UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[hammocity]

Do you work for UEFA ?

Just remind me, which trophies have Spurs won with their recent "success"
Monaco spent fortunes for years playing in front of 10,000 crowds, hardly an example of spending within your means.

Apart from you and and fans of Rags and Dippers and the other cartel ,it's pretty obvious to all what FFP motives are, and it is certainly not to prevent clubs going "mad and risking everything" otherwise there would be a debt clause inserted.

In case you hadn't noticed I'll remind you.
MCFC's owners invested with their own money - not borrowings against the club, grew the business, built a successful club with a global profile that now operates in profit, is a sustainable and viable business which has a monetary value in excess of the owners investment. This is what FFP is designed to stop.

Bang on the dosh there

 

[kaz7]

The advantage to us is we are probably one of the most attractive destinations for any player these days, because of Pep and our style of play. But be ause of ffp we seem to be hamstrung on signing, say, Mbappe, so we can't dominate as much as we should given our wealth and status. It is keeping the rags able to compete despite a lack of CL football and a succession of incompetent managers.

Plus, I have no issue with seeing a good club like Leeds, Villa, Sheffield United or anyone getting very rich if it helps push the dirty rag shit further down the league and stops Liverpool and Arsenal winning as much. Other clubs deserve a shot at the big time, same as we got.

Mbob turned us down,he said no to manchester but not to pep,his words

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Good post and I would agree with most of it. It's heavily stacked in favour of the already big and rich club's, that's life though, it can be shit sometimes. In all walks of life it's set up by the rich to protect the rich.

Where I disagree with you is using Utd for comparison purposes, they are consistently one of the richest club's in the world and still will be when they're struggling away looking for the next messiah to bring back the glory days. Picking the 4th or 5th best team in the championship and expecting they can over take Man Utd in a couple of years is unrealistic. No more than it's realistic to expect your local corner shop to be taking on Tesco or a start up taking on Google or Pfizer. As they grow they are swallowed up by the establishment, it's how big business works and always will.

Would FFP stop Leeds overhauling Man Utd in 3 years? 100% It would, would it stop them over 15 years, I don't see any reason why it would. There are examples of what can be achieved by working within your resources over a long period of time, Spurs being a great example that a good manager, smart spending and a long term plan can bring success. Monaco and Ajax are other fine examples of using limited resources well.

For reasons previously stated I don't have an issue with FFP preventing club's going mad and risking everything for a quick shot at success.

You are in cloud cuckoo land. The Big 6 have pulled away by a huge distance over the last 8-10 years. Spurs have done brilliantly well but they are in the elite now.

Everton, who have consistently been the 7th biggest club, had a turnover in the 2018 accounting year of £189million. City, by way of comparison, have a turnover of £500million.

A gap of £310 million and it will widen further in the 2019 accounts due the big increase in Champions League revenue to probably something like £350 million and our total revenue will approach nearly 3 times that of Everton.

There is no way Everton can bridge the gap within their resources. It is just too big.

 

[Canyouseethesky]

So how many clubs, have 'overhauled' Utd without spending big money, in the last 20 odd years ?

How many have even 'overhauled' Spurs & Arsenal, or Liverpool ?

I'm pissing into the wind here. Little teams are not meant to finish above Man Utd and Liverpool. They don't have the support base to sustain it. That's just the way it is, if you think differently then fair enough.

Club's similar in stature to where we were 10 years ago can finish above them.
Leicester, Everton and Southampton have all finished ahead of Liverpool in recent years and Leiceister obviously finished ahead of everyone.

Utd are a juggernaut, the only thing stopping them being 1st or 2nd every year is incompetence. Expecting a handful of billionaires to arrive and suddenly have Burnley, Ipswich and Middlesbrough finishing above Utd and Liverpool every year is football manager stuff. You need a support base already in place and the potential to expand that locally and globally. Blackburn probably have no more fans now than they did in 1995, those 3 teams above would be the same.

Teams like West Ham, Everton, Wolves and Newcastle have a support base and potential growth area that allows them compete in the way Spurs* did if they manage their club's correctly. The TV money means not even we can just swoop in and automatically take a midtier club's best player like Utd did for 20 years. They each add a shrewd signing in each of the next 3 windows and they could easily surpass Arsenal, Utd and possibly Spurs.

*I would consider what spurs have achieved a success. Only 1 team can win the league and they are up against the greatest team ever seen in England.

 

[Neville Kneville]

I'm pissing into the wind here. Little teams are not meant to finish above Man Utd and Liverpool. They don't have the support base to sustain it. That's just the way it is, if you think differently then fair enough.

Club's similar in stature to where we were 10 years ago can finish above them.
Leicester, Everton and Southampton have all finished ahead of Liverpool in recent years and Leiceister obviously finished ahead of everyone.

Utd are a juggernaut, the only thing stopping them being 1st or 2nd every year is incompetence. Expecting a handful of billionaires to arrive and suddenly have Burnley, Ipswich and Middlesbrough finishing above Utd and Liverpool every year is football manager stuff. You need a support base already in place and the potential to expand that locally and globally. Blackburn probably have no more fans now than they did in 1995, those 3 teams above would be the same.

Teams like West Ham, Everton, Wolves and Newcastle have a support base and potential growth area that allows them compete in the way Spurs* did if they manage their club's correctly. The TV money means not even we can just swoop in and automatically take a midtier club's best player like Utd did for 20 years. They each add a shrewd signing in each of the next 3 windows and they could easily surpass Arsenal, Utd and possibly Spurs.

*I would consider what spurs have achieved a success. Only 1 team can win the league and they are up against the greatest team ever seen in England.

Why should you need a huge support base, to be allowed to be better than Utd ?

 

[Canyouseethesky]

Are you a journo?

No.

 

[Canyouseethesky]

Why should you need a huge support base, to be allowed to be better than Utd ?

Supporters = Customers. The more customers you have the more money you make in gate receipts and commercial revenue. The more money you can earn the better chance of success. It's not rocket science.

 

[prestonibbo_mcfc]

I'm pissing into the wind here. Little teams are not meant to finish above Man Utd and Liverpool. They don't have the support base to sustain it. That's just the way it is, if you think differently then fair enough.

Club's similar in stature to where we were 10 years ago can finish above them.
Leicester, Everton and Southampton have all finished ahead of Liverpool in recent years and Leiceister obviously finished ahead of everyone.

Utd are a juggernaut, the only thing stopping them being 1st or 2nd every year is incompetence. Expecting a handful of billionaires to arrive and suddenly have Burnley, Ipswich and Middlesbrough finishing above Utd and Liverpool every year is football manager stuff. You need a support base already in place and the potential to expand that locally and globally. Blackburn probably have no more fans now than they did in 1995, those 3 teams above would be the same.

Teams like West Ham, Everton, Wolves and Newcastle have a support base and potential growth area that allows them compete in the way Spurs* did if they manage their club's correctly. The TV money means not even we can just swoop in and automatically take a midtier club's best player like Utd did for 20 years. They each add a shrewd signing in each of the next 3 windows and they could easily surpass Arsenal, Utd and possibly Spurs.

*I would consider what spurs have achieved a success. Only 1 team can win the league and they are up against the greatest team ever seen in England.

This statement is not true. They are not there, because the simply are not good enough. Does that mean every other team, that doesn't live up
to expectations, is because of imcompetence. Also as them stopped being 1st, there is a little old team called City, that they have to finish above.
So there is another reason and that's just off the top of my head, as I type.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Supporters = Customers. The more customers you have the more money you make in gate receipts and commercial revenue. The more money you can earn the better chance of success. It's not rocket science.

But why can't a team just have a rich owner, like Liverpool did ?

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Good post and I would agree with most of it. It's heavily stacked in favour of the already big and rich club's, that's life though, it can be shit sometimes. In all walks of life it's set up by the rich to protect the rich.

Where I disagree with you is using Utd for comparison purposes, they are consistently one of the richest club's in the world and still will be when they're struggling away looking for the next messiah to bring back the glory days. Picking the 4th or 5th best team in the championship and expecting they can over take Man Utd in a couple of years is unrealistic. No more than it's realistic to expect your local corner shop to be taking on Tesco or a start up taking on Google or Pfizer. As they grow they are swallowed up by the establishment, it's how big business works and always will.

Would FFP stop Leeds overhauling Man Utd in 3 years? 100% It would, would it stop them over 15 years, I don't see any reason why it would. There are examples of what can be achieved by working within your resources over a long period of time, Spurs being a great example that a good manager, smart spending and a long term plan can bring success. Monaco and Ajax are other fine examples of using limited resources well.

For reasons previously stated I don't have an issue with FFP preventing club's going mad and risking everything for a quick shot at success.

So you agree with most of it. Just not the bit criticizing United.

I think as a defence of FFP, that most of your post is bollox.

FFP has been totally discredited and everyone knows what it’s about, at this stage. It’s just the cartel are so brazen about it now. They’re like Trump. They don’t care who knows they’re bent. It’s like a case of ‘what are you going to do about it?’

 

[Canyouseethesky]

But why can't a team just have a rich owner, like Liverpool did ?

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Are you going back 50 years or talking about the present?

 

[Canyouseethesky]

So you agree with most of it. Just not the bit criticizing United.

I think as a defence of FFP, that most of your post is bollox.

FFP has been totally discredited and everyone knows what it’s about, at this stage. It’s just the cartel are so brazen about it now. They’re like Trump. They don’t care who knows they’re bent. It’s like a case of ‘what are you going to do about it?’

I wasn't defending Utd, simply stating a fact that they are so wealthy a championship team is not about to surpass them.

 

[Neville Kneville]

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Are you going back 50 years or talking about the present?

Liverpool were built on sugardaddies' in more than one period.

Most of the 'elite' teams now, benefitted from the same, at different times in their history. Without that charity, many would have disappeared.

Only in the last ten years, did rich owners investing if football teams become a bad thing.

Nobody gave a flying fuck, for example, when John Hall bought a team for Newcastle.

Utd fans cheered Michael Knighton as he promised to buy them players. The investment then, would be billions now by comparison. That enabled them to buy the Premier League & be a Champions League team, which is why they.are so rich now.

They would fail FFP ten times over attempting that level of spending now.

Nobody cared. They loved it. Sky loved it.

Then all those clubs got together to protect themselves, from others doing the same.

FFP.

 

[DontLookBackInAnger]

Lets call it like it is anyone who has ever seen WWE will know that one wrestler walks into the ring and one is already there WWE market one of them and make money from them and not the other, while that might not be fair or considered a sport by most people at least its honest. FFP is not about debt its simply about maintaining clubs in their "rightful" place, any defense of it that glosses over that is simply disingenuous.

Manchester City didn't break football football was broken 130 years ago, there is just a narrative that wants to blame City and the irony is its from many of the interests that screwed the game for everyone the Sky's UEFA's or B Munich's of the world

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Lets call it like it is anyone who has ever seen WWE will know that one wrestler walks into the ring and one is already there WWE market one of them and make money from them and not the other, while that might not be fair or considered a sport by most people atleast its honest. FFP is not about debt its simply about maintaining clubs in their "rightful" place, any defense of it that glosses over that is simply disingenuous

Does disingenuous mean bollox?

 

[Bandofblues]

I remember that now that you mention it. Monaco not the desired example so.

I remember that now that you mention it. Monaco not the desired example so.

nor is google a good example, they didn't exist 20 years ago......a bit like us.....

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

FFP must be illegal on so many levels. Imagine being rich enough to buy a potentially nice business, but then be told you cannot invest YOUR money to build the business. It's an absolute scandal, that wouldn't be permitted in any industry other than football.

 

[journolud]

I'm pissing into the wind here. Little teams are not meant to finish above Man Utd and Liverpool. They don't have the support base to sustain it. That's just the way it is, if you think differently then fair enough.

Club's similar in stature to where we were 10 years ago can finish above them.
Leicester, Everton and Southampton have all finished ahead of Liverpool in recent years and Leiceister obviously finished ahead of everyone.

Utd are a juggernaut, the only thing stopping them being 1st or 2nd every year is incompetence. Expecting a handful of billionaires to arrive and suddenly have Burnley, Ipswich and Middlesbrough finishing above Utd and Liverpool every year is football manager stuff. You need a support base already in place and the potential to expand that locally and globally. Blackburn probably have no more fans now than they did in 1995, those 3 teams above would be the same.

Teams like West Ham, Everton, Wolves and Newcastle have a support base and potential growth area that allows them compete in the way Spurs* did if they manage their club's correctly. The TV money means not even we can just swoop in and automatically take a midtier club's best player like Utd did for 20 years. They each add a shrewd signing in each of the next 3 windows and they could easily surpass Arsenal, Utd and possibly Spurs.

*I would consider what spurs have achieved a success. Only 1 team can win the league and they are up against the greatest team ever seen in England.

So the league table is meant to look more or less the same every year and we win by default because we don't have as many customers, erm I mean fans, as United?

 

[waspish]

I'm pissing into the wind here. Little teams are not meant to finish above Man Utd and Liverpool. They don't have the support base to sustain it. That's just the way it is, if you think differently then fair enough.

Club's similar in stature to where we were 10 years ago can finish above them.
Leicester, Everton and Southampton have all finished ahead of Liverpool in recent years and Leiceister obviously finished ahead of everyone.

Utd are a juggernaut, the only thing stopping them being 1st or 2nd every year is incompetence. Expecting a handful of billionaires to arrive and suddenly have Burnley, Ipswich and Middlesbrough finishing above Utd and Liverpool every year is football manager stuff. You need a support base already in place and the potential to expand that locally and globally. Blackburn probably have no more fans now than they did in 1995, those 3 teams above would be the same.

Teams like West Ham, Everton, Wolves and Newcastle have a support base and potential growth area that allows them compete in the way Spurs* did if they manage their club's correctly. The TV money means not even we can just swoop in and automatically take a midtier club's best player like Utd did for 20 years. They each add a shrewd signing in each of the next 3 windows and they could easily surpass Arsenal, Utd and possibly Spurs.

*I would consider what spurs have achieved a success. Only 1 team can win the league and they are up against the greatest team ever seen in England.

The scum were shit for most of their history and poor gates to boot!

 

[waspish]

Does disingenuous mean bollox?

Its a nice way of saying your a liar. ;)