saintjay77 Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 Gawd, I don't know. Not sure AA does either. But the unfavourable comparison with Barca still stands though! That was my point. The ground that they will no doubt be renting doesnt draw in enough support to pay for a CCC level club yet the skate was trying to compare to Barcelona and there how many thousand seater stadium?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
for_heaven's_Saint Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 That was my point. The ground that they will no doubt be renting doesnt draw in enough support to pay for a CCC level club yet the skate was trying to compare to Barcelona and there how many thousand seater stadium?????? 98,787 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 Yep, the football creditors rule is only applicable to deals involving clubs in this country. Hence why the likes of Udinese are only going to receive 20p in the pound if the CVA is ultimately approved. Really? I thought as football creditors they would still be up for 100%? The FA's rules mean clubs in the FA's leagues have to abide by them. If a foreign club goes into admin oweing an english club cash then they can whistle for it as it wont effect them entering there leagues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 I too thought that overseas clubs were considered secured, hence why some of their last TV money was held back to pay both UK and EU based clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 Really? I thought as football creditors they would still be up for 100%? The FA's rules mean clubs in the FA's leagues have to abide by them. If a foreign club goes into admin oweing an english club cash then they can whistle for it as it wont effect them entering there leagues. Nope, the football creditor rule only extends to payments to other English clubs (down to "tier 7", I think) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 And Cotterill insists he has no qualms about throwing Boateng into Championship football if they do not get their way. He said: 'Prince was meant to be back today and could be in the frame for the weekend. 'He could also still be with us in the Championship when the season starts. 'It's not about how much we want for him, it's how much we need. 'We are not about to sell anybody cheaper, we don't need to do that Answers on a postcard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 Nope, the football creditor rule only extends to payments to other English clubs (down to "tier 7", I think) Blimey I didnt realise that. Didnt aa spend some time trying to get hold of a foreign club trying to find out which way they would be voting? I thought back then he said he didnt understand why they were hard to get hold of as there vote was for 100%. But thinking about it now, he is full of Sheeeite and if they were only going to get %20 he really had to work hard to get them to vote for. Which way did they vote in the end anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 Which way did they vote in the end anyway? ADO Den Haag (£83,151.64): For Le Havre (£176,269.00): For Paris St Germain (£106,961.41): For RC Lens (1,958,258.90): For Stade Rennais FC (£4,150,531.00): For All voted in favour, presumably on the basis that 20% is better than 0% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
for_heaven's_Saint Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere but: 'Portsmouth face the prospect of paying out more than £500,000 in wages at the end of the week to players no longer at the club. David James will pick up about £140,000 - if he does not sign for anyone else before Saturday night.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiesaint Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 I believe that the big increase in debt is because of a change in their accounting methods rather than a sudden surge in spending. They do have cash-flow problems though, who doesn't? (apart from Saints ) What had Barcelona been using the Pompey method of forming accounts - ignore any bills that fell down the back of the sofa and now they've found them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 Fifa can't be be happy with their members getting shafted by someone other than themselves - a loophole to be closed perhaps? Future business with British clubs will have to be paid upfront. If the child-maimer has taken over the car park it's going to be a while before those fivers get him his father's £30M back, it's a start though - and on matchdays the place will be buzzing, you won't be able to move, he should get at least six caravans in there accounting for the 75 people who will be in the Fratton End. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_saint Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/massive-portsmouth-sale-most-kit-on/728560 Still overpriced in my opinion!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 ADO Den Haag (£83,151.64): For Le Havre (£176,269.00): For Paris St Germain (£106,961.41): For RC Lens (1,958,258.90): For Stade Rennais FC (£4,150,531.00): For All voted in favour, presumably on the basis that 20% is better than 0% knobs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint si Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 Just seen Marlon King has been released and is looking for a club. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-10811077 What odds on him being offered a contract with the cheats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Chalet Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 Clampitt looks like he has caught the Storrie bug, "they promised they would agree after the contract was sigfned". Guess none of the commercial legends at Pompey thought to insert it IN the contract? http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/Portsmouth-Football-Club-Statement-1179.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 Just seen Marlon King has been released and is looking for a club. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-10811077 What odds on him being offered a contract with the cheats? Being sent to Coventry, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 Being sent to Coventry, apparently. Surely he has paid his debt to society already, there's no need to subject him to here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 Clampitt looks like he has caught the Storrie bug, "they promised they would agree after the contract was sigfned". Guess none of the commercial legends at Pompey thought to insert it IN the contract? http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/Portsmouth-Football-Club-Statement-1179.aspx pompey: We want 10 million for the rights quay Radio: Where the fook did you get that figure from pompey; Peter Storrie our adviser, he has 25 years football experience quay Radio; Fook off pompey : What about a fiver quayRadio: What happens if you get liquidated on the 3rd pompey: you lose the fiver quay Radio: Fook off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 Clampitt looks like he has caught the Storrie bug, "they promised they would agree after the contract was sigfned". Guess none of the commercial legends at Pompey thought to insert it IN the contract? http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/Portsmouth-Football-Club-Statement-1179.aspx Ouch! It hurts when someone's ripping you off doesn't it Mr Clampitt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 Ouch! It hurts when someone's ripping you off doesn't it Mr Clampitt? May be aa will take them to court for wanting to much discount. It does seem that they are pressing for cash now and everyone else is pushing back...... shame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidthesquid Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 Clampitt looks like he has caught the Storrie bug, "they promised they would agree after the contract was sigfned". Guess none of the commercial legends at Pompey thought to insert it IN the contract? http://www.portsmouthfc.co.uk/LatestNews/news/Portsmouth-Football-Club-Statement-1179.aspx This is why I love this thread. Every day, rain or shine, there is some new little snippet of information to bring a smile to my face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 May be aa will take them to court for wanting to much discount. It does seem that they are pressing for cash now and everyone else is pushing back...... shame I agree, it's a simple matter of trust and local businesses, for some daft, inexplicable reason, just can't bring themselves to trust them. I bet the invoices flooding in will have 'Terms strictly C.O.D.' stamped on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shrek Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 pompey: We want 10 million for the rights quay Radio: Where the fook did you get that figure from pompey; Peter Storrie our adviser, he has 25 years football experience quay Radio; Fook off pompey : What about a fiver quayRadio: What happens if you get liquidated on the 3rd pompey: you lose the fiver quay Radio: Fook off Ha! So true... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 Yep, the football creditors rule is only applicable to deals involving clubs in this country. Hence why the likes of Udinese are only going to receive 20p in the pound if the CVA is ultimately approved. Nope, the football creditor rule only extends to payments to other English clubs (down to "tier 7", I think) Interesting, I didn't realise that. Also gives the lie to the b o llocks theory that has been knocking around on here that getting rid of the football creditors rule would somehow make clubs and football agents more circumspect and cautious in their dealings and their demands. This little fact proves it definitely wouldn't. Getting rid of the football creditors rule would makes things even more cavalier because it just allows clubs to aimlessly speculate more than they do already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suewhistle Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 This little fact proves it definitely wouldn't. Getting rid of the football creditors rule would makes things even more cavalier because it just allows clubs to aimlessly speculate more than they do already. Don't think so. Buying clubs would start to require money up-front, and whether banks would stand for any borrowing these days is doubtful. Dodgy owners might lend you the money... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiesaint Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 Interesting, I didn't realise that. Also gives the lie to the b o llocks theory that has been knocking around on here that getting rid of the football creditors rule would somehow make clubs and football agents more circumspect and cautious in their dealings and their demands. This little fact proves it definitely wouldn't. Getting rid of the football creditors rule would makes things even more cavalier because it just allows clubs to aimlessly speculate more than they do already. It makes the buying club want to speculate more - however you've ignored that the selling club will then demand a much higher (maybe 100%) of the transfer fee up front. The players/agent will also be more careful about who they sign for as a £30k pw contract is not worth it if the player never gets paid on time & then eventually receives x pence in the pound in settlement. There are 3 parties that make up any transfer - and getting rid of the FCR means that 2 out of 3 have to be much more careful. You've only considered the one party who can be more cavalier in that situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red and White Army Posted 29 July, 2010 Share Posted 29 July, 2010 Interesting, I didn't realise that. Also gives the lie to the b o llocks theory that has been knocking around on here that getting rid of the football creditors rule would somehow make clubs and football agents more circumspect and cautious in their dealings and their demands. This little fact proves it definitely wouldn't. Getting rid of the football creditors rule would makes things even more cavalier because it just allows clubs to aimlessly speculate more than they do already. Are you stupid or something? If the football creditors rule is abolished, then players and agents will have to be a lot more circumspect about who they sign contracts with if they want to be sure of getting paid. Exactly as I said a few months ago and you disagreed, because you're a mong without two brain cells to rub together. See how many players will sign for the likes of Poopey if there is a chance of them getting 20p in the pound or less when the inevitable happens again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 30 July, 2010 Share Posted 30 July, 2010 (edited) From Pompey on line...... Quote: Originally Posted by PompeyScot I've been doing some investigation tonight and have come up with an idea where we could get some rough programmes going (some mini-football hours), would need some fine tuning but it's an idea which we could do ourselves over the net. Will continue trying to get something right, but am working on it. ....... Once again the usefull idiot is trying to give the few false hope. He now plans to broadcast live matches without paying for the right to do so from fraction park. Edited 30 July, 2010 by tony13579 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 30 July, 2010 Share Posted 30 July, 2010 Are you stupid or something? If the football creditors rule is abolished, then players and agents will have to be a lot more circumspect about who they sign contracts with if they want to be sure of getting paid. Exactly as I said a few months ago and you disagreed, because you're a mong without two brain cells to rub together. See how many players will sign for the likes of Poopey if there is a chance of them getting 20p in the pound or less when the inevitable happens again! Funny how foreign clubs weren't more circumspect in those exact circumstances though. Taking away the creditors rule would allow more speculation, not less, as the contracts offered can be even more pie in the sky. Pretty simple, but then you are pretty simple, aren't you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 30 July, 2010 Share Posted 30 July, 2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jul/30/portsmouth-high-court-taxman I suspect that in reality the other clubs will be rooting for the taxman to win the appeal without image rights being discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMPR Posted 30 July, 2010 Share Posted 30 July, 2010 Once again the usefull idiot is trying to give the few false hope. He now plans to broadcast live matches without paying for the right to do so from fraction park. DO you know what a football hour is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Bates Posted 30 July, 2010 Share Posted 30 July, 2010 http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3074652/Prem-chief-Dave-Richards-in-Crouch-deal-probe.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 30 July, 2010 Share Posted 30 July, 2010 Funny how foreign clubs weren't more circumspect in those exact circumstances though. Taking away the creditors rule would allow more speculation, not less, as the contracts offered can be even more pie in the sky. Pretty simple, but then you are pretty simple, aren't you. Up until pompey went to the wall I suspect clubs in europe where relatively happy to sell to premier league clubs on HP as they were certain of getting their money, after all how could a team go bankrupt with all that money coming in!? I would suspect that post pompey any european team selling to a UK team will have to investigate the financial position and strength of the buying club before deciding on a higher price on the never never or a lower price up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 30 July, 2010 Share Posted 30 July, 2010 It makes the buying club want to speculate more - however you've ignored that the selling club will then demand a much higher (maybe 100%) of the transfer fee up front. The players/agent will also be more careful about who they sign for as a £30k pw contract is not worth it if the player never gets paid on time & then eventually receives x pence in the pound in settlement. There are 3 parties that make up any transfer - and getting rid of the FCR means that 2 out of 3 have to be much more careful. You've only considered the one party who can be more cavalier in that situation. Well, no. If a club can ask for more money up front, so can an agent and a player. Front load the contract with a hefty signing on fee. And fundementally, the rules would be the same for all clubs and the behaviour of the agents and players (and clubs) will adapt. But what they won't be is more circumspect, just more cavalier in a different way. Player A is offered £80k a week for four years from Fulham, and £40k a week from Birmingham City. Which is the most important question for the agent and the player at this point. Is it a) Which one of those two is more likely to be going into administration in two years time. or is it b) Which club is offering me the most money. How many players and agents go into negotiations thinking about the club they are signing for failing, and then going bust? 99.9% of players in the situation above are going to the £80k club. And guess what, the clubs, now released from the football creditors rule, can now offer even more knowing they have a nice little get out even if it does go tits up. This world of "circumspect" football players and agents you people are conjuring up is total pie in the sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiesaint Posted 30 July, 2010 Share Posted 30 July, 2010 Well, no. If a club can ask for more money up front, so can an agent and a player. Front load the contract with a hefty signing on fee. And fundementally, the rules would be the same for all clubs and the behaviour of the agents and players (and clubs) will adapt. But what they won't be is more circumspect, just more cavalier in a different way. Player A is offered £80k a week for four years from Fulham, and £40k a week from Birmingham City. Which is the most important question for the agent and the player at this point. Is it a) Which one of those two is more likely to be going into administration in two years time. or is it b) Which club is offering me the most money. How many players and agents go into negotiations thinking about the club they are signing for failing, and then going bust? 99.9% of players in the situation above are going to the £80k club. And guess what, the clubs, now released from the football creditors rule, can now offer even more knowing they have a nice little get out even if it does go tits up. This world of "circumspect" football players and agents you people are conjuring up is total pie in the sky. CB, You are totally ignoring the affects of a few PL clubs going into administration will have on players & agents. Immediately after the change you are right - agents & players will be greedy and continue to go for the best deal. But once Pimpley, Hull, Blackburn, Bolton and West Ham have all gone into administration & maybe one or two been liquidated, it is a wholly different matter. They will re-adapt because the risks will then be there. In your world, everyone keeps spending more & more money with no consequence. That's the same fantasy world that Peter Storrie was in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 30 July, 2010 Share Posted 30 July, 2010 This morning Solent sports news update: GK crisis, want to re-sign Ashdown who was released at end of season to be No1 this season. Primus testimonial tomorrow. (not many tickets sold) Storrie will severe all ties to club at weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 30 July, 2010 Share Posted 30 July, 2010 http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3074652/Prem-chief-Dave-Richards-in-Crouch-deal-probe.html All their dirty little dealings are starting to unravel. How much more will be unearthed from our corrupt game ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 30 July, 2010 Share Posted 30 July, 2010 http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3074652/Prem-chief-Dave-Richards-in-Crouch-deal-probe.html Sounds to me like pompey were obviously in desperate need of the money even then if they preferred 9 million up front over 11 million in instalments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
positivepete Posted 30 July, 2010 Share Posted 30 July, 2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jul/30/portsmouth-high-court-taxman I suspect that in reality the other clubs will be rooting for the taxman to win the appeal without image rights being discussed. I like the last paragraph "Sports clubs will be supporting Pompey on Tuesday. But as the taxman makes this a test case, those clubs might equally wish it was someone else going in to bat for them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 30 July, 2010 Share Posted 30 July, 2010 I like the last paragraph "Sports clubs will be supporting Pompey on Tuesday. But as the taxman makes this a test case, those clubs might equally wish it was someone else going in to bat for them." F.C.Portsmouth, 0 runs, Hit own wicket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Benson Phillips Posted 30 July, 2010 Share Posted 30 July, 2010 Gaydamak has reclaimed the land and is charging the skates £10 to park there on a matchday. http://www.fansonline.net/portsmouth/mb/view.php?id=284852 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 30 July, 2010 Share Posted 30 July, 2010 DO you know what a football hour is? It's about 55 minutes when you're a goal down and chasing the game, and 70 minutes when you're desperately clinging on to a 1 goal lead. HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 30 July, 2010 Share Posted 30 July, 2010 Well, no. If a club can ask for more money up front, so can an agent and a player. Front load the contract with a hefty signing on fee. And fundementally, the rules would be the same for all clubs and the behaviour of the agents and players (and clubs) will adapt. But what they won't be is more circumspect, just more cavalier in a different way. Player A is offered £80k a week for four years from Fulham, and £40k a week from Birmingham City. Which is the most important question for the agent and the player at this point. Is it a) Which one of those two is more likely to be going into administration in two years time. or is it b) Which club is offering me the most money. How many players and agents go into negotiations thinking about the club they are signing for failing, and then going bust? 99.9% of players in the situation above are going to the £80k club. And guess what, the clubs, now released from the football creditors rule, can now offer even more knowing they have a nice little get out even if it does go tits up. This world of "circumspect" football players and agents you people are conjuring up is total pie in the sky.You have deliberately provided an example exagerated beyond reason in a vain attempt to prove your point and the fact that several disagree with your position whereas only you persist with it, is probably the reason that you have had to resort to this tactic. Why would one club be offering twice as much money as another for a player? Is their chief executive so out of touch with good business practise that he does not recognise that it is unecessary to pay twice as much as another bidder to buy a product? The reality is therefore that bids to buy players would be much closer together, making the deciding factor of which club would be likely to renege on the deal because of administration much more pertinent. And what precisely do you mean by the bit in bold type? I'm sure it makes sense to you, but I suspect that I'm not alone in not following your reasoning. As things stand at the moment, they have a nice little get out if things go tits up, as they are repaid 100% of the debt. Where is this get out if the FCR is abolished and they have to accept 20p in the pound likes the Skate's creditors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper71 Posted 30 July, 2010 Share Posted 30 July, 2010 Well, no. If a club can ask for more money up front, so can an agent and a player. Front load the contract with a hefty signing on fee. And fundementally, the rules would be the same for all clubs and the behaviour of the agents and players (and clubs) will adapt. But what they won't be is more circumspect, just more cavalier in a different way. Player A is offered £80k a week for four years from Fulham, and £40k a week from Birmingham City. Which is the most important question for the agent and the player at this point. Is it a) Which one of those two is more likely to be going into administration in two years time. or is it b) Which club is offering me the most money. How many players and agents go into negotiations thinking about the club they are signing for failing, and then going bust? 99.9% of players in the situation above are going to the £80k club. And guess what, the clubs, now released from the football creditors rule, can now offer even more knowing they have a nice little get out even if it does go tits up. This world of "circumspect" football players and agents you people are conjuring up is total pie in the sky. The pint that eveyone is missing it that the players will always go to whoever pays the most because even if that club starts to go to the wall they immediately become free agents once their monthly salary hasn't been paid on time (not sure how many months but you get the jist!) - so I'll take this extra money and as soon as you start to struggle I'll go and take that lower offer from the other club - kerching! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 30 July, 2010 Share Posted 30 July, 2010 http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3074652/Prem-chief-Dave-Richards-in-Crouch-deal-probe.html Lampitt's role has become a bit clearer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 30 July, 2010 Share Posted 30 July, 2010 Gaydamak has reclaimed the land and is charging the skates £10 to park there on a matchday. http://www.fansonline.net/portsmouth/mb/view.php?id=284852 Interestingly though from the picture on their website this is the front page story in the printed version of the news it does not appear to have made it to the online version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 30 July, 2010 Share Posted 30 July, 2010 Gaydamak has reclaimed the land and is charging the skates £10 to park there on a matchday. http://www.fansonline.net/portsmouth/mb/view.php?id=284852 That was posted before in post 30181 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmore Posted 30 July, 2010 Share Posted 30 July, 2010 I bet the invoices flooding in will have 'Terms strictly C.O.D.' stamped on them. Not 'Terms Strictly S.K.A.T.E'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warsash saint Posted 30 July, 2010 Share Posted 30 July, 2010 Would love to know the real reason why these charactors of Lampitt/Richards are really involved ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 30 July, 2010 Share Posted 30 July, 2010 (edited) CB, You are totally ignoring the affects of a few PL clubs going into administration will have on players & agents. Immediately after the change you are right - agents & players will be greedy and continue to go for the best deal. But once Pimpley, Hull, Blackburn, Bolton and West Ham have all gone into administration & maybe one or two been liquidated, it is a wholly different matter. They will re-adapt because the risks will then be there. In your world, everyone keeps spending more & more money with no consequence. That's the same fantasy world that Peter Storrie was in. Well, no, not really. You're confusing the " removing the football creditors rule will make football more circumspect" silly argument with the evolving economic state of football. If loads of clubs go bust, there will be less money around. That's not about the football creditors rule. The fact that there is or will be less money about and more clubs going bust will not make agents and players more circumspect. They will be as greedy and cavalier as they are now. A wage cap tied to % turnover might change things. But removing the football creditors rule is not going to make clubs, players and agents "more circumspect". You have deliberately provided an example exagerated beyond reason in a vain attempt to prove your point and the fact that several disagree with your position whereas only you persist with it, is probably the reason that you have had to resort to this tactic. Why would one club be offering twice as much money as another for a player? Is their chief executive so out of touch with good business practise that he does not recognise that it is unecessary to pay twice as much as another bidder to buy a product? The reality is therefore that bids to buy players would be much closer together, making the deciding factor of which club would be likely to renege on the deal because of administration much more pertinent. And what precisely do you mean by the bit in bold type? I'm sure it makes sense to you, but I suspect that I'm not alone in not following your reasoning. As things stand at the moment, they have a nice little get out if things go tits up, as they are repaid 100% of the debt. Where is this get out if the FCR is abolished and they have to accept 20p in the pound likes the Skate's creditors? The clubs get a "nice little get out" because the football creditors rule currently means they have to pay every single penny of every contract back. Take that imposition away and they can be even bolder because the contracts are not as binding as they once were. So clubs can offer more, and this fantasy land you seem to be in where the football agents will be saying "are you sure you can afford this, old chap" is just laughable. The clubs will offer it, the players will take it and if it goes wrong in two years time, then the circus just moves on to the next club. I don't know about you but I would find a world where I am forced to pay only 20% of my obligations a little bit more liberating than one where I have to pay 100% of my obligations. That's a nice little get out in my eyes, much like all these wallies going bankrupt to get out of their credit card debts. There is nothing in removing the football creditors rule that will make clubs, players or agents "more circumspect". Football going skint and more clubs going skint might reduce the money and we may see wage deflation, but that is not the same as this thing that getting rid of the football creditors rule is some silver bullet that turns football into the Girl Guides. And the argument I make works just as well if club a is offering £45k and club b is offering £40k. Agent and player will take the most cash most immediately available. The pint that eveyone is missing it that the players will always go to whoever pays the most because even if that club starts to go to the wall they immediately become free agents once their monthly salary hasn't been paid on time (not sure how many months but you get the jist!) - so I'll take this extra money and as soon as you start to struggle I'll go and take that lower offer from the other club - kerching! Correct. The players and agents will take jam today, not waft about being circumspect and fretting about who might go to the wall in two years time. Circumspect footballers and football agents. You lot are off your freaking heads. Edited 30 July, 2010 by CB Fry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts