubs and stop the crazy inflation in the market. sugar daddy fans disagree but what do you expect.
citys owners seem to be set on a course of cooperation and compliance to any democratically arranged FFP
,im sure City will try to comply with FFP
however if victimisation were to occur unfairly
it may be within the bounds of possibility to set up an alternative rival league,you may end up with several organisations like in boxing
the false united utopia could easily be challenged,devalued,rendered irrelevant by an alternative group
Seriously, anyone who thinks FFP will 'close gaps' is a bloody fool
anyone who thinks it won't close gaps is a fool.
and can be proved simply.
the two richest clubs in the league are Chelsea and City... so by limiting their spending the gap instantly becomes smaller.
And with FFP
The one richest club in the league is Man Utd - so by increasing their spending the gap is pretty much what it was but only one club in the hunt!
Honestly I don't see whats so hard to see about that!
The ONLY fair way, as one poster has already alluded to, is everyone has the same budget to work to - but as we all know Man Utd want their cake and eat it!
His Younger Bruv Is Meant To Be Even Better
Seriously, anyone who thinks FFP will 'close gaps' is a bloody fool
I thik if you think FFP is not going to be implemented strictly then I think it is you tht is the bloody fool. Do you think chairman of reasonably rich clubs are just going to accept that billionaire arabs, russians can just come in and more or less take over our game. I don`t think so. Expect legal documents from all over Europe to be landing on The football authorities desks if they appear to be turning a blind eye to overspending, and not balancing the books.
Ahh the legal argument.
Well played.
But wait...
If an oligarch / Sheikh will spend a £Billion or two on acquiring the best Footballers...
Perhaps he might have a similar attitude towards his legal team.
Just a thought.
sandy-brown you really are just not getting it are you. All that Michel Platini and the clubs of the like of Barca, Real Madird, the clubs of Inter and Real Madrid + Man Utd, Arsenal, etc is to stop other clubs from gate crashing their european party yr after yr.
Do you really think we would be having this argument if the likes of Man City and Chelsea weren't taking over by very rich businesss men, I don't think so. Michel Platini is all for keeping the status quo, and it is time he grew up and stopped acting like a little baby.
Football is big businesss and she should be worring about how club are going to finiance their huge debts, and not worry about rich businesss men using their own money to run football clubs.
BrummieBlue
The gap between top and bottom would still be smaller, which is the point I was replying to. I'm not denying the biggest clubs would would have a much better chance of being at the top, but for me that's better than who has the richest sugar daddy and it will also curb the ridiculous spending and inflation in wages. Also SAF has been behind a lot of United's success not just their revenues... Liverpool show what can happen with poor management.
.8b!t FFP is the most unfair way of bring in new rules. I would like you to explain how Wigan Athletic whoses average crown is somewhere around the 10,000 to 12,000 mark can compete with Man City whoses average gate is 4X as much FFP is really fair in that sense. The only fair way is to bring in a maximum wage throughout all the top leagues throughout Europe of say £125,000. This way it wouldn't matter what your crowd is you coudn't pay your players any more then this top wage.
Also how can he turn a blind eye to the huge debts that are currently being run by football clubs of the like of Man Utd curent debts close to £500m, but not only them but the likes of Barca and Real Madrid as well. Michel Platini should be more concered about how they are going to reduce that debt, and not about how clubs are being run, just so long as the owners can repay the clubs debt he should not be worried. At least the owners of Chelsea and Man City can repay the debt, where as the owners of Man Utd would struggle to repay the debt, should the banks ask to repay there overdraft.
Sign in if you want to comment
The ja606 FFP Vote
Page 10 of 13
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
posted on 9/9/12
no-one but their own (small) fanbase
----------------------------------------------
You don't remember football from the 60s & 70s do you Siempre
posted on 9/9/12
Siempre can't remember what he had for breakfast judging by some of his recent comments.
posted on 9/9/12
, how fan bases of the 60's are relevant when they were more or less confined to domestic fans not global audiences now.
If you want to believe that the big clubs will stand aside and let you take over then you are niave indeed.
The fact is you could have a perfectly profitable european competition without City, Zenit, PSG and Aznhi. You could not have one without United, Madrid , Barca and Bayern.
posted on 9/9/12
Coming from a United fan that is either a wum reply or a masterclass in irony.
...................................
It is true, other clubs do not want you to have unlimited transfer and wage budgets...
Why Chelsea and City fans find this so surprising is a complete mystery.
............................
City have 500m followers, we would be missed.
...........................
Does the M stand for Manchester?
..........................
As long as you understand, then alls well!
..........................
posted on 9/9/12
For the hard of thinking, I have provided a simple version of FFP;
The Clubs who generate more money can spend more money.
The Clubs who generate less money have to spend less money.
The United's of the world get all the best Players and win all the major prizes which earns them more money to spend on even better players.
The gap widens.
FFP kills competition.
Fresh money stimulates competition.
posted on 9/9/12
"The United's of the world get all the best Players and win all the major prizes which earns them more money to spend on even better players."
and thats precisely why the big clubs will fight tooth and nail to make sure they are enforced. Who do you think help draft the rules ?
posted on 9/9/12
His Younger Bruv Is Meant To Be Even Better
As simple to understand as that is - don't hold your breathe that U'td fans will understand it.
(well they do - just suits to ignore it)
posted on 9/9/12
I didnt ignore it and I agree with what he says, they are the antithesis of fair, but they are coming in whether you like it or not.
posted on 9/9/12
Actually Siempre, I'm lead to believe Chelsea are in line with it but I don't think EUFA will strictly enforce it anyway!
posted on 9/9/12
Chelsea are definitely getting there and I was more qualified in respect of them, but City are 5 years away at least from complying, even longer if the Etihad deal is downgraded.
If they aren't strictly enforced, the big clubs will just walk away and start their own european league. The blue print is already in place.
posted on 9/9/12
The United's of the world get all the best Players and win all the major prizes which earns them more money to spend on even better players.
............................
The United's and whoever are up there with them competing... the flavour of the month so to speak. Getting into the cl places would open up the possibilities of very good young players going to them and with some good management and purchases they could progress further and even slowly become part of that elite.
Without FFP
The gap widens.
lack of FFP kills competition.
Clubs having to actually work with a budget stimulates competition and stops crazy inflation on transfer fees and wages.
posted on 9/9/12
A unanimously agreed single budget would be fine.
But no-one is proposing that are they?
What is being proposed is a cementing of the pecking order.
posted on 9/9/12
comment by RVP's Left Foot - 26/05/1999 (U11781)
posted 15 hours, 25 minutes ago
Fellaini, are you against the rules happening or not?
===
I can see the positives....but also the negatives.
It should be a one club, one vote decision for the PL clubs and Championship clubs. I will favour the bigger clubs but help the smaller clubs also.
My main concern would be league 1&2 clubs seeing.less money transfer through large transfer fees.
posted on 9/9/12
Whilst I can understand the push for FFP from Man Utds and Arsenal's perspective, is there genuinely any other clubs that can claim they were denied a title winning chance due to Roman's and the Sheik's spending? Certainly not Liverpool, who've barely featured in a title race for twenty odd years. Nor Tottenham, who last lifted it back in the day's of Blanchflower. Even less so Newcastle who've won practically nothing in my lifetime.
But what we have seen since Roman's arrival is an unprecedented level of interest worldwide, fueling the fan bases of all the clubs mentioned. Staggering sums are now being paid by TV companies for screening rights. Sponsorship deals are defying the recession, as more and more companies seek an association with the Premiership.
Coincidence? Well maybe. But maybe a large part of this can be attributed to Roman raising the bar in terms of top talent being attracted to these shores and others being compelled to follow suit or even outdo. Eventually, maybe with a few tweaks in terms of owner guarantees, equilibrium will be restored, the laws of supply and demand and survival of the fittest dictate that. But I think the league needs to think long and hard before stopping current and new investors from adding their funds or we could be killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
And what of the alternatives? Siempre talks of a European Super League. Invitation only, presumably no promotion and relegation. A collection of the current elite, padded out by teams who's historical success still dictates their current income. But would the likes of Liverpool, Tottenham, Benfica, Dynamo Kiev etc. really walk away from their respective FA's and sign up to that?
How would those clubs sell the idea to their fans when they'd be just basically making up the numbers? Cannon fodder for the current powerhouses, facing seasons where a tenth placed finish represents success. Will that be the time when clubs are forced to accept that the bottom line of the trading results means more than trophies?
posted on 9/9/12
Everton, Tottenham, Villa could have made the CL more times if it wasn't for sugar daddy clubs, so all this talk about sugar daddies breaking up the regular top 4 is nonsense. The fairest way is to have an equal budget but that would never work because football is a global sport. FFP would still be fairer, close the gap between richest/poorest clubs and stop the crazy inflation in the market. sugar daddy fans disagree but what do you expect.
posted on 9/9/12
citys owners seem to be set on a course of cooperation and compliance to any democratically arranged FFP
,im sure City will try to comply with FFP
however if victimisation were to occur unfairly
it may be within the bounds of possibility to set up an alternative rival league,you may end up with several organisations like in boxing
the false united utopia could easily be challenged,devalued,rendered irrelevant by an alternative group
posted on 9/9/12
Seriously, anyone who thinks FFP will 'close gaps' is a bloody fool
posted on 9/9/12
anyone who thinks it won't close gaps is a fool.
posted on 9/9/12
and can be proved simply.
the two richest clubs in the league are Chelsea and City... so by limiting their spending the gap instantly becomes smaller.
posted on 9/9/12
And with FFP
The one richest club in the league is Man Utd - so by increasing their spending the gap is pretty much what it was but only one club in the hunt!
Honestly I don't see whats so hard to see about that!
The ONLY fair way, as one poster has already alluded to, is everyone has the same budget to work to - but as we all know Man Utd want their cake and eat it!
posted on 9/9/12
His Younger Bruv Is Meant To Be Even Better
Seriously, anyone who thinks FFP will 'close gaps' is a bloody fool
I thik if you think FFP is not going to be implemented strictly then I think it is you tht is the bloody fool. Do you think chairman of reasonably rich clubs are just going to accept that billionaire arabs, russians can just come in and more or less take over our game. I don`t think so. Expect legal documents from all over Europe to be landing on The football authorities desks if they appear to be turning a blind eye to overspending, and not balancing the books.
posted on 9/9/12
Ahh the legal argument.
Well played.
But wait...
If an oligarch / Sheikh will spend a £Billion or two on acquiring the best Footballers...
Perhaps he might have a similar attitude towards his legal team.
Just a thought.
posted on 9/9/12
sandy-brown you really are just not getting it are you. All that Michel Platini and the clubs of the like of Barca, Real Madird, the clubs of Inter and Real Madrid + Man Utd, Arsenal, etc is to stop other clubs from gate crashing their european party yr after yr.
Do you really think we would be having this argument if the likes of Man City and Chelsea weren't taking over by very rich businesss men, I don't think so. Michel Platini is all for keeping the status quo, and it is time he grew up and stopped acting like a little baby.
Football is big businesss and she should be worring about how club are going to finiance their huge debts, and not worry about rich businesss men using their own money to run football clubs.
posted on 9/9/12
BrummieBlue
The gap between top and bottom would still be smaller, which is the point I was replying to. I'm not denying the biggest clubs would would have a much better chance of being at the top, but for me that's better than who has the richest sugar daddy and it will also curb the ridiculous spending and inflation in wages. Also SAF has been behind a lot of United's success not just their revenues... Liverpool show what can happen with poor management.
posted on 9/9/12
.8b!t FFP is the most unfair way of bring in new rules. I would like you to explain how Wigan Athletic whoses average crown is somewhere around the 10,000 to 12,000 mark can compete with Man City whoses average gate is 4X as much FFP is really fair in that sense. The only fair way is to bring in a maximum wage throughout all the top leagues throughout Europe of say £125,000. This way it wouldn't matter what your crowd is you coudn't pay your players any more then this top wage.
Also how can he turn a blind eye to the huge debts that are currently being run by football clubs of the like of Man Utd curent debts close to £500m, but not only them but the likes of Barca and Real Madrid as well. Michel Platini should be more concered about how they are going to reduce that debt, and not about how clubs are being run, just so long as the owners can repay the clubs debt he should not be worried. At least the owners of Chelsea and Man City can repay the debt, where as the owners of Man Utd would struggle to repay the debt, should the banks ask to repay there overdraft.
Page 10 of 13
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13