Wolfcastle Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 (edited) Its been pointed out before but it doesn't allow for certain parts of the country nevermind Europe being more wealthy than others so of course they can charge more per attendee and ultimately have bigger turnovers from which to spend more money. That's the case anyway but this enshrines it. I'm alluded by the fairness in that and I'm actually thinking about Sunderland here compare to say a Fulham when in essence the point at times with all this has attempted to benefit the bigger club/fanbase wise. Edited February 6 by Wolfcastle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 2 minutes ago, Wolfcastle said: Its been pointed out before but it doesn't allow for certain parts of the country nevermind Europe being more wealthy than others so of course they can charge more per attendee and ultimately have bigger turnovers from which to spend more money. That's the case anyway but this enshrines it. I'm alluded by the fairness in that and I'm actually thinking about Sunderland here compare to say a Fulham when in essence the point at times has attempted to benefit the bigger club/fanbase wise. Add to this that clubs who attempt to grow revenue streams through sponsorship deals its strangled by FMV rules. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 I guess Radcliffes plan for a New Old Trafford is fucked then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 We've probably lost about 10pts this season, European football this and potentially next season, for trying to stick to FFP. Stick it up yer arse. Go big, put in deals to cover the sham, see them in court. Remember, we've a dossier on these cunts from the takeover, soon as they saw what we had they folded. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucasol Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 3 minutes ago, Ben said: I guess Radcliffes plan for a New Old Trafford is fucked then. Exactly, and Chelsea doing anything with Stamford Bridge. Throw in Villa, Palace, Brighton, Wolves, Forest, Burnley, Luton, Fulham and Man City looking to extend further and I can’t see there being appetite for this beyond Arsenal, Spurs, Everton and Liverpool. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 And the thing that annoys me most, is we've ran players into the ground, impacting their physical and mental wellbeing, all because we cannot bring in assistance, even though we can afford it. That's the price of success? Is that fair? Why aren't the players union raising this as concerns? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 What happens to WHAM them? The Stadium taken off them? Same with Citeh. Both grounds gifted from the tax payers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 9 minutes ago, Ben said: I guess Radcliffes plan for a New Old Trafford is fucked then. Haven’t you seen? Cheeky fuck is asking for public money https://x.com/telefootball/status/1754899249760715004?s=46&t=qch8y64njTIa-YpWt4BfqA Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 1 minute ago, Jack27 said: Haven’t you seen? Cheeky fuck is asking for public money https://x.com/telefootball/status/1754899249760715004?s=46&t=qch8y64njTIa-YpWt4BfqA Fuck me. Burn the fucking system to the ground. Cunts cunts and fucking cunts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt1892 Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 10 minutes ago, Nucasol said: Exactly, and Chelsea doing anything with Stamford Bridge. Throw in Villa, Palace, Brighton, Wolves, Forest, Burnley, Luton, Fulham and Man City looking to extend further and I can’t see there being appetite for this beyond Arsenal, Spurs, Everton and Liverpool. Would Spurs support it? I’m presuming their debt repayments for their stadium would have to be included. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 5 minutes ago, Matt1892 said: Would Spurs support it? I’m presuming their debt repayments for their stadium would have to be included. They would only supply it on the condition that it can’t be applied to existing developments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 3 hours ago, TRon said: One other thing I have wondered about, is the club ownership really that much against FFP? While I'm sure they would love the opportunity to invest unfettered amounts into making the squad on a par with the cartel clubs, FFP/PSR does mean that we are forced into making the club a sustainably profitable one, and PIF is after all and investment fund first and foremost. It's win-win for them either way. Yep, that’s my thinking too. PIF isn’t the same as Abu Dhabi or Qatar’s govt funds. They’re city-states with tiny populations. KSA is a country - no matter how big the part, this isn’t the vanity project of the govt. I also don’t think that the ownership are necessarily unhappy about it. That tune may change if infrastructure starts coming into FFP equations Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 Utterly ridiculous coming up with such convoluted rules. I hope as a club we push back and others such as Villa do to - if we want to be the best league in the world we want to have the best players in the world. And in order for that to happen you have to allow clubs to spent. The League managed just fine without any spending restrictions and with so much money now in the game PL clubs can afford to spent. Enough is enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 So considering a club can get into fucking massive amounts of debt, see Man Utd with them having a debt somewhere between 6 and 10 years worth of Premier League income. This would mean that so long as we got a 0% interest loan, then we could pay it off in instalments and never run the risk of running foul of FFP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 6 hours ago, Jack27 said: If you breach the new cost control measures, the punishments range from big fines to bans from European competition for persistent offenders. ..Unless it is one of the big six who break the rules (cough CITY cough). Then it's a slap on the wrist and a measly fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 14 minutes ago, duo said: Utterly ridiculous coming up with such convoluted rules. I hope as a club we push back and others such as Villa do to - if we want to be the best league in the world we want to have the best players in the world. And in order for that to happen you have to allow clubs to spent. The League managed just fine without any spending restrictions and with so much money now in the game PL clubs can afford to spent. Enough is enough. The UEFA FFP rules wouldn’t impact this at all. It’s based on turnover - the PL clubs earn a lot more than their other European counterparts. The rules would entrench English football’s position, not damage it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 (edited) 5 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: The UEFA FFP rules wouldn’t impact this at all. It’s based on turnover - the PL clubs earn a lot more than their other European counterparts. The rules would entrench English football’s position, not damage it. UEFA and PL rules however both embrace FMV and that by definition prevents clubs turnovers growing through sponsorship. Edited February 6 by FloydianMag Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 2 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: UEFA and PL rules however both embrace FMV and that by definition prevents clubs turnovers growing through sponsorship. Yep, again it doesn’t help us, but the idea that it damages the PL generally isn’t correct. Most English PL clubs have the vast majority of their income coming from TV money followed by match day income. Commercials for all except the biggest clubs is often comparatively small. Growing the commercials at Palace or Wolves is likely to be in the order of seven figures. The Sky Six have zero issues with their commercials. So UEFA’s FFP rules will have little to no impact in general on the PL. Thinking that it hurts the PL is wishful thinking - as it means that the PL will push back against it. Nope. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 I think UEFA and the premier league will end up in court over some of this. There is a lot of legislation with anti-competition laws in the EU and the UK. Football thinks it's different and most toe the line but then get pissed off and you end up with landmark rulings like Bosman for example. Microsoft had to go through a ridiculous process to buy Blizzard for example but football teams can't spend to grow? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 7 minutes ago, relámpago blanco said: I think UEFA and the premier league will end up in court over some of this. There is a lot of legislation with anti-competition laws in the EU and the UK. Football thinks it's different and most toe the line but then get pissed off and you end up with landmark rulings like Bosman for example. Microsoft had to go through a ridiculous process to buy Blizzard for example but football teams can't spend to grow? Forest will take them to court if they get a points deduction. There is a clear argument for the rules as they stand preventing them from operating within a transfer window and getting the best deal for the club. i can’t see Everton having such a clear argument and they are likely to watch and support Forest. oh and Forest clearly have an owner who is only too happy to stick 2 fingers up at the rules Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfcastle Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 (edited) The lack of mobility between the leagues strikes the same chord. The PL/Division1 was behind Germany, Italy and Spain until the late 90s. PL shouldn't have its status protected just as Liverpool, Spurs etc shouldn't. Keeping everything as it is now is a c**ts trick especially in sport given most of those in the ascendency once werent and would have complained the most had things locked them out. Edited February 6 by Wolfcastle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFEE Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 4 hours ago, Ben said: I guess Radcliffes plan for a New Old Trafford is fucked then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 (edited) 13 minutes ago, LFEE said: Didn't he receive a knighthood for services to business and investment? I didn't know that included the Cayman Islands. Edited February 6 by duo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLUMPO235 Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 1 hour ago, duo said: Didn't he receive a knighthood for services to business and investment? I didn't know that included the Cayman Islands. I think the caymanians who all have full uk citizenship as it’s a British overseas territory would be happy to tell you it includes them and activities there. but yeah, cunts don’t get rich spending their own money or paying PAYE tax. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghandis Flip-Flop Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) 6 hours ago, Ben said: I guess Radcliffes plan for a New Old Trafford is fucked then. The cheeky twat wants the taxpayer to fund it with "Levelling Up" money ??As Duo had already pointed out Edited February 7 by Ghandis Flip-Flop Double post 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