This is not my idea but I’ve heard it several times over the years. FFP was obviously brought in to stop the old Cartel being overthrown and like Newcastle are now learning investment is very difficult and anti competitive.
To make it fairer, owners should be allowed to invest as much they like up to the value of the highest grossing club in the league, with adjustments for operating expenses (the more a club turns over, the more costs they incur).
So as an example Newcastle last season had a 250m turnover, City 727m. There would need to be a formula but let’s say it means Newcastle (and any other club) could invest without incurring FFP violations. The wage bill would need to be taken into account and perhaps the transfer budget would need to be regulated but the main thing is it would allow clubs to invest and encourage competition without the spectre of failing FFP.
The money generated also helps other clubs as spending on transfers filters down to other clubs, admittedly sometimes the money goes abroad but that’s a consequence we live with currently .
I realise there’s also the UEFA FFP rules to contend with but in any other line of business no problems are insurmountable. In the case of football and the old G14 they’ve made up their own rules to try and keep the Status Quo but something needs to change.
Just get rid of the PL FFP. Let any club invest what it wants to compete for the PL prize money. If they are successful and can compete in Europe, then they have to comply with UEFA FFP. That way the PL is more competitive and the clubs getting the UEFA (and now CWC) windfall can't monopolise.
stop making senseJust get rid of the PL FFP. Let any club invest what it wants to compete for the PL prize money. If they are successful and can compete in Europe, then they have to comply with UEFA FFP. That way the PL is more competitive and the clubs getting the UEFA (and now CWC) windfall can't monopolise.
Completely agree, and debt should be limited as well but that wouldn’t fit the Rag’s narrative so it won’t happen.Agree with this and also to protect a club any owner investment has to be duplicated into a escrow account along with any operating losses protected for a rolling 3 years
Bury didn't go bust.Clubs have also gone bust since the start of time & no one gave a fuck but those fans impacted so if it happens, they go bust & start again like Bury.
Obscurity ! The obvious name for the rags new groundEveryone who responds to a tweet is blocked by him. I asked a perfectly civil question about a net spend table he posted a couple of years ago and got blocked for that. He doesn’t want anyone countering his narrative on Twitter. It’s quite pathetic really. Like many have said he’s best ignored and allowed to fade into obscurity.
I don’t think our owners care much for regulation. They trust themselves to run things in the right way. I guess they would welcome cost controls on players and agents provided it was done in such away that we didn’t not loose players to Saudi or wherever. It would make us more profitable and their lives easier. Not sure how this would work and comply with EU and UK rules on rights of employees to earn what they wantThis thread is supposedly about the charges, all 115 of them, which City face but clearly debate is much more wide ranging than that. My view of the charges is that City have never falsified the club's accounts and is therefore completely innocent and the IC will reach this conclusion. I was convinced, however, by Stefan's argument (completely rejected by Nik Harris!) that FFP was imposed, not by a cartel but by a number of clubs determined to support rules very much in their favour. It has been pointed out today that there is no "American" view of FFP or investment. But back in 2008-9 UEFA were concerned about the problem of debt and many of Europe's most successful clubs at that time had financed growth through debt and had built up impressive revenues by heavy spending/investment. As Stefan pointed out action on debt was not in their interests but relating spending to revenue from sources other than owner investment was. It has to be added now that government and the independent regulator (whoever/whatever that might be) seem favourable to some form of "cost control". It seems to me to be a waste of time to try and decide what City's attitude to this would be now since City will not decide the matter. It would not surprise me if "cost control" still meant control of player costs, though perhaps not the crude control of FFP. I remember, at the time of the takeover or just after, and I think it was Khaldoon, saying that many in football seemed to think that money was the problem whereas that the new regime saw money as part of the answer. This may be very close to the view of the independent regulator. Certainly they seem to want a more equal distribution and this seems at odds with FFP but also with unrestricted investment.
Real sinister undertones to this. I do think he needs help, but he is just as much a piece of shit as well imo.Since Nick Harris seemingly has no qualms about posting private messages, here’s an unsolicited text message that he sent me in the early hours a while ago. It’s not normal behaviour for a journalist. I genuinely think he needs help.
View attachment 108551
Yo blud.... innitYou must subscribe to OnlyFams to access.
Crikey. Mad as a hatter, stating the exact opposite of the truth.Since Nick Harris seemingly has no qualms about posting private messages, here’s an unsolicited text message that he sent me in the early hours a while ago. It’s not normal behaviour for a journalist. I genuinely think he needs help.
View attachment 108551
Could I also add that all clubs must be registered to pay taxes in Britain and not use off shore tax dodging banking methodsMy idea of a fairer way of ffp would be that the balance sheet at the end of year had to show at least a level return or profit. So if a club with a £50m turnover spent £200m the owner would therefore then have to give the club a cash injection of £150m to keep it level for the year. No debt allowed and only if a club goes into debt and/or the owners are unable to to cover the loses then the club would recieve sanctions with fines and points deductions that are already set.
I wonder if he knows he is lying and spouting shite.Crikey. Mad as a hatter, stating the exact opposite of the truth.
Classic 'divide and conquer' manoeuvreYou are doing a great job on Twitter mate. Very much appreciated by city fans. Sorry to hear about your troubles. Don’t let the twats grind you down.
This Harris fella seems intent on causing problems between yourself,PB and Projectriver. He is probably laughing his bollox off while smashing another window.
I think a lot have foolishly invested so much time and energy into talking about information that nobody knows, they can't bear the thought of being wrong now. They're trying to create facts out of thin air by repeating made up stuff ad nauseum.I wonder if he knows he is lying and spouting shite.
Or is he so mentally unwell he doesn't know the difference
Never went on it. It's certainly the way forwardCame off twitter over a year ago and feel much better for it. The bombardment of negativity made me feel like crap.
I wonder if the brief that Masters was given prior to accepting the CEO role was that he needed to complete the investigation and bring charges against City. He accepted this brief while other candidates turned it down for these reasons. Wild speculation on my part, but I think he is simply doing what he has been told by the key stakeholders that appointed him. He accepted the poisoned chalice.Only this. There will always be "interests" who will want to devalue the integrity of the PL in the eyes of fans. And if they succeed, who benefits?
City are just a useful tool towards an end. The bigger question is why Masters has put the PL in this position.
I wonder if the brief that Masters was given prior to accepting the CEO role was that he needed to complete the investigation and bring charges against City. He accepted this brief while other candidates turned it down for these reasons. Wild speculation on my part, but I think he is simply doing what he has been told by the key stakeholders that appointed him. He accepted the poisoned chalice.