Like I say, I'm just one person, as my opinion is only an opinion. But I feel my point is a strong one for anyone willing to take the time to read into it and consider the consequences.
Ooh, if PSG get banned may we please get Matuidi? Or Verrati?
...................
like your thinking however unfortunately a transfer embargo means a club can't buy or sell players.
however i would love to see both city and PSG get a transfer embargo. They have had it good in the transfer market for a while now.
I dunno then, Stretford.
Number 4, I agree with what you're saying. It does more to establish the elite clubs at the top than it does to promote organic growth, because as you say, for some teams it's just not possible to do.
Never liked the idea that footballs governing body has made moves to limit investment into it. What industry does that?
----
Formula 1 has done it for years to save the sport from only being feasible for the major car manufacturers. NFL has also had salary caps etc for years to improve competition and ensure the fans enjoy a spectacle. Both have worked to keep smaller teams competitive.
FFP is a futile effort, as I can't believe it won't be circumvented by corrupt officials. However I do support the ideology of such measures in that they are trying to maintain domestic competition as a competition rather than a financial exercise.
The reason FFP is in place is the same reason so many neutrals would be happy for Liverpool to win the league - the underdog winning, or at least having a chance against the big boys - is what sport's about.
But FFP isn't in place for the underdogs to win and having a chance against the big boys.
It may make it easier for Liverpool and Arsenal to compete with City and Chelsea but for the hundreds of other clubs around it does anything but go in their favour, as has been pointed out.
It's an elitist project.
The Number 4 Shirt
FFP does not cease outside investment. It does however attempt protect to clubs to ensure they are able to sustain themselves, should the outside investment cease.
Do you not feel that is ethical?
It's an elitist project.
----
Maybe that's been the end result, but football as it was before FFP was an elitist project.
At the very least it should prevent irresponsible owners creating another situation like Portsmouth, or Leeds before them.
comment by Pavlyuchenko's smile (U3582)
posted 5 minutes ago
Never liked the idea that footballs governing body has made moves to limit investment into it. What industry does that?
----
Formula 1 has done it for years to save the sport from only being feasible for the major car manufacturers. NFL has also had salary caps etc for years to improve competition and ensure the fans enjoy a spectacle. Both have worked to keep smaller teams competitive.
FFP is a futile effort, as I can't believe it won't be circumvented by corrupt officials. However I do support the ideology of such measures in that they are trying to maintain domestic competition as a competition rather than a financial exercise.
The reason FFP is in place is the same reason so many neutrals would be happy for Liverpool to win the league - the underdog winning, or at least having a chance against the big boys - is what sport's about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rubish.
How does Liverpool budget rank in the PL?
And did you not read about the threat of Liverpool's suspension from Europe earlier in the season because of their debt?
This is just the start of something that will end up hurting many clubs in the coming years. I just hope those fans who are all for FFP now continue to sing the same tuen even if the regulation starts to hurt their clubs.
But why should responsible owners be punished because of irresponsible owners within the game?
Of course it does become a bit farcical if the game just becomes about who has the richest owner, but the point Number 4 is making is valid.
So you disagree with the last paragraph.. they're still underdogs compared to the amount City and Chelsea have spent in the last few seasons.
They're in 50m debt as far as I know, which will be paid off with CL qualification. They'll probably do it from commercial revenue this summer alone.
Darren
It's hardly punishment to be told to spend what you earn! Bayern have done alright following that model
Number 4's point may be valid but I disagree.
Surely the fact that it took billionaire investors taking over these two clubs for them to be able to compete with Liverpool in the first place shows that allowing this investment is more beneficial for the underdog clubs than FFP is?
Just read the journalist that wrote the story added the 'transfer embargo' in as pure spectulation on his part, City and PSG would most likely be getting fined which would be pointless anyway.
Not too sure on Bayern's history, did they get outside investment to become such a dominant force in German football.
I know this has certainly been the case for all the big clubs in Italy, and is conveniently ignored. The difference is that Chelsea, City and PSG have taken it one step further and aren't traditionally huge clubs so people have a big problem with it - which I understand, but that's just apart of what the game is turning into - and all FFP is doing is stopping this being able to happen again and cementing the status of the current elite clubs in Europe.
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
Surely the fact that it took billionaire investors taking over these two clubs for them to be able to compete with Liverpool in the first place shows that allowing this investment is more beneficial for the underdog clubs than FFP is?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That assumes that the only way to compete is to make massive losses. Arsenal, Liverpool, and to a lesser extent Spurs, disprove this.
Wayne Bridge earning 90k a week at City was a big sign for me that something had to be done
What would.
FFP absolutely puts major stoppers in outside investment. Denying that makes any discussion pointless. I posted a link to the document you referenced earlier. It's all there if you take the time to read it and consider the implications.
Pav.
Bayern Munich make absolutely crazy money ever year, same as all the other super clubs. Combine that with excellent management and ring run brilliantly, and yes, they will do very well. That is half of my point. In the current FFP environment. 1860 will never ever ever be able to compete with their city rivals. There should always be a chance for them to do so, and FFP, in practise, takes that chance away, because they'll never be good enough for a sustained period to gain the required fan base, popularity and resources to grow to the size of Bayern. Bayern in turn, will continue to dominate German football almost unapproved.
It won't be a transfer embargo as that isn't on their list of sanctions. Personally, I think it will be a slap on the wrist if anything. For us, it will relate to the IP rights and not to do with the etihad deal, which is actually undervalued if you break it down.
It's worth bearing in mind for those saying about Liverpool, they would fail FFP more than we would, they are exempt as they are not in Europe though.
I'm not bothered by this at all.
comment by Pavlyuchenko's smile (U3582)
posted 8 minutes ago
So you disagree with the last paragraph.. they're still underdogs compared to the amount City and Chelsea have spent in the last few seasons.
They're in 50m debt as far as I know, which will be paid off with CL qualification. They'll probably do it from commercial revenue this summer alone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I see you are prepared to provide valid explanation showing how one club hopes to ride the storm but are not willing to allow another club to do the same. Classic fan objectivity there.
You mean three of the biggest and richest clubs in England yeah?
To compete with those clubs the smaller less wealthy clubs will naturally need to make losses as they're so far behind to start with.
Don't get me wrong, I think FFP could be a good thing at the top end of the sport as it could stop all the silly money that the game is becoming about, however, it's certainly an elitist project that is in no way of any benefit to the smaller clubs/underdog clubs.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 4 minutes ago
Not too sure on Bayern's history, did they get outside investment to become such a dominant force in German football.
I know this has certainly been the case for all the big clubs in Italy, and is conveniently ignored. The difference is that Chelsea, City and PSG have taken it one step further and aren't traditionally huge clubs so people have a big problem with it - which I understand, but that's just apart of what the game is turning into - and all FFP is doing is stopping this being able to happen again and cementing the status of the current elite clubs in Europe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All clubs have had huge outside investment to become dominant. I watched Shankly's ineterview sometime ago and it was the same. Same for United, AC Milan, Real Madrid etc. I am really keen to see how this whole FFP thing pans out to be honest.
Number 4
It's down to teams to improve their team, maximise revenue and aspire to be better. From the way you're talking anyone not currently in the top 4 might as well pack it in now.
I don't believe massive outside investment is the only way to improve, and I think that attitude is indicative of the lack of patience in modern football fans. Which leads to clubs going bust in a vain attempt to get a shortcut to the top.
Which brings me on to you melton - I was referring to sides making unsustainable losses. Liverpool's losses are sustainable due to their income streams, the likes of Leeds' and Portsmouth's were not.
To compete with those clubs the smaller less wealthy clubs will naturally need to make losses as they're so far behind to start with.
------
I don't agree.
Get a decent manager, stability, decent coaches and a scouting network. Dortmund have done it, countless other underdogs have too.
Sign in if you want to comment
Have City and PSG failed FFP?
Page 2 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 15/4/14
Like I say, I'm just one person, as my opinion is only an opinion. But I feel my point is a strong one for anyone willing to take the time to read into it and consider the consequences.
posted on 15/4/14
Ooh, if PSG get banned may we please get Matuidi? Or Verrati?
...................
like your thinking however unfortunately a transfer embargo means a club can't buy or sell players.
however i would love to see both city and PSG get a transfer embargo. They have had it good in the transfer market for a while now.
posted on 15/4/14
I dunno then, Stretford.
Number 4, I agree with what you're saying. It does more to establish the elite clubs at the top than it does to promote organic growth, because as you say, for some teams it's just not possible to do.
posted on 15/4/14
Never liked the idea that footballs governing body has made moves to limit investment into it. What industry does that?
----
Formula 1 has done it for years to save the sport from only being feasible for the major car manufacturers. NFL has also had salary caps etc for years to improve competition and ensure the fans enjoy a spectacle. Both have worked to keep smaller teams competitive.
FFP is a futile effort, as I can't believe it won't be circumvented by corrupt officials. However I do support the ideology of such measures in that they are trying to maintain domestic competition as a competition rather than a financial exercise.
The reason FFP is in place is the same reason so many neutrals would be happy for Liverpool to win the league - the underdog winning, or at least having a chance against the big boys - is what sport's about.
posted on 15/4/14
But FFP isn't in place for the underdogs to win and having a chance against the big boys.
It may make it easier for Liverpool and Arsenal to compete with City and Chelsea but for the hundreds of other clubs around it does anything but go in their favour, as has been pointed out.
It's an elitist project.
posted on 15/4/14
The Number 4 Shirt
FFP does not cease outside investment. It does however attempt protect to clubs to ensure they are able to sustain themselves, should the outside investment cease.
Do you not feel that is ethical?
posted on 15/4/14
It's an elitist project.
----
Maybe that's been the end result, but football as it was before FFP was an elitist project.
At the very least it should prevent irresponsible owners creating another situation like Portsmouth, or Leeds before them.
posted on 15/4/14
comment by Pavlyuchenko's smile (U3582)
posted 5 minutes ago
Never liked the idea that footballs governing body has made moves to limit investment into it. What industry does that?
----
Formula 1 has done it for years to save the sport from only being feasible for the major car manufacturers. NFL has also had salary caps etc for years to improve competition and ensure the fans enjoy a spectacle. Both have worked to keep smaller teams competitive.
FFP is a futile effort, as I can't believe it won't be circumvented by corrupt officials. However I do support the ideology of such measures in that they are trying to maintain domestic competition as a competition rather than a financial exercise.
The reason FFP is in place is the same reason so many neutrals would be happy for Liverpool to win the league - the underdog winning, or at least having a chance against the big boys - is what sport's about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rubish.
How does Liverpool budget rank in the PL?
And did you not read about the threat of Liverpool's suspension from Europe earlier in the season because of their debt?
This is just the start of something that will end up hurting many clubs in the coming years. I just hope those fans who are all for FFP now continue to sing the same tuen even if the regulation starts to hurt their clubs.
posted on 15/4/14
^^
tune
posted on 15/4/14
But why should responsible owners be punished because of irresponsible owners within the game?
Of course it does become a bit farcical if the game just becomes about who has the richest owner, but the point Number 4 is making is valid.
posted on 15/4/14
So you disagree with the last paragraph.. they're still underdogs compared to the amount City and Chelsea have spent in the last few seasons.
They're in 50m debt as far as I know, which will be paid off with CL qualification. They'll probably do it from commercial revenue this summer alone.
posted on 15/4/14
Darren
It's hardly punishment to be told to spend what you earn! Bayern have done alright following that model
Number 4's point may be valid but I disagree.
posted on 15/4/14
Surely the fact that it took billionaire investors taking over these two clubs for them to be able to compete with Liverpool in the first place shows that allowing this investment is more beneficial for the underdog clubs than FFP is?
posted on 15/4/14
Just read the journalist that wrote the story added the 'transfer embargo' in as pure spectulation on his part, City and PSG would most likely be getting fined which would be pointless anyway.
posted on 15/4/14
Not too sure on Bayern's history, did they get outside investment to become such a dominant force in German football.
I know this has certainly been the case for all the big clubs in Italy, and is conveniently ignored. The difference is that Chelsea, City and PSG have taken it one step further and aren't traditionally huge clubs so people have a big problem with it - which I understand, but that's just apart of what the game is turning into - and all FFP is doing is stopping this being able to happen again and cementing the status of the current elite clubs in Europe.
posted on 15/4/14
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
Surely the fact that it took billionaire investors taking over these two clubs for them to be able to compete with Liverpool in the first place shows that allowing this investment is more beneficial for the underdog clubs than FFP is?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That assumes that the only way to compete is to make massive losses. Arsenal, Liverpool, and to a lesser extent Spurs, disprove this.
Wayne Bridge earning 90k a week at City was a big sign for me that something had to be done
posted on 15/4/14
What would.
FFP absolutely puts major stoppers in outside investment. Denying that makes any discussion pointless. I posted a link to the document you referenced earlier. It's all there if you take the time to read it and consider the implications.
Pav.
Bayern Munich make absolutely crazy money ever year, same as all the other super clubs. Combine that with excellent management and ring run brilliantly, and yes, they will do very well. That is half of my point. In the current FFP environment. 1860 will never ever ever be able to compete with their city rivals. There should always be a chance for them to do so, and FFP, in practise, takes that chance away, because they'll never be good enough for a sustained period to gain the required fan base, popularity and resources to grow to the size of Bayern. Bayern in turn, will continue to dominate German football almost unapproved.
posted on 15/4/14
It won't be a transfer embargo as that isn't on their list of sanctions. Personally, I think it will be a slap on the wrist if anything. For us, it will relate to the IP rights and not to do with the etihad deal, which is actually undervalued if you break it down.
It's worth bearing in mind for those saying about Liverpool, they would fail FFP more than we would, they are exempt as they are not in Europe though.
I'm not bothered by this at all.
posted on 15/4/14
comment by Pavlyuchenko's smile (U3582)
posted 8 minutes ago
So you disagree with the last paragraph.. they're still underdogs compared to the amount City and Chelsea have spent in the last few seasons.
They're in 50m debt as far as I know, which will be paid off with CL qualification. They'll probably do it from commercial revenue this summer alone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I see you are prepared to provide valid explanation showing how one club hopes to ride the storm but are not willing to allow another club to do the same. Classic fan objectivity there.
posted on 15/4/14
Unopposed*
posted on 15/4/14
You mean three of the biggest and richest clubs in England yeah?
To compete with those clubs the smaller less wealthy clubs will naturally need to make losses as they're so far behind to start with.
Don't get me wrong, I think FFP could be a good thing at the top end of the sport as it could stop all the silly money that the game is becoming about, however, it's certainly an elitist project that is in no way of any benefit to the smaller clubs/underdog clubs.
posted on 15/4/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/4/14
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 4 minutes ago
Not too sure on Bayern's history, did they get outside investment to become such a dominant force in German football.
I know this has certainly been the case for all the big clubs in Italy, and is conveniently ignored. The difference is that Chelsea, City and PSG have taken it one step further and aren't traditionally huge clubs so people have a big problem with it - which I understand, but that's just apart of what the game is turning into - and all FFP is doing is stopping this being able to happen again and cementing the status of the current elite clubs in Europe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All clubs have had huge outside investment to become dominant. I watched Shankly's ineterview sometime ago and it was the same. Same for United, AC Milan, Real Madrid etc. I am really keen to see how this whole FFP thing pans out to be honest.
posted on 15/4/14
Number 4
It's down to teams to improve their team, maximise revenue and aspire to be better. From the way you're talking anyone not currently in the top 4 might as well pack it in now.
I don't believe massive outside investment is the only way to improve, and I think that attitude is indicative of the lack of patience in modern football fans. Which leads to clubs going bust in a vain attempt to get a shortcut to the top.
Which brings me on to you melton - I was referring to sides making unsustainable losses. Liverpool's losses are sustainable due to their income streams, the likes of Leeds' and Portsmouth's were not.
posted on 15/4/14
To compete with those clubs the smaller less wealthy clubs will naturally need to make losses as they're so far behind to start with.
------
I don't agree.
Get a decent manager, stability, decent coaches and a scouting network. Dortmund have done it, countless other underdogs have too.
Page 2 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10