- Aug 3, 2008
- AFL Club
- Other Teams
- Hull City, Adelaide United, WCW
FFP as it stands is seriously flawed, absolutely, but Red Black and Blue is basically asking for Everton to be allowed to do a Leeds.
You've literally just said you want the chance to spend money and live with the consequences no matter what they are, it's not a false notion.
The notion that the rule is there to protect clubs from themselves is the false notion. It's there to protect the status quo at the top of the league. The leagues power brokers couldn't care if it was Everton going down or Leeds there will always be an club there for cannon fodder.
It's there to stop Everton continuing to dig themselves into a hole. Because if you'd signed 50m of talent last summer and still been in this situation, the fans would be calling for some top ups in January to get out of the hole and the cycle would continue on. Having to spend sustainably is not a bad thing. As I said FFP isn't perfect and needs to be overhauled, and as you say there is an element of protecting the status quo, but look at the way Leicester spends for instance compared to yourselves.
No one is defending how terribly we have spent. I hate half the players we buy. But we should be allowed to spend if we can get it done.
There has to be a balance between spending and investment and protecting clubs.
Everton new stadium is going to cost half a billion by all accounts. 6 or 7 years in the Champions league would bring in half a billion in revenue.
We are about to be relegated with a 700 million dollar stadium debt coming because we can’t buy players...
Precisely. Derby today showing what happens when you spend with gay abandon and gamble poorly.Is the spirit of the rule not to stop people just throwing massive amounts of money at the wall and the club going bust? If Everton were allowed to continue to rack up huge losses and then somehow found themselves relegated, would they not be in massive financial trouble?