buckshot
Well-Known Member
City need to offer shares at 50 million each and then have Mansour's family buy them.
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.
One rule for one, another for the rest of us- FFP again
- Thread starter Blue Mooner
- Start date
Mr Ed (The Stables)
Well-Known Member
waspish said:It's not stopped us buying because we don't need anyone
This, with a fully fit first eleven we don't need any new players, it's only when you take injuries/suspensions and that African Nations Cup into account that there are a couple of areas of the squad that need strengthening....centre back and centre midfield. For the first time we are in a transfer window buying as Champions...how good does that sound!!!
Blue Mooner
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2005
- Messages
- 3,139
liamctid said:FFP is a myth. No ones going to get banned from any competitions. It's just a way of the people at the top forcing clubs to bring more money from outside of football into it so it filters (up), and the clubs don't mind as it justifies charging stupid amounts of tickets and merchandise.
The people at the top of football like Platini aren't football purists. They couldn't give a fuck as long as they can sustain the future of their wallets. If they wanted to stop football clubs from going into debt then they wouldn't be looking at those at the top, would they?
And yeah, I love conspiracies.
I agree it is the humble football supporter paying the price. Instead of someone like sheikh Mansour and Abramovich pumping hundreds of millions into the game which ultimately percolates right throughout football it is the normal fan paying the price as football clubs chase more revenue and profit.
If it was genuine financial fair play they would cap the amount that any club can pay on transfer fees and wages to an equal amount thus removing the need for clubs to chase increased revenues and profit.<br /><br />-- Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:59 pm --<br /><br />
buckshot said:City need to offer shares at 50 million each and then have Mansour's family buy them.
Exactly but then what's the betting this would be deemed unlawful?
Do not undertsand this thread - but it shows how many fans seem to totally misunderstand FFP
FFP is a set of regulations introduced to tie spend to revenue - the scum IPO is totally irrelevant - as is what the scum do with any funds raised. And if we were to sell shares and raise funds that would again have nothing to do with any FFP calculation as it would not increase our revenue
Their revenue is already at levels that will excced any possible spending that they could embark on.
FFP is a set of regulations introduced to tie spend to revenue - the scum IPO is totally irrelevant - as is what the scum do with any funds raised. And if we were to sell shares and raise funds that would again have nothing to do with any FFP calculation as it would not increase our revenue
Their revenue is already at levels that will excced any possible spending that they could embark on.
I think regardless of FFP our spending has been unsustainable, we were playing catch up with the big boys. We have now caught up with them in teams of our squad and ability to win trophies but still have the frequently mentioned deadwood which needs getting rid of.
I feel we no longer have to pay astronomical wages to players as it isn't as much of a risk to come to us as it was a couple of seasons ago yet players such as RvP and Hazard still want over 200,000. I'm glad we are playing hard ball atm and I think we will now be seeing quieter transfer windows with just a few additions as long as they are at the right price.
I feel we no longer have to pay astronomical wages to players as it isn't as much of a risk to come to us as it was a couple of seasons ago yet players such as RvP and Hazard still want over 200,000. I'm glad we are playing hard ball atm and I think we will now be seeing quieter transfer windows with just a few additions as long as they are at the right price.
Blue Mooner
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2005
- Messages
- 3,139
mcfc1632 said:Do not undertsand this thread - but it shows how many fans seem to totally misunderstand FFP
FFP is a set of regulations introduced to tie spend to revenue - the scum IPO is totally irrelevant - as is what the scum do with any funds raised. And if we were to sell shares and raise funds that would again have nothing to do with any FFP calculation as it would not increase our revenue
Their revenue is already at levels that will excced any possible spending that they could embark on.
No i fully understand FFP regs, the point you are missing is what is the difference to pumping in funds from a benefactor or sole shareholder ie sheikh mansour and pumping in funds via an IPO? Why is one method of funding deemed acceptable ie an IPO and another not? Either one is money generated outside of revenue.
Irrespective of what is done with the money whether that is used to supplement transfers or reduce debt it is not money that is generated by revenue from the football club.
If the rags use the money to reduce debt whichever way you look at it that is then money that is then freed up to that can then be used to fund transfers which otherwise would have to come out of their revenues and reduce their ability to spend on transfers.
I want to know why one source of additional funding ie an IPO is ok but another source ie external investment from a sole owner is not?
If you can answer the rationale behind that then I will go back in my box.
JGL07
Well-Known Member
Blue Mooner said:mcfc1632 said:Do not undertsand this thread - but it shows how many fans seem to totally misunderstand FFP
FFP is a set of regulations introduced to tie spend to revenue - the scum IPO is totally irrelevant - as is what the scum do with any funds raised. And if we were to sell shares and raise funds that would again have nothing to do with any FFP calculation as it would not increase our revenue
Their revenue is already at levels that will excced any possible spending that they could embark on.
No i fully understand FFP regs, the point you are missing is what is the difference to pumping in funds from a benefactor or sole shareholder ie sheikh mansour and pumping in funds via an IPO? Why is one method of funding deemed acceptable ie an IPO and another not? Either one is money generated outside of revenue.
Irrespective of what is done with the money whether that is used to supplement transfers or reduce debt it is not money that is generated by revenue from the football club.
If the rags use the money to reduce debt whichever way you look at it that is then money that is then freed up to that can then be used to fund transfers which otherwise would have to come out of their revenues and reduce their ability to spend on transfers.
I want to know why one source of additional funding ie an IPO is ok but another source ie external investment from a sole owner is not?
If you can answer the rationale behind that then I will go back in my box.
You again are missing the point. United run their football operations at a considerable profit, all of which is snaffled by the Glazers. What has changed is that their team is aging and several key players need to be replaced. The IPO is not specially there to put money into United for player acquisition but to remove the need to take so much out of the club to pay off the Glazers' debts.
FFP was originally intended to stop clubs getting into debt by spending way beyond their means as in the case of Portsmouth, Rangers, etc. Somewhere along the way it metamorphosed into something that would end large scale investment in clubs while allowing debt laden clubs such as United to carry on.
FFP is all about protecting the 'old money' elite of European football and to spot any club investing the sums needed to break into that cartel.
It has come far to late to stop Chelsea and City. It may well catch out PSG if enforced strongly. If Spurs fail to make the top four this season it could condemn them to sinking back into the pack. It will mean that there is no hope for the likes of Villa and Everton ever moving beyond mid-table clubs.
Blue Mooner
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2005
- Messages
- 3,139
JGL07 said:Blue Mooner said:mcfc1632 said:Do not undertsand this thread - but it shows how many fans seem to totally misunderstand FFP
FFP is a set of regulations introduced to tie spend to revenue - the scum IPO is totally irrelevant - as is what the scum do with any funds raised. And if we were to sell shares and raise funds that would again have nothing to do with any FFP calculation as it would not increase our revenue
Their revenue is already at levels that will excced any possible spending that they could embark on.
No i fully understand FFP regs, the point you are missing is what is the difference to pumping in funds from a benefactor or sole shareholder ie sheikh mansour and pumping in funds via an IPO? Why is one method of funding deemed acceptable ie an IPO and another not? Either one is money generated outside of revenue.
Irrespective of what is done with the money whether that is used to supplement transfers or reduce debt it is not money that is generated by revenue from the football club.
If the rags use the money to reduce debt whichever way you look at it that is then money that is then freed up to that can then be used to fund transfers which otherwise would have to come out of their revenues and reduce their ability to spend on transfers.
I want to know why one source of additional funding ie an IPO is ok but another source ie external investment from a sole owner is not?
If you can answer the rationale behind that then I will go back in my box.
You again are missing the point. United run their football operations at a considerable profit, all of which is snaffled by the Glazers. What has changed is that their team is aging and several key players need to be replaced. The IPO is not specially there to put money into United for player acquisition but to remove the need to take so much out of the club to pay off the Glazers' debts.
FFP was originally intended to stop clubs getting into debt by spending way beyond their means as in the case of Portsmouth, Rangers, etc. Somewhere along the way it metamorphosed into something that would end large scale investment in clubs while allowing debt laden clubs such as United to carry on.
FFP is all about protecting the 'old money' elite of European football and to spot any club investing the sums needed to break into that cartel.
It has come far to late to stop Chelsea and City. It may well catch out PSG if enforced strongly. If Spurs fail to make the top four this season it could condemn them to sinking back into the pack. It will mean that there is no hope for the likes of Villa and Everton ever moving beyond mid-table clubs.
And hence you make my point, this is nothing about financial fair play but just about protecting the rags and specifically the rags the only club with monumental debt but all other clubs now prevented from building up a debt in order to fund player acquisition.
JGL07
Well-Known Member
Blue Mooner said:And hence you make my point, this is nothing about financial fair play but just about protecting the rags and specifically the rags the only club with monumental debt but all other clubs now prevented from building up a debt in order to fund player acquisition.
No arguments there. The rules could not have been written kinder for United and their ilk
But the problem is the way in which the FFP rules were drawn up rather that bias in enforcing them.
The current year could be the most difficult one for City in terms of FFP. Once the new TV deal kicks in, City progress regularly in the Champions' League and the dead wood from the playing staff can be offloaded (Adey, RSC, Bridge, etc), City should have no problem meeting FFP targets.