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

[Metalartin]

Wow it seems the consensus here is Spurs are now among the elite. Good to know. At the latest round of secret super club talks Spurs weren't invited. When they handed out trophies in each of the last 10 years we weren't present there either. We have a squad out of contract and chairman that doesn't spend money.

I was genuinely talking about Everton with no vested interest or consideration for Spurs. When these rules were introduced I suspect Everton were probably ahead of us in the league.

Spurs aren't a cartel club of Europe, they were one of the financially doped PL clubs of the 90s via uneven broadcast revenue splits, thanks to Alan Sugar though, from what I've read.

It's obvious who we mean, when we say "cartel clubs", Spurs aren't even one of the debt ridden clubs as far as I know, so it should have been doubly obvious. Them benefiting is a by-product that the cartel can accept, because they are still a lesser threat to them than City and PSG are.

 

[Marvin]

That's why I earlier that you need to stop looking at it through Man City eyes. City have been clever in the way they have invested, so have Liverpool, Leicester, Wolves and possibly Norwich if you can call getting relegated clever. The list of clubs that have been stupid/reckless is the lenght of my arm, Man Utd have pissed away money for 5 or 6 years, Everton have being doing that for 3 years now, Arsenal bought another attacker when they needed players in virtually every other position, Aston Villa bought a small army of players.

I'm not saying it's perfect but it is required in some format. The changes you suggested look perfectly reasonable, they would stop an owner packing up and leaving a trail of destruction behind him.

The debt issue is too complicated to resolve, how are a publicly listed company like Utd supposed to clear debts? That shipped sailed 15 years ago, it would be impossible to ever get on top of that.

I don't think any City fan, or indeed most football fans, object to regulation of the games finances. We have seen clubs go out of business or spiral down the leagues as clubs that have gambled and failed go into administration.

What City fans object too is that the football industry is self-regulated and the desire for safeguards has been hijacked by the clubs and the top of the game to protect their own interests so FFP was taken and written with the specific aim of not protecting a Bury FC but preventing another Manchester City taking their piece of the pie. Who do you think influenced the regulations and sit on the UEFA control boards? None other than people like David Gill and Rick Parry. When Man City were initially sanctioned, UEFA actually changed the way the rules were implemented which meant that City went from facing minor sanctions to hefty fines more or less overnight, and that 'foul play' triggered a rearguard action from Man City. The media is not interested in the truth just in selling their product so they are happy enough to feed the smear.

 

[BobbyBoy]

I don't think any City fan, or indeed most football fans, object to regulation of the games finances. We have seen clubs go out of business or spiral down the leagues as clubs that have gambled and failed go into administration.

What City fans object too is that the football industry is self-regulated and the desire for safeguards has been hijacked by the clubs and the top of the game to protect their own interests so FFP was taken and written with the specific aim of not protecting a Bury FC but preventing another Manchester City taking their piece of the pie. Who do you think influenced the regulations and sit on the UEFA control boards? None other than people like David Gill and Rick Parry. When Man City were initially sanctioned, UEFA actually changed the way the rules were implemented which meant that City went from facing minor sanctions to hefty fines more or less overnight, and that 'foul play' triggered a rearguard action from Man City. The media is not interested in the truth just in selling their product so they are happy enough to feed the smear.

I haven't denied the super clubs tried to screw City, that is the way the world works. In 15 years when the next upstart tries to get their piece of the pie City will be among those with their foot on the throat protecting their own interests.

My point remains though, some sort of legislation is required to keep clubs under control. And I include Bury in that, there should be rules and enforcement from the FA to keep clubs safe for the next generation.

 

[citizen_maine]

I haven't denied the super clubs tried to screw City, that is the way the world works. In 15 years when the next upstart tries to get their piece of the pie City will be among those with their foot on the throat protecting their own interests.

My point remains though, some sort of legislation is required to keep clubs under control. And I include Bury in that, there should be rules and enforcement from the FA to keep clubs safe for the next generation.

So how did it help Bury?

 

[BobbyBoy]

So how did it help Bury?

It clearly didn't but there are rules in the football league (that I'm not overly familiar with) that are ignored by clubs and the FA. If they weren't Bury fans would have something to do this Saturday. They only seem to pay any notice of them when a club gets promotes to the PL then they come looking for a piece of the action.

 

[citizen_maine]

It clearly didn't but there are rules in the football league (that I'm not overly familiar with) that are ignored by clubs and the FA. If they weren't Bury fans would have something to do this Saturday. They only seem to pay any notice of them when a club gets promotes to the PL then they come looking for a piece of the action.

So FFP is not FFP (Fit For Purpose)?

 

[BobbyBoy]

So FFP is not FFP (Fit For Purpose)?

Well if it's ignored by all and sundry then of course it is.

 

[waspish]

Spending by clubs shouldn’t be on what your turnover is or how much more money you make it should be each club in premier league are allowed to spend the same amount a year on players! Say cap it at 100m a season including wages

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

I haven't denied the super clubs tried to screw City, that is the way the world works. In 15 years when the next upstart tries to get their piece of the pie City will be among those with their foot on the throat protecting their own interests.

My point remains though, some sort of legislation is required to keep clubs under control. And I include Bury in that, there should be rules and enforcement from the FA to keep clubs safe for the next generation.

If you allow owner investment but do not allow financing through debt or guaranteeing loans against club assets there isn't a problem - unless the problem is that you are like Spurs and wish to stop other clubs spending more than you. The PL is so rich at the moment because it is watched by more people in more countries than any other. This, in large part at least, is because of the quality of player even at lowly clubs and this is made possible by the large TV revenues which in turn rise because clubs invest in players. Spending, as long as not based on sustained high levels of debt, is essential to the future health of the PL. Spending is not ruining football: it is sustaining it

Spending by clubs shouldn’t be on what your turnover is or how much more money you make it should be each club in premier league are allowed to spend the same amount a year on players! Say cap it at 100m a season including wages

Unfortunately, if you do this you'll increase debt levels because some clubs can't dream of spending so much and would ruin themselves trying. The result would be that too many clubs would feel obliged to spend £100 every year... That and that every mediocre journeyman would be valued at £100m!

It is clear that football finance is far too important to be left to the clumsy agenda of PL club owners and UEFA.

 

[waspish]

If you allow owner investment but do not allow financing through debt or guaranteeing loans against club assets there isn't a problem - unless the problem is that you are like Spurs and wish to stop other clubs spending more than you. The PL is so rich at the moment because it is watched by more people in more countries than any other. This, in large part at least, is because of the quality of player even at lowly clubs and this is made possible by the large TV revenues which in turn rise because clubs invest in players. Spending, as long as not based on sustained high levels of debt, is essential to the future health of the PL. Spending is not ruining football: it is sustaining it



Unfortunately, if you do this you'll increase debt levels because some clubs can't dream of spending so much and would ruin themselves trying. The result would be that too many clubs would feel obliged to spend £100 every year... That and that every mediocre journeyman would be valued at £100m!

It is clear that football finance is far too important to be left to the clumsy agenda of PL club owners and UEFA.

Come on did you read that and think it was compulsory to Spend 100m a year isn’t compulsory it’s a cap!