Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Your attitude of "I know what I'm talking about and no one else does" is grating me now.
-----
It's just my opinion buddy.
btw Number 4 i'm working here, and lots of people have waded in who i'm also conversing with.
Not you Pav. That was directed at "What would Stuart Pearce do. I've enjoyed talking to you.
I think you're confusing sustainable spending with making profits.
Chelsea and City's spending is sustainable because they are bankrolled by owners rich enough to sustain it - and then build on their infrastructure and global appeal to actually run the clubs at huge profits in the future if they so wish to.
Pompey was an example of an owner that couldn't sustain his investment. But that's not to say there aren't plenty of owners that can sustain it if they wish to.
FFP stops a City or a Chelsea ever happening. You can say that's a good thing, but it doesn't change the fact that FFP stops this happening and so is benefiting the big clubs and hindering the small clubs.
Also you have to consider how many small clubs move up through the leagues due to outside investment that's just not on the scale of Chelsea and City - Cardiff, Southampton, Wigan and Hull are just a few teams off the top of my head that achieved premier league status due to this as it was needed.
"A loss over a single season does not "fail FFP"."
Yes it does, there was a limit set to each qualifying period.
They would have failed due to their owners putting the money in to cover debt as a loan rather than turning into equity.
No club ever has stayed in the top 4 by "growing organically" though.
Even the ones who were there already had a little helping hand along the way. Before my time anyway.
Utd Arsenal Liverpool all had helping hands in the past
City / Chelsea had outside investments.
Who apart from them have been regular CL participants?
What happened to Blackburn once the money stopped not long after their title win in 95..
comment by The Number 4 Shirt. (U19487)
posted 1 minute ago
Not you Pav. That was directed at "What would Stuart Pearce do. I've enjoyed talking to you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cool
I'd like to pick this part out:
" The only teams who make it and can survive are teams like Norwich, Southampton and Swansea, who have massive followings in their own right"
While it must hurt to know it surely it makes sense that the popular clubs with most supporters regularly attending games, buying shirts etc will be successful?
The alternative - that a club like with 15k attendances would be in the PL ahead of one with 30k turning up every week just because they'd spent beyond their means - would be fundamentally wrong imo.
Southampton are not a good example, they had loads of investment and are in debt as a consequence.
I agree that there are clubs that are much better equipped for being successful than others, they just need to be presented with the opportunity. Leeds for example, once in the Premier League, could be very profitable as a mid-table team.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
"A loss over a single season does not "fail FFP"."
Yes it does, there was a limit set to each qualifying period.
They would have failed due to their owners putting the money in to cover debt as a loan rather than turning into equity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair play, I thought te "grace period" was still in effect. My bad.
Darren:
I think you're confusing sustainable spending with making profits.
Chelsea and City's spending is sustainable because they are bankrolled by owners rich enough to sustain it - and then build on their infrastructure and global appeal to actually run the clubs at huge profits in the future if they so wish to.
----------
Fair play, maybe I should have said artificial rather than sustainable. Either way I don't like it, and FFP - although I agree it's hugely flawed in it's implementation - is a necessary evil.
Maybe we need a staggered system to deal with the gulf developing from mid table to the top 4/6.
comment by Pavlyuchenko's smile (U3582)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
"A loss over a single season does not "fail FFP"."
Yes it does, there was a limit set to each qualifying period.
They would have failed due to their owners putting the money in to cover debt as a loan rather than turning into equity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair play, I thought te "grace period" was still in effect. My bad.
Darren:
I think you're confusing sustainable spending with making profits.
Chelsea and City's spending is sustainable because they are bankrolled by owners rich enough to sustain it - and then build on their infrastructure and global appeal to actually run the clubs at huge profits in the future if they so wish to.
----------
Fair play, maybe I should have said artificial rather than sustainable. Either way I don't like it, and FFP - although I agree it's hugely flawed in it's implementation - is a necessary evil.
Maybe we need a staggered system to deal with the gulf developing from mid table to the top 4/6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP will actually widen that gap though.
Any reform would have to come through the Champions League, a tournament that is financially corrupt.
For me, people need to go back to the original question and ask what is it that we are actually trying to solve?
If it is to stop clubs from going bankrupt, then there should be a limit on debt unless owners turn it into equity - the burden should not be allowed to sit on the club, as that is what devalues them as assets like Porstmouth and Leeds. Coupled with that, there needs to be better assessment in the fit and proper persons test - it is nonsensical to impose a fine on a club for the owners actions as it just makes the situation worse.
If it is to make football fairer to stop the sugar daddies, then they need to rethink how the allocation of broadcasting, matchday revenue and prize winning is done. When the "big five" voted to change the way match day revenue was allocated in the late eighties/early nineties, that did far more damage to the disparity of football than anything outside investment has ever done.
With the gulf in income between those sides so large it's hard to see a way of dealing with that gulf on a long term basis.
I'm sure there will be seasons where there are overachievers and underachievers but it's hard to see this monopoly at the top of the prem being broken up consistently.
Southampton and Newcastle are probably best placed to do it, but as their owners have stopped investing it doesn't look likely at all.
Couldn't agree more.
Let's put a transfer cap and sallary cap in place.
Salary cap much more important.
If Champions League money was distributed fairly, then the gaps in domestic leagues wouldn't be growing so quickly.
I keep saying these two statistics from last season: Bayern Munich did not get the most money from the Champions League last season despite winning it and secondly there are two clubs that qualify for the quarter-finals and one club got over eight times as much money for this than the other.
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 2 minutes ago
Salary cap much more important.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs
comment by Mancblueloz give me your chicken (U6305)
posted 1 minute ago
Couldn't agree more.
Let's put a transfer cap and sallary cap in place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup, that's what I said in my first response to Number 4.
F1 and the NFL have done it to great effect - level the playing field as much as possible, improve the competition, and attract more fans for everyone
A salary cap will not work unless it is done globally. Players will just emigrate to where they can make the most money.
comment by Marcelino (U6171)
posted 32 seconds ago
A salary cap will not work unless it is done globally. Players will just emigrate to where they can make the most money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sod it, we'll have a competitive league worth watching. The SPL and Ligue1 are a farce and audiences are smart enough to know it, and turn off.
It wouldn't in Scotland, Henrik.
comment by Mr Chelsea ✪ (U3579)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 2 minutes ago
Salary cap much more important.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Delph
I don't get the salary cap argument, that will take a lot of thinking through. Capped to what and for what purpose? There will be even more disparity if the clubs with rich owners can't offer more money to players as they will all just go to the same top teams. In terms of stopping the high wages, then all that will happen is the money will go to the owners, it won't feed back to the fans.
This is the issue with it all for me - everything that has been put in place safeguards owners and clubs far more than it gives any benefit to fans. CLubs will look to increase revenue from within and that will have a worse effect on ticket prices, not better. You only need to look at this season and the obscene amount of money clubs have had from TV rights now BT are on the pitch - have they passed that on in the form of cheaper ticket prices? Have they b0llocks.
Sign in if you want to comment
Have City and PSG failed FFP?
Page 6 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 15/4/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/4/14
Your attitude of "I know what I'm talking about and no one else does" is grating me now.
-----
It's just my opinion buddy.
posted on 15/4/14
btw Number 4 i'm working here, and lots of people have waded in who i'm also conversing with.
posted on 15/4/14
Not you Pav. That was directed at "What would Stuart Pearce do. I've enjoyed talking to you.
posted on 15/4/14
I think you're confusing sustainable spending with making profits.
Chelsea and City's spending is sustainable because they are bankrolled by owners rich enough to sustain it - and then build on their infrastructure and global appeal to actually run the clubs at huge profits in the future if they so wish to.
Pompey was an example of an owner that couldn't sustain his investment. But that's not to say there aren't plenty of owners that can sustain it if they wish to.
FFP stops a City or a Chelsea ever happening. You can say that's a good thing, but it doesn't change the fact that FFP stops this happening and so is benefiting the big clubs and hindering the small clubs.
Also you have to consider how many small clubs move up through the leagues due to outside investment that's just not on the scale of Chelsea and City - Cardiff, Southampton, Wigan and Hull are just a few teams off the top of my head that achieved premier league status due to this as it was needed.
posted on 15/4/14
"A loss over a single season does not "fail FFP"."
Yes it does, there was a limit set to each qualifying period.
They would have failed due to their owners putting the money in to cover debt as a loan rather than turning into equity.
posted on 15/4/14
No club ever has stayed in the top 4 by "growing organically" though.
Even the ones who were there already had a little helping hand along the way. Before my time anyway.
Utd Arsenal Liverpool all had helping hands in the past
City / Chelsea had outside investments.
Who apart from them have been regular CL participants?
What happened to Blackburn once the money stopped not long after their title win in 95..
posted on 15/4/14
comment by The Number 4 Shirt. (U19487)
posted 1 minute ago
Not you Pav. That was directed at "What would Stuart Pearce do. I've enjoyed talking to you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cool
I'd like to pick this part out:
" The only teams who make it and can survive are teams like Norwich, Southampton and Swansea, who have massive followings in their own right"
While it must hurt to know it surely it makes sense that the popular clubs with most supporters regularly attending games, buying shirts etc will be successful?
The alternative - that a club like with 15k attendances would be in the PL ahead of one with 30k turning up every week just because they'd spent beyond their means - would be fundamentally wrong imo.
posted on 15/4/14
Southampton are not a good example, they had loads of investment and are in debt as a consequence.
posted on 15/4/14
I agree that there are clubs that are much better equipped for being successful than others, they just need to be presented with the opportunity. Leeds for example, once in the Premier League, could be very profitable as a mid-table team.
posted on 15/4/14
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
"A loss over a single season does not "fail FFP"."
Yes it does, there was a limit set to each qualifying period.
They would have failed due to their owners putting the money in to cover debt as a loan rather than turning into equity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair play, I thought te "grace period" was still in effect. My bad.
Darren:
I think you're confusing sustainable spending with making profits.
Chelsea and City's spending is sustainable because they are bankrolled by owners rich enough to sustain it - and then build on their infrastructure and global appeal to actually run the clubs at huge profits in the future if they so wish to.
----------
Fair play, maybe I should have said artificial rather than sustainable. Either way I don't like it, and FFP - although I agree it's hugely flawed in it's implementation - is a necessary evil.
Maybe we need a staggered system to deal with the gulf developing from mid table to the top 4/6.
posted on 15/4/14
comment by Pavlyuchenko's smile (U3582)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
"A loss over a single season does not "fail FFP"."
Yes it does, there was a limit set to each qualifying period.
They would have failed due to their owners putting the money in to cover debt as a loan rather than turning into equity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair play, I thought te "grace period" was still in effect. My bad.
Darren:
I think you're confusing sustainable spending with making profits.
Chelsea and City's spending is sustainable because they are bankrolled by owners rich enough to sustain it - and then build on their infrastructure and global appeal to actually run the clubs at huge profits in the future if they so wish to.
----------
Fair play, maybe I should have said artificial rather than sustainable. Either way I don't like it, and FFP - although I agree it's hugely flawed in it's implementation - is a necessary evil.
Maybe we need a staggered system to deal with the gulf developing from mid table to the top 4/6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP will actually widen that gap though.
Any reform would have to come through the Champions League, a tournament that is financially corrupt.
posted on 15/4/14
For me, people need to go back to the original question and ask what is it that we are actually trying to solve?
If it is to stop clubs from going bankrupt, then there should be a limit on debt unless owners turn it into equity - the burden should not be allowed to sit on the club, as that is what devalues them as assets like Porstmouth and Leeds. Coupled with that, there needs to be better assessment in the fit and proper persons test - it is nonsensical to impose a fine on a club for the owners actions as it just makes the situation worse.
If it is to make football fairer to stop the sugar daddies, then they need to rethink how the allocation of broadcasting, matchday revenue and prize winning is done. When the "big five" voted to change the way match day revenue was allocated in the late eighties/early nineties, that did far more damage to the disparity of football than anything outside investment has ever done.
posted on 15/4/14
Spot on.
posted on 15/4/14
With the gulf in income between those sides so large it's hard to see a way of dealing with that gulf on a long term basis.
I'm sure there will be seasons where there are overachievers and underachievers but it's hard to see this monopoly at the top of the prem being broken up consistently.
Southampton and Newcastle are probably best placed to do it, but as their owners have stopped investing it doesn't look likely at all.
posted on 15/4/14
Couldn't agree more.
Let's put a transfer cap and sallary cap in place.
posted on 15/4/14
Salary cap much more important.
posted on 15/4/14
If Champions League money was distributed fairly, then the gaps in domestic leagues wouldn't be growing so quickly.
I keep saying these two statistics from last season: Bayern Munich did not get the most money from the Champions League last season despite winning it and secondly there are two clubs that qualify for the quarter-finals and one club got over eight times as much money for this than the other.
posted on 15/4/14
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 2 minutes ago
Salary cap much more important.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs
posted on 15/4/14
comment by Mancblueloz give me your chicken (U6305)
posted 1 minute ago
Couldn't agree more.
Let's put a transfer cap and sallary cap in place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup, that's what I said in my first response to Number 4.
F1 and the NFL have done it to great effect - level the playing field as much as possible, improve the competition, and attract more fans for everyone
posted on 15/4/14
A salary cap will not work unless it is done globally. Players will just emigrate to where they can make the most money.
posted on 15/4/14
comment by Marcelino (U6171)
posted 32 seconds ago
A salary cap will not work unless it is done globally. Players will just emigrate to where they can make the most money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sod it, we'll have a competitive league worth watching. The SPL and Ligue1 are a farce and audiences are smart enough to know it, and turn off.
posted on 15/4/14
It wouldn't in Scotland, Henrik.
posted on 15/4/14
comment by Mr Chelsea ✪ (U3579)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Edinspur (U1109)
posted 2 minutes ago
Salary cap much more important.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Delph
posted on 15/4/14
I don't get the salary cap argument, that will take a lot of thinking through. Capped to what and for what purpose? There will be even more disparity if the clubs with rich owners can't offer more money to players as they will all just go to the same top teams. In terms of stopping the high wages, then all that will happen is the money will go to the owners, it won't feed back to the fans.
This is the issue with it all for me - everything that has been put in place safeguards owners and clubs far more than it gives any benefit to fans. CLubs will look to increase revenue from within and that will have a worse effect on ticket prices, not better. You only need to look at this season and the obscene amount of money clubs have had from TV rights now BT are on the pitch - have they passed that on in the form of cheaper ticket prices? Have they b0llocks.
Page 6 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10