r0cafella

What we will find out in 2 weeks is separate from the charges though. It’s a specific challenge to the related party restrictions put in place after our takeover.

the Athletic mentioned a summer budget of about what we spend last year. Also interest in relegated players? Other than Trafford can anyone think of others we might hold an interest in?

I don’t think it’s about going the city way in particular, I mean we didn’t do the Robinho thing when we had the headroom too Not to put words in your mouth but what your kind of saying is your perfectly satisfied with being also rans at best. With the current rules it’s almost impossible for us to win the league and it is impossible for us to be successful on a consistent basis. I’m not sure why you’d want to sell us short for some form of hollow morale victory. (Every club buys the league and we are still owned by the Saudis).

I think so, the problem with my proposal is your giving very large historical balances to clubs to spend and let’s be frank a lot simply can’t afford it so you’re basically sanctioning massive over leverage. You’d want guarantees in place so the owners are on the hook for the spend but they simply wouldn’t agree. And I doff my cap to those sneaky so called big six clubs who forced footballs version of Brexit it on us, they played an absolute blinder and really lined their pockets with that master stroke.

The difference in house from the Bruno and Isak camps is fascinating mind.

But that’s the issue Yorks, the horse has already bolted and by bringing in further rules all your doing is entrenching advantages gain when things were the Wild West. It’s the opposite of competitive balance. Don’t get me wrong, unfettered spending is also the enemy of competitive or balance which is why my proposal above would eradicate that as well.

Absolutely, it’s why coming up with something fair is easy but implementation is impossible. Fair would be. Calculate who’s spend the most historically and work out what inflation for football was and assign the amount which would bring parity to each club (so maybe we’ve spent 1b less total than the highest spender this would be our Historic FFP balance to use as we see fit). Second thing would be to work out an annual budget all clubs are bonded too and boom you have a fair-ish setup. (It’s still not fair as it’s likely inflation of player prices would jump after you do this) but it’s as close to fair as can achieved imo.

Luxury tax is an idea, I’m not so keen personally because your encouraging transfer of funds between rivals for essentially nothing. Imagine us paying City in an attempt to catch them because we “over spent”. I think one of the reasons we’re ended up where we are is the protectionist rules are the most agreeable to majority. You can’t put the lid back on the amount of money in the game which in itself is a problem for a lot of Owners/shareholders as they are now actually priced out.

I think your logic is somewhat flawed, owners wealth has always been the pre determining factor to success in football; for as long as I can remember at least. I want competitive balance too but FMV and FFP are the wrong tools to accomplish that goal especially as the rules aren’t consistent both domestically and in continental competitions.

Your looking at it through the wrong lens, most of the clubs don’t benefit from related party deals so obviously they want to stop those that do. The members aren’t so bothered about with competitive (see us under Ashley) what they are bothered about is money and they will protect their piece of the pie no matter.

Agree and instead of creating regulations to level the playing field, they created rules designed to protect the biggest clubs and make them impossible to challenge. Ultimately they had the chance and acted in self interest I hope city blow the corrupt show apart.

IF Apt rules are deemed unlawful and the rule is removed and IF our owners truly want us to be the best then our FFP worries will be a thing of the past. Two big assumptions at this stage mind.

Given city let us down in the cup final it seems they want to make amends with this Jokes aside, it’s embarrassing it’s come to this. Let’s just make rules which allow everyone to compete on an even footing.

Neither do the PFA and rightfully so. half baked poorly thought out idea.

Anchoring not happening.

The anchoring doesn’t help us at all, not until we reach parity which I don’t think we will ever be able to. If you look at the so called big 6 clubs our model closely matches Liverpool but they dwarf us in all aspects, we are half the size of them financially and I don’t see how we bridge that gap.

I mean caught as in, clubs like ours being able to bridge the gap with clubs like Madrid.

Yeah, if that to be honest. As I’ve pointed out previously in order to catch those more established clubs we need to better the commercial deals they strike which isn’t feasible as why would someone sponsor us when they can sponsor a Liverpool? Don’t get me wrong, we may have some successful seasons like the one where we finished fourth but sustained success will be extremely difficult.

They aren’t changing in our favour, the new rules will make it even harder as owners are not able to offset anything with equity. You have a hard spending to revenue cap of 70-85% and that’s it. IF related party transaction rules remain in place then we basically need to Eddie to perform miracles every year in order to progress.

Can anyone think of any examples where succession planning for keepers has worked? It’s one of those positions where you just get the best you can and stick with it. Im not sure splurging 25n on Trafford is the play at this point with that in mind.

This reminds of Barca buying Bruno

Not sure who we could get money for before that deadline other than someone we really don’t want to flog.

It’s ok guys! Madrid will be caught because we didn’t impose arbitrary spending limits on clubs… oh wait.

He won’t but the rules are pretty clear. Nothing to stop him going for that amount as it wouldn’t be a related party transaction.

It doesn’t I’m afraid and remember the rule was tightened so you actually have to prove it’s market value now and no the PL prove it.