|
Ninpo posted:UEFA will. Or are you expecting UEFA to back pedal on the whole FFP thing? It'd be funny to see the big clubs with their star players say gently caress it and disregard FFP. Who'd watch Champions League without Ronaldo, Messi, etc?
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 12:19 |
|
|
UEFA aren't going to do poo poo to both Manchester clubs or Barca/Madrid
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 20:07
|
|
|
TwoDogs1Cup posted:UEFA aren't going to do poo poo to both Manchester clubs or Barca/Madrid barca, madrid, and man u will be fine- a lot of the "losses" they've reported in the past have been the product of fishy accounting and/or politicking. man city, yeah, they'll have to get quite a bit of help.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 20:08
|
|
|
But if we do meet all their requirements what are UEFA going to do then? Large parts have been pretty much a transparent attack on City and our owners from the very start so if we stick it to them and conform by their rules and still win it will hurt them that much more. Everyone should want this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 20:14
|
|
|
UEFA will do absolutely gently caress all. FFP is a joke and there will always be a way around it for those who need to. Such a waste of time to try and implement it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 20:22
|
|
|
Jollzwhin posted:Large parts have been pretty much a transparent attack on City and our owners from the very start Yeah, why would rules designed to stop massive unsustainable spending focus on a club based on fossil fuels? UEFA just hates Mancs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 20:22
|
|
|
euroboy posted:UEFA will do absolutely gently caress all. FFP is a joke and there will always be a way around it for those who need to. Such a waste of time to try and implement it. This. And it's been obvious for years. Literally from the first time I heard someone explain what it was I said that sugar daddies would just inject cash to artificially boost the clubs income and that's exactly what will happen. City will just sign more insane "sponsorship" deals with middle eastern companies, Madrid will carry on selling plots of lands valued in the tens of thousands to the local government for twenty million. There's no way to stop it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 21:01
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I don't expect any major football club to face sanctions as a result of FFP. I agree wholeheartedly. However, I think you'll find we were talking about Manchester City.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
This article (Martin Samuel in the Daily Mail, sorry) sums up my feelings on FFP nicely
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 12:58
|
|
|
That's a whole lot of  for a bunch of regulations that supposedly do nothing at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 13:21
|
|
|
Jollzwhin posted:But if we do meet all their requirements what are UEFA going to do then? Large parts have been pretty much a transparent attack on City and our owners from the very start so if we stick it to them and conform by their rules and still win it will hurt them that much more. Everyone should want this. If City winning meant that Sepp Blatter got skewered with a red hot poker then maybe I would consider it for a couple of seconds but I still wouldn't want City to win it, ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 13:24
|
|
|
Transatlantic Gulp posted:This article (Martin Samuel in the Daily Mail, sorry) sums up my feelings on FFP nicely Sports Journalist of the year? Really? FFP looks nice enough on paper, I guess it's primary design is to make sure football clubs are run healty financially so idiot owners won't bankrupt them and Pull A Leeds and that's a good thing. That should really be the primary focus and not the Chelseas, Citys, Malagas or PSGs of the world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 13:27
|
|
|
euroboy posted:Sports Journalist of the year? Really? apart from the fact that the Chelseas and Citys are the primary driver for wages and transfer fees going through the stratosphere which causes everyone else to have to spend more money they don't have to try and keep up. Or they don't bother, live within their means like good boys and girls, and never compete for anything ever again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 13:52
|
|
|
Grez posted:apart from the fact that the Chelseas and Citys are the primary driver for wages and transfer fees going through the stratosphere which causes everyone else to have to spend more money they don't have to try and keep up. Or they don't bother, live within their means like good boys and girls, and never compete for anything ever again. These are all valid points, it's just that I can't see FFP changing it. There will always be way around it for billionaire owners who want to throw their money on a football club. It's the clubs that ruins themselves trying to keep up that should be protected from themselves. In order to "stop" the Chelsea and Citys in england the Premier League/FA has to clamp down on it and do it and implement the same rules as the germans have. If City starts dominating english football and gets billions of fans worldwide in the process I can't see UEFA wanting to shut them out of european competitions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 14:08
|
|
|
Grez posted:apart from the fact that the Chelseas and Citys are the primary driver for wages and transfer fees going through the stratosphere which causes everyone else to have to spend more money they don't have to try and keep up. Or they don't bother, live within their means like good boys and girls, and never compete for anything ever again. Isn't that exactly the position that all the rest of the clubs outside of the mega-income stream few are/were in already though?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 14:12
|
|
|
Basically the only chance smaller clubs have of getting into Europe is to sign foreign players on the cheap, like Tiote, and then sell them after a couple of seasons for significantly more. Then hope you can do this with a number of players every year until the finances are so good you can slowly move into the spending needed to compete in the Champion's league. The problem with this is it'll take 10+ years and requires you finding players for a few million who you'll then be able to sell for a massive profit every year. And this is never going to happen to anyone, even assuming they were lucky enough to find 2 players a season (as an example) who they can sell for 300-500% profit after getting a couple of good seasons out of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 14:14
|
|
|
Basically gently caress the Champions League
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 14:23
|
|
|
Aaron A Aardvark posted:Isn't that exactly the position that all the rest of the clubs outside of the mega-income stream few are/were in already though? Yeah, the trouble is FFP as stated, even if it worked, would basically lock in the top few clubs forever. To a degree it's actually responsible for the current spending because if you can get yourself there now, you'll stay there for a lot longer than that investment would normally mean.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 17:56
|
|
|
Jollzwhin posted:But if we do meet all their requirements what are UEFA going to do then? Large parts have been pretty much a transparent attack on City and our owners from the very start so if we stick it to them and conform by their rules and still win it will hurt them that much more. Everyone should want this. You say this as if the Manchester City  project was a breath of fresh air for world football, and not instead a crass and insulting edifice of profligacy that forms simply one in an ever-increasing list of monuments to hubris and nepotism created by a antiquated cabal of petty mustachioed Marie Antoinettes, all in their never-ending quest to piss away the last of the planet's wealth and resources in order to find more things to name after themselves.But other than that, you had a fair point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 20:09
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:You say this as if the Manchester City Not so much a breath of fresh air as right at home in world football then?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 22:12
|
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:You say this as if the Manchester City Reminder that FLJ is a Manchester United fan. The same Manchester United that enjoyed several years of unopposed financial dominance as a result of a league structure heavily weighed in their favour, who is now complaining because Manchester City are spending at a level that his heavily indebted club cannot hope to match. Irony, delicious etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 22:14
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Reminder that FLJ is a Manchester United fan. The same Manchester United that enjoyed several years of unopposed financial dominance as a result of a league structure heavily weighed in their favour, who is now complaining because Manchester City are spending at a level that his heavily indebted club cannot hope to match. I know you think it's evil that United became a PLC but how was the league structure in our favour?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 22:14
|
|
|
Ninpo posted:I know you think it's evil that United became a PLC but how was the league structure in our favour? The massive influx of Sky money that ensured that the top stayed there until a Russian gangster, a chicken farmer or an oil sheikh buys their place from them? Also I don't think that's evil tbh. I don't see any difference between prize and tv money, and money invested by a new owner.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 22:16
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:The massive influx of Sky money that ensured that the top stayed there until a Russian gangster, a chicken farmer or an oil sheikh buys their place from them? The Sky money was evenly distributed though?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 22:18
|
|
|
Ninpo posted:The Sky money was evenly distributed though? Prove it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 22:19
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Prove it. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
Ninpo posted:Thought not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 22:21
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Thought not. It's general knowledge the TV rights are evenly distributed, if you claim otherwise the burden is on you to prove otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 22:24
|
|
|
Ninpo posted:It's general knowledge the TV rights are evenly distributed, if you claim otherwise the burden is on you to prove otherwise. 2009/10:  The differences were even more marked in the early days.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 22:29
|
|
|
So what are "Facility Fees" and "Merit Payments"? Genuine question because some of those gaps are pushing £20m you'd expect clubs on the thin end of the wedge to complain more, considering the TV agreement is supposed to be equal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 22:38
|
|
|
Ninpo posted:So what are "Facility Fees" and "Merit Payments"? Genuine question because some of those gaps are pushing £20m you'd expect clubs on the thin end of the wedge to complain more, considering the TV agreement is supposed to be equal. It's money paid to football clubs for showing their matches on TV. You'll note that some clubs get many more live matches than others. Merit payments are prize money for final finishing place in the league. The TV agreement has never been equal, and it's never been 'general knowledge' that it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 22:40
|
|
|
I hope man united go out of business and never return
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 22:44
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:It's money paid to football clubs for showing their matches on TV. You'll note that some clubs get many more live matches than others. Merit payments are prize money for final finishing place in the league. 22 million between first and last isn't too bad. I am sure some of the bottom tier Spanish and Italian sides would kill for 30m a year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
Byolante posted:22 million between first and last isn't too bad. I am sure some of the bottom tier Spanish and Italian sides would kill for 30m a year. That's their problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
Besides, my point isn't about the unfairness of Sky money distribution, it's about the irony of a Manchester United fan - a club that has broken the British transfer record four times since the Premier league era began - getting upset because the club next door has deeper pockets and they don't want to (or, more accurately, can't) play 'spend all the money' anymore. Because they don't have all the money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 22:51
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Besides, my point isn't about the unfairness of Sky money distribution, it's about the irony of a Manchester United fan - a club that has broken the British transfer record four times since the Premier league era began - getting upset because the club next door has deeper pockets and they don't want to (or, more accurately, can't) play 'spend all the money' anymore. Because they don't have all the money. The issue I think ninpo has is that United, while they did splooge around cash like a drunken sailor in a 2 for 1 dockyard whorehouse, it at least came from footballing revenue. Have they had somebody like Jack Walker come in and say 'Here is all the money, splooge it and win my child'?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 22:55
|
|
|
Byolante posted:The issue I think ninpo has is that United, while they did splooge around cash like a drunken sailor in a 2 for 1 dockyard whorehouse, it at least came from footballing revenue. Have they had somebody like Jack Walker come in and say 'Here is all the money, splooge it and win my child'? What's the difference? Why is Manchester United being able to sell a million more shirts to Malaysians more creditable than an Arabian giving his spare change to a club?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 22:57
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:What's the difference? I don't think there really is one, I was just trying to get across ninpo's ideas as I understand them. I do think if there were less jack walkers and roman abramovichs then football wages and transfer fees probably wouldn't have ballooned as far as they had.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 23:01
|
|
|
Imo every club sells football shirts but not every club gets given half a billion pounds to spend on players by an oil cartel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 12:19 |
|
|
Pissflaps is once again The Wise Man. I support 'flaps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2011 23:14
|
|
