Teslact Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 Don't Villa still have a EFL FFP charge hanging over them should they ever go down? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 1 hour ago, Teslact said: Don't Villa still have a EFL FFP charge hanging over them should they ever go down? Annoying that they stayed up that year due to goal line technology failing. Wish they'd fuck off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 4 hours ago, et tu brute said: Was that Crafton? He's the one constantly putting out negative reports. Shows how biased and shit scared they are. It's about being allowed to have owners to be able to invest in their own business, which would only mirror every other industry and business. Problem for them, is that being allowed to do this basic and fundamental business practice, would then leave us in the position to blow every club out of the water, and they certainly don't want little old Newcastle doing that. Roll on the legal challenge, I still maintain that it's only a matter of time, and the noise is starting to build. Yeah, you might blow every other club out of the water. Except maybe Man City who could now spend whatever they wanted. And maybe Chelsea - Boehly clearly is happy to spend whatever he wants. I don’t know about the other guys - the Chinese owners of Wolves, that Egyptian guy at Villa, that bloke (Iranian?) who bought Everton. Maybe he could buy Everton a new ground. I dunno. All I know is that I felt really, well, sad when Abramovich was throwing his money at Chelsea and it wasn’t because it wasn’t us. Same with what happened at Man City. If this is what you want then I get it, and maybe it would make the league better. I have no idea any more, really. It just makes me feel a bit sad again Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groundhog63 Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 1 hour ago, leffe186 said: All I know is that I felt really, well, sad when Abramovich was throwing his money at Chelsea and it wasn’t because it wasn’t us. Same with what happened at Man City. If this is what you want then I get it, and maybe it would make the league better. I have no idea any more, really. It just makes me feel a bit sad again Absolutely Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaksbigrightfoot Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 6 hours ago, Yorkie said: Tbf, while it's frustrating that there's a dam holding back our enormous reservoir of Saudi money, we're not in a good position to complain. FFP exists for everyone - it holds everyone back - but our owners give us the ability to artificially boost revenues by involving made-up shite like Sela and by having Silverstone hook us up with Adidas. They can spend unlimited amounts on infrastructure. If the rules are all about getting your revenues up then we're in a blessed position compared to the rest of the League's also-rans. And this is why we are just quietly going about our business. Its also why the current FFP issue may help us moving forward. Ok we have a tough year this year. But we grow the infrastructure and training facilities sponsored by “xyz” and get the commercial revenue up. There are two leagues going on here. The Football one and the income one. We are now sixth in the commercial one. We can grow that easy. It just takes a little bit of time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paully Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 Canny read this thread https://x.com/sportingintel/status/1747398758025801826?s=46&t=FsEm6VC2ijNnTjHjyXU7DA Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 3 minutes ago, Paully said: Canny read this thread https://x.com/sportingintel/status/1747398758025801826?s=46&t=FsEm6VC2ijNnTjHjyXU7DA Can anyone de-twitter this please? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sima Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 3 minutes ago, r0cafella said: Can anyone de-twitter this please? https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1747398758025801826.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 Just now, Sima said: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1747398758025801826.html Thank you kindly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 8 hours ago, r0cafella said: Btw, is that correct? Everton are being punished for the same breach again? If so that clearly isn’t correct and the rules are deeply flawed. Surely any breaches which are punished should result in the year of the breach being zeroised. Although I guess that makes the rules game able as you park your losses to one year and enjoy the benefits the year after. Either way these rules have been poorly thought out. Its a 3 year rolling thing. They broke the rules in 20/21/22 and now have again in 21/22/23, of course they should be charged again otherwise whats the point? You would be effectively writing off all periods up to 22 and then they get free reign to spend crazy sums in 23 without any comeback til they complete another 3 year period in 25. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 53 minutes ago, Fezzle said: Its a 3 year rolling thing. They broke the rules in 20/21/22 and now have again in 21/22/23, of course they should be charged again otherwise whats the point? You would be effectively writing off all periods up to 22 and then they get free rein to spend crazy sums in 23 without any comeback til they complete another 3 year period in 25. Aye. I’m aware but from what I heard they are being punished for the same infringement which is wrong imo. I understand why it’s that way as I mentioned in my post but the point being the rules are clearly poorly thought out if you can be punished for the same thing twice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 Just now, r0cafella said: Aye. I’m aware but from what I heard they are being punished for the same infringement which is wrong imo. I understand why it’s that way as I mentioned in my post but the point being the rules are clearly poorly thought out if you can be punished for the same thing twice. Its for going over the 3 year loss limit, of course there will be overlap as the rolling period has to have some by default. Their punishment is for not rectifying the problem this year to avoid it happening again in the following period. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 18 minutes ago, r0cafella said: Aye. I’m aware but from what I heard they are being punished for the same infringement which is wrong imo. I understand why it’s that way as I mentioned in my post but the point being the rules are clearly poorly thought out if you can be punished for the same thing twice. They aren’t being punished for the same thing twice - they had the opportunity to fix it and continued to breach FFP FFP may be ill-conceived but Everton cheated when others didn’t Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Begbie Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 10 hours ago, Yorkie said: Tbf, while it's frustrating that there's a dam holding back our enormous reservoir of Saudi money, we're not in a good position to complain. FFP exists for everyone - it holds everyone back - but our owners give us the ability to artificially boost revenues by involving made-up shite like Sela and by having Silverstone hook us up with Adidas. They can spend unlimited amounts on infrastructure. If the rules are all about getting your revenues up then we're in a blessed position compared to the rest of the League's also-rans. Very true in what you are saying here, and also the PL saw this. They made a new rule that the sponsors like Sela and others are not allowed to pay overprice, then they will come in and stop it. FFP should be more FUP as its more Financial Unfair Play. Man Utd, Arsenal, Man City, Chelsea and Tottenham are miles in front of us when it comes to revenue and players they can sell, this model will only keep them at the top as "small" clubs has to sell their main players to stay within FFP. Only way to make it fair imo is if they put in maximum on transfer cap and wage cap. In the start of FFP they said it was so owners couldnt buy clubs and destroy them financially when it wasnt fun anymore. This could be solved by a cap on how much a club can loan, which mean this rich owners need to put money in to the club instead of giving private loans to the clubs. Also think only the winner of the PL should get more money, and the rest should be diveded to all the PL clubs. Because finnishing in CL and Europe is such a huge financially bonus in itself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 5 hours ago, leffe186 said: I dunno. All I know is that I felt really, well, sad when Abramovich was throwing his money at Chelsea and it wasn’t because it wasn’t us. Same with what happened at Man City. If this is what you want then I get it, and maybe it would make the league better. I have no idea any more, really. It just makes me feel a bit sad again But it was hardly the first time a rich owner came in to buy success though? Admittedly the sums involved go up with time but there has always been rich clubs trying to spend their way to trophies, some are good at it some are bad at it, and less rich clubs who well run and less rich clubs which are poorly run. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 33 minutes ago, Keegans Export said: But it was hardly the first time a rich owner came in to buy success though? Admittedly the sums involved go up with time but there has always been rich clubs trying to spend their way to trophies, some are good at it some are bad at it, and less rich clubs who well run and less rich clubs which are poorly run. It wasn’t, Jack Walker was the most obvious recent example at the time, there have been loads since the 1800s. The Abramovich one felt different to me. If it felt the same to you then fair enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 5 minutes ago, leffe186 said: It wasn’t, Jack Walker was the most obvious recent example at the time, there have been loads since the 1800s. The Abramovich one felt different to me. If it felt the same to you then fair enough. I suppose it was different because he was so much richer than anyone else but I can't say it had any emotional affect on me. I was only 15 at the time like so I didn't have a huge amount of experience to draw upon. We've gone from the local-rich (Moores, SJH, Walker) to the national-rich (Abramovic) to the global-rich (PIF), but the principle hasn't changed - some teams have more money than others. Some have a lot more. They might spend it well, they might not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 (edited) Everybody since Arsenal in 91 spent fortunes to win the league and that Arsenal team was probably still in the top five most expensively assembled (just the additions of Seaman, Linighan and Limpar that season were £3.5m and more than what half the clubs in the league paid for their entire squads. Man United and Ferguson were probably the original Man City/Chelsea when they spent fortunes on Pallister, Ince, Phelan, Wallace and Webb - £8m in 1989 alone having spent a lot prior (Hughes, Bruce, Leighton, McClair). Spent fortunes to create the scenario of being able to bring people through, like Man City now. Edited January 19 by Jonas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leffe186 Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 2 hours ago, Keegans Export said: I suppose it was different because he was so much richer than anyone else but I can't say it had any emotional affect on me. I was only 15 at the time like so I didn't have a huge amount of experience to draw upon. We've gone from the local-rich (Moores, SJH, Walker) to the national-rich (Abramovic) to the global-rich (PIF), but the principle hasn't changed - some teams have more money than others. Some have a lot more. They might spend it well, they might not. Absolutely. And if Man City didn’t have an emotional affect on you either then I envy you . If you were cool with that then of course you’d be cool with Saudi Arabia spending whatever they want right now. I just wasn’t. And I think if you build steadily over the next few years and redevelop your stadium (or build a new one) then you’d bridge the gap too eventually. I didn’t know about the Moores stuff as a kid, all I knew was that Liverpool won everything and loads of people I knew in North London supported them to feel better about themselves. Maybe it would have changed my attitude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 3 hours ago, Keegans Export said: I suppose it was different because he was so much richer than anyone else but I can't say it had any emotional affect on me. I was only 15 at the time like so I didn't have a huge amount of experience to draw upon. We've gone from the local-rich (Moores, SJH, Walker) to the national-rich (Abramovic) to the global-rich (PIF), but the principle hasn't changed - some teams have more money than others. Some have a lot more. They might spend it well, they might not. I agree, the only proviso is that the bigger cities were capable of generating more money because of the size of their fanbase and were well known abroad. Hall and Shepherd never put their hands in their own pockets on behalf of Newcastle, they just understood that with the right investment, the club had the potential to challenge for honours with the big clubs of the time. That doesn't happen if you're Luton. Even Blackburn wasn't sustainable no matter how much money Walker sunk into the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fountain Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 On 17/01/2024 at 13:23, pubteam said: At this stage do any clubs think financial fair play is a good thing. So many teams can't spend due to FFP, in the end it may end up doing more damage than the free spending that came before it. Clubs like Liverpool and Man Utd will complain that other clubs are only offering £20m for their cast offs, ignoring the fact any offer above that will break the FFP rules which they wanted introduced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 12 hours ago, Sima said: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1747398758025801826.html All football fans should read that - many still think UEFA found them innocent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfcastle Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 On 17/01/2024 at 13:25, The Prophet said: The more I read about the Everton stuff, the worse it gets. Is it right that: This could be the first and only season where a club can be punished twice for the same financial breaches in a single season. We might come to the end of the season and not know who is relegated. It's total incompetence from the PL from a sporting integrity perspective. At some point clubs/fans will be waiting until the middle of summer for cases to be settled and punishments to be dealt out to see who is up who is down, who is in the CL, who isn't. Like VAR decisions on entire seasons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 Gary talks about FFP on 44 mins - highlight is he thinks it needs to be changed as he says "it was brought in by the elite to protect the elite" (the others in the podcast kept very quiet), Ian thought it will never come to ahead as City will keep dancing round the PL, Gary agreed (something I think we all agree). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gawalls Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 21 hours ago, r0cafella said: Aye. I’m aware but from what I heard they are being punished for the same infringement which is wrong imo. I understand why it’s that way as I mentioned in my post but the point being the rules are clearly poorly thought out if you can be punished for the same thing twice. You get caught on two different speed cameras then you get done for speeding twice. They broke the rules twice so they get punished twice. 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