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.
Martin Samuel The Mail - Great read and FFP reality bite
- Thread starter Patientman63
- Start date
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
Check out the latest comments underneath the article - looks like it's booted off this afternoon with Rags chucking their toys out of the pram after being given a history lesson about John Henry Davies and James Gibson lol.
goat boy
Well-Known Member
Just a thought on the issues that FFPR causes, for those that might tell you that City are 'buying success' and 'ruining football'
Weigh up the succesful teams in the PL over the last 10 years or so. You had your established 'big four' who were sort of self perpetuating by virtue of profile and that all important champions league money. Then consider the usual suspects who have tended to occupy the next group, beneath that.
In attempting to synopsise-
Rags, funded by CL money, foreign support, a large stadium that wankers delight in paying over the odds to visit
Chelsea, enjoying Abramovich's leveraging, London prices and building from a relatively strong point in the late 90s and regular CL money
Liverpool, CL money, foreign support, like the rags in some respects
Arsenal, occasional big money purchasers, but adotping a model that many other clubs would like to adopt. CL money helps, and a season or two at the top/ in the CL is probably worth 10s of £millions in extra fan revenues in shirts and tickets sold.
Some of these clubs have fucked it up to a greater or lesser extent. Arsenal's model hasn't won them a trophy for years, Chelsea make a good fist out of it but need to address the average age of the squad. the rags are hamstrung by their owners and Liverpool have gone utterly batshit.
Beyond that, have a look at those 'next tier' clubs, such as Villa, Everton, and Spurs to a point. They've all tried to get CL spots without the funding and they were great for a few years. Then someone says 'weve tried this, we need to reign in the spending for a while.' Everton are backed by squillions but havent got a bean. Villa similar. Both now find themselves in the bottom half of the table. Spurs seem to enjoy a peculiar position where they generally seem to do well out of their ticket sales, (and selling players to the rags...)
But the point would seem to remain. There are other examples which spring to mind. The Keegan then Pearce eras at City, which we scraped through. Newcastle (relegation). Leeds (relegation twice). Bolton (surviving for now).
Newcastle are doing well and, as someone pointed out, have absolutely aced several relatively inexpensive signings. This appears to me to be a statistical fluke, of a kind, but by the same token, you can see how building an outstanding and relaible scouting network (which I presume is what theyve done) can become a demonstrably better model for all clubs, given success over a few years.
In light of the above, examples - at what point do you say, with reason, that the only way to break the CL-funded hegemony is by outside investment subsidising the income?
Weigh up the succesful teams in the PL over the last 10 years or so. You had your established 'big four' who were sort of self perpetuating by virtue of profile and that all important champions league money. Then consider the usual suspects who have tended to occupy the next group, beneath that.
In attempting to synopsise-
Rags, funded by CL money, foreign support, a large stadium that wankers delight in paying over the odds to visit
Chelsea, enjoying Abramovich's leveraging, London prices and building from a relatively strong point in the late 90s and regular CL money
Liverpool, CL money, foreign support, like the rags in some respects
Arsenal, occasional big money purchasers, but adotping a model that many other clubs would like to adopt. CL money helps, and a season or two at the top/ in the CL is probably worth 10s of £millions in extra fan revenues in shirts and tickets sold.
Some of these clubs have fucked it up to a greater or lesser extent. Arsenal's model hasn't won them a trophy for years, Chelsea make a good fist out of it but need to address the average age of the squad. the rags are hamstrung by their owners and Liverpool have gone utterly batshit.
Beyond that, have a look at those 'next tier' clubs, such as Villa, Everton, and Spurs to a point. They've all tried to get CL spots without the funding and they were great for a few years. Then someone says 'weve tried this, we need to reign in the spending for a while.' Everton are backed by squillions but havent got a bean. Villa similar. Both now find themselves in the bottom half of the table. Spurs seem to enjoy a peculiar position where they generally seem to do well out of their ticket sales, (and selling players to the rags...)
But the point would seem to remain. There are other examples which spring to mind. The Keegan then Pearce eras at City, which we scraped through. Newcastle (relegation). Leeds (relegation twice). Bolton (surviving for now).
Newcastle are doing well and, as someone pointed out, have absolutely aced several relatively inexpensive signings. This appears to me to be a statistical fluke, of a kind, but by the same token, you can see how building an outstanding and relaible scouting network (which I presume is what theyve done) can become a demonstrably better model for all clubs, given success over a few years.
In light of the above, examples - at what point do you say, with reason, that the only way to break the CL-funded hegemony is by outside investment subsidising the income?
BlueMoonOverNC
Active Member
Excellent article. I'll add this: I don't understand how FFP's stated goal of forcing clubs to "live within their means" is going to increase competitiveness. If a team like United live within their means, and a team like Wolves live within their means, how is that going to make a lick of difference? (And, of course, you have the fact that City are spending money that they actually have...)
A good way to actually promote parity would be to do some sort of revenue-sharing and then institute a payroll cap, but I know the FA and the other national associations would never go for it. It is part of how the NFL became so successful, though (I'm an American).
A good way to actually promote parity would be to do some sort of revenue-sharing and then institute a payroll cap, but I know the FA and the other national associations would never go for it. It is part of how the NFL became so successful, though (I'm an American).