The on topic thread

[jd2010]

It wasnt FFP that allowed you and Leicester to do a job. It was simply doing better with your resources than the bigger spending clubs did with theirs.

Whether thats a sustainable thing remains to be seen. Typically we've seen clubs make a run to the top 4 and then struggle to take the next step.

It certainly helped both of us. Without FFP there'd be nothing stopping sides who can afford huge losses spending £500m on new players every summer

 

[Magma]

It certainly helped both of us. Without FFP there'd be nothing stopping sides who can afford huge losses spending £500m on new players every summer

the club with the biggest debt in europe broke the transfer record in the summer.

 

[jd2010]

the club with the biggest debt in europe broke the transfer record in the summer.

Without FFP they could make bigger losses and offer £100m for Harry Kane for instance and we'd be ****ed

 

[Magma]

Without FFP they could make bigger losses and offer £100m for Harry Kane for instance and we'd be stuffed

they still can. so can we. so can quite a few clubs.

all ffp ever did was stop us from buying alexis instead of arsenal.

 

[Zidane98]

As much as City fans don't like it some form of FFP was needed with the advent of owners who have such vast reserves of wealth that a £500m loss is barely noticed. That's not good for the game and hasn't been seen in the past.

They needed to be reined in before sending everyone else broke attempting to compete with them.

 

[Magma]

who made a 500 mil loss? clubs are still spending as much as they did. it's just that the lovely new tv deal is there to mask how much is being spent. the vast divide between the haves and the have nots is still there. and using one off examples as to why ffp supposedly worked is absolutely laughable.

face it, people got all excited over ffp, 2 clubs got fined and everything continued on as it did before. the same clubs are still at the top, the same barriers to being a top club apply, just because one club broke through once doesn't change that ffp is and was a resounding failure.

 

[Zidane98]

The idea of FFP is correct but agree that implementation of it was poor.

 

[Magma]

The idea of FFP is correct but agree that implementation of it was poor.

i will fully agree that a fair financial playing field is correct. but it's not fair, it was never designed to be fair and everything is still the same even with all the huff and puff.

all that happened was uefa made a song and dance about two clubs, fined both of them, had a ripper office party and then did nothing. then when the milan clubs (who it was perfectly fine for years ago to be big spenders) have a cry because they can't do what they did before, they instantly announce changes making it easier for them. how is that fair?

in the end, if you're a fan of a club such as west brom or southampton, what did ffp do for them? absolutely **** all.

 

[WealstoneRaider]

Baffles me how some seem to think no constraints are needed. Who wants to see the same old one or two clubs sat at the top of the league year after year? I agree investment needs to be allowed, but as we now have these owners who have unlimited funds there must be a limit.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Baffles me how some seem to think no constraints are needed. Who wants to see the same old one or two clubs sat at the top of the league year after year? I agree investment needs to be allowed, but as we now have these owners who have unlimited funds there must be a limit.

the implementation was poor but the theory was correct. limit clubs to spend what they earn. This is especially necessary in England with huge TV deals for prem clubs and sfa for the minnowship and below.

All prem clubs can afford good players with the tv deal so there shouldn't be too much reason to go into a shitload of debt.

Before funny ****ers talk about United's debt, the FA shouldn't have allowed the Glazers to take us over and other campaigner owners to take over other clubs purely through debt instruments. UEFA can't control that.

 

[WealstoneRaider]

the implementation was poor but the theory was correct. limit clubs to spend what they earn. This is especially necessary in England with huge TV deals for prem clubs and sfa for the minnowship and below.

All prem clubs can afford good players with the tv deal so there shouldn't be too much reason to go into a shitload of debt.

Before funny gooses talk about United's debt, the FA shouldn't have allowed the Glazers to take us over and other campaigner owners to take over other clubs purely through debt instruments. UEFA can't control that.

Yeah this is it. Don't know why the city fans are taking issue. I don't want to go down that road with Moomba again but no one wants to see huge disparity from spending between clubs. We don't want a situation like in Scotland or Spain where you only have two big clubs who fight it out every single year for honours. As a Spurs fan, when we sell our club I do want ambitious owners of course, but I want them to do it within the constraints of some kind of FFP. It's bollocks if it all comes down to how wealthy your owners are

 

[Magma]

uefa can't but the fa could theoretically under their own ffp rules which i can't remember off the top of my head.

 

[Magma]

Yeah this is it. Don't know why the city fans are taking issue. I don't want to go down that road with Moomba again but no one wants to see huge disparity from spending between clubs. We don't want a situation like in Scotland or Spain where you only have two big clubs who fight it out every single year for honours. As a Spurs fan, when we sell our club I do want ambitious owners of course, but I want them to do it within the constraints of some kind of FFP. It's bollocks if it all comes down to how wealthy your owners are

it's not really taking issue with how it affect us. it doesn't anymore. i have from the start thought that it sucks for clubs that were in our position before the takeover. besides a one in a million incredible run there is no hope of their fans seeing a title win.

it's basically old wealth vs new wealth. since 2003 there have been what, us and chelsea as the only additions to the race on a consistent basis?

 

[WealstoneRaider]

it's not really taking issue with how it affect us. it doesn't anymore. i have from the start thought that it sucks for clubs that were in our position before the takeover. besides a one in a million incredible run there is no hope of their fans seeing a title win.

it's basically old wealth vs new wealth. since 2003 there have been what, us and chelsea as the only additions to the race on a consistent basis?

Without yours or Chelsea's financial aid who knows how things would stand now. We would probably been a consistent top four club, Liverpool wouldn't have fallen so far away and other clubs, including City and Chelsea may have come through anyway.

Big clubs (through "old" wealth) can fall off, united being a case since Fergie left. They have huge funds, but it's not unlimited in the way it was at City and Chelsea where mistakes in the transfer market do not cost the club in progress. We just need some FFP that allows a more level playing field, but of course the bigger clubs will always have an advantage but that's the way of the world

 

[Magma]

Without yours or Chelsea's financial aid who knows how things would stand now. We would probably been a consistent top four club, Liverpool wouldn't have fallen so far away and other clubs, including City and Chelsea may have come through anyway.

Big clubs (through "old" wealth) can fall off, united being a case since Fergie left. They have huge funds, but it's not unlimited in the way it was at City and Chelsea where mistakes in the transfer market do not cost the club in progress. We just need some FFP that allows a more level playing field, but of course the bigger clubs will always have an advantage but that's the way of the world

it's not unlimited. that's a fallacy.

mistakes in the transfer market absolutely cost us. seen our defence lately?

 

[WealstoneRaider]

it's not unlimited. that's a fallacy.

mistakes in the transfer market absolutely cost us. seen our defence lately?

I would argue had there not been some FFP in play then your defence wouldn't be in the state it's in at present. That's what I mean by a more level playing field, you've had to forgo strengthening in some areas of your team because of it

 

[Zidane98]

it's not unlimited. that's a fallacy.

mistakes in the transfer market absolutely cost us. seen our defence lately?

Yeah but all we hear about is you guys looking at buying £40-£50m defenders.

 

[moomba]

It certainly helped both of us. Without FFP there'd be nothing stopping sides who can afford huge losses spending £500m on new players every summer

Spending £500m on new players every summer doesnt necessarily make you a better side.

 

[moomba]

As much as City fans don't like it some form of FFP was needed with the advent of owners who have such vast reserves of wealth that a £500m loss is barely noticed. That's not good for the game and hasn't been seen in the past.

They needed to be reined in before sending everyone else broke attempting to compete with them.

I was never opposed to some form of FFP. Don't think many were.

And it's well recorded that we accelerated our spending because of the FFP rules that were put in place. As it is, the initial losses we made are looking pretty smart business. Gave us regular access to champions league money. Increased the value of our squad. Made us probably the biggest earner of domestic prize money in the past five years and hugely increased our commercial income hugely.

We barely notice the £350m initial losses because we'll make much more than that in orofits in the years to come.

 

[Zidane98]

I was never opposed to some form of FFP. Don't think many were.

And it's well recorded that we accelerated our spending because of the FFP rules that were put in place. As it is, the initial losses we made are looking pretty smart business. Gave us regular access to champions league money. Increased the value of our squad. Made us probably the biggest earner of domestic prize money in the past five years and hugely increased our commercial income hugely.

We barely notice the £350m initial losses because we'll make much more than that in orofits in the years to come.

At the rate you are making profits it will take you 20 years to recoup £500m in FFP losses and the £200m spent I'm infrastructure.

That's a terrible investment and would put any normal business under without a sugar daddy propping it up.

 

[Magma]

owning a sports club isnt a normal business. most will lose money.

 

[Zidane98]

owning a sports club isnt a normal business. most will lose money.

Not to that extent. Very hard for other clubs to compete against a club that doesnt care less about £500m in losses

 

[moomba]

At the rate you are making profits it will take you 20 years to recoup £500m in FFP losses and the £200m spent I'm infrastructure.

That's a terrible investment and would put any normal business under without a sugar daddy propping it up.

Are these the profits you said we'd never make?

I'll listen to the experts if you don't mind. They seem.to think our business model is exceptional.

But really, Sheikh Mansour making his money back isnt really something that should bother anyone.

We're a growing, self sustaining business with excellent revenue streams, and a commitment to improving all aspects of the club.

I'd be more pissed off with a club owner that isnt doing his best to improve.

 

[Zidane98]

Are these the profits you said we'd never make.

I'll listen to the experts if you don't mibd. They seem.to think our business model is exceptional.

Profit? You are still down £600m. The only experts who think it's good are from your club.

 

[Magma]

Not to that extent. Very hard for other clubs to compete against a club that doesnt care less about £500m in losses

no but they would still be considered obscene relative to the majority of businesses.

for all the losses, the club has no debt and should see profits increase into the future. the value of the club has continued to rise, and if mansour ever decided to put the club up for sale (still waiting for him to get bored) he'd probably make his money back.