comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
Going public was merely a legitimate way of raising funds. Very different to a rich man coming into the club and pumping in millions of pounds. By going public the club was run in a self sufficent way.
-----------------------------------------
All other clubs at the time survived on matchday income, prize money nd very limited sponsorship money. A few also had wealthy owners who could back the club.
How was becoming a PLC fair?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What rule(s) did we break? It is a common method to raise funds through share capital. Plus the club had to operate within the confinds of the stock exchange. All financials accounts are made public and there is no room to manipulate sponsorships or have any room for financial doping.
Other clubs followed us shortly after. It was a pioneering act at the time.
It's also common practice for the owners of a business to invest in their asset as long as they act within the law.
These 'rules' are a relatively new innovation introduced by certain clubs to stiffle the opposition.
They would be thrown out as being 'anti-competitive' in any other sector of business.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Just Shoot (U10408)
posted 3 minutes ago
Every year there is a thread from Spurs fans justifying their mediocrity via net spend. 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haha it really is becoming Z z z z
I genuinely feel for real Spurs fans after enduring 30 years of my own club being dragged along by owners who didn't move with the times.
Was thinking of checking this recently. People bang on about Man City’s spending but they literally had to build from the ground up. Utds spending is actually imo even worse...they were already the biggest team in the country, the most successful and has less of a gap to leap (compared to city who were barely a pl team when the owner took over). The spending at Utd has been mental when all they should really have needed was w few investments each year. All teams go through rebuilds but Utd should have had less of one than most.
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 10 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by LukaBrasi COYS #FreePalestine (U22178)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 5 minutes ago
So much for FFP. I get that United are still benefiting from the years of domination financially but City are completely funded by money from outside sources yet nothing is done, even with the latest set of revelations. This is why it frustrates me when Levy says we have to be sustainable self sufficient. Why? What’s the punishment if you drop a bit of your own dosh in? Nothing. The truth is that FFP has provided Levy with the greatest excuse not to splash the cash. Joke!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You make it sound so easy for Levy or Lewis to drop a few hundred million into the club.
Fact is, they would have to so by hiding the cash injection into some of sponsorship deal. It would reak of foul play like the Ethiad deal with City. We would then be fined or suspended then it all goes to court. Win or lose we will always be tainted.
Also Lewis is a billionaire. To me and you it is easy to say "yeah, why doesn't the old kent just give us £100m or £200m or £300m" to build a team which can challenge or win the title. Easy said than done but you don't get rich by giving your money away.
This is why he is a rich basket. The rich are the tightest people. Also demanding someone you have never met spends upteen millions of pounds behind a keyboard is easy but would you do it if you met him face to face? Would you have the audasticity
Finally do you want to do it the easy dirty City/Chelsea way or the respectable way Liverpool have done it by?
I go with the later all day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m fully aware it’s difficult but FFP isn’t a new thing. It’s been around for a long time yet here we are with City, PSG and Chelsea still spending way beyond club income so it can be done.
I’m not suggesting Joe sticks his hand in his pocket either, I’m fully aware you don’t get where he’s got without deep pockets and short arms but he could pass control over to someone that would put the money. Sell up if you’re not gonna commit.
Sure, we’d all like to win it like Liverpool mate and I don’t know how old you are but I’ve been a Spurs fan since the late 80s. We’ve achieved feck all of note sticking to this ‘project’. It ain’t gonna happen. Liverpool can’t be compared. They’ve had success even in their barren years we can only dream of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea haven’t spent beyond their income for probably a decade.
Seems like everyone on this thread has forgotten about the massive amount of money that Spurs invested in their stadium. Their owners aren't just limiting transfer funds for a laugh...
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 1 minute ago
Was thinking of checking this recently. People bang on about Man City’s spending but they literally had to build from the ground up. Utds spending is actually imo even worse...they were already the biggest team in the country, the most successful and has less of a gap to leap (compared to city who were barely a pl team when the owner took over). The spending at Utd has been mental when all they should really have needed was w few investments each year. All teams go through rebuilds but Utd should have had less of one than most.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tbf, City had qualified for the UEFA Cup the season before the takeover.
Micah Richards was the only player from that team to start in the FA Cup final 3 years later.
Finally do you want to do it the easy dirty City/Chelsea way or the respectable way Liverpool have done it by?
---------------------------------------
Conveniently forgetting the money the Moores Family pumped in during the start of the Shankley reign that got the ball rolling.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 1 minute ago
Was thinking of checking this recently. People bang on about Man City’s spending but they literally had to build from the ground up. Utds spending is actually imo even worse...they were already the biggest team in the country, the most successful and has less of a gap to leap (compared to city who were barely a pl team when the owner took over). The spending at Utd has been mental when all they should really have needed was w few investments each year. All teams go through rebuilds but Utd should have had less of one than most.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tbf, City had qualified for the UEFA Cup the season before the takeover.
Micah Richards was the only player from that team to start in the FA Cup final 3 years later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your points kind of contradict themselves Boris. But my point is City had a leap to make to even compete. It’s like teams should have just left Utd and arsenal to win the pl every year. How dare other teams want to be successful.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
It's also common practice for the owners of a business to invest in their asset as long as they act within the law.
These 'rules' are a relatively new innovation introduced by certain clubs to stiffle the opposition.
They would be thrown out as being 'anti-competitive' in any other sector of business.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You get the odd person on here agreeing with these points but most see it as a form of cheating, not much of a surprise.
comment by LukaBrasi COYS #FreePalestine (U22178)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
Going public was merely a legitimate way of raising funds. Very different to a rich man coming into the club and pumping in millions of pounds. By going public the club was run in a self sufficent way.
-----------------------------------------
All other clubs at the time survived on matchday income, prize money nd very limited sponsorship money. A few also had wealthy owners who could back the club.
How was becoming a PLC fair?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What rule(s) did we break? It is a common method to raise funds through share capital. Plus the club had to operate within the confinds of the stock exchange. All financials accounts are made public and there is no room to manipulate sponsorships or have any room for financial doping.
Other clubs followed us shortly after. It was a pioneering act at the time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It circumvented the rules at the time which were that football clubs were not for profit organisations and dividends and debt were both limited. Clubs began to get around it by making the club itself a subsidiary of a holding company. It was that that you floated, not the club itself.
That’s what directly led to the outside investment in the game and owners changing from effectively just being there for the club (directors weren’t allowed to draw a salary) to instead maximising revenue for personal gain, or by loading clubs with debt trying to chase getting a bigger piece of the pie. That’s what led to the changes in match day allocation and subsequently the tv rights and the formation of the PL, which in turn is what then started to attract the real wealthy investors. It’s the worst thing that ever happened to football, I’ll always advocate going back to the pre 1985 rules.
All clubs have to be independently audited if they’re public or private.
So much for FFP. I get that United are still benefiting from the years of domination financially but City are completely funded by money from outside sources yet nothing is done, even with the latest set of revelations
---------------------------------------------
Probably the most inaccurate piece of drivel I've ever read on this site and that takes some doing.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by LukaBrasi COYS #FreePalestine (U22178)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
Going public was merely a legitimate way of raising funds. Very different to a rich man coming into the club and pumping in millions of pounds. By going public the club was run in a self sufficent way.
-----------------------------------------
All other clubs at the time survived on matchday income, prize money nd very limited sponsorship money. A few also had wealthy owners who could back the club.
How was becoming a PLC fair?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What rule(s) did we break? It is a common method to raise funds through share capital. Plus the club had to operate within the confinds of the stock exchange. All financials accounts are made public and there is no room to manipulate sponsorships or have any room for financial doping.
Other clubs followed us shortly after. It was a pioneering act at the time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It circumvented the rules at the time which were that football clubs were not for profit organisations and dividends and debt were both limited. Clubs began to get around it by making the club itself a subsidiary of a holding company. It was that that you floated, not the club itself.
That’s what directly led to the outside investment in the game and owners changing from effectively just being there for the club (directors weren’t allowed to draw a salary) to instead maximising revenue for personal gain, or by loading clubs with debt trying to chase getting a bigger piece of the pie. That’s what led to the changes in match day allocation and subsequently the tv rights and the formation of the PL, which in turn is what then started to attract the real wealthy investors. It’s the worst thing that ever happened to football, I’ll always advocate going back to the pre 1985 rules.
All clubs have to be independently audited if they’re public or private.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's called evolution mate. Football just moved with the times and alas here we are today. A few billionaires tried their luck to play the game on cheat mode but FFP has put an end to anymore coming in and buying titles. That's the way the cookie crumbles.
Explain 'cheat mode', then reveal why FFP isn't cheating.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 5 minutes ago
Explain 'cheat mode', then reveal why FFP isn't cheating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City having inflated sponsorship deals to inject money into their club is cheating. Roman A. dropping a billion of his own cash into transfers. Remember when he went and brought all those players when Ranieri was their manager back in the day? He changed the whole landscape of Chelsea.
FFP stops clubs and men like Peter Risdale when he was at Leeds from over spending and risking the future of clubs.
comment by LukaBrasi COYS #FreePalestine (U22178)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by LukaBrasi COYS #FreePalestine (U22178)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
Going public was merely a legitimate way of raising funds. Very different to a rich man coming into the club and pumping in millions of pounds. By going public the club was run in a self sufficent way.
-----------------------------------------
All other clubs at the time survived on matchday income, prize money nd very limited sponsorship money. A few also had wealthy owners who could back the club.
How was becoming a PLC fair?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What rule(s) did we break? It is a common method to raise funds through share capital. Plus the club had to operate within the confinds of the stock exchange. All financials accounts are made public and there is no room to manipulate sponsorships or have any room for financial doping.
Other clubs followed us shortly after. It was a pioneering act at the time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It circumvented the rules at the time which were that football clubs were not for profit organisations and dividends and debt were both limited. Clubs began to get around it by making the club itself a subsidiary of a holding company. It was that that you floated, not the club itself.
That’s what directly led to the outside investment in the game and owners changing from effectively just being there for the club (directors weren’t allowed to draw a salary) to instead maximising revenue for personal gain, or by loading clubs with debt trying to chase getting a bigger piece of the pie. That’s what led to the changes in match day allocation and subsequently the tv rights and the formation of the PL, which in turn is what then started to attract the real wealthy investors. It’s the worst thing that ever happened to football, I’ll always advocate going back to the pre 1985 rules.
All clubs have to be independently audited if they’re public or private.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's called evolution mate. Football just moved with the times and alas here we are today. A few billionaires tried their luck to play the game on cheat mode but FFP has put an end to anymore coming in and buying titles. That's the way the cookie crumbles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely it’s evolution, those billionaires played as much on cheat mode as others had in the past though. It’s just they were more successful at it.
comment by LukaBrasi COYS #FreePalestine (U22178)
posted 2 seconds ago
FFP stops clubs and men like Peter Risdale when he was at Leeds from over spending and risking the future of clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn't, it stops new money coming into the league, maintains the status of the richer/Sky 4 clubs and gives less committed owners a great excuse not to invest more.
The only cheating in professional football happens on the pitch either by the players or the bribing of officials.
The word 'Professional' is a dead giveaway - It's a business.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by LukaBrasi COYS #FreePalestine (U22178)
posted 2 seconds ago
FFP stops clubs and men like Peter Risdale when he was at Leeds from over spending and risking the future of clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn't, it stops new money coming into the league, maintains the status of the richer/Sky 4 clubs and gives less committed owners a great excuse not to invest more.
The only cheating in professional football happens on the pitch either by the players or the bribing of officials.
The word 'Professional' is a dead giveaway - It's a business.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It also stops new owners coming in, spending beyond the means of the club they invest in, saddling the club with untold debt then the owners fecking off at a drop of a hat. FFP protects all clubs in the long term.
It doesn’t do that though, there’s no restrictions on debt. It’s my biggest issue with it.
The Due Dilligence criteria has also been toughened so that the clowns that nearly ruined clubs like Portsmouth can no longer get a toe-hold.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
It doesn’t do that though, there’s no restrictions on debt. It’s my biggest issue with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mine too, Melts, it would have saved us from a leveraged buyout to line a foreign owner's pockets.
comment by SteveF (U22027)
posted 6 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 7 hours, 8 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
Go back sixty years and we’d have the exact same conversation yet the clubs would be reversed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think you can compare the 61 Spurs team to the current City one in terms of credibility. Sure, you play some amazing football and I love Pep, he’s a genius at work. I’ll always support a team like yours in Europe over United because you play in the right way but there wasn’t money in the game back in the 60s so there was no unfair advantage for anyone. You’ve outstripped up for success, by a long way, but to coin a well worn Brian Clough phrase, you’ve not won any of them fairly!!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. Back in '61 I think it was still normal for first team players to travel to the ground on the bus. Coming out on top was down to good management, good tactics, good training and basically better team spirit and character than your rivals.
Now there is no skill at the likes of City, Chelsea and Utd. Just a "chuck another billion at it" mentality. Pep ??? come on, anyone could manage City to success.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, anybody couldn't do it.
City were no great shakes when Pep arrived.
Sign in if you want to comment
Transfer NET spends - Last 10 years
Page 3 of 4
posted on 29/7/21
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
Going public was merely a legitimate way of raising funds. Very different to a rich man coming into the club and pumping in millions of pounds. By going public the club was run in a self sufficent way.
-----------------------------------------
All other clubs at the time survived on matchday income, prize money nd very limited sponsorship money. A few also had wealthy owners who could back the club.
How was becoming a PLC fair?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What rule(s) did we break? It is a common method to raise funds through share capital. Plus the club had to operate within the confinds of the stock exchange. All financials accounts are made public and there is no room to manipulate sponsorships or have any room for financial doping.
Other clubs followed us shortly after. It was a pioneering act at the time.
posted on 29/7/21
It's also common practice for the owners of a business to invest in their asset as long as they act within the law.
These 'rules' are a relatively new innovation introduced by certain clubs to stiffle the opposition.
They would be thrown out as being 'anti-competitive' in any other sector of business.
posted on 29/7/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 29/7/21
comment by Just Shoot (U10408)
posted 3 minutes ago
Every year there is a thread from Spurs fans justifying their mediocrity via net spend. 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haha it really is becoming Z z z z
posted on 29/7/21
I genuinely feel for real Spurs fans after enduring 30 years of my own club being dragged along by owners who didn't move with the times.
posted on 29/7/21
Was thinking of checking this recently. People bang on about Man City’s spending but they literally had to build from the ground up. Utds spending is actually imo even worse...they were already the biggest team in the country, the most successful and has less of a gap to leap (compared to city who were barely a pl team when the owner took over). The spending at Utd has been mental when all they should really have needed was w few investments each year. All teams go through rebuilds but Utd should have had less of one than most.
posted on 29/7/21
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 10 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by LukaBrasi COYS #FreePalestine (U22178)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 5 minutes ago
So much for FFP. I get that United are still benefiting from the years of domination financially but City are completely funded by money from outside sources yet nothing is done, even with the latest set of revelations. This is why it frustrates me when Levy says we have to be sustainable self sufficient. Why? What’s the punishment if you drop a bit of your own dosh in? Nothing. The truth is that FFP has provided Levy with the greatest excuse not to splash the cash. Joke!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You make it sound so easy for Levy or Lewis to drop a few hundred million into the club.
Fact is, they would have to so by hiding the cash injection into some of sponsorship deal. It would reak of foul play like the Ethiad deal with City. We would then be fined or suspended then it all goes to court. Win or lose we will always be tainted.
Also Lewis is a billionaire. To me and you it is easy to say "yeah, why doesn't the old kent just give us £100m or £200m or £300m" to build a team which can challenge or win the title. Easy said than done but you don't get rich by giving your money away.
This is why he is a rich basket. The rich are the tightest people. Also demanding someone you have never met spends upteen millions of pounds behind a keyboard is easy but would you do it if you met him face to face? Would you have the audasticity
Finally do you want to do it the easy dirty City/Chelsea way or the respectable way Liverpool have done it by?
I go with the later all day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m fully aware it’s difficult but FFP isn’t a new thing. It’s been around for a long time yet here we are with City, PSG and Chelsea still spending way beyond club income so it can be done.
I’m not suggesting Joe sticks his hand in his pocket either, I’m fully aware you don’t get where he’s got without deep pockets and short arms but he could pass control over to someone that would put the money. Sell up if you’re not gonna commit.
Sure, we’d all like to win it like Liverpool mate and I don’t know how old you are but I’ve been a Spurs fan since the late 80s. We’ve achieved feck all of note sticking to this ‘project’. It ain’t gonna happen. Liverpool can’t be compared. They’ve had success even in their barren years we can only dream of.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea haven’t spent beyond their income for probably a decade.
posted on 29/7/21
Seems like everyone on this thread has forgotten about the massive amount of money that Spurs invested in their stadium. Their owners aren't just limiting transfer funds for a laugh...
posted on 29/7/21
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 1 minute ago
Was thinking of checking this recently. People bang on about Man City’s spending but they literally had to build from the ground up. Utds spending is actually imo even worse...they were already the biggest team in the country, the most successful and has less of a gap to leap (compared to city who were barely a pl team when the owner took over). The spending at Utd has been mental when all they should really have needed was w few investments each year. All teams go through rebuilds but Utd should have had less of one than most.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tbf, City had qualified for the UEFA Cup the season before the takeover.
Micah Richards was the only player from that team to start in the FA Cup final 3 years later.
posted on 29/7/21
Finally do you want to do it the easy dirty City/Chelsea way or the respectable way Liverpool have done it by?
---------------------------------------
Conveniently forgetting the money the Moores Family pumped in during the start of the Shankley reign that got the ball rolling.
posted on 29/7/21
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 1 minute ago
Was thinking of checking this recently. People bang on about Man City’s spending but they literally had to build from the ground up. Utds spending is actually imo even worse...they were already the biggest team in the country, the most successful and has less of a gap to leap (compared to city who were barely a pl team when the owner took over). The spending at Utd has been mental when all they should really have needed was w few investments each year. All teams go through rebuilds but Utd should have had less of one than most.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tbf, City had qualified for the UEFA Cup the season before the takeover.
Micah Richards was the only player from that team to start in the FA Cup final 3 years later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your points kind of contradict themselves Boris. But my point is City had a leap to make to even compete. It’s like teams should have just left Utd and arsenal to win the pl every year. How dare other teams want to be successful.
posted on 29/7/21
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
It's also common practice for the owners of a business to invest in their asset as long as they act within the law.
These 'rules' are a relatively new innovation introduced by certain clubs to stiffle the opposition.
They would be thrown out as being 'anti-competitive' in any other sector of business.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You get the odd person on here agreeing with these points but most see it as a form of cheating, not much of a surprise.
posted on 29/7/21
comment by LukaBrasi COYS #FreePalestine (U22178)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
Going public was merely a legitimate way of raising funds. Very different to a rich man coming into the club and pumping in millions of pounds. By going public the club was run in a self sufficent way.
-----------------------------------------
All other clubs at the time survived on matchday income, prize money nd very limited sponsorship money. A few also had wealthy owners who could back the club.
How was becoming a PLC fair?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What rule(s) did we break? It is a common method to raise funds through share capital. Plus the club had to operate within the confinds of the stock exchange. All financials accounts are made public and there is no room to manipulate sponsorships or have any room for financial doping.
Other clubs followed us shortly after. It was a pioneering act at the time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It circumvented the rules at the time which were that football clubs were not for profit organisations and dividends and debt were both limited. Clubs began to get around it by making the club itself a subsidiary of a holding company. It was that that you floated, not the club itself.
That’s what directly led to the outside investment in the game and owners changing from effectively just being there for the club (directors weren’t allowed to draw a salary) to instead maximising revenue for personal gain, or by loading clubs with debt trying to chase getting a bigger piece of the pie. That’s what led to the changes in match day allocation and subsequently the tv rights and the formation of the PL, which in turn is what then started to attract the real wealthy investors. It’s the worst thing that ever happened to football, I’ll always advocate going back to the pre 1985 rules.
All clubs have to be independently audited if they’re public or private.
posted on 29/7/21
So much for FFP. I get that United are still benefiting from the years of domination financially but City are completely funded by money from outside sources yet nothing is done, even with the latest set of revelations
---------------------------------------------
Probably the most inaccurate piece of drivel I've ever read on this site and that takes some doing.
posted on 29/7/21
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by LukaBrasi COYS #FreePalestine (U22178)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
Going public was merely a legitimate way of raising funds. Very different to a rich man coming into the club and pumping in millions of pounds. By going public the club was run in a self sufficent way.
-----------------------------------------
All other clubs at the time survived on matchday income, prize money nd very limited sponsorship money. A few also had wealthy owners who could back the club.
How was becoming a PLC fair?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What rule(s) did we break? It is a common method to raise funds through share capital. Plus the club had to operate within the confinds of the stock exchange. All financials accounts are made public and there is no room to manipulate sponsorships or have any room for financial doping.
Other clubs followed us shortly after. It was a pioneering act at the time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It circumvented the rules at the time which were that football clubs were not for profit organisations and dividends and debt were both limited. Clubs began to get around it by making the club itself a subsidiary of a holding company. It was that that you floated, not the club itself.
That’s what directly led to the outside investment in the game and owners changing from effectively just being there for the club (directors weren’t allowed to draw a salary) to instead maximising revenue for personal gain, or by loading clubs with debt trying to chase getting a bigger piece of the pie. That’s what led to the changes in match day allocation and subsequently the tv rights and the formation of the PL, which in turn is what then started to attract the real wealthy investors. It’s the worst thing that ever happened to football, I’ll always advocate going back to the pre 1985 rules.
All clubs have to be independently audited if they’re public or private.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's called evolution mate. Football just moved with the times and alas here we are today. A few billionaires tried their luck to play the game on cheat mode but FFP has put an end to anymore coming in and buying titles. That's the way the cookie crumbles.
posted on 29/7/21
Explain 'cheat mode', then reveal why FFP isn't cheating.
posted on 29/7/21
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 5 minutes ago
Explain 'cheat mode', then reveal why FFP isn't cheating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City having inflated sponsorship deals to inject money into their club is cheating. Roman A. dropping a billion of his own cash into transfers. Remember when he went and brought all those players when Ranieri was their manager back in the day? He changed the whole landscape of Chelsea.
posted on 29/7/21
FFP stops clubs and men like Peter Risdale when he was at Leeds from over spending and risking the future of clubs.
posted on 29/7/21
comment by LukaBrasi COYS #FreePalestine (U22178)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by LukaBrasi COYS #FreePalestine (U22178)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
Going public was merely a legitimate way of raising funds. Very different to a rich man coming into the club and pumping in millions of pounds. By going public the club was run in a self sufficent way.
-----------------------------------------
All other clubs at the time survived on matchday income, prize money nd very limited sponsorship money. A few also had wealthy owners who could back the club.
How was becoming a PLC fair?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What rule(s) did we break? It is a common method to raise funds through share capital. Plus the club had to operate within the confinds of the stock exchange. All financials accounts are made public and there is no room to manipulate sponsorships or have any room for financial doping.
Other clubs followed us shortly after. It was a pioneering act at the time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It circumvented the rules at the time which were that football clubs were not for profit organisations and dividends and debt were both limited. Clubs began to get around it by making the club itself a subsidiary of a holding company. It was that that you floated, not the club itself.
That’s what directly led to the outside investment in the game and owners changing from effectively just being there for the club (directors weren’t allowed to draw a salary) to instead maximising revenue for personal gain, or by loading clubs with debt trying to chase getting a bigger piece of the pie. That’s what led to the changes in match day allocation and subsequently the tv rights and the formation of the PL, which in turn is what then started to attract the real wealthy investors. It’s the worst thing that ever happened to football, I’ll always advocate going back to the pre 1985 rules.
All clubs have to be independently audited if they’re public or private.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's called evolution mate. Football just moved with the times and alas here we are today. A few billionaires tried their luck to play the game on cheat mode but FFP has put an end to anymore coming in and buying titles. That's the way the cookie crumbles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely it’s evolution, those billionaires played as much on cheat mode as others had in the past though. It’s just they were more successful at it.
posted on 29/7/21
comment by LukaBrasi COYS #FreePalestine (U22178)
posted 2 seconds ago
FFP stops clubs and men like Peter Risdale when he was at Leeds from over spending and risking the future of clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn't, it stops new money coming into the league, maintains the status of the richer/Sky 4 clubs and gives less committed owners a great excuse not to invest more.
The only cheating in professional football happens on the pitch either by the players or the bribing of officials.
The word 'Professional' is a dead giveaway - It's a business.
posted on 29/7/21
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by LukaBrasi COYS #FreePalestine (U22178)
posted 2 seconds ago
FFP stops clubs and men like Peter Risdale when he was at Leeds from over spending and risking the future of clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn't, it stops new money coming into the league, maintains the status of the richer/Sky 4 clubs and gives less committed owners a great excuse not to invest more.
The only cheating in professional football happens on the pitch either by the players or the bribing of officials.
The word 'Professional' is a dead giveaway - It's a business.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It also stops new owners coming in, spending beyond the means of the club they invest in, saddling the club with untold debt then the owners fecking off at a drop of a hat. FFP protects all clubs in the long term.
posted on 29/7/21
It doesn’t do that though, there’s no restrictions on debt. It’s my biggest issue with it.
posted on 29/7/21
The Due Dilligence criteria has also been toughened so that the clowns that nearly ruined clubs like Portsmouth can no longer get a toe-hold.
posted on 29/7/21
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
It doesn’t do that though, there’s no restrictions on debt. It’s my biggest issue with it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mine too, Melts, it would have saved us from a leveraged buyout to line a foreign owner's pockets.
posted on 29/7/21
comment by SteveF (U22027)
posted 6 hours, 30 minutes ago
comment by fridgeboy (U1053)
posted 7 hours, 8 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
Go back sixty years and we’d have the exact same conversation yet the clubs would be reversed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think you can compare the 61 Spurs team to the current City one in terms of credibility. Sure, you play some amazing football and I love Pep, he’s a genius at work. I’ll always support a team like yours in Europe over United because you play in the right way but there wasn’t money in the game back in the 60s so there was no unfair advantage for anyone. You’ve outstripped up for success, by a long way, but to coin a well worn Brian Clough phrase, you’ve not won any of them fairly!!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. Back in '61 I think it was still normal for first team players to travel to the ground on the bus. Coming out on top was down to good management, good tactics, good training and basically better team spirit and character than your rivals.
Now there is no skill at the likes of City, Chelsea and Utd. Just a "chuck another billion at it" mentality. Pep ??? come on, anyone could manage City to success.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, anybody couldn't do it.
City were no great shakes when Pep arrived.
Page 3 of 4