Aequitas1987 said:Another point all of you guys seem to be looking over because of emotional rants is that Rummenigge is one of the main originators and supporters of FFP and helped pass the law initially as this FFP comes more and more into fruition he is simply doing his job and keeping the spotlight on the one or two clubs who could suffer due to FFP, there is no harm in that. It keeps the spotlight on FFP which is what he wants. Man City and Chelsea are two of many large clubs across europe who could suffer.
Secondly, Bayern has always been the trademark for being a financially sound club. No other club can boast being 18 years in the black and still being able to regularly compete in Europe and for the league. There are no negatives to FFP. I would be saying this even If I was not a Bayern fan. It just makes absolute sense, it increases competition, it promotes youth development, it introduces sound financial management which is gravely lacking in a lot of clubs. City is not all f***** yet they could always follow the Real Madrid example, who spend a lot but they earn more via star power purchases, massive fan base etc, if City follow Madrids example they will be fine by the time FFP comes about.
LoveCity said:Aequitas1987 said:It does not crystalize the current status quo because they are the ones who are endangered by FFP in the first place.
Please explain. It's my understanding you can only spend what you make and you could be 800 mil in debt but if you make 100 mil from shirt sales, you can spend it. Yet you can have no debt but if you make 5 mil from shirt sales, that's all you can spend. Am I mistaken?
The big clubs with huge fanbases make huge money so can spend it. Any other club is thus restricted to buying cheaper players and can't compete. The only way to change that, a wealthy owner, is also forbidden in these protectionist rules.
Aequitas1987 said:Simply clueless, Absolutely bloody clueless, myoptic, idiotic and without thought. It kills competition, it crystalises the current status quo, it is the reason your twatty Karl wants it. He knows we are a threat, more than a threat in fact and he hates it. He knows our future is brighter than yours.
You clearly only look at the argument as a 1 way street. It does not crystalize the current status quo because they are the ones who are endangered by FFP in the first place. The only way the status quo remains in place year in and year out is to have purchasing power beyond their means and being able to exploit that while going continuously in debt, a.k.a the Chelsea, Manure, City, Barca, Inter.
Your thinking leads to the fact that the only way to become part of the status quo is to compete with them in financial terms in an ever-escalating ridiculous transfer market where the argument comes down to who has a bigger sugar daddy? Why not think about curbing the current big teams and moving them towards sound business management thereby restricting their power over other teams who are not part of the 'status quo' and thereby enabling them to invest in youth products/youth development, proper revenue streams via brand marketing and fan base growth.
Just take a breath and a step outside your biased bubble and assume for a second that if City had not become a financial powerhouse and a competitor/part of the Status Quo would you have been pro or against FFP? What has changed? If FFP was completely legitimate back then, why is it not now? Think about football as a global entity rather than from a biased point of view of your own club. Like I said, even If i was not a Bayern fan who has a lot to gain from FFP (Only because they have done right by the football world) I would still support FFP.
Strongbowholic now your points are way more interesting as I was not aware of this plan. This means that City does have a way to counter-act FFP and they are developing a plan around it. My only thing is that how quickly can this plan come to fruition? Could City be in the black without costing it a year worth of European competition? If that is possible then City do have the right management guiding them now.
moomba said:Funny how no-one was bothered about owners investing in clubs until the "big" clubs started to feel threatened by it.
If they were genuinely interested in fairnesd they would share out champions league revenue, because that had been the biggest barrier to fair competition for years.
Or people could start to look at football for what it is - a sport, not an accountants wankfest where the best balance sheet wins the prizes.
LoveCity said:Aequitas1987 said:It does not crystalize the current status quo because they are the ones who are endangered by FFP in the first place.
Please explain. It's my understanding you can only spend what you make and you could be 800 mil in debt but if you make 100 mil from shirt sales, you can spend it. Yet you can have no debt but if you make 5 mil from shirt sales, that's all you can spend. Am I mistaken?
The big clubs with huge fanbases make huge money so can spend it. Any other club is thus restricted to buying cheaper players and can't compete. The only way to change that, a wealthy owner, is also forbidden in these protectionist rules.
Without trying to offend, Bollox!Aequitas1987 said:LoveCity said:Aequitas1987 said:It does not crystalize the current status quo because they are the ones who are endangered by FFP in the first place.
Please explain. It's my understanding you can only spend what you make and you could be 800 mil in debt but if you make 100 mil from shirt sales, you can spend it. Yet you can have no debt but if you make 5 mil from shirt sales, that's all you can spend. Am I mistaken?
The big clubs with huge fanbases make huge money so can spend it. Any other club is thus restricted to buying cheaper players and can't compete. The only way to change that, a wealthy owner, is also forbidden in these protectionist rules.
If you are 800 million in debt you need to liquidate that debt before you can spend any 'profit/earnings'. You cant just sit on that debt. So specifically, Manure/Inter/Barcelona and Chelsea to a certain extent are the four clubs with the most to lose in terms of their position in this conspiracy theory cartel you guys are talking about. Basically by FFP is COMPLETELY into play which is a few years away all these clubs have to be in the black or they will suffer from bans from transfer markets / European competition etc.
The only real unbalance in FFP is the two Spanish clubs and their ridiculous control of the La Liga TV Rights which will always allow them to have a very large imbalanced revenue stream compared to the rest of the world. Beyond that league, FFP will benefit every other league in play by giving the ability of smaller clubs to hold onto their key players and build around them rather than simply being feeder clubs. You need to think about FFP from a sporting perspective as well, curbing the financial power of the status quo allows for more competition , long term development from a sporting perspective in the smaller clubs.
Aequitas1987 said:LoveCity said:Aequitas1987 said:It does not crystalize the current status quo because they are the ones who are endangered by FFP in the first place.
Please explain. It's my understanding you can only spend what you make and you could be 800 mil in debt but if you make 100 mil from shirt sales, you can spend it. Yet you can have no debt but if you make 5 mil from shirt sales, that's all you can spend. Am I mistaken?
The big clubs with huge fanbases make huge money so can spend it. Any other club is thus restricted to buying cheaper players and can't compete. The only way to change that, a wealthy owner, is also forbidden in these protectionist rules.
If you are 800 million in debt you need to liquidate that debt before you can spend any 'profit/earnings'. You cant just sit on that debt. So specifically, Manure/Inter/Barcelona and Chelsea to a certain extent are the four clubs with the most to lose in terms of their position in this conspiracy theory cartel you guys are talking about. Basically by FFP is COMPLETELY into play which is a few years away all these clubs have to be in the black or they will suffer from bans from transfer markets / European competition etc.
The only real unbalance in FFP is the two Spanish clubs and their ridiculous control of the La Liga TV Rights which will always allow them to have a very large imbalanced revenue stream compared to the rest of the world. Beyond that league, FFP will benefit every other league in play by giving the ability of smaller clubs to hold onto their key players and build around them rather than simply being feeder clubs. You need to think about FFP from a sporting perspective as well, curbing the financial power of the status quo allows for more competition , long term development from a sporting perspective in the smaller clubs.