UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[tolmie's hairdoo]

83 next week according to Google and looking well. When he crokes it Spurs will have a minutes silence and move on. Not the same thing at Everton unless he has looked after them in his will.

Anyone would look well in the tax haven Bahamas!

Any Prem club coming on to the market these days are an attractive buy.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

With the money involved in football people seem to forget just how much money £100,000,000.00 is. To be asked not to lose that much is not unreasonable.

Leonardo DiCaprio has a better chance of riding Rita Ora than I do. That's how the world spins I'm afraid.

I don't understand. I said FFP punishes teams like Everton but united can go into much much more debt. The money is relative.

FFP could easily go against capital rather than income, but income protects the established clubs. And to cap out all they can't even have a rich benefactor come in and spend loads to save them, the very thing FFP is supposed to be doing - saving clubs from debt. It's a joke, it's a sham

 

[BobbyBoy]

I don't understand. I said FFP punishes teams like Everton but united can go into much much more debt. The money is relative.

FFP could easily go against capital rather than income, but income protects the established clubs. And to cap out all they can't even have a rich benefactor come in and spend loads to save them, the very thing FFP is supposed to be doing - saving clubs from debt. It's a joke, it's a sham

You say "punishes", it could be easily said it's there to protect them from themselves. Everton have spent half a billion pounds on terrible football players, they have gone through 4 managers so far as well as 2 directors of football. It's clear they dont have clue what they're doing. They are closer to the championship than the champions league.

Would you take a single one of their players? I'm not sure I would even if they were free, you could make an argument for Pickford for reserve keeper to boost home grown players but thats it.

FFP in the premier league is different to FFP in Europe in that the clubs all had a say and at least 14 of them would have had to agree to it for it to be passed.

We need to stop looking at it through the eyes of Man City, the club has some of the best people in the world looking after the football side of the club. All rules or laws are introduced with the lowest common denominator in mind, clubs like Everton and Villa are playing championship manager with the big boys and they will destroy those clubs to satisfy their egos if they are allowed continue. I would use Leicester and Wolves as examples of the right way to build up a club for those who say it's a closed shop.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

You say "punishes", it could be easily said it's there to protect them from themselves. Everton have spent half a billion pounds on terrible football players, they have gone through 4 managers so far as well as 2 directors of football. It's clear they dont have clue what they're doing. They are closer to the championship than the champions league.

Would you take a single one of their players? I'm not sure I would even if they were free, you could make an argument for Pickford for reserve keeper to boost home grown players but thats it.

FFP in the premier league is different to FFP in Europe in that the clubs all had a say and at least 14 of them would have had to agree to it for it to be passed.

We need to stop looking at it through the eyes of Man City, the club has some of the best people in the world looking after the football side of the club. All rules or laws are introduced with the lowest common denominator in mind, clubs like Everton and Villa are playing championship manager with the big boys and they will destroy those clubs to satisfy their egos if they are allowed continue. I would use Leicester and Wolves as examples of the right way to build up a club for those who say it's a closed shop.

Fact is it hasn't stopped Everton. They've been able to do it and now could eventually face some punishment but it's too late by then.

 

[nmc]

Pretty much right, I think - it isn't fair to a less wealthy club trying to play catch-up.

I think the PL version has a wage increase limitation (something like 4%, or more if it is covered by non-broadcasting increases).

UEFA introduced a change that allowed takeover clubs to spend heavily for a short period - mostly driven by Milan, I think. I don't know if it exists in the domestic one.

Didn’t United conveniently have the wage restriction (that they originally introduced!) amended in the summer?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Didn’t United conveniently have the wage restriction (that they originally introduced!) amended in the summer?

Sounds familiar.

 

[ancoats]

I don't understand. I said FFP punishes teams like Everton but united can go into much much more debt. The money is relative.

FFP could easily go against capital rather than income, but income protects the established clubs. And to cap out all they can't even have a rich benefactor come in and spend loads to save them, the very thing FFP is supposed to be doing - saving clubs from debt. It's a joke, it's a sham

only football and clubs can be run with very high debt and fudge the figures to suit uefa FFP ? clubs like united are playing with monopoly and the banker is cutting from the top to keep the game flowing nicely, but when somebody else want to play and thinks he can be a challenge the doors is shut tight

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

You say "punishes", it could be easily said it's there to protect them from themselves. Everton have spent half a billion pounds on terrible football players, they have gone through 4 managers so far as well as 2 directors of football. It's clear they dont have clue what they're doing. They are closer to the championship than the champions league.

Would you take a single one of their players? I'm not sure I would even if they were free, you could make an argument for Pickford for reserve keeper to boost home grown players but thats it.

FFP in the premier league is different to FFP in Europe in that the clubs all had a say and at least 14 of them would have had to agree to it for it to be passed.

We need to stop looking at it through the eyes of Man City, the club has some of the best people in the world looking after the football side of the club. All rules or laws are introduced with the lowest common denominator in mind, clubs like Everton and Villa are playing championship manager with the big boys and they will destroy those clubs to satisfy their egos if they are allowed continue. I would use Leicester and Wolves as examples of the right way to build up a club for those who say it's a closed shop.

You could say all of that about United. And then add in the £337M debt on top. But united are not breaching ffp. That's why I say punishing towards everton.

Soz m8, I understand what you;'re saying about it stopping Everton going to the wall like Bury. But at the same time FFP allows United/Bayern etc to spend a lot more before they go to the wall. IE more punishing to everton teams

My point is simple really, it helps to maintain a cartel, and that is why it was designed that way, it's why it is against income. It's the way United / Bayern, Barca, RM have designed it... No one from Everton (Or City for that matter) sits on the UEFA executive making these rules up, the cartel clubs are the ones writing the rules. Surely you think that is unfair? I mean yes it might save Everton from big debt but given how it has morphed into what we see now, saving clubs from extinction is the 2nd priority for FFP. Ask Bury.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

You say "punishes", it could be easily said it's there to protect them from themselves. Everton have spent half a billion pounds on terrible football players, they have gone through 4 managers so far as well as 2 directors of football. It's clear they dont have clue what they're doing. They are closer to the championship than the champions league.

Would you take a single one of their players? I'm not sure I would even if they were free, you could make an argument for Pickford for reserve keeper to boost home grown players but thats it.

FFP in the premier league is different to FFP in Europe in that the clubs all had a say and at least 14 of them would have had to agree to it for it to be passed.

We need to stop looking at it through the eyes of Man City, the club has some of the best people in the world looking after the football side of the club. All rules or laws are introduced with the lowest common denominator in mind, clubs like Everton and Villa are playing championship manager with the big boys and they will destroy those clubs to satisfy their egos if they are allowed continue. I would use Leicester and Wolves as examples of the right way to build up a club for those who say it's a closed shop.

Do you not think that your post is rather arrogant? How on earth can you argue that a two thirds majority vote by a club's rivals is the best way of ensuring that the spending plans of a club are automatically sane and that owners will have a clue what they are doing? Especially as these regulations stem from a document circulated on Arsenal headed paper, and signed by Manchester United, Liverpool and your bunch, Tottenham Hotspur, on the principle that limiting every other club's spending was good for Spurs and bad for every other club. I'm sure it suits Spurs to "to stop looking at it through the eyes of Man City" because City have shown that investment works and can make a nonsense of these daft regulations - and that's why every other owner should have a no chance to invest their own money: it's bad for Lewis and Levy. At a European level you put UEFA in a position to protect every club's finances - a body which has never passed its own regulations.

 

[BobbyBoy]

Do you not think that your post is rather arrogant? How on earth can you argue that a two thirds majority vote by a club's rivals is the best way of ensuring that the spending plans of a club are automatically sane and that owners will have a clue what they are doing? Especially as these regulations stem from a document circulated on Arsenal headed paper, and signed by Manchester United, Liverpool and your bunch, Tottenham Hotspur, on the principle that limiting every other club's spending was good for Spurs and bad for every other club. I'm sure it suits Spurs to "to stop looking at it through the eyes of Man City" because City have shown that investment works and can make a nonsense of these daft regulations - and that's why every other owner should have a no chance to invest their own money: it's bad for Lewis and Levy. At a European level you put UEFA in a position to protect every club's finances - a body which has never passed its own regulations.

How can you say a vote by over two thirds of the league isn't fair? Every club with a vote is a rival of each other in some shape or form. There are a lot more clubs in Everton's position than Man City's or Spurs. Clubs in that position held the cards if they didn't want this rule implemented.

City have shown smart investment, take that as a compliment. Getting the best people in to run your club is an obvious thing to do but you don't have to look very far to see how easy it is to piss money up against a wall.
I'm sorry if you think its arrogant but unfortunately in life you need to legislate for the stupid. If Everton were left at it then they would just keep giving Arsenal and Barcelona 60m every season for the latest reject until eventually the owner cops on and cuts his losses.