Clubs like Arsenal are desparate to see the big spending Clubs have their wings clipped. Despite the fact their own success was built entirely upon enormous and unprecedented spend on wages and transfer fees
__________________________________________
Show you working and do not mention one or two names, there is a difference btwn the one two three world top players you buy in 5 to 10 yrs and buying a almost an entire 25 man squad at those prizes in less than 5 yrs with high wages. The first example inreases the prize of great players slightly but the second increases every player's prize because not all players bought are world class and they are given world class wages
Clubs like Arsenal are desparate to see the big spending Clubs have their wings clipped. Despite the fact their own success was built entirely upon enormous and unprecedented spend on wages and transfer fees
=========
This is utter rubbish!
Please tell me when exactly this happened.
Have you ever heard of a guy called Henry Norris? x
Wait didn't Arsenal bribe their way into top flight football? x
I've heard of Chuck Norris.
I think ffp is needed more for the clubs that send beyond their means and end up with a debt crisis. Whilst I think city/psg style spending needs to be regulated, they're not really in any financial trouble
Clubs like Madrid and barca who have generated hundreds of millions of pounds of debt are the clubs that need their spending curbed
If I really have to explained history pf Arsenal to you, perhaps this thread is one you should avoid. I am sure there is a "Cazorla is better than Messi" thread.
Best part of 50 years without a trophy then Herbert Chapman
wonder man (and anyone else for that matter) - If a club has a genuine rich benefactor; why do they need to have their spending curbed?
I don't want to hear about 'what would I think if another club was taken over by a multi-billionaire and threatened to displace city?' I'd say good luck to them.
I just want someone to explain why they think it is important that clubs with no debt should not be gifted money from their owner? x
Like I said, I think the clubs that need to be regulated are clubs that spend without having the rich owners, like rangers, Portsmouth, and I believe (although I'm no expert on their financials) barca and real
The only reason I can fathom is that other clubs borrow money to keep up; but that's the fault of the other clubs isn't it? x
Yes that's what Im saying. If clubs have rich benefactors, their not really spending beyond their means, but other clubs borrow millions and gamble on success. This is the case in the championship too, where clubs gamble on promotion, or in rangers' case, where they borrowed money and were relying on getting into the CL to get by. These are the clubs who need ammediate attention
I just want someone to explain why they think it is important that clubs with no debt should not be gifted money from their owner? x
---------
I think it's important for the good of football as a whole that the playing field is levelled. Arguably the biggest sport in the world is being decided by who has the most money.
I like to use Formula 1 as a metaphor. Millions are spent every season to try and gain a competitive advantage, but the rules in place limit what they can do with their money.
While this may be beyond the lower teams the winner is usually decided my the smartest team (designers like Adrian Newey) and the most talented driver.
How boring would it be (Schumacher) if the manufacturer that sold the most cars could put whatever engine they wanted in the car?
Simply put - unpredictability is exciting. These rules ensure that teams with lower revenue will spend less in the market.
Great if you're a fan of a rich club, for everyone else it signals and eternal contest for "best of the rest".
it would be better if some of these clubs moaning actually tried to compete with city instead of waving thier hands in the air and screaming FFP
arsenal wont spend ,spurs are notorious for driving one sided bargains ,they just got 35 million for modric that will never see the light of day,they want to be able to trouser millions and still be successful and city stop them doing that
Jedward, those clubs would then end up in huge amounts of debt. FFP is to stop exactly that
What a predictable response from a City fan
Stop for a second and realise what's going on here - the top 3 is guaranteed already. Add one more oil baron to the PL and the competition is dead and buried for the forseeable future.
Of course i'd like to see Spurs be that team, but i'd almost certainly watch less football - it'd turn into La Liga except we'd have 4 teams instead of 2 that were worth watching play each other.
I think it's important for the good of football as a whole that the playing field is levelled. Arguably the biggest sport in the world is being decided by who has the most money.
----------------------------------------------------
When was it ever different in the lifetime of most people on here?
When was it ever different in the lifetime of most people on here?
------------
The difference being that success bred success. Life is unfair but at least the rich teams had earned it by winning football games and attracting fans.
Chelsea and City have not earned financial or footballing success. I make this point not because i'm bitter but because the PL is getting predictable and boring.
Unfortunately these rules will only make the situation worse.
which clubs ?,i merely advocate spurs and arsenal spend what they earn,try a bit harder reach a bit deeper ,disturb a few moths
Have you ever heard of a guy called Henry Norris?
=======
I don't know so much about him, but are you trying to say Arsenal is a top 4 club today because of what he did?
j.edward
I can't speak for Arsenal but Spurs generally do spend what they earn, if I remember right our last accounts showed a £500k profit.
Which clubs? City, United, Chelsea. Only Roman's incompetence as an owner dropped them temporarily out of the top 4.
The difference being that success bred success. Life is unfair but at least the rich teams had earned it by winning football games and attracting fans.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thats not how Man Utd attracted it's huge following of fans though is it!
They are in the enviable position they are in now, fan base wise, because of a horrific accident on a runway in Munich 54 years ago!
As awful as it was, that night shaped Utd into the club they are now, with the wave of national sympathy that followed!
No one can compete with that now without other resources - does it make it fair?
And pp1212 - yes he did, because without him Arsenal might not even exist had it not been for him!
Same for Man Utd's bail out in 1912!
comment by X (U4074)
posted 35 minutes ago
wonder man (and anyone else for that matter) - If a club has a genuine rich benefactor; why do they need to have their spending curbed?
I don't want to hear about 'what would I think if another club was taken over by a multi-billionaire and threatened to displace city?' I'd say good luck to them.
I just want someone to explain why they think it is important that clubs with no debt should not be gifted money from their owner? x
_________________________________________
The problem such kind of spending introduces is player prize and wage inflation, while you might be able to splash money around most clubs wont be able to do that essentially at some point clubs like Arsenal united spurs and new castle might be able to attract similar kind of big spenders with the same happening in Spain German Italy and Paris, it will create such a disparity betwn the top 4 to 6 and the rest of the leagues that essentially the premier leagues might be forced to cut off these teams to form thier own league in order for the rest of the clubs to survive.
This in turn will affect home grown talent as the big clubs will not invest money on young players just rather poach anyone that has shown potential. Which that big gap it will mean the lower clubs will have little bargaining power as the player will essentially make it hard for the parent club to jorpadise a chance at un real wages.
Also this type of spending is unsustainable. City has owners and Abramovic have been pumping money into a club without seeing any returns at some point they will leave because prizes will continue to grow and wages inflate to a point were no revenue will be able to cover the cost of running the club thus the owner will either default or will willingly part with his/her money to balance the club.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
BrummieBlue
The thing is we're talking about rule changes to affect the current situation in football. No amount of legislation will change history, or the team fans support.
What does change over time is the success of teams around them. United can't win everything and rarely do despite their financial advantage.
What's happening now however is an arms race that's way out of control and is distorting both the financial and footballing aspects that make the sport exciting to watch.
Sign in if you want to comment
The ja606 FFP Vote
Page 5 of 13
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 8/9/12
Clubs like Arsenal are desparate to see the big spending Clubs have their wings clipped. Despite the fact their own success was built entirely upon enormous and unprecedented spend on wages and transfer fees
__________________________________________
Show you working and do not mention one or two names, there is a difference btwn the one two three world top players you buy in 5 to 10 yrs and buying a almost an entire 25 man squad at those prizes in less than 5 yrs with high wages. The first example inreases the prize of great players slightly but the second increases every player's prize because not all players bought are world class and they are given world class wages
posted on 8/9/12
Clubs like Arsenal are desparate to see the big spending Clubs have their wings clipped. Despite the fact their own success was built entirely upon enormous and unprecedented spend on wages and transfer fees
=========
This is utter rubbish!
Please tell me when exactly this happened.
posted on 8/9/12
Have you ever heard of a guy called Henry Norris? x
posted on 8/9/12
Wait didn't Arsenal bribe their way into top flight football? x
posted on 8/9/12
I've heard of Chuck Norris.
posted on 8/9/12
I think ffp is needed more for the clubs that send beyond their means and end up with a debt crisis. Whilst I think city/psg style spending needs to be regulated, they're not really in any financial trouble
posted on 8/9/12
Clubs like Madrid and barca who have generated hundreds of millions of pounds of debt are the clubs that need their spending curbed
posted on 8/9/12
If I really have to explained history pf Arsenal to you, perhaps this thread is one you should avoid. I am sure there is a "Cazorla is better than Messi" thread.
Best part of 50 years without a trophy then Herbert Chapman
posted on 8/9/12
wonder man (and anyone else for that matter) - If a club has a genuine rich benefactor; why do they need to have their spending curbed?
I don't want to hear about 'what would I think if another club was taken over by a multi-billionaire and threatened to displace city?' I'd say good luck to them.
I just want someone to explain why they think it is important that clubs with no debt should not be gifted money from their owner? x
posted on 8/9/12
Like I said, I think the clubs that need to be regulated are clubs that spend without having the rich owners, like rangers, Portsmouth, and I believe (although I'm no expert on their financials) barca and real
posted on 8/9/12
The only reason I can fathom is that other clubs borrow money to keep up; but that's the fault of the other clubs isn't it? x
posted on 8/9/12
Yes that's what Im saying. If clubs have rich benefactors, their not really spending beyond their means, but other clubs borrow millions and gamble on success. This is the case in the championship too, where clubs gamble on promotion, or in rangers' case, where they borrowed money and were relying on getting into the CL to get by. These are the clubs who need ammediate attention
posted on 8/9/12
I just want someone to explain why they think it is important that clubs with no debt should not be gifted money from their owner? x
---------
I think it's important for the good of football as a whole that the playing field is levelled. Arguably the biggest sport in the world is being decided by who has the most money.
I like to use Formula 1 as a metaphor. Millions are spent every season to try and gain a competitive advantage, but the rules in place limit what they can do with their money.
While this may be beyond the lower teams the winner is usually decided my the smartest team (designers like Adrian Newey) and the most talented driver.
How boring would it be (Schumacher) if the manufacturer that sold the most cars could put whatever engine they wanted in the car?
Simply put - unpredictability is exciting. These rules ensure that teams with lower revenue will spend less in the market.
Great if you're a fan of a rich club, for everyone else it signals and eternal contest for "best of the rest".
posted on 8/9/12
it would be better if some of these clubs moaning actually tried to compete with city instead of waving thier hands in the air and screaming FFP
arsenal wont spend ,spurs are notorious for driving one sided bargains ,they just got 35 million for modric that will never see the light of day,they want to be able to trouser millions and still be successful and city stop them doing that
posted on 8/9/12
Jedward, those clubs would then end up in huge amounts of debt. FFP is to stop exactly that
posted on 8/9/12
What a predictable response from a City fan
Stop for a second and realise what's going on here - the top 3 is guaranteed already. Add one more oil baron to the PL and the competition is dead and buried for the forseeable future.
Of course i'd like to see Spurs be that team, but i'd almost certainly watch less football - it'd turn into La Liga except we'd have 4 teams instead of 2 that were worth watching play each other.
posted on 8/9/12
I think it's important for the good of football as a whole that the playing field is levelled. Arguably the biggest sport in the world is being decided by who has the most money.
----------------------------------------------------
When was it ever different in the lifetime of most people on here?
posted on 8/9/12
When was it ever different in the lifetime of most people on here?
------------
The difference being that success bred success. Life is unfair but at least the rich teams had earned it by winning football games and attracting fans.
Chelsea and City have not earned financial or footballing success. I make this point not because i'm bitter but because the PL is getting predictable and boring.
Unfortunately these rules will only make the situation worse.
posted on 8/9/12
which clubs ?,i merely advocate spurs and arsenal spend what they earn,try a bit harder reach a bit deeper ,disturb a few moths
posted on 8/9/12
Have you ever heard of a guy called Henry Norris?
=======
I don't know so much about him, but are you trying to say Arsenal is a top 4 club today because of what he did?
posted on 8/9/12
j.edward
I can't speak for Arsenal but Spurs generally do spend what they earn, if I remember right our last accounts showed a £500k profit.
Which clubs? City, United, Chelsea. Only Roman's incompetence as an owner dropped them temporarily out of the top 4.
posted on 8/9/12
The difference being that success bred success. Life is unfair but at least the rich teams had earned it by winning football games and attracting fans.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thats not how Man Utd attracted it's huge following of fans though is it!
They are in the enviable position they are in now, fan base wise, because of a horrific accident on a runway in Munich 54 years ago!
As awful as it was, that night shaped Utd into the club they are now, with the wave of national sympathy that followed!
No one can compete with that now without other resources - does it make it fair?
And pp1212 - yes he did, because without him Arsenal might not even exist had it not been for him!
Same for Man Utd's bail out in 1912!
posted on 8/9/12
comment by X (U4074)
posted 35 minutes ago
wonder man (and anyone else for that matter) - If a club has a genuine rich benefactor; why do they need to have their spending curbed?
I don't want to hear about 'what would I think if another club was taken over by a multi-billionaire and threatened to displace city?' I'd say good luck to them.
I just want someone to explain why they think it is important that clubs with no debt should not be gifted money from their owner? x
_________________________________________
The problem such kind of spending introduces is player prize and wage inflation, while you might be able to splash money around most clubs wont be able to do that essentially at some point clubs like Arsenal united spurs and new castle might be able to attract similar kind of big spenders with the same happening in Spain German Italy and Paris, it will create such a disparity betwn the top 4 to 6 and the rest of the leagues that essentially the premier leagues might be forced to cut off these teams to form thier own league in order for the rest of the clubs to survive.
This in turn will affect home grown talent as the big clubs will not invest money on young players just rather poach anyone that has shown potential. Which that big gap it will mean the lower clubs will have little bargaining power as the player will essentially make it hard for the parent club to jorpadise a chance at un real wages.
Also this type of spending is unsustainable. City has owners and Abramovic have been pumping money into a club without seeing any returns at some point they will leave because prizes will continue to grow and wages inflate to a point were no revenue will be able to cover the cost of running the club thus the owner will either default or will willingly part with his/her money to balance the club.
posted on 8/9/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 8/9/12
BrummieBlue
The thing is we're talking about rule changes to affect the current situation in football. No amount of legislation will change history, or the team fans support.
What does change over time is the success of teams around them. United can't win everything and rarely do despite their financial advantage.
What's happening now however is an arms race that's way out of control and is distorting both the financial and footballing aspects that make the sport exciting to watch.
Page 5 of 13
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10