What's the point of explaining grammar to someone who doesn't know how to spell?
We are Man City, we do what we want...
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
What's the point of explaining grammar to someone who doesn't know how to spell?
You really are lost aren't you? I'll explain it to you. Clubs can still be bought. They can still spend any amount of money they desire on infrastructure of the club, the stadium, training facilities, youth academy etc. They then face the challenge that every other club faces of making profit. If they want they can still make losses and not fail FFP. To summarise, you're talking shite.
They can't have massive cash injections. Like clubs could before. Like united did before. To summarize, do one.
They can. Just not at the level City and Chelsea have to invest in their squad. Something that was beyond any doubt above and beyond any investment Utd earned by selling shares. Premier League clubs are permitted to lose £105m over three seasons with no penalties. To summarise, nah.
Clubs have no choice but to be part of the regime put in place by UEFA - but that doesnt mean they cant challenge it if they feel it places them at a disadvantage against other clubs because of the effect of the rules. As was said above, a club (and indeed any sensible business) will look after its own interests as best it can. In football the difference between success and failure is no longer just on the pitch or in the trophy room - its millions of pounds of income. I suspect United and all of the other top clubs have used their influence along the way to put themselves in a much better position.
The reality is that there has always been rich and poor clubs and all FFP seems to do is keep the rich clubs rich and the poor clubs poor. Further developments to level the playing field would be great - but there is absolutely no indication that UEFA want to do that. For me all this will do is perpetuate the staus quo and I cant see how that can be fair, or worthwhile.
The bottom line for me is that this will do absolutley nothing long term because the rich clubs will (as this decision shows) get their way. UEFA are in a precarious position. They wont ban teams from the CL because it devalues the competition and they wont go tough on teams either judging by what's happened because they're scared of the consequences.
All in all, its a mess and it does nothing to address the actual problem it was designed to resolve. All it does not is stop rich clubs with plenty of money from spending it.
The flaw in this can be seen up and down the country at numerous levels. My local side Hartlepool United get small crowds and while we have a rich owners, we can't spend money on players because of the Football league FFP. The owners dont want to make us Chelsea, or blow millions, but they cant even pay decent enough wages on free transfers to make us competative in League 2. We're at risk of going down. We're in a position where a season or two ago Portsmouth (with seemingly little income and bundles of debt) can sign much better players than we can because they get a decent crowd.
Looking at the smaller clubs - what happens if a club is in big trouble financially and someone wants to come in and rescue them? Seems these kind of rules preclude that.
£105 million wont go far over three years when you look at wages and transfer fees. It wouldnt make you competative at the top end of the table if you weren't already.
Just as well that's just the maximum loss allowed then. Which will be offset by whatever income they receive.
It's already been answered but they are allowed to spend other money they've earned. No reason why a club can't build over a number of years if run sensibly. Spurs would be fairly regular top four by now were it not for sugar daddies so it can be done.
Not sure if they're the least likeable club on the planet but they're in the top 3. They haven't improved the game at all. Their fecking oil money is a cancer on the game imo.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. The smaller clubs will struggle to keep their better players when the big clubs come sniffing as is usually the way. Unless they can pay mega money on wages which gives a glimmer of hope.
Spurs would obviously be better off financially - but enough to keep players when top sides come sniffing? I'm not sure personally.
But they'll only be £105 million better off in real terms over the three years which equates to £35 million a summer on top of current net spend.
That's fine if you're already well off and can spend a good chunk of cash every summer already. If not it doesn't leave you with a lot of money to spend.
Getting rid of FFP isn't going to help those clubs. Only make it harder.
It doesn't if someone buys them and wants to invest, which to be honest, is the only chance a lot of clubs realistically have.
This "incremental approach" just doesn't work for me. But for Chelsea and City you might have Spurs and Liverpool instead. I suspect yours just making more "tiers". United would be top, then Arsenal and then the other two. Liverpool and Spurs would still be losing players to Barca, Bayern? United and the like.
For me FFP does nothing to address the balance for 90% of clubs involved and the inequality that's always been there still exists and which is inevitable.
I like the idea, but in practice it doesn't work. I think the fact that the rich clubs end up being untouchable is bad for the game. It's potentially anti-competitive.
I like the PL as it is now - for me it's as entertaining as its ever been. Some want to suggest that these clubs are ruining football but I see no evidence of it. It's more competitive than ever and a very entertaining product.
It also falls down in that it doesn't stop people taking over clubs and making a balls up of it. They'd be better trying to tighten up ownership rules and making sure clubs are ran properly.
You just know you're on the losing side of a FFP argument when Harry Redknapp is in your corner:
“To make it fair play we should be able to spend as much as Manchester United have spent before we play them on Sunday. That would be fair play, wouldn’t it?”
“To make it fair play we should be able to spend as much as Manchester United have spent before we play them on Sunday. That would be fair play, wouldn’t it?”
I see your Harry Redknapp and raise you an Abramovich.
"It's mainly the owners that asked us to do something. Roman Abramovich, Silvio Berlusconi at AC Milan and Massimo Moratti at Inter," Platini said. "They do not want to fork out any more...It doesn't matter if one team doesn't agree, because this is what the clubs want."
Until there is a universal wage cap and transfer fee cap then football will never get close to fair play. Even then there will be to many loop holes.
You can't be serious. As if there was any outcry about the increasing gap at the top of the football pyramid by the established big clubs before the likes of Chelsea, City and PSG came onto the scene.I don't think you, or most people care about the global inequality in football, that makes it exponentially difficult for clubs like Dortmund and Atletico, or even aspirants like Southampton from capitalizing on good decisions made on and off the pitch without being sabotaged by top clubs who reap where they haven't sown. Chelsea and co have made it more difficult, but if by some chance they were removed from the scene, I don't think there would be any more complaints. After all, the other teams earned their place at the table.
