Jump to content

Report-FFP benefits the biggest clubs

Saint-Fred

By Saint-Fred,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

Saint-Fred

Saint-Fred

Posted
Posted

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37307621

 

Lol no **** Sherlock!

 

If Katrina decided to bung 300m at our team what would be the consequence? I know City were fined and lost a squad place for the champions league but ultimately it seems to have been ineffective?

It hasn't stopped Sunderland running up 200m in debt and Chelsea still owe a billion to Roman I thought I read? Certain clubs seem to be able to spend what they like (Chelsea PSG Man City QPR Man Utd) with little consequence -even based on their turnover the numbers they have been spending is just extreme.....yet even our fans seem worried about falling foul of it? So what would be the consequence if we did have a massive investment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint-Fred

Saint-Fred

Posted
  • Author
Posted
We're not going to and good.

 

Ok what is the consequence if the Everton owners throw 300m at thier team? I am not suggesting we should just can't see much if a deterrent should an owner wish to? Would it be best to spend it all in one season then next season there is no further consequences?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
Ok what is the consequence if the Everton owners throw 300m at thier team? I am not suggesting we should just can't see much if a deterrent should an owner wish to? Would it be best to spend it all in one season then next season there is no further consequences?

Can't say I care. We're not going to do it and that's good. Everton can do what they like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint-Fred

Saint-Fred

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Can't say I care. We're not going to do it and that's good. Everton can do what they like.

 

Fair enough.. But if the huge clubs can breach it with little consequence like Man City did (what was it 17m in the end?) and a team for example Everton can invest loads and only face a potential fine and as they aren't in Europe there is no punishment there either...then how is that sporting and "fair play" to a club being run within its means like arsenal or saints? Surely then we should care?

Then again life's not fair so maybe we shouldn't care as you suggest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint IQ

Saint IQ

Posted
Posted
They should at least be honest and rename it the Financially Unfair Club Killer.

 

To be fair it works for clubs in the lower leagues, massively helps prevent clubs 'doing a Pompey', though Bournemouth seem to be giving it their best shot :lol:

 

For Premier League clubs with owners at the club for 5 years or more though, I think the restraints should be minimal IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites
david in sweden

david in sweden

Posted
Posted
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37307621

 

Lol no **** Sherlock!

 

If Katrina decided to bung 300m at our team what would be the consequence? I know City were fined and lost a squad place for the champions league but ultimately it seems to have been ineffective?

It hasn't stopped Sunderland running up 200m in debt and Chelsea still owe a billion to Roman I thought I read? Certain clubs seem to be able to spend what they like (Chelsea PSG Man City QPR Man Utd) with little consequence -even based on their turnover the numbers they have been spending is just extreme.....yet even our fans seem worried about falling foul of it? So what would be the consequence if we did have a massive investment?

 

.....FFP favours rich clubs .:lol:......has it really taken 3-4 years to come to that obvious conclusion?

 

The big money behind these clubs will lobby to keep it that way, whilst the remainder will stay handicapped by this ridiculous ruling, and fall even further behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint-Fred

Saint-Fred

Posted
  • Author
Posted
To be fair it works for clubs in the lower leagues, massively helps prevent clubs 'doing a Pompey', though Bournemouth seem to be giving it their best shot :lol:

 

For Premier League clubs with owners at the club for 5 years or more though, I think the restraints should be minimal IMO

 

I can't see how it works for the championship...although I see Cardiff are selling players to stay within the 13m loss every year that they are allowed. So they are still running up massive debts and there is no consequence to that sporting wise. They will still go bust they just won't have any short term success whilst doing it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Garrett

Saint Garrett

Posted
Posted

Be interesting to see if a "Man City" came around again now. I guess they would build but it would be a lot slower.

 

I don't understand any point in punishing a club for spending too much, by fining them a few million. Bournemouth got fined what, £7m? peanuts really for a premier league club. The benefit of promotion far outweighs the fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The9

The9

Posted
Posted
Said it a few times. There aren't any significant consequences to breaching ffp so owners that are using it as an excuse not to spend are using it as a scapegoat.

 

Only the European sanctions seem to have any impact - they've weakened Inter nicely for the Europa League, for instance. They're missing four of their top recent signings due to UEFA FFP limits - the English version reflects the UEFA regulations but

 

Incidentally I have recently re-read some of the regulations, and the tv money isn't considered part of club revenue in calculating Prem limits, so everyone getting a pile of cash doesn't seem to raise the ceiling for everyone as I'd previously thought - there was some stuff on Everton's Transfer Thread on their forum about it, if we're looking for an example of a club that thinks they're the next Man City but is having to operate within FFP restrictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Depressed of Shirley

Depressed of Shirley

Posted
Posted

The rules were originally put in place to stop other clubs doing a Chelsea or Man City, and trying to buy the Champions League. Of course they came in after City and Chelsea had had their money, so just meant that other clubs could not do the same thing in the future, but that City and Chelsea were now ensconced in the competition.

 

Real Madrid, Bayern etc will always be able to outspend everyone else, due to size of commercial income, match day revenue and success, but it is now almost impossible for us to get into it without either having enormous luck, or the others having a long period of decline.

 

On a separate note, I see in The Times today that the latest proposal from UEFA will divide Champs League income dependent on how successful you have been in the past. This is because United/Bayern etc are livid that Man City earned more money from the Champs League last season than any other club in the competition. So if Liverpool qualify and f**k up the group stages, they would earn more than say Leicester would if they got to the semi finals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fan The Flames

Fan The Flames

Posted
Posted

Clubs like any business have always sought to protect themselves; two up two down, shared gate receipts, non-collective bargaining, breaking away or threatening to and forming a new league and now FFP. It was obvious what the consequences were going to be and that's why NC voted against it. Although we don't show any appetite for spending on a large scale, I'm comfortable with that.

 

Not sharing gate receipts was probably the correct thing to do, non-collective bargaining hasn't happen here but has in Spain and Italy I think but was a bit of a disaster. But the move to three up three down took decades and kept teams like us out of the top flight for years. Considering we were one of the best teams in the Southern League we were shafted by being excluded from the Football Leagues land grab of the London based SL teams when the formed the second division, then with the promotion system are rise to the top flight was arguably delayed.

 

Plymouth came 2nd six years on the trot and then 3rd in the twenties when promotion out of the third div south was only one team.

 

So its no surprise that the current system benefits the big boys, and of course us being a bigger boy then some also gain from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint-Fred

Saint-Fred

Posted
  • Author
Posted

L

Only the European sanctions seem to have any impact - they've weakened Inter nicely for the Europa League, for instance. They're missing four of their top recent signings due to UEFA FFP limits - the English version reflects the UEFA regulations but

 

Incidentally I have recently re-read some of the regulations, and the tv money isn't considered part of club revenue in calculating Prem limits, so everyone getting a pile of cash doesn't seem to raise the ceiling for everyone as I'd previously thought - there was some stuff on Everton's Transfer Thread on their forum about it, if we're looking for an example of a club that thinks they're the next Man City but is having to operate within FFP restrictions.

 

I thought the idea was to stop there being another portsmuff? If that's the case then the uefa rules are ineffective..why would Sunderland care about uefa sanctions when running up 200m in debt? Or is it to create a level playing field where the artificial injection of funds above their income is stopped? Or are they in place to stop some other club joining the top table? I don't mean if that is the unstated real reason, I mean what is the actual aim of FFP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
L

 

I thought the idea was to stop there being another portsmuff? If that's the case then the uefa rules are ineffective..why would Sunderland care about uefa sanctions when running up 200m in debt? Or is it to create a level playing field where the artificial injection of funds above their income is stopped? Or are they in place to stop some other club joining the top table? I don't mean if that is the unstated real reason, I mean what is the actual aim of FFP?

What is your actual position on this issue?

 

You're trying to make out you are campaigning for fairness/level playing field and all that boll ocks but really you just want us to spend like Man City and be like Man City and have success like Man City and break the rules like Man City because that's what you want to see happen. Am I right?

 

We are trying not be another Portsmouth with the way we are running the club so we don't need FFP to stop us being another Portsmouth so what's the problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted

Man City and Chelsea have been good for the PL. used to just be Arsenal and Utd fighting for title.

 

Hard to think anyone could do what they did anymore as market saturated with demand with most PL teams affording £20-30m players so problem is which type of player is in their transfer bracket is who would go to a new rich club (Everton) and not go to the big boys.

 

Man City also done huge amount for area so pretty much a massive positive in terms of investment, developing the area and increasing tax revenue. Shame their stadium was acquired for peanuts when building, or buying at face value, would still be small change to Mansour.

 

Need to watch out for the Chinese though. Might see a team uproot and play in Beijing at some point ala NFL

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint-Fred

Saint-Fred

Posted
  • Author
Posted
What is your actual position on this issue?

 

You're trying to make out you are campaigning for fairness/level playing field and all that boll ocks but really you just want us to spend like Man City and be like Man City and have success like Man City and break the rules like Man City because that's what you want to see happen. Am I right?

 

We are trying not be another Portsmouth with the way we are running the club so we don't need FFP to stop us being another Portsmouth so what's the problem?

 

No you are not right! I am not going to bite to your attempts to make it seem like I have an agenda I am afraid so nice try.

Anyway How would chatting on a site like this even affect what happens at our club? This isn't even about only Saints?

 

My viewpoint is that FFP is pointless as in my opinion it (as the article indicates) creates an advantage for the already haves yet hasn't stopped clubs running up massive debts. So what use is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
No you are not right! I am not going to bite to your attempts to make it seem like I have an agenda I am afraid so nice try.

Anyway How would chatting on a site like this even affect what happens at our club? This isn't even about only Saints?

 

My viewpoint is that FFP is pointless as in my opinion it (as the article indicates) creates an advantage for the already haves yet hasn't stopped clubs running up massive debts. So what use is it?

 

Except I'm not saying you have an agenda, I'm saying I have absolutely no idea what you actually want Southampton Football Club to do.

 

You started the thread saying "what are the consequences, what are the consequences?" as if you want us to just spend regardless but you're also moaning about clubs running up debts like that's a bad thing.

 

So I have no clue what you want the club to do. Is running up debts bad like Sunderland or something we should be doing because there are no consequences?

 

Or I have no idea what you want the authorities to do - a) clamp down harder on clubs spending money so they all spend less, therefore minimal change to what SFC do now as we are within our means b) or relax the rules more so SFC can then spend loads of money like Man City which I thought you were saying is bad.

 

What do you want the club to do differently?

 

What do you want the authorities to do differently?

 

There's something worse than having an agenda, and that's scattergun griping and contradicting yourself.

 

I will now try and recover from your revelation that chatting on this forum doesn't actually affect anything. This will take some getting over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint-Fred

Saint-Fred

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Except I'm not saying you have an agenda, I'm saying I have absolutely no idea what you actually want Southampton Football Club to do.

 

You started the thread saying "what are the consequences, what are the consequences?" as if you want us to just spend regardless but you're also moaning about clubs running up debts like that's a bad thing.

 

So I have no clue what you want the club to do. Is running up debts bad like Sunderland or something we should be doing because there are no consequences?

 

Or I have no idea what you want the authorities to do - a) clamp down harder on clubs spending money so they all spend less, therefore minimal change to what SFC do now as we are within our means b) or relax the rules more so SFC can then spend loads of money like Man City which I thought you were saying is bad.

 

What do you want the club to do differently?

 

What do you want the authorities to do differently?

 

There's something worse than having an agenda, and that's scattergun griping and contradicting yourself.

 

I will now try and recover from your revelation that chatting on this forum doesn't actually affect anything. This will take some getting over.

 

To be clear my view is FFP should be scrapped. The club can choose their own path.

Have you found those two lots of proof about those "facts" you quoted yet? ...no thought not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
To be clear my view is FFP should be scrapped. The club can choose their own path.

Have you found those two lots of proof about those "facts" you quoted yet? ...no thought not.

 

We have chosen our own path so that's all fine.

 

No idea what else you're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint-Fred

Saint-Fred

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

You're trying to make out you are campaigning for fairness/level playing field and all that boll ocks but really you just want us to spend like Man City and be like Man City and have success like Man City and break the rules like Man City because that's what you want to see happen. Am I right?

?

 

Except I'm not saying you have an agenda, I'm saying I have absolutely no idea what you actually want Southampton Football Club to do?

 

There's something worse than having an agenda, and that's scattergun griping and contradicting yourself.

 

.

 

Lol sorry got to point this out CB..first you say that you know what I want then you contradict yourself saying you are not saying I have an agenda..then you say contradicting yourself is worse! Make up your mind man!! Lucky we agree now though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
Lol sorry got to point this out CB..first you say that you know what I want then you contradict yourself saying you are not saying I have an agenda..then you say contradicting yourself is worse! Make up your mind man!! Lucky we agree now though...

Err, my first post that you've quoted is me showing the inherent contradiction in what you're saying, ie I have no idea what you actually want because you're contradicting yourself.

 

You're not too great at this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint-Fred

Saint-Fred

Posted
  • Author
Posted

S

Err, my first post that you've quoted is me showing the inherent contradiction in what you're saying, ie I have no idea what you actually want because you're contradicting yourself.

 

You're not too great at this.

 

Lol you make me laugh..even when you're wrong, you are either "can't remember" "don't understand" or resort to "you're not good at this" type comments...at least you are consistent..or an idiot? Either way you do make me smile! :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted
S

 

Lol you make me laugh..even when you're wrong, you are either "can't remember" "don't understand" or resort to "you're not good at this" type comments...at least you are consistent..or an idiot? Either way you do make me smile! :-)

Okay then. Keep blathering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tajjuk

tajjuk

Posted
Posted

This was obvious as soon as they came out, they were there to stop more Chelsea's, PSG's and Man Citys from upsetting the traditional 'big clubs', the likes of Uts, Arsenal and Liverpool in our league didn't like their status being challenged by rich investors.

 

It was probably the European super clubs that pushed it through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...