I dont fully agree with the OP and suggest this article by Martin Samuel as a good read.
MARTIN SAMUEL: Ban is payback by clubs who hate Manchester City https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8005751/Financial-Fair-Play-UEFA-protection-racket-payback-clubs-hate-Manchester-City.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead.
You state Liverpool as spending within their means, but neglect to point out for the last 50 years they have been the no 1 or no 2 followed UK club. As Martin Samuel points out, FFP just acts to ring fence their position.
Your argument would mean a company like Purple Bricks could never exist.
comment by rosso is done with this (U17054)
posted 39 minutes ago
The investigation into PSG has already been dropped, despite the club’s very clear breaches, and despite a review of the investigation by the very chairman of the UEFA panel that penalizes teams that break the organization’s financial rules finding that the decision to close the case was “manifestly erroneous”.
The closure of the investigation into PSG actually ended up at CAS, where UEFA *sided with PSG* to get the case permanently closed!
Some may care to speculate that UEFA’s disinterest in pursuing PSG has something to with the fact that the club’s president, Nasser al-Khelaifi, sits on UEFA’s executive committee. He also happens to be the chairman of beIN Media Group, the Qatar-based broadcaster that has spent billions to secure television rights from UEFA.
Make no mistake: UEFA are as corrupt as they come.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on....and Citu may well try and use the PSG example as part of their defence
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 6 minutes ago
I dont fully agree with the OP and suggest this article by Martin Samuel as a good read.
MARTIN SAMUEL: Ban is payback by clubs who hate Manchester City https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8005751/Financial-Fair-Play-UEFA-protection-racket-payback-clubs-hate-Manchester-City.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead.
You state Liverpool as spending within their means, but neglect to point out for the last 50 years they have been the no 1 or no 2 followed UK club. As Martin Samuel points out, FFP just acts to ring fence their position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's partly true what he says as smaller clubs will find it difficult to become bigger clubs due to not being able to speculate as much as they would like with their money. However in terms of Liverpool, our income had been less than about 5 other clubs only a few years ago, in the league. If FFP had been brought in earlier, Chelsea and City wouldn't even be in the conversation for top four. For me, that isn't a good thing. The league is more competitive now because of those two.
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 21 minutes ago
I dont fully agree with the OP and suggest this article by Martin Samuel as a good read.
MARTIN SAMUEL: Ban is payback by clubs who hate Manchester City https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8005751/Financial-Fair-Play-UEFA-protection-racket-payback-clubs-hate-Manchester-City.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead.
You state Liverpool as spending within their means, but neglect to point out for the last 50 years they have been the no 1 or no 2 followed UK club. As Martin Samuel points out, FFP just acts to ring fence their position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How did Liverpool become one of the most followed clubs? They earned it on the pitch and so should all teams. This argument that oil money and spending outside your means is OK because Liverpool is a big club is hogwash.
Everything should be earned.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 21 minutes ago
I dont fully agree with the OP and suggest this article by Martin Samuel as a good read.
MARTIN SAMUEL: Ban is payback by clubs who hate Manchester City https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8005751/Financial-Fair-Play-UEFA-protection-racket-payback-clubs-hate-Manchester-City.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead.
You state Liverpool as spending within their means, but neglect to point out for the last 50 years they have been the no 1 or no 2 followed UK club. As Martin Samuel points out, FFP just acts to ring fence their position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Im sorry but even the article headline here is utterly ridiculous. This is all the elite "getting back" at city. If and its still an if for me, city have dine what they are accused of doing and cas find them guilty nothing should detract from the fact they have cheated and articles like this that try and deflect that possible fact are quite frankly embarrassing.
It is possible with ffp to move your way into the games elite. It just takes time. City would have got there. They could still spend fairly big, pay better wages than most, it might have taken them 5 or 6 years longer than it did but theyd have got there. Their owners appear to have got greedy and demanded the world now, not tomorrow.
Look at liverpool this decade, off top of my head have had 4 seasons i think without money from european football, have lost top players consistently, mascherano, torres, suarez, sterling, coutinho, but have by and large reinvested that money wisely and built themselves back up to where we are now.
Take spurs, were nothing but a mid table team not all that long ago. Now, have 1 of the best stadiums in world football, an elite level manager and are consistently in the champions league. They have achieved this by complying with the rules. Napoli and borussia Dortmund are other examples of teams that were nowhere 10/12 years ago but have got there through smart business models.
To try and palm this off onto "the elite" as he says is pathetic. Again all ifs for me just now as i don't trust uefa anymore than city but if this is all true they should be hung out to dry with no caveats attached.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 21 minutes ago
I dont fully agree with the OP and suggest this article by Martin Samuel as a good read.
MARTIN SAMUEL: Ban is payback by clubs who hate Manchester City https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8005751/Financial-Fair-Play-UEFA-protection-racket-payback-clubs-hate-Manchester-City.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead.
You state Liverpool as spending within their means, but neglect to point out for the last 50 years they have been the no 1 or no 2 followed UK club. As Martin Samuel points out, FFP just acts to ring fence their position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How did Liverpool become one of the most followed clubs? They earned it on the pitch and so should all teams. This argument that oil money and spending outside your means is OK because Liverpool is a big club is hogwash.
Everything should be earned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool fans dont know their own history as usual.
Liverpool’s most successful period was 20 odd year period from the mid 60’s thanks in no small part to the cash from the Moores family generated by the then popular Littlewoods Football Pools which the Moores family owned, the Moores family were the majority share holders in Liverpool FC at the time, which enabled them to buy the best players of the day. In fact they paid 2 then English record fees for players and for the time paid fortunes no one else could afford. “King” Kenny Dalglish cost a then record £440,000 from Celtic (though presumably this wasn’t seen as Kenny betraying Celtic at the time as it now is with Torres wishing to join a club where he has more chance of success? Not Mercenary at all eh?), they paid £350,000 for Souness and £330,000 for Alan Kennedy again these were up near the English leagues record fees paid at that time.
Other notable players they splashed big money on back then were, Alan Hanson, John Toshack, Ray Kennedy, Phil Neal, Joey Jones and Emlyn Hughes
Money or not the requirement is still to have good ownership leadership and management.
Look at Utd and Arsenal. Resources way bigger than most above them but the likes of Leicester Wolves and even Shefd Utd currently bettering them
The difficulty is that the traditional big clubs are still the big draw so will often pick apart the upcoming teams taking their players and coaches.
Chelsea used to stockpile players and it seemed they bought them to stop others having them
Overall FFP will see the rich get richer. I think it needs to work alongside other rules that do cap wages as a % of revenue and perhaps squad size. While that might mean the rich have bigger budget anyway inevitably they pay the highest wages so player A might expect Spurs to pay him £100k while Utd would offer the same player £150k. Same player same quality but different impact on wage budget. Within that structure perhaps their should be a ceiling cap. so say 60% of revenue or £200m, which ever is the lower value. Individual salary caps will not work. Any approach needs to be european wide. and the effect you want is to better distribute the quality players rather than some teams playing fantasy football with a much bigger unlimited budgets than the competition.
Martin Samuel is spot on. The monopoly of Liverpool and United still e sits, but thankfully it has bern diminished. Cubs spending must be controlled, I agree on that, but not at the expense of making the league non competitive. We dont want a two team league as in Spsin and Scotland .
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 3 minutes ago
Martin Samuel is spot on. The monopoly of Liverpool and United still e sits, but thankfully it has bern diminished. Cubs spending must be controlled, I agree on that, but not at the expense of making the league non competitive. We dont want a two team league as in Spsin and Scotland .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or a 1 team league like this season...
comment by Ole-Dirty-Baztard (U19119)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 3 minutes ago
Martin Samuel is spot on. The monopoly of Liverpool and United still e sits, but thankfully it has bern diminished. Cubs spending must be controlled, I agree on that, but not at the expense of making the league non competitive. We dont want a two team league as in Spsin and Scotland .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or a 1 team league like this season...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that is one season and frankly freakish.Down to Livetpool who have been sensational.
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by Ole-Dirty-Baztard (U19119)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 3 minutes ago
Martin Samuel is spot on. The monopoly of Liverpool and United still e sits, but thankfully it has bern diminished. Cubs spending must be controlled, I agree on that, but not at the expense of making the league non competitive. We dont want a two team league as in Spsin and Scotland .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or a 1 team league like this season...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that is one season and frankly freakish.Down to Livetpool who have been sensational.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As had been pointed out above 4 different winners in 6 years. We have seen spurs leceister in the campions league now possibly wolves or sheff utd could get there next season. How is that not better than before? It wasnt all that long ago we had "grand slam sundays" when arsenal liverpool man utd and chelsea squared off against one another. That label came about as that was the big 4 every year.
Those days have gone. Without ffp it would be a 1 team league with city romping it every year but make no mistake itd be the same lot behind them, utd liverpool chelsea arsenal. They would all spend more also just not at citys levels.
He picks apart utd in that article. Ive no particular love for utd but they are where they are because they made fantastic business decisions 20+ years ago when others stood still. The capitalised on their on field success. I dont see how that should be condemned in comparison to a team who are accused of cheating by inflating their revenue streams.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 21 minutes ago
Money or not the requirement is still to have good ownership leadership and management.
Look at Utd and Arsenal. Resources way bigger than most above them but the likes of Leicester Wolves and even Shefd Utd currently bettering them
The difficulty is that the traditional big clubs are still the big draw so will often pick apart the upcoming teams taking their players and coaches.
Chelsea used to stockpile players and it seemed they bought them to stop others having them
Overall FFP will see the rich get richer. I think it needs to work alongside other rules that do cap wages as a % of revenue and perhaps squad size. While that might mean the rich have bigger budget anyway inevitably they pay the highest wages so player A might expect Spurs to pay him £100k while Utd would offer the same player £150k. Same player same quality but different impact on wage budget. Within that structure perhaps their should be a ceiling cap. so say 60% of revenue or £200m, which ever is the lower value. Individual salary caps will not work. Any approach needs to be european wide. and the effect you want is to better distribute the quality players rather than some teams playing fantasy football with a much bigger unlimited budgets than the competition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would imagine Wolves own spending would be interesting reading. There must be question mark over them. But the point is the unsustainability, yes we can look at an individual season for clubs like Sheff United, but only Leicester one could argue and Spurs have been able to make a sustained challenge to United,City, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 26 seconds ago
FFP is not all about City. There is a bigger picture.It protects the bigger clubs from other ambitious clubs. The rules should be there to protect clubs going bust not stopping owners putting money in to football. Although there has to be a degree of control I believe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I concur. It has to be balanced.
City have been kicked out for spending £25 million on Bony
Back in the day when it was harder for Billionaires to buy our clubs as their play thing it was much harder to predict what teams would do at the start of the season. I remember being shocked at White Hart Lane expecting Spurs to thrash the newly promoted Manchester City and being thrashed instead and then seeing this club with Bell and Lee take the title that year (67-68)
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Nicottino (U14419)
posted 1 minute ago
Back in the day when it was harder for Billionaires to buy our clubs as their play thing it was much harder to predict what teams would do at the start of the season. I remember being shocked at White Hart Lane expecting Spurs to thrash the newly promoted Manchester City and being thrashed instead and then seeing this club with Bell and Lee take the title that year (67-68)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs have a billionaire owner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So have Newcastle.
Its not about how much money the owner has its about how they do or don't spend it on the club.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 21 minutes ago
Money or not the requirement is still to have good ownership leadership and management.
Look at Utd and Arsenal. Resources way bigger than most above them but the likes of Leicester Wolves and even Shefd Utd currently bettering them
The difficulty is that the traditional big clubs are still the big draw so will often pick apart the upcoming teams taking their players and coaches.
Chelsea used to stockpile players and it seemed they bought them to stop others having them
Overall FFP will see the rich get richer. I think it needs to work alongside other rules that do cap wages as a % of revenue and perhaps squad size. While that might mean the rich have bigger budget anyway inevitably they pay the highest wages so player A might expect Spurs to pay him £100k while Utd would offer the same player £150k. Same player same quality but different impact on wage budget. Within that structure perhaps their should be a ceiling cap. so say 60% of revenue or £200m, which ever is the lower value. Individual salary caps will not work. Any approach needs to be european wide. and the effect you want is to better distribute the quality players rather than some teams playing fantasy football with a much bigger unlimited budgets than the competition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would imagine Wolves own spending would be interesting reading. There must be question mark over them. But the point is the unsustainability, yes we can look at an individual season for clubs like Sheff United, but only Leicester one could argue and Spurs have been able to make a sustained challenge to United,City, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Opportunity is there for teams though. Take Leicester, they look like they will finish top 4, with that next season will come an increased budget to work with, and youd think an opportunity to attract a higher calibre of player. Thats not to say they will do it, they could spend money and new signings might not work out but the chance will be there for them. The point is an opportunity presents itself for them to build.
FFP had to happen. The levels that city and psg were taking things to were out of control and dangerous for the game. FFP has to an extent put a bit of a strangle hold on that. I see no evidence of this "rich getting richer" tab that we see constantly being banded. Plenty of other sides have come to the fore across europe, atletico, dortmund, napoli whilst elites have struggled, man utd, ac milan to name a couple. FFP encourages teams to be smarter about their off field business instead of just lobbing money at things.
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 1 hour, 56 minutes ago
comment by rosso is done with this (U17054)
posted 39 minutes ago
The investigation into PSG has already been dropped, despite the club’s very clear breaches, and despite a review of the investigation by the very chairman of the UEFA panel that penalizes teams that break the organization’s financial rules finding that the decision to close the case was “manifestly erroneous”.
The closure of the investigation into PSG actually ended up at CAS, where UEFA *sided with PSG* to get the case permanently closed!
Some may care to speculate that UEFA’s disinterest in pursuing PSG has something to with the fact that the club’s president, Nasser al-Khelaifi, sits on UEFA’s executive committee. He also happens to be the chairman of beIN Media Group, the Qatar-based broadcaster that has spent billions to secure television rights from UEFA.
Make no mistake: UEFA are as corrupt as they come.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on....and Citu may well try and use the PSG example as part of their defence
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No doubt they should, and they would be well within their rights to.
Sign in if you want to comment
FFP is a good thing
Page 2 of 4
posted on 15/2/20
I dont fully agree with the OP and suggest this article by Martin Samuel as a good read.
MARTIN SAMUEL: Ban is payback by clubs who hate Manchester City https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8005751/Financial-Fair-Play-UEFA-protection-racket-payback-clubs-hate-Manchester-City.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead.
You state Liverpool as spending within their means, but neglect to point out for the last 50 years they have been the no 1 or no 2 followed UK club. As Martin Samuel points out, FFP just acts to ring fence their position.
posted on 15/2/20
Your argument would mean a company like Purple Bricks could never exist.
posted on 15/2/20
comment by rosso is done with this (U17054)
posted 39 minutes ago
The investigation into PSG has already been dropped, despite the club’s very clear breaches, and despite a review of the investigation by the very chairman of the UEFA panel that penalizes teams that break the organization’s financial rules finding that the decision to close the case was “manifestly erroneous”.
The closure of the investigation into PSG actually ended up at CAS, where UEFA *sided with PSG* to get the case permanently closed!
Some may care to speculate that UEFA’s disinterest in pursuing PSG has something to with the fact that the club’s president, Nasser al-Khelaifi, sits on UEFA’s executive committee. He also happens to be the chairman of beIN Media Group, the Qatar-based broadcaster that has spent billions to secure television rights from UEFA.
Make no mistake: UEFA are as corrupt as they come.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on....and Citu may well try and use the PSG example as part of their defence
posted on 15/2/20
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 6 minutes ago
I dont fully agree with the OP and suggest this article by Martin Samuel as a good read.
MARTIN SAMUEL: Ban is payback by clubs who hate Manchester City https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8005751/Financial-Fair-Play-UEFA-protection-racket-payback-clubs-hate-Manchester-City.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead.
You state Liverpool as spending within their means, but neglect to point out for the last 50 years they have been the no 1 or no 2 followed UK club. As Martin Samuel points out, FFP just acts to ring fence their position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's partly true what he says as smaller clubs will find it difficult to become bigger clubs due to not being able to speculate as much as they would like with their money. However in terms of Liverpool, our income had been less than about 5 other clubs only a few years ago, in the league. If FFP had been brought in earlier, Chelsea and City wouldn't even be in the conversation for top four. For me, that isn't a good thing. The league is more competitive now because of those two.
posted on 15/2/20
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 21 minutes ago
I dont fully agree with the OP and suggest this article by Martin Samuel as a good read.
MARTIN SAMUEL: Ban is payback by clubs who hate Manchester City https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8005751/Financial-Fair-Play-UEFA-protection-racket-payback-clubs-hate-Manchester-City.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead.
You state Liverpool as spending within their means, but neglect to point out for the last 50 years they have been the no 1 or no 2 followed UK club. As Martin Samuel points out, FFP just acts to ring fence their position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How did Liverpool become one of the most followed clubs? They earned it on the pitch and so should all teams. This argument that oil money and spending outside your means is OK because Liverpool is a big club is hogwash.
Everything should be earned.
posted on 15/2/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/2/20
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 21 minutes ago
I dont fully agree with the OP and suggest this article by Martin Samuel as a good read.
MARTIN SAMUEL: Ban is payback by clubs who hate Manchester City https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8005751/Financial-Fair-Play-UEFA-protection-racket-payback-clubs-hate-Manchester-City.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead.
You state Liverpool as spending within their means, but neglect to point out for the last 50 years they have been the no 1 or no 2 followed UK club. As Martin Samuel points out, FFP just acts to ring fence their position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Im sorry but even the article headline here is utterly ridiculous. This is all the elite "getting back" at city. If and its still an if for me, city have dine what they are accused of doing and cas find them guilty nothing should detract from the fact they have cheated and articles like this that try and deflect that possible fact are quite frankly embarrassing.
It is possible with ffp to move your way into the games elite. It just takes time. City would have got there. They could still spend fairly big, pay better wages than most, it might have taken them 5 or 6 years longer than it did but theyd have got there. Their owners appear to have got greedy and demanded the world now, not tomorrow.
Look at liverpool this decade, off top of my head have had 4 seasons i think without money from european football, have lost top players consistently, mascherano, torres, suarez, sterling, coutinho, but have by and large reinvested that money wisely and built themselves back up to where we are now.
Take spurs, were nothing but a mid table team not all that long ago. Now, have 1 of the best stadiums in world football, an elite level manager and are consistently in the champions league. They have achieved this by complying with the rules. Napoli and borussia Dortmund are other examples of teams that were nowhere 10/12 years ago but have got there through smart business models.
To try and palm this off onto "the elite" as he says is pathetic. Again all ifs for me just now as i don't trust uefa anymore than city but if this is all true they should be hung out to dry with no caveats attached.
posted on 15/2/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/2/20
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 21 minutes ago
I dont fully agree with the OP and suggest this article by Martin Samuel as a good read.
MARTIN SAMUEL: Ban is payback by clubs who hate Manchester City https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8005751/Financial-Fair-Play-UEFA-protection-racket-payback-clubs-hate-Manchester-City.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead.
You state Liverpool as spending within their means, but neglect to point out for the last 50 years they have been the no 1 or no 2 followed UK club. As Martin Samuel points out, FFP just acts to ring fence their position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How did Liverpool become one of the most followed clubs? They earned it on the pitch and so should all teams. This argument that oil money and spending outside your means is OK because Liverpool is a big club is hogwash.
Everything should be earned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool fans dont know their own history as usual.
Liverpool’s most successful period was 20 odd year period from the mid 60’s thanks in no small part to the cash from the Moores family generated by the then popular Littlewoods Football Pools which the Moores family owned, the Moores family were the majority share holders in Liverpool FC at the time, which enabled them to buy the best players of the day. In fact they paid 2 then English record fees for players and for the time paid fortunes no one else could afford. “King” Kenny Dalglish cost a then record £440,000 from Celtic (though presumably this wasn’t seen as Kenny betraying Celtic at the time as it now is with Torres wishing to join a club where he has more chance of success? Not Mercenary at all eh?), they paid £350,000 for Souness and £330,000 for Alan Kennedy again these were up near the English leagues record fees paid at that time.
Other notable players they splashed big money on back then were, Alan Hanson, John Toshack, Ray Kennedy, Phil Neal, Joey Jones and Emlyn Hughes
posted on 15/2/20
Money or not the requirement is still to have good ownership leadership and management.
Look at Utd and Arsenal. Resources way bigger than most above them but the likes of Leicester Wolves and even Shefd Utd currently bettering them
The difficulty is that the traditional big clubs are still the big draw so will often pick apart the upcoming teams taking their players and coaches.
Chelsea used to stockpile players and it seemed they bought them to stop others having them
Overall FFP will see the rich get richer. I think it needs to work alongside other rules that do cap wages as a % of revenue and perhaps squad size. While that might mean the rich have bigger budget anyway inevitably they pay the highest wages so player A might expect Spurs to pay him £100k while Utd would offer the same player £150k. Same player same quality but different impact on wage budget. Within that structure perhaps their should be a ceiling cap. so say 60% of revenue or £200m, which ever is the lower value. Individual salary caps will not work. Any approach needs to be european wide. and the effect you want is to better distribute the quality players rather than some teams playing fantasy football with a much bigger unlimited budgets than the competition.
posted on 15/2/20
Martin Samuel is spot on. The monopoly of Liverpool and United still e sits, but thankfully it has bern diminished. Cubs spending must be controlled, I agree on that, but not at the expense of making the league non competitive. We dont want a two team league as in Spsin and Scotland .
posted on 15/2/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/2/20
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 3 minutes ago
Martin Samuel is spot on. The monopoly of Liverpool and United still e sits, but thankfully it has bern diminished. Cubs spending must be controlled, I agree on that, but not at the expense of making the league non competitive. We dont want a two team league as in Spsin and Scotland .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or a 1 team league like this season...
posted on 15/2/20
comment by Ole-Dirty-Baztard (U19119)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 3 minutes ago
Martin Samuel is spot on. The monopoly of Liverpool and United still e sits, but thankfully it has bern diminished. Cubs spending must be controlled, I agree on that, but not at the expense of making the league non competitive. We dont want a two team league as in Spsin and Scotland .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or a 1 team league like this season...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that is one season and frankly freakish.Down to Livetpool who have been sensational.
posted on 15/2/20
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by Ole-Dirty-Baztard (U19119)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 3 minutes ago
Martin Samuel is spot on. The monopoly of Liverpool and United still e sits, but thankfully it has bern diminished. Cubs spending must be controlled, I agree on that, but not at the expense of making the league non competitive. We dont want a two team league as in Spsin and Scotland .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or a 1 team league like this season...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But that is one season and frankly freakish.Down to Livetpool who have been sensational.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As had been pointed out above 4 different winners in 6 years. We have seen spurs leceister in the campions league now possibly wolves or sheff utd could get there next season. How is that not better than before? It wasnt all that long ago we had "grand slam sundays" when arsenal liverpool man utd and chelsea squared off against one another. That label came about as that was the big 4 every year.
Those days have gone. Without ffp it would be a 1 team league with city romping it every year but make no mistake itd be the same lot behind them, utd liverpool chelsea arsenal. They would all spend more also just not at citys levels.
He picks apart utd in that article. Ive no particular love for utd but they are where they are because they made fantastic business decisions 20+ years ago when others stood still. The capitalised on their on field success. I dont see how that should be condemned in comparison to a team who are accused of cheating by inflating their revenue streams.
posted on 15/2/20
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 21 minutes ago
Money or not the requirement is still to have good ownership leadership and management.
Look at Utd and Arsenal. Resources way bigger than most above them but the likes of Leicester Wolves and even Shefd Utd currently bettering them
The difficulty is that the traditional big clubs are still the big draw so will often pick apart the upcoming teams taking their players and coaches.
Chelsea used to stockpile players and it seemed they bought them to stop others having them
Overall FFP will see the rich get richer. I think it needs to work alongside other rules that do cap wages as a % of revenue and perhaps squad size. While that might mean the rich have bigger budget anyway inevitably they pay the highest wages so player A might expect Spurs to pay him £100k while Utd would offer the same player £150k. Same player same quality but different impact on wage budget. Within that structure perhaps their should be a ceiling cap. so say 60% of revenue or £200m, which ever is the lower value. Individual salary caps will not work. Any approach needs to be european wide. and the effect you want is to better distribute the quality players rather than some teams playing fantasy football with a much bigger unlimited budgets than the competition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would imagine Wolves own spending would be interesting reading. There must be question mark over them. But the point is the unsustainability, yes we can look at an individual season for clubs like Sheff United, but only Leicester one could argue and Spurs have been able to make a sustained challenge to United,City, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool
posted on 15/2/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/2/20
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 26 seconds ago
FFP is not all about City. There is a bigger picture.It protects the bigger clubs from other ambitious clubs. The rules should be there to protect clubs going bust not stopping owners putting money in to football. Although there has to be a degree of control I believe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I concur. It has to be balanced.
posted on 15/2/20
City have been kicked out for spending £25 million on Bony
posted on 15/2/20
Back in the day when it was harder for Billionaires to buy our clubs as their play thing it was much harder to predict what teams would do at the start of the season. I remember being shocked at White Hart Lane expecting Spurs to thrash the newly promoted Manchester City and being thrashed instead and then seeing this club with Bell and Lee take the title that year (67-68)
posted on 15/2/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/2/20
comment by Cal Neva (U11544)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Nicottino (U14419)
posted 1 minute ago
Back in the day when it was harder for Billionaires to buy our clubs as their play thing it was much harder to predict what teams would do at the start of the season. I remember being shocked at White Hart Lane expecting Spurs to thrash the newly promoted Manchester City and being thrashed instead and then seeing this club with Bell and Lee take the title that year (67-68)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs have a billionaire owner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So have Newcastle.
Its not about how much money the owner has its about how they do or don't spend it on the club.
posted on 15/2/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/2/20
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 21 minutes ago
Money or not the requirement is still to have good ownership leadership and management.
Look at Utd and Arsenal. Resources way bigger than most above them but the likes of Leicester Wolves and even Shefd Utd currently bettering them
The difficulty is that the traditional big clubs are still the big draw so will often pick apart the upcoming teams taking their players and coaches.
Chelsea used to stockpile players and it seemed they bought them to stop others having them
Overall FFP will see the rich get richer. I think it needs to work alongside other rules that do cap wages as a % of revenue and perhaps squad size. While that might mean the rich have bigger budget anyway inevitably they pay the highest wages so player A might expect Spurs to pay him £100k while Utd would offer the same player £150k. Same player same quality but different impact on wage budget. Within that structure perhaps their should be a ceiling cap. so say 60% of revenue or £200m, which ever is the lower value. Individual salary caps will not work. Any approach needs to be european wide. and the effect you want is to better distribute the quality players rather than some teams playing fantasy football with a much bigger unlimited budgets than the competition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would imagine Wolves own spending would be interesting reading. There must be question mark over them. But the point is the unsustainability, yes we can look at an individual season for clubs like Sheff United, but only Leicester one could argue and Spurs have been able to make a sustained challenge to United,City, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Opportunity is there for teams though. Take Leicester, they look like they will finish top 4, with that next season will come an increased budget to work with, and youd think an opportunity to attract a higher calibre of player. Thats not to say they will do it, they could spend money and new signings might not work out but the chance will be there for them. The point is an opportunity presents itself for them to build.
FFP had to happen. The levels that city and psg were taking things to were out of control and dangerous for the game. FFP has to an extent put a bit of a strangle hold on that. I see no evidence of this "rich getting richer" tab that we see constantly being banded. Plenty of other sides have come to the fore across europe, atletico, dortmund, napoli whilst elites have struggled, man utd, ac milan to name a couple. FFP encourages teams to be smarter about their off field business instead of just lobbing money at things.
posted on 15/2/20
comment by SWTN - Judas is number 1 (U7916)
posted 1 hour, 56 minutes ago
comment by rosso is done with this (U17054)
posted 39 minutes ago
The investigation into PSG has already been dropped, despite the club’s very clear breaches, and despite a review of the investigation by the very chairman of the UEFA panel that penalizes teams that break the organization’s financial rules finding that the decision to close the case was “manifestly erroneous”.
The closure of the investigation into PSG actually ended up at CAS, where UEFA *sided with PSG* to get the case permanently closed!
Some may care to speculate that UEFA’s disinterest in pursuing PSG has something to with the fact that the club’s president, Nasser al-Khelaifi, sits on UEFA’s executive committee. He also happens to be the chairman of beIN Media Group, the Qatar-based broadcaster that has spent billions to secure television rights from UEFA.
Make no mistake: UEFA are as corrupt as they come.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on....and Citu may well try and use the PSG example as part of their defence
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No doubt they should, and they would be well within their rights to.
Page 2 of 4