Fans of Tottenham Hotspur PLC saying football is a sport not a business
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 8 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 5 hours, 35 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 11 hours, 44 minutes ago
comment by clapfreesince2003 (U22207)
posted 4 hours, 45 minutes ago
Do away with FFP rules and set a maximum spend limit at £300m, which includes wages and transfer fees. That would mean every club in the prem would have a fighting chance of winning something. Somehow, I don't see any of the top 7 wanting this rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would business want restrictions like that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because football is supposed to be a sport, where everyone/team is supposed to have a chance of competing. It clearly is not a level playing field with financially doped clubs distorting and cheating their way through the rules as they stand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s never been a time where there hasn’t been “financially doped” teams. What’s changed a lot now since the change in ownership rules in the eighties is there’s a lot of owners that believe they can reap the rewards of the humungous asset growth themselves with no risk.
I’m all for a change to pre eighties ownership and distribution model and a fit for purpose FFP that looks at the balance sheet as well as the P&L.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a load of nonsense. Financially doped clubs have sprung up in the 21st century, where oil states have been allowed to buy clubs, and circumnavigate the rules.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 8 hours, 49 minutes ago
Fans of Tottenham Hotspur PLC saying football is a sport not a business
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Manchester City are not only financially doped, but they are also trying to circumnavigate all financial rules. 115 Prem Financial rules bent.
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 2 hours, 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 8 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 5 hours, 35 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 11 hours, 44 minutes ago
comment by clapfreesince2003 (U22207)
posted 4 hours, 45 minutes ago
Do away with FFP rules and set a maximum spend limit at £300m, which includes wages and transfer fees. That would mean every club in the prem would have a fighting chance of winning something. Somehow, I don't see any of the top 7 wanting this rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would business want restrictions like that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because football is supposed to be a sport, where everyone/team is supposed to have a chance of competing. It clearly is not a level playing field with financially doped clubs distorting and cheating their way through the rules as they stand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s never been a time where there hasn’t been “financially doped” teams. What’s changed a lot now since the change in ownership rules in the eighties is there’s a lot of owners that believe they can reap the rewards of the humungous asset growth themselves with no risk.
I’m all for a change to pre eighties ownership and distribution model and a fit for purpose FFP that looks at the balance sheet as well as the P&L.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a load of nonsense. Financially doped clubs have sprung up in the 21st century, where oil states have been allowed to buy clubs, and circumnavigate the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So just to check, what’s your definition of financial doping? I’d assumed it was the same as Wenger and it was just spending more than they earned, but now I’m assuming it’s circumnavigating the rules at the time, is that right?
Should Beyonce be forced to play gigs in Nottingham and Wolverhampton to make it more of a level playing field financially?
Sign in if you want to comment
Circumventing the rules
Page 4 of 4
posted on 22/6/23
Fans of Tottenham Hotspur PLC saying football is a sport not a business
posted on 22/6/23
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 8 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 5 hours, 35 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 11 hours, 44 minutes ago
comment by clapfreesince2003 (U22207)
posted 4 hours, 45 minutes ago
Do away with FFP rules and set a maximum spend limit at £300m, which includes wages and transfer fees. That would mean every club in the prem would have a fighting chance of winning something. Somehow, I don't see any of the top 7 wanting this rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would business want restrictions like that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because football is supposed to be a sport, where everyone/team is supposed to have a chance of competing. It clearly is not a level playing field with financially doped clubs distorting and cheating their way through the rules as they stand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s never been a time where there hasn’t been “financially doped” teams. What’s changed a lot now since the change in ownership rules in the eighties is there’s a lot of owners that believe they can reap the rewards of the humungous asset growth themselves with no risk.
I’m all for a change to pre eighties ownership and distribution model and a fit for purpose FFP that looks at the balance sheet as well as the P&L.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a load of nonsense. Financially doped clubs have sprung up in the 21st century, where oil states have been allowed to buy clubs, and circumnavigate the rules.
posted on 22/6/23
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 8 hours, 49 minutes ago
Fans of Tottenham Hotspur PLC saying football is a sport not a business
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Manchester City are not only financially doped, but they are also trying to circumnavigate all financial rules. 115 Prem Financial rules bent.
posted on 22/6/23
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 2 hours, 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 8 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 5 hours, 35 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 11 hours, 44 minutes ago
comment by clapfreesince2003 (U22207)
posted 4 hours, 45 minutes ago
Do away with FFP rules and set a maximum spend limit at £300m, which includes wages and transfer fees. That would mean every club in the prem would have a fighting chance of winning something. Somehow, I don't see any of the top 7 wanting this rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would business want restrictions like that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because football is supposed to be a sport, where everyone/team is supposed to have a chance of competing. It clearly is not a level playing field with financially doped clubs distorting and cheating their way through the rules as they stand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s never been a time where there hasn’t been “financially doped” teams. What’s changed a lot now since the change in ownership rules in the eighties is there’s a lot of owners that believe they can reap the rewards of the humungous asset growth themselves with no risk.
I’m all for a change to pre eighties ownership and distribution model and a fit for purpose FFP that looks at the balance sheet as well as the P&L.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a load of nonsense. Financially doped clubs have sprung up in the 21st century, where oil states have been allowed to buy clubs, and circumnavigate the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So just to check, what’s your definition of financial doping? I’d assumed it was the same as Wenger and it was just spending more than they earned, but now I’m assuming it’s circumnavigating the rules at the time, is that right?
posted on 22/6/23
Should Beyonce be forced to play gigs in Nottingham and Wolverhampton to make it more of a level playing field financially?
Page 4 of 4