City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

Esteban de la Sexface said:
So the owner says fuck that and puts them up for sale. Sure fire crash and burn except for the super wealthy.

What you're touting is racketeering from the other side, the sugar daddy side
Click to expand...
Which owner is saying fuck that? Right now the owners are complaining that their clubs are worthless as they can't sell them while FFP blocks investment. That's putting clubs at greater risk of going under if they do get in trouble. Why shouldn't owners be allowed to put money into the sport? Should we only have owners that take money out?
You're talking about creating a one way flow of wealth from working class supporter to wealthy owner with rules that actually make it illegal for money to move the other way.
 
BobbyBoy said:
It can't involve existing contracts, it will be future contracts only. It wouldn't get through otherwise.

Reading between the lines of this report and the last one about non transfers between CL clubs it appears to me there is a recognition that costs have gotten out of control and the source of the funding is no longer as reliable as it was.
Madrid and Barcelona have the highest revenues in the sport but one of them can't pay their wages. Something is broken if that's the case.

The game needs to do something. It can't continue as is where 95% of teams in the championship pay more in wages than they take in revenue, that is seriously fucked up but seemingly acceptable. In no other industry does so much of the money make its way into the hands of the workers. I'm not advocating starving the players but equally their value needs to be realigned. I watched the Sunderland documentary recently and you have league one players driving 150k cars and wearing 2k jackets. League one is the equivalent of your local theatre, its not Hollywood.

A cap on pay based on a strict % of turnover seems fair to me and apply a luxury tax (paid in advance) to those rich enough and willing to pay it. That way outside money isn't blocked off and smaller clubs (like Bury) and bigger clubs (like Barcelona) are protected from themselves or more accurately the shysters that seem to always end up owning and destroying them. Debt is obviously the other issue but if you're managing the finances correctly this will take care of itself.
Click to expand...
Mate if you work for company A today and I join tomorrow and you only have to pay 10% tax on your wages but I have to pay 50% because I joined a day later, that's discrimination pure and simple.
 
aguero93:20 said:
Which owner is saying fuck that? Right now the owners are complaining that their clubs are worthless as they can't sell them while FFP blocks investment. That's putting clubs at greater risk of going under if they do get in trouble. Why shouldn't owners be allowed to put money into the sport? Should we only have owners that take money out?
You're talking about creating a one way flow of wealth from working class supporter to wealthy owner with rules that actually make it illegal for money to move the other way.
Click to expand...
Show me where I said any of that?

You're arguing against nothing. You simply think every owner has unlimited wealth. Not the case.
 
Esteban de la Sexface said:
Show me where I said any of that?

You're arguing against nothing. You simply think every owner has unlimited wealth. Not the case.
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying owners should be allowed to invest according to their means. We should be looking to block owners like Milan Mandaric and the Glazers from the sport, not owners like Jack Walker, Roman Abramovich or Sheikh Mansour. We should be trying to make sure as much of the money generated by the sport as possible stays with those who add value to the sport - players, coaches and other staff, rather than being creamed off by people who've never given one minute of time or penny of wealth to it, like the Glazers and agents like Raoila and Mendes. A salary cap and wages cap gives more money to the former, focusing on salary and wages instead of agents themselves allows the latter to keep sucking blood from the sport.

If clubs need to be protected - stop them from taking on debt.
If I've got €100m to burn and I decide to buy Drogheda United and let them run at a €5m loss using that money (invested as shares) for the next 20 years they're in no financial danger.
If I decide to borrow €100m from BOI in the clubs name and use it to pay myself dividends and prop up my other failing businesses, they are.
If I lend them the €100m instead of buying shares with it and then decide I want it back, they're fucked.
If I borrow it in the clubs name and invest it in stadium, training and youth infrastructure that brings in €100m in revenue over it's lifetime and turns them into a stronger club, they've done well out of it.
 
aguero93:20 said:
Mate if you work for company A today and I join tomorrow and you only have to pay 10% tax on your wages but I have to pay 50% because I joined a day later, that's discrimination pure and simple.
Click to expand...
You won't be paying the tax, your employer will. I may be talking out my hole here but i understand in the NFL the teams have a budget for salaries and they pay someone 90% and share the 10% among the rest if they choose to. This seems to be a similar idea but if you want to pay more than the agreed 100% you pay a tax on top of that.
 
aguero93:20 said:
No, I'm saying owners should be allowed to invest according to their means. We should be looking to block owners like Milan Mandaric and the Glazers from the sport, not owners like Jack Walker, Roman Abramovich or Sheikh Mansour. We should be trying to make sure as much of the money generated by the sport as possible stays with those who add value to the sport - players, coaches and other staff, rather than being creamed off by people who've never given one minute of time or penny of wealth to it, like the Glazers and agents like Raoila and Mendes. A salary cap and wages cap gives more money to the former, focusing on salary and wages instead of agents themselves allows the latter to keep sucking blood from the sport.

If clubs need to be protected - stop them from taking on debt.
If I've got €100m to burn and I decide to buy Drogheda United and let them run at a €5m loss using that money (invested as shares) for the next 20 years they're in no financial danger.
If I decide to borrow €100m from BOI in the clubs name and use it to pay myself dividends and prop up my other failing businesses, they are.
If I lend them the €100m instead of buying shares with it and then decide I want it back, they're fucked.
If I borrow it in the clubs name and invest it in stadium, training and youth infrastructure that brings in €100m in revenue over it's lifetime and turns them into a stronger club, they've done well out of it.
Click to expand...
Chelsea have the highest net debt in the premier league? How did it go for Jack Walker and Blackburn in the end.

Shortsighted and blue tinted view because of our current situation.

Football needs reform.
 
Rammy Blue said:
Whatever happens though, as soon as the rules are amended, we should just kick the fucking door down and spend a bastard fortune. See how they like that.
Click to expand...

Absolutely 100% agree. Blow every fucker away, especially both the dirty red shits and the chavs with their Russian gangster. Fucking hate them all.

Bring in Haaland, Messi, Grealish and Alaba.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.