"Didn't they do something in the states"
I asked a workmate from New Jersey about this last night. The worst teams get the first pick of the best prospects. There is a salary cap but the big money / big market teams are allowed to break it if they pay a fine.
Seems a hybrid. The league wants competition to keep the punters interested in their product, but ultimately they want the big clubs to fight for the title as it's better for ratings and money.
They don't have the equivalent of the CL or other leagues to compete with for 'buyers of their product' so creating a few star teams would be counterproductive.
The prem is the opposite, their goal is to be in the corporate box of the CL final with 2 English sides playing.
In both cases, 'The League PLC' is doing what's in it's best interest to market it's product. Because, at the end of the day, it's the entertainment business and they want to win.
Everyone who states that ffp creates a top table of clubs still hasn't explained how a handful of clubs whose owners invest £1bn will create a situation any different. Is it the clubs in each grouping that define whether you're for or against ffp?
Arguably ffp will at least regulate clubs and stop them doing a Leeds.
If you want a truly level playing field you're looking at a maximum wage and spending cap for all clubs regardless of status or income.
Then you'll probably complain that it's not fair that successful clubs have good managers, and that managers should only be allowed to stay at a club for two years to give the rest a chance.
The billionaires brought competition.
Chelsea, City, Blackburn would never have won the league in a million years without a nuclear bomb of cash.
Only one team has ever been able to compete in the PL era without it, Arsenal. And Wenger was hailed as a genius for doing the impossible.
Leeds tried to crack the top tier and went bankrupt.
Chelsea the same pre-Roman and went bankrupt.
Liverpool tried to keep pace with the top in terms of spending but could never close the gap (and we had to sell the club to someone willing to take on the debt acquired).
Other than one genius who will end up with a statue outside his ground, the only way to make the league competitive under the rules had been billionaire like investment.
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Proper spoilt bsatard. (U1270)
posted 47 minutes ago
Everyone who states that ffp creates a top table of clubs still hasn't explained how a handful of clubs whose owners invest £1bn will create a situation any different. Is it the clubs in each grouping that define whether you're for or against ffp?
Arguably ffp will at least regulate clubs and stop them doing a Leeds.
If you want a truly level playing field you're looking at a maximum wage and spending cap for all clubs regardless of status or income.
Then you'll probably complain that it's not fair that successful clubs have good managers, and that managers should only be allowed to stay at a club for two years to give the rest a chance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
The billionaires brought competition.
Chelsea, City, Blackburn would never have won the league in a million years without a nuclear bomb of cash.
Only one team has ever been able to compete in the PL era without it, Arsenal. And Wenger was hailed as a genius for doing the impossible.
Leeds tried to crack the top tier and went bankrupt.
Chelsea the same pre-Roman and went bankrupt.
Liverpool tried to keep pace with the top in terms of spending but could never close the gap (and we had to sell the club to someone willing to take on the debt acquired).
Other than one genius who will end up with a statue outside his ground, the only way to make the league competitive under the rules had been billionaire like investment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you're all in favour of deregulation, a few billionaires running the successful clubs with unlimited funds and wages and ticket prices spiraling out of control for everyone else while they try to compete until they go to the wall.
Doesn't sound much of a plan to me.
"Doesn't sound much of a plan to me."
me neither, you just wrote a terrible plan and tried to pin it on me for some reason.
I just wrote a status report of what the league was like pre-FFP and post PL creation.
Sign in if you want to comment
Is FFP ruining football?
Page 7 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 13/5/15
"Didn't they do something in the states"
I asked a workmate from New Jersey about this last night. The worst teams get the first pick of the best prospects. There is a salary cap but the big money / big market teams are allowed to break it if they pay a fine.
Seems a hybrid. The league wants competition to keep the punters interested in their product, but ultimately they want the big clubs to fight for the title as it's better for ratings and money.
They don't have the equivalent of the CL or other leagues to compete with for 'buyers of their product' so creating a few star teams would be counterproductive.
The prem is the opposite, their goal is to be in the corporate box of the CL final with 2 English sides playing.
In both cases, 'The League PLC' is doing what's in it's best interest to market it's product. Because, at the end of the day, it's the entertainment business and they want to win.
posted on 13/5/15
Everyone who states that ffp creates a top table of clubs still hasn't explained how a handful of clubs whose owners invest £1bn will create a situation any different. Is it the clubs in each grouping that define whether you're for or against ffp?
Arguably ffp will at least regulate clubs and stop them doing a Leeds.
If you want a truly level playing field you're looking at a maximum wage and spending cap for all clubs regardless of status or income.
Then you'll probably complain that it's not fair that successful clubs have good managers, and that managers should only be allowed to stay at a club for two years to give the rest a chance.
posted on 13/5/15
The billionaires brought competition.
Chelsea, City, Blackburn would never have won the league in a million years without a nuclear bomb of cash.
Only one team has ever been able to compete in the PL era without it, Arsenal. And Wenger was hailed as a genius for doing the impossible.
Leeds tried to crack the top tier and went bankrupt.
Chelsea the same pre-Roman and went bankrupt.
Liverpool tried to keep pace with the top in terms of spending but could never close the gap (and we had to sell the club to someone willing to take on the debt acquired).
Other than one genius who will end up with a statue outside his ground, the only way to make the league competitive under the rules had been billionaire like investment.
posted on 13/5/15
comment by The Post Nearly Man. Proper spoilt bsatard. (U1270)
posted 47 minutes ago
Everyone who states that ffp creates a top table of clubs still hasn't explained how a handful of clubs whose owners invest £1bn will create a situation any different. Is it the clubs in each grouping that define whether you're for or against ffp?
Arguably ffp will at least regulate clubs and stop them doing a Leeds.
If you want a truly level playing field you're looking at a maximum wage and spending cap for all clubs regardless of status or income.
Then you'll probably complain that it's not fair that successful clubs have good managers, and that managers should only be allowed to stay at a club for two years to give the rest a chance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly
posted on 13/5/15
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
The billionaires brought competition.
Chelsea, City, Blackburn would never have won the league in a million years without a nuclear bomb of cash.
Only one team has ever been able to compete in the PL era without it, Arsenal. And Wenger was hailed as a genius for doing the impossible.
Leeds tried to crack the top tier and went bankrupt.
Chelsea the same pre-Roman and went bankrupt.
Liverpool tried to keep pace with the top in terms of spending but could never close the gap (and we had to sell the club to someone willing to take on the debt acquired).
Other than one genius who will end up with a statue outside his ground, the only way to make the league competitive under the rules had been billionaire like investment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you're all in favour of deregulation, a few billionaires running the successful clubs with unlimited funds and wages and ticket prices spiraling out of control for everyone else while they try to compete until they go to the wall.
Doesn't sound much of a plan to me.
posted on 13/5/15
"Doesn't sound much of a plan to me."
me neither, you just wrote a terrible plan and tried to pin it on me for some reason.
I just wrote a status report of what the league was like pre-FFP and post PL creation.
Page 7 of 7
6 | 7