Yes, instead we should hope it succeeds so that one club is dominant for the next 50 years with all the other clubs feeding off the scraps. All because, and here is the funny bit, one club is able to massively outspend the rest, something I have been lead to believe is the work of the devil.
Why am I not surprised that a Chelsea fan doesn't approve of FFA
Why am I not surprised a United fan is in favour of FFP?
United, aswell as at least 14 other teams are in favour of ffp. The only people that aren't in favour are Chelsea, City, and QPR with 2 more on the fence. I'll let you work that out.
Chaavs have really begun to crack now especially since Rafa has taken over.
You cannot introduce a European wide financial rule, on countries that are so different.
French clubs will be penalised further when it comes to signing players mainly because there is a pressure on them to break even, meaning they cannot continue to pay excessively higher gross wages than the rest of Europe because their government takes 75% from footballers' earnings.
People will say it is just France, but could you imagine the uproar if English clubs were missing out on players because of pressure to break even whilst under a government that taxes footballers' (they are in the top rate) 75% of their earnings, which in turn meant clubs had to pay them more gross wages just to leave them with the £5million they wanted a year?
And what about the Portuguese clubs who can defeat FFP with the loophole of taking all the best South American players before anyone because the work permit is hardly an issue?
These are just some of the issues.
We know football isn't a level playing field as it is now, that's why club's have the chance to become one of the elite. Please spare us the nonsense that this rule is going to be fair, it's not.
Owners are only wanting it because it means they can make a profit each year, regardless of where their club are in the table- not that many of them would care anyway!
Actually Chelsea are known to be in favour of it what they are against was the story from a few days days ago. The idea of FFP is great if what it would do is protect clubs from going into administration and spending into massive trouble, however all it will do is keep the top clubs where they are, and never shall that dominance be broken. Chelsea would actually be in quite a strong position if FFP comes in due to the revenue the club makes, but you won't get another club breaking in to the top consistently. Again something the OP claimed would be terrible.
As always.... the point is missed or ignored.
Surely even City and Chelsea fans would be against a league where four billionaires try to outspend each other to win the league and stay in Europe?
Billionaire owners is ok, for now. It has added a spark to a league that was in danger of going stale.
But the point i was making is that two more billionaires will kill the league dead.
As for UTD dominating if FFP is adhered to. Surely Arsenal are in a great position.... 60,000 seats, very high prices, very high income, London based.
I don't think they could kill the league as United have proven able to break any attempts at Billionaire dominance, but if FFP is able to stop outside investment then there will be no teams able to challenge yourselves due to the brilliant job United have done in marketing themselves around the world, and surely then you would agree that would also kill the league just as much as your own hypothetical situation.
In all honesty I can understand why both sides feel about FFP the way they do, and it is nothing to do with the well being or future success of other clubs. United and arsenal fans don't care about protecting the smaller clubs from going into administration and Chelsea and City fans don't care about the rise of other clubs to challenge at the top. All the fans care about is there club challenging at the top, and whichever way a club is able to do that the fans will support relentlessly.
I was talking about revenue Wayne, keep up
At least binky not on here to talk utter bitter shiittteee! As I see it ffp overall is a good idea to stop clubs folding, but it could lead to higher ticket prices as venue is sort. It's a fine balance but try and talk to a city fan about it and you've got no chance as proved today with the threads. Clubs around Europe are worried about wages and their debt, so 14 says yes means it's not a united thing which binky and the rest deludingly believe !
The sugar daddies already have 2 CL spots sewn up, I spoke about it on another topic but basically without them Tottenham and Newcastle would have been in the CL but instead we have two teams that have thrown hundreds of millions of pounds at it...
Yeah that is much better.
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
FFP failure could end the league
Page 1 of 1
posted on 17/1/13
Grow up
posted on 17/1/13
Yes, instead we should hope it succeeds so that one club is dominant for the next 50 years with all the other clubs feeding off the scraps. All because, and here is the funny bit, one club is able to massively outspend the rest, something I have been lead to believe is the work of the devil.
posted on 17/1/13
Why am I not surprised that a Chelsea fan doesn't approve of FFA
posted on 17/1/13
Why am I not surprised a United fan is in favour of FFP?
posted on 17/1/13
United, aswell as at least 14 other teams are in favour of ffp. The only people that aren't in favour are Chelsea, City, and QPR with 2 more on the fence. I'll let you work that out.
posted on 17/1/13
Chaavs have really begun to crack now especially since Rafa has taken over.
posted on 17/1/13
You cannot introduce a European wide financial rule, on countries that are so different.
French clubs will be penalised further when it comes to signing players mainly because there is a pressure on them to break even, meaning they cannot continue to pay excessively higher gross wages than the rest of Europe because their government takes 75% from footballers' earnings.
People will say it is just France, but could you imagine the uproar if English clubs were missing out on players because of pressure to break even whilst under a government that taxes footballers' (they are in the top rate) 75% of their earnings, which in turn meant clubs had to pay them more gross wages just to leave them with the £5million they wanted a year?
And what about the Portuguese clubs who can defeat FFP with the loophole of taking all the best South American players before anyone because the work permit is hardly an issue?
These are just some of the issues.
We know football isn't a level playing field as it is now, that's why club's have the chance to become one of the elite. Please spare us the nonsense that this rule is going to be fair, it's not.
Owners are only wanting it because it means they can make a profit each year, regardless of where their club are in the table- not that many of them would care anyway!
posted on 17/1/13
Actually Chelsea are known to be in favour of it what they are against was the story from a few days days ago. The idea of FFP is great if what it would do is protect clubs from going into administration and spending into massive trouble, however all it will do is keep the top clubs where they are, and never shall that dominance be broken. Chelsea would actually be in quite a strong position if FFP comes in due to the revenue the club makes, but you won't get another club breaking in to the top consistently. Again something the OP claimed would be terrible.
posted on 17/1/13
A massive profit of £1m
posted on 17/1/13
As always.... the point is missed or ignored.
Surely even City and Chelsea fans would be against a league where four billionaires try to outspend each other to win the league and stay in Europe?
Billionaire owners is ok, for now. It has added a spark to a league that was in danger of going stale.
But the point i was making is that two more billionaires will kill the league dead.
As for UTD dominating if FFP is adhered to. Surely Arsenal are in a great position.... 60,000 seats, very high prices, very high income, London based.
posted on 17/1/13
I don't think they could kill the league as United have proven able to break any attempts at Billionaire dominance, but if FFP is able to stop outside investment then there will be no teams able to challenge yourselves due to the brilliant job United have done in marketing themselves around the world, and surely then you would agree that would also kill the league just as much as your own hypothetical situation.
In all honesty I can understand why both sides feel about FFP the way they do, and it is nothing to do with the well being or future success of other clubs. United and arsenal fans don't care about protecting the smaller clubs from going into administration and Chelsea and City fans don't care about the rise of other clubs to challenge at the top. All the fans care about is there club challenging at the top, and whichever way a club is able to do that the fans will support relentlessly.
I was talking about revenue Wayne, keep up
posted on 17/1/13
At least binky not on here to talk utter bitter shiittteee! As I see it ffp overall is a good idea to stop clubs folding, but it could lead to higher ticket prices as venue is sort. It's a fine balance but try and talk to a city fan about it and you've got no chance as proved today with the threads. Clubs around Europe are worried about wages and their debt, so 14 says yes means it's not a united thing which binky and the rest deludingly believe !
posted on 17/1/13
The sugar daddies already have 2 CL spots sewn up, I spoke about it on another topic but basically without them Tottenham and Newcastle would have been in the CL but instead we have two teams that have thrown hundreds of millions of pounds at it...
Yeah that is much better.
Page 1 of 1