You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)
- Thread starter Marvin
- Start date
grim up north
Well-Known Member
Prestwich_Blue said:Samuel has got this one wrong for once. Southampton and other similar clubs have always sold their better players because those players want to go to clubs that offer them a chance of winning something and furthering their international career. When you're Phil Jones of blackburn you're a promising youngster. The day after you become Phil Jones of Manchester United you're an England international.
You would have put City in the same bracket previously, Southampton will not have a chance to keep their stars now even tho they have a wealthy owner
squirtyflower
Well-Known Member
and if they invested they may win some trophies, get in the CL and make more moneymoomba said:Prestwich_Blue said:Samuel has got this one wrong for once. Southampton and other similar clubs have always sold their better players because those players want to go to clubs that offer them a chance of winning something and furthering their international career. When you're Phil Jones of blackburn you're a promising youngster. The day after you become Phil Jones of Manchester United you're an England international.
But if Southampton were allowed to invest the owners money on new players, it stands to reason that their chances of success will be increased and their existing players might be tempted to stay.
hence the phrase speculate to accumulate, although the cartel have put paid to that allowing only themselves to undeservedly accumulate and keep themselves forever with their snouts in the trough
Skashion
Well-Known Member
Us, Southampton, Swansea, Fulham, West Brom and Villa. Reading abstained.squirtyflower said:which clubs voted against the PL version of FFPR?
squirtyflower
Well-Known Member
Samuel's right to use Southampton in his article thenSkashion said:Us, Southampton, Swansea, Fulham, West Brom and Villa. Reading abstained.squirtyflower said:which clubs voted against the PL version of FFPR?
what a bunch of numpties Reading are
Rösler von Stretfordbömber
Well-Known Member
What encourages me about this Samuel article is that it reflects a growing realisation filtering out into the public at large as to what this FFP nonsense is really about.
I had a long back and forth on some Canadian website about a year ago with a guy who absolutely bought the Twatini party line about this crap being about protecting the little fish from the big, so to speak. Rather than what it truly is, which is obviously the entirely opposite thing.
What frustrated me then was that no one else involved in the debate seemed to see it that way. Now, as the (un)intended consequences of this foolishness hurt exactly the clubs who were tricked/bullied into supporting this, I think the already shaky foundations of this despicable bit of idiocy get even more so.
I had a long back and forth on some Canadian website about a year ago with a guy who absolutely bought the Twatini party line about this crap being about protecting the little fish from the big, so to speak. Rather than what it truly is, which is obviously the entirely opposite thing.
What frustrated me then was that no one else involved in the debate seemed to see it that way. Now, as the (un)intended consequences of this foolishness hurt exactly the clubs who were tricked/bullied into supporting this, I think the already shaky foundations of this despicable bit of idiocy get even more so.
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 27,468
If Villa are taken over and want to spend will they be able to?
Actually no. They're fucked.
Actually no. They're fucked.
laserblue
Well-Known Member
cookster said:laserblue said:cookster said:And that my friends is why Samuels is the sports journo of the year. No agenda just common sense.
Take note, Ladyboy, Ogden and the other red top wankers!
The irony is that Ladyboy works for the same paper as Martin Samuel.
No different to a normal company. Some talented people, some people stealing a living.
Trust me, in a 'normal' company it wouldn't be tolerated for a 2nd rate employee to be pulling in the opposition to a major player in the organisation.
laserblue said:cookster said:laserblue said:The irony is that Ladyboy works for the same paper as Martin Samuel.
No different to a normal company. Some talented people, some people stealing a living.
Trust me, in a 'normal' company it wouldn't be tolerated for a 2nd rate employee to be pulling in the opposition to a major player in the organisation.
As a manager in a multi-billion dollar company I can tell you it is common place.
laserblue
Well-Known Member
cookster said:laserblue said:cookster said:No different to a normal company. Some talented people, some people stealing a living.
Trust me, in a 'normal' company it wouldn't be tolerated for a 2nd rate employee to be pulling in the opposition to a major player in the organisation.
As a manager in a multi-billion dollar company I can tell you it is common place.
As a former director (retired) in a multi billion dollar company I can tell you any competent manager or director would fuck off anyone who pulled in the opposite direction to a valued colleague on their watch. I should know because I've fucked a few of them off in my time and the company was better off for it.