Serious question relating to us and FFP(update P17)

[pavelsrnicek]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

If it's unanimous then we have voted for it. If we have voted for it there must be good reason for us to do so. We aren't run by morons. There will of course be a bit of time to allow the proposals be adopted so no doubt this will be of far less concern to us than we are led to believe by certain people in the media.

What it will mean is that the big boys stay big though for the foreseeable future and the smaller clubs best know their place. Luckily we are now amongst the big boys so the analogy of barn doors after horses bolting applies.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

I'd like to know for sure what is meant by the words 'Wage cap'. Is it going to be a flat sum, say £250k per week that ANY club can pay a player, or is it a percentage of turnover which means that tight-fisted Arsenal and debt-loaded Manu could be allowed to swamp whatever the astutely managed Wigan would be allowed to offer for the same player? And would it mean that City could exceed this figure on a player providing that it is balanced out by offering Bridge £100 per week, if he was worthy of that?

 

[Andouble]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

So eliminating the lottery that we, PSG, Malaga, etc have won the past few seasons.

Few teams have a chance each year, now they will never have a chance again.

 

[Atypical]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

and we've gone above two of those teams in the rich list our turnover is rocketing what spuds and Liverpool have effectively done is agreed we can out spend them

I know but it still irks that Utd have done this to guarantee their place at the top table for years to come, they may say they deserve it after the past 20 years they have had.

I think to do it by restricting the competition in such a blatant way, is disgusting. They are one of the most decorated sides in the world So, why do they need to do this if they are as they say the biggest ever TM. Surely they would just rise above it and take the challenge head on - but no.

They say we have cheated to get where we are, which we didn't - in business, an owner is allowed to pump money into an ailing business to make the company grow and become more competitive, employing the best people, initially paying higher wages to get the best staff, to turn the company fortunes around, plus investing in better infrastructure to make it a sustainable business for the future. This is normal.

Only in football it seems you have a right to Kill competition and try to create a monopoly. They had it too good for too long and will do anything to ensure it stays that way.

This is why the whole FFP etc is just corruption on a massive ego and greed led scale.

 

[bluscuba]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

if you take away the title winning clubs that have spent beyond their income in the Premier league era ( which ffp intends to do) i.e Blackburn, Chelsea and City and replaced them with the runners up - United would have won 16 titles (out of 21!), Arsenal 5 times, Other clubs -None

It would be unsellable to TV. Why are clubs (including United) voting for this? At the moment there is ( or was) a veneer of competetiveness which in fact helps United, take that away and they can't sustain the level of interest that they have had. The problem for United was and is us being on their doorstep and they know they are in danger in the long term. People who say we will be ok are probably right but United will do whatever they can to limit us.

If English clubs won't pay big wages, the players will find them elsewhere.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

This deal effectively prevents external investment in those clubs who do not have global revenues. Anyone wanting to invest money in a club like Everton will not now be able to invest in the product (ie the squad). Without investment in any product it is impossible to grow revenues. Simply pumping money into infrastructure is not enough. It is success on the field that fuels growth. This means that football will not be an attractive prospect to external investors and guarantees that only the clubs with the biggest revenues (including City) can succeed. It does nothing to tackle debt and makes it easy for the owners of clubs like Arsenal to keep ripping off their fans. They will justify it by saying they have to maximise revenues to compete. It plays into the hands of the corrupt few who do not care about football but are driven purely by self-interest. It defies all business logic. It is impossible to grow any business without going through a period of investment when you have to make a loss (one of the best examples of this is SKY TV). In the long term this will destroy football in England and lead rapidly to a European super league.

 

[Graceyboy]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

I think Utd don't feel threatened by imposing a Wage Cap because they believe, if them and A N Other club are competing for a player, and the wage offer was the same maximum allowed, that they can offer the "istry" and "Priveledge" of playing for "Yoonited" to win the signature of that player.

 

[waspish]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

Clubs expecting massive fees for there players will have to think again!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

This deal effectively prevents external investment in those clubs who do not have global revenues. Anyone wanting to invest money in a club like Everton will not now be able to invest in the product (ie the squad). Without investment in any product it is impossible to grow revenues. Simply pumping money into infrastructure is not enough. It is success on the field that fuels growth. This means that football will not be an attractive prospect to external investors and guarantees that only the clubs with the biggest revenues (including City) can succeed. It does nothing to tackle debt and makes it easy for the owners of clubs like Arsenal to keep ripping off their fans. They will justify it by saying they have to maximise revenues to compete. It plays into the hands of the corrupt few who do not care about football but are driven purely by self-interest. It defies all business logic. It is impossible to grow any business without going through a period of investment when you have to make a loss (one of the best examples of this is SKY TV). In the long term this will destroy football in England and lead rapidly to a European super league.

You make a very good point with regards to Sky TV. It was living beyond its means for several years and could only continue existing due to the largesse of Rupert Murdoch. Say what you will about him, but he truly is a great visionary when it comes to media and broadcasting. He invested untold amounts of money in a "project" because he saw which way the wind was blowing and wanted a piece of the action. Sound familiar?

Imagine the furore from the Murdoch press if the MD of ITV had tried to introduce rules preventing this at the time and called it "Financial Fair Play". Fuck me we wouldn't have heard the last of it from The Sun. I can just picture their editorial foaming at the mouth about it, with all the indignation it could muster.

Football shouldn't be any different.

 

[the originalkippaxman]

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

So there is a wage cap. That does not mean that if City were battling United and Arsenal for a player they couldn't offer a signing on fee, open a charity foundation for them and of course the old classic merchandising payments which are not wage related. I am sure there will be plenty of loop holes. The fucking parasite c*nts in Trafford will make sure of that.