"I am pretty certain Liverpool were one of the clubs that voted against sharing the wealth."
good. better for the club.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 3 minutes ago
no idea VC
..............
I am pretty certain Liverpool were one of the clubs that voted against sharing the wealth. (Kenny)
SAF was an advocate for the lower clubs being treated fairly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And you think SAF did it out of the goodness of his heart? Get real. He knew that United earnt so much of their own money, that by sharing the TV money evenly throughout the league, he would actually be widening the gap between United and their closest rivals.
And you think SAF did it out of the goodness of his heart?
.............
I couldn't care less.
Given the choice of a more competitive Premier League or more English teams winning the Champions League I am sure the vast majority of football supporters would vote for the former. Sadly the decision makers do not act in the best interest of supporters
FFP although has good intentions, in reality is flawed & it's reps the curret bigger clubs at the top of the pile. I suggest FIFA/UEFA alter it to allow investors to be able to inject money into clubs as long as it is not attached to the club in any form of debt to the investors. Surely more money being pumped into the game can only be good? The idea behind FFP was to protect clubs from overspending and endangering their future, but if investors write off any investment then where is the harm to that club? If nothing changes the fans of clubs outside the currently "protected" clubs will grow more & more dissolusioned which is damaging for the future of the game.
comment by weall8villa (U1313)
posted 48 minutes ago
FFP although has good intentions, in reality is flawed & it's reps the curret bigger clubs at the top of the pile. I suggest FIFA/UEFA alter it to allow investors to be able to inject money into clubs as long as it is not attached to the club in any form of debt to the investors. Surely more money being pumped into the game can only be good? The idea behind FFP was to protect clubs from overspending and endangering their future, but if investors write off any investment then where is the harm to that club? If nothing changes the fans of clubs outside the currently "protected" clubs will grow more & more dissolusioned which is damaging for the future of the game.
--------
The rule is a disgrace. Football should be about spending loads of money that you haven't generated through the club until you win tropheees.I hate the idea that through great management and team continuity a club can slowly progress and make their way up the league organically without the hyperinflation of player prices and wages from sugar daddy spending - fack that.
Love your sarcastic reply! Obviously I support a club not protected by FFP, and the chairman of the club I support was one of only a few chairmen that voted against its introduction. Many of the clubs currently protected have previously had massive outside cash injections to get where they are, Chelsea, Man City, PSG, Monaco. Man Utd to an extent with the way the club has been owned by the Glazers, Real Madrid with the government bankrolling them. So why is it acceptable to pull the ladder up now?
My club has never had any cash injections and has generated its own money successfully, but knowing that you can never compete on a level playing field is deflating. The best we can hope for is survival year in year out in the premier league, & maybe a little cup run. are you happy that the same 4/5 clubs from the premiership are competing in the champions league year in year out? Probably yes if you support one of them!
"My club has never had any cash injections and has generated its own money successfully"
I think you do Billy Bassett a great disservice. Not to mention a large shares issue in 1996. I'm no expert, but that's just what I've gleaned in 5 minutes on Wikipedia.
Face it, pretty much every club has gone cap in hand to either the fans or the board at some point.
Correct, the club raised the huge amount of around £3 million 19 years ago. I don't think that compares to billionaires pumping in £400/£500 million!
weall8villa.
So rather than hope your club build up naturally, improve your academy, improve stadia, grow your commercial appeal, create a stronger community and the likes... You are sitting there waiting for an oil rich Arab to throw billions at your club?
The fact we have gone from around 15 English clubs in 2 years before FFP was introduced going into administration and having points deducted to zero in the last couple of years shows that FFP is working. And it is still in its early days.
comment by weall8villa (U1313)
posted 9 minutes ago
Correct, the club raised the huge amount of around £3 million 19 years ago. I don't think that compares to billionaires pumping in £400/£500 million!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it compares favourably to the profits of Microsoft, but that wasn't the point either.
it sorted the financial (administration) bit, removed the fair play bit
Many of the clubs currently protected have previously had massive outside cash injections to get where they are, Chelsea, Man City, PSG, Monaco. Man Utd to an extent with the way the club has been owned by the Glazers
Eh? The Glazers have not injected cash into United. We operate on the money we generate.
United is a bad example, their owners take money out of the club.
You are missing my point, I am not saying FFP is wrong, just flawed, and that it could be tweaked in a way that doesn't put the future of the club at risk. Any club that grows the right way and starts to become successfull just gets picked apart by the vultures of the clubs now protected by FFP. The only glimmer of hope my club has of ever competing in this league is to have massive investment, I bet you don't find many fans of Chelsea or City bemoaning their rich owners transforming the fortunes of their clubs!
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 14 minutes ago
it sorted the financial (administration) bit, removed the fair play bit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This.
comment by weall8villa (U1313)
posted 34 seconds ago
You are missing my point, I am not saying FFP is wrong, just flawed, and that it could be tweaked in a way that doesn't put the future of the club at risk. Any club that grows the right way and starts to become successfull just gets picked apart by the vultures of the clubs now protected by FFP. The only glimmer of hope my club has of ever competing in this league is to have massive investment, I bet you don't find many fans of Chelsea or City bemoaning their rich owners transforming the fortunes of their clubs!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How's the alternative any better? Assuming there isn't an unlimited supply of billionaire sheiks every other club will be competing with a handful of teams with unlimited transfer and wage budgets who will pick apart the rest at will. Someone looking a threat? Buy all their best players and transfer targets and loan them out. I'm sure the wages will make up for it. Once you're competing with truly unlimited spending you might as well forget it.
I only used the example of United as the owners put the club into massive financial debt which went unpunished by UEFA. Pretty sure there was a rule before FFP that clubs weren't allowed to enter European competitions if they had debt of a certain level, but it was never enforced as they would have had to punish Real Madrid as well.
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 13 minutes ago
United is a bad example, their owners take money out of the club.
...............
It is their money.
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Proper spoilt bsatard. (U1270)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by weall8villa (U1313)
posted 34 seconds ago
You are missing my point, I am not saying FFP is wrong, just flawed, and that it could be tweaked in a way that doesn't put the future of the club at risk. Any club that grows the right way and starts to become successfull just gets picked apart by the vultures of the clubs now protected by FFP. The only glimmer of hope my club has of ever competing in this league is to have massive investment, I bet you don't find many fans of Chelsea or City bemoaning their rich owners transforming the fortunes of their clubs!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How's the alternative any better? Assuming there isn't an unlimited supply of billionaire sheiks every other club will be competing with a handful of teams with unlimited transfer and wage budgets who will pick apart the rest at will. Someone looking a threat? Buy all their best players and transfer targets and loan them out. I'm sure the wages will make up for it. Once you're competing with truly unlimited spending you might as well forget it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well IMO if we continue down the current route more and more clubs will disappear, in ten years time it will still be the same clubs finishing at the top widening the already massive gulf even further. These clubs will grow and grow, and will increase their fan base around the country starving smaller clubs of fans & income.
getting new owners willing to invest in players was at least a hope for clubs pre-FFP
now there's no hope.
Chelsea will probably end up with £100+mil in TV/CL/'prize' money than West Brom. For a single season. Not to mention that leads to even higher sponsorship deals.
It's goodnight Vienna on anything resembling competition, hope, or fairness. Jesus and Gandalf could buy a mid table side and still have absolutely no hope even with decades of perfect 'organic growth'. All their players would just get bought by the mega-money clubs at the first sign of quality coming through.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 13 minutes ago
United is a bad example, their owners take money out of the club.
...............
It is their money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
agreed
just saying they're a bad example of owners pumping money into a club. They did the opposite.
It seems the problem of external money is one of envy and scale - scale because it's ok to put in a few million, but not a few hundred million.
I don't see any alternative for clubs who finish the season higher up the table being awarded more 'prize' money - any other option seems daft.
Didn't they do something in the states, where the bottom team had first pick in the draft or some such to try and inject some competition? Clearly we don't have a draft, but maybe the team coming last should get more money than those coming top - is that really what you suggest?
Or that everyone, including those relegated should get the same? That's hardly fair on the teams in the Championship is it? Maybe they should all get a share too, and then league 1 and so on. My local village team should demand a share of the Prem TV money? Silly? Yes, maybe.
FFP is fine.
There is a host of clubs that won't have European football so they should be challenging for the league obviously.
Sign in if you want to comment
Is FFP ruining football?
Page 6 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 12/5/15
"I am pretty certain Liverpool were one of the clubs that voted against sharing the wealth."
good. better for the club.
posted on 12/5/15
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 3 minutes ago
no idea VC
..............
I am pretty certain Liverpool were one of the clubs that voted against sharing the wealth. (Kenny)
SAF was an advocate for the lower clubs being treated fairly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And you think SAF did it out of the goodness of his heart? Get real. He knew that United earnt so much of their own money, that by sharing the TV money evenly throughout the league, he would actually be widening the gap between United and their closest rivals.
posted on 12/5/15
And you think SAF did it out of the goodness of his heart?
.............
I couldn't care less.
posted on 12/5/15
good answer VC
honesty
posted on 13/5/15
Given the choice of a more competitive Premier League or more English teams winning the Champions League I am sure the vast majority of football supporters would vote for the former. Sadly the decision makers do not act in the best interest of supporters
posted on 13/5/15
FFP although has good intentions, in reality is flawed & it's reps the curret bigger clubs at the top of the pile. I suggest FIFA/UEFA alter it to allow investors to be able to inject money into clubs as long as it is not attached to the club in any form of debt to the investors. Surely more money being pumped into the game can only be good? The idea behind FFP was to protect clubs from overspending and endangering their future, but if investors write off any investment then where is the harm to that club? If nothing changes the fans of clubs outside the currently "protected" clubs will grow more & more dissolusioned which is damaging for the future of the game.
posted on 13/5/15
comment by weall8villa (U1313)
posted 48 minutes ago
FFP although has good intentions, in reality is flawed & it's reps the curret bigger clubs at the top of the pile. I suggest FIFA/UEFA alter it to allow investors to be able to inject money into clubs as long as it is not attached to the club in any form of debt to the investors. Surely more money being pumped into the game can only be good? The idea behind FFP was to protect clubs from overspending and endangering their future, but if investors write off any investment then where is the harm to that club? If nothing changes the fans of clubs outside the currently "protected" clubs will grow more & more dissolusioned which is damaging for the future of the game.
--------
The rule is a disgrace. Football should be about spending loads of money that you haven't generated through the club until you win tropheees.I hate the idea that through great management and team continuity a club can slowly progress and make their way up the league organically without the hyperinflation of player prices and wages from sugar daddy spending - fack that.
posted on 13/5/15
Love your sarcastic reply! Obviously I support a club not protected by FFP, and the chairman of the club I support was one of only a few chairmen that voted against its introduction. Many of the clubs currently protected have previously had massive outside cash injections to get where they are, Chelsea, Man City, PSG, Monaco. Man Utd to an extent with the way the club has been owned by the Glazers, Real Madrid with the government bankrolling them. So why is it acceptable to pull the ladder up now?
My club has never had any cash injections and has generated its own money successfully, but knowing that you can never compete on a level playing field is deflating. The best we can hope for is survival year in year out in the premier league, & maybe a little cup run. are you happy that the same 4/5 clubs from the premiership are competing in the champions league year in year out? Probably yes if you support one of them!
posted on 13/5/15
"My club has never had any cash injections and has generated its own money successfully"
I think you do Billy Bassett a great disservice. Not to mention a large shares issue in 1996. I'm no expert, but that's just what I've gleaned in 5 minutes on Wikipedia.
Face it, pretty much every club has gone cap in hand to either the fans or the board at some point.
posted on 13/5/15
Correct, the club raised the huge amount of around £3 million 19 years ago. I don't think that compares to billionaires pumping in £400/£500 million!
posted on 13/5/15
weall8villa.
So rather than hope your club build up naturally, improve your academy, improve stadia, grow your commercial appeal, create a stronger community and the likes... You are sitting there waiting for an oil rich Arab to throw billions at your club?
The fact we have gone from around 15 English clubs in 2 years before FFP was introduced going into administration and having points deducted to zero in the last couple of years shows that FFP is working. And it is still in its early days.
posted on 13/5/15
comment by weall8villa (U1313)
posted 9 minutes ago
Correct, the club raised the huge amount of around £3 million 19 years ago. I don't think that compares to billionaires pumping in £400/£500 million!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it compares favourably to the profits of Microsoft, but that wasn't the point either.
posted on 13/5/15
it sorted the financial (administration) bit, removed the fair play bit
posted on 13/5/15
Many of the clubs currently protected have previously had massive outside cash injections to get where they are, Chelsea, Man City, PSG, Monaco. Man Utd to an extent with the way the club has been owned by the Glazers
Eh? The Glazers have not injected cash into United. We operate on the money we generate.
posted on 13/5/15
United is a bad example, their owners take money out of the club.
posted on 13/5/15
You are missing my point, I am not saying FFP is wrong, just flawed, and that it could be tweaked in a way that doesn't put the future of the club at risk. Any club that grows the right way and starts to become successfull just gets picked apart by the vultures of the clubs now protected by FFP. The only glimmer of hope my club has of ever competing in this league is to have massive investment, I bet you don't find many fans of Chelsea or City bemoaning their rich owners transforming the fortunes of their clubs!
posted on 13/5/15
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 14 minutes ago
it sorted the financial (administration) bit, removed the fair play bit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This.
posted on 13/5/15
comment by weall8villa (U1313)
posted 34 seconds ago
You are missing my point, I am not saying FFP is wrong, just flawed, and that it could be tweaked in a way that doesn't put the future of the club at risk. Any club that grows the right way and starts to become successfull just gets picked apart by the vultures of the clubs now protected by FFP. The only glimmer of hope my club has of ever competing in this league is to have massive investment, I bet you don't find many fans of Chelsea or City bemoaning their rich owners transforming the fortunes of their clubs!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How's the alternative any better? Assuming there isn't an unlimited supply of billionaire sheiks every other club will be competing with a handful of teams with unlimited transfer and wage budgets who will pick apart the rest at will. Someone looking a threat? Buy all their best players and transfer targets and loan them out. I'm sure the wages will make up for it. Once you're competing with truly unlimited spending you might as well forget it.
posted on 13/5/15
I only used the example of United as the owners put the club into massive financial debt which went unpunished by UEFA. Pretty sure there was a rule before FFP that clubs weren't allowed to enter European competitions if they had debt of a certain level, but it was never enforced as they would have had to punish Real Madrid as well.
posted on 13/5/15
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 13 minutes ago
United is a bad example, their owners take money out of the club.
...............
It is their money.
posted on 13/5/15
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Proper spoilt bsatard. (U1270)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by weall8villa (U1313)
posted 34 seconds ago
You are missing my point, I am not saying FFP is wrong, just flawed, and that it could be tweaked in a way that doesn't put the future of the club at risk. Any club that grows the right way and starts to become successfull just gets picked apart by the vultures of the clubs now protected by FFP. The only glimmer of hope my club has of ever competing in this league is to have massive investment, I bet you don't find many fans of Chelsea or City bemoaning their rich owners transforming the fortunes of their clubs!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How's the alternative any better? Assuming there isn't an unlimited supply of billionaire sheiks every other club will be competing with a handful of teams with unlimited transfer and wage budgets who will pick apart the rest at will. Someone looking a threat? Buy all their best players and transfer targets and loan them out. I'm sure the wages will make up for it. Once you're competing with truly unlimited spending you might as well forget it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well IMO if we continue down the current route more and more clubs will disappear, in ten years time it will still be the same clubs finishing at the top widening the already massive gulf even further. These clubs will grow and grow, and will increase their fan base around the country starving smaller clubs of fans & income.
posted on 13/5/15
getting new owners willing to invest in players was at least a hope for clubs pre-FFP
now there's no hope.
Chelsea will probably end up with £100+mil in TV/CL/'prize' money than West Brom. For a single season. Not to mention that leads to even higher sponsorship deals.
It's goodnight Vienna on anything resembling competition, hope, or fairness. Jesus and Gandalf could buy a mid table side and still have absolutely no hope even with decades of perfect 'organic growth'. All their players would just get bought by the mega-money clubs at the first sign of quality coming through.
posted on 13/5/15
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 13 minutes ago
United is a bad example, their owners take money out of the club.
...............
It is their money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
agreed
just saying they're a bad example of owners pumping money into a club. They did the opposite.
posted on 13/5/15
It seems the problem of external money is one of envy and scale - scale because it's ok to put in a few million, but not a few hundred million.
I don't see any alternative for clubs who finish the season higher up the table being awarded more 'prize' money - any other option seems daft.
Didn't they do something in the states, where the bottom team had first pick in the draft or some such to try and inject some competition? Clearly we don't have a draft, but maybe the team coming last should get more money than those coming top - is that really what you suggest?
Or that everyone, including those relegated should get the same? That's hardly fair on the teams in the Championship is it? Maybe they should all get a share too, and then league 1 and so on. My local village team should demand a share of the Prem TV money? Silly? Yes, maybe.
posted on 13/5/15
FFP is fine.
There is a host of clubs that won't have European football so they should be challenging for the league obviously.
Page 6 of 7
6 | 7