Optimistic Nut Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 (edited) 1 hour ago, Interpolic said: It you take it back to its apparent main use case, then the maximum loss not being increased can be justified. Just because transfer fees increase doesn't mean you should be encouraging clubs to spend further beyond their means and getting in trouble, if they don't have the money. Unfortunately there is no distinction made between clubs whose owners have the money and can invest, and those who don't have it and would spend irresponsibly. It's clearly by design though, and completely stinks. They've looked at Man City and Chelsea and went "we don't want another one of those" privately, and "we don't want another Portsmouth or Leeds" publicly. Problem with this is, you'd get the clubs with the money already still being able to go out and spend on the £60-80m players, everyone else would organically be in the £20m market. It's awful. Also with an increase to the FFP magic number, back then selling a player for £20m would be fine to bring it all back into line, when you have the ability to sell a £60-70m player to do that, why can't the figure increase with it? Edited January 13 by Optimistic Nut Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said: Problem with this is, you'd get the clubs with the money already still being able to go out and spend on the £60-80m players, everyone else would organically be in the £20m market. It's awful. Also with an increase the the FFP magic number, back then selling a player for £20m would be fine to bring it all back into line, when you have the ability to sell a £60-70m player to do that, why can't the figure increase with it? Yeah I agree - the figure should be being increased to be fair to the likes of Villa and us, but just saying that's how it would be justified imo. That it sends the wrong message out to clubs in the old Leeds bracket and makes them more likely to get in trouble. The whole thing was outdated and overly simplistic the moment it was introduced. Like I say it's like they've just looked at what Man City have done and put rules in place to make it impossible that it happens again. The very definition of pulling the ladder up. Edited January 13 by Interpolic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucasol Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 43 minutes ago, Keegans Export said: Kieran Maguire has just tweeted this morning, if it had gone up with "football inflation" (not sure exactly what that means) then the acceptable losses would be £218m over three years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Should have put them in their place after the Super League fiasco. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DahnSahf Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 I'll be surprised if Sky doesn't eventually get fed up with FFP. They love their record breaking windows. They're already saying this is going to be a quiet window and a number of clubs are affected by FFP. At this rate it won't be long before the Transfer Show is down to 15 minutes twice a week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucasol Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 3 minutes ago, DahnSahf said: I'll be surprised if Sky doesn't eventually get fed up with FFP. They love their record breaking windows. They're already saying this is going to be a quiet window and a number of clubs are affected by FFP. At this rate it won't be long before the Transfer Show is down to 15 minutes twice a week. Dharmesh Sheth and Kaveh Solhekol raging at their lack of air time. Romano left repeating the micro details of the same deal for 10 days. Jacques Talbot making up even more outlandish bullshit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 1 hour ago, Interpolic said: It you take it back to its apparent main use case, then the maximum loss not being increased can be justified. Just because transfer fees increase doesn't mean you should be encouraging clubs to spend further beyond their means and getting in trouble, if they don't have the money. Unfortunately there is no distinction made between clubs whose owners have the money and can invest, and those who don't have it and would spend irresponsibly. It's clearly by design though, and completely stinks. They've looked at Man City and Chelsea and went "we don't want another one of those" privately, and "we don't want another Portsmouth or Leeds" publicly. Club's like Man U probably wrote the rules Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucasol Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 21 minutes ago, duo said: Club's like Man U probably wrote the rules Same way they interviewed, vetted and selected Masters after rejecting the original candidate, the absolute fucking bent protectionist cunts: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Hmm https://x.com/richysouthern/status/1745849637209022976?s=46&t=RaLdCRuzyWBbm603Y3eUgg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Wouldn't remotely surprising. We're definitely posturing in some regard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 I suppose the argument against it is if it was a truly inflationary environment you’d offset it with higher revenues, which does happen to some degree (at least for those lucky enough to be hitched to increasing broadcast deals). If revenue isn’t increasing then inflation doesn’t suddenly make it ok to lose £200m instead of £105m. But the problem is football transfers and wages are not a normal market with pricing controlled by a handful of clubs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanji Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 The math needs to adjust based on real world changes in football. It hasn’t changed at all. The base line hurdle can’t simply stay static when the revenues are far greater with inflation and competition whilst expenses (wages, cost of goods at a real and inflated value) continues to increase. so while the big 5-6 teams continue to enjoy the benefits of the biggest sponsorship deals to increase their revenues the smaller teams can’t take that same deal because there are rules now in place limiting a commercial deal relative to the on-pitch success of a club. So how does a club do better? Sign better players and pay top wages…oh wait can’t do that because you can’t grow revenue as fast. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 (edited) Not got a problem with the 105 million loss threshold, the problem is that the owners are limited in how much they can invest into their own business. This is absolutely farcical, doesn't happen in any other business and is a clear restraint of trade. Edited January 13 by et tu brute Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 The media campaign that appears to be underway is making a lot of noise. Hope it’s intend to make the competition regulators take note and launch an investigation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abacus Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 I think this is one reason they surprisingly dropped the objection to related party clubs loaning from the Saudi League - that would have made it far too obvious that every new rule was to stop us. If we had gone down that route of taking loans, it would have only increased the animosity towards us more widely and lessened the scrutiny on FFP, which is I guess what they were secretly hoping for in dropping it. So I'm glad we don't look like falling into that trap. Gives us a clean pair of knuckle-dusters for the real fight. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 5 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: The media campaign that appears to be underway is making a lot of noise. Hope it’s intend to make the competition regulators take note and launch an investigation. I hope the Saudi's are using their influence on the government to have a little word. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Just now, duo said: I hope the Saudi's are using their influence on the government to have a little word. Who knows??♂️ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucasol Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 14 minutes ago, Abacus said: I think this is one reason they surprisingly dropped the objection to related party clubs loaning from the Saudi League - that would have made it far too obvious that every new rule was to stop us. They didn’t stop the objection, they lost the vote by 1 club, predominantly because the ones who voted with us have multi club models that may eventually need a similar mechanism. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 1 minute ago, Nucasol said: They didn’t stop the objection, they lost the vote by 1 club, predominantly because the ones who voted with us have multi club models that may eventually need a similar mechanism. They lost the vote by 2 clubs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucasol Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 20 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: The media campaign that appears to be underway is making a lot of noise. Hope it’s intend to make the competition regulators take note and launch an investigation. John Murray on BBC speaking eloquently on it, commenting that it’s a scandal clubs being forced to sell either their superstars or their home grown kids. Either is shit. Much like us, he said there has to be a middle ground between protecting and pulling the ladder up. Mark Chapman (Man Utd fan) as host then stealthily used the cover of another update to move past the topic just as it was getting tasty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 1 minute ago, Nucasol said: They didn’t stop the objection, they lost the vote by 1 club, predominantly because the ones who voted with us have multi club models that may eventually need a similar mechanism. With what’s happening now I think we were leaking interest in Saudi loans and then honestly would have been fine with it being voted against. It would have been a good addition to the argument. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucasol Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 1 minute ago, FloydianMag said: They lost the vote by 2 clubs. Stand corrected but that isn’t withdrawing an objection, it’s other clubs having a similar vested interest. 12 lockstep shitehawks voted to try and shut the door on NUFC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Just now, timeEd32 said: With what’s happening now I think we were leaking interest in Saudi loans and then honestly would have been fine with it being voted against. It would have been a good addition to the argument. It began last November with Dan Ashworth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 2 minutes ago, Nucasol said: John Murray on BBC speaking eloquently on it, commenting that it’s a scandal clubs being forced to sell either their superstars or their home grown kids. Either is shit. Much like us, he said there has to be a middle ground between protecting and pulling the ladder up. Mark Chapman (Man Utd fan) as host then stealthily used the cover of another update to move past the topic just as it was getting tasty. The cartel clubs will know what’s going on and might even be fearing the worst, especially if Competition Regulators get involved, it probably won’t require any legal action if they launch an investigation, which they are entitled to do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellis80 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Saudi thing seems nonsense. None of the players that have gone over there you would want. No one was interested in Neves until he went there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now