-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Financial Fair Play
- Thread starter NewmarketYid
- Start date
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
The solution is simple (-ish), football cannot be treated any different than any other businesses and must be subject to anti-competitive/dumping rules and restrictions.
The challenge is, it would mean instant action against Cheat$ki and City. Just as I could not open a Chinese car company, manufacture a Car for $10K and sell it on the UK market for $2K, no Sugar Daddy should be able to just invest Billions of dollars to buy success (market share) at huge losses (it's unfair business practice)
And yes, it means that clubs that historically have a bigger fanbase or established income will have an advantage (that's normal business practice).
The solution is simple (-ish), football cannot be treated any different than any other businesses and must be subject to anti-competitive/dumping rules and restrictions.
The challenge is, it would mean instant action against Cheat$ki and City. Just as I could not open a Chinese car company, manufacture a Car for $10K and sell it on the UK market for $2K, no Sugar Daddy should be able to just invest Billions of dollars to buy success (market share) at huge losses (it's unfair business practice)
And yes, it means that clubs that historically have a bigger fanbase or established income will have an advantage (that's normal business practice).
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
As has been said it can easily be argued that Chelsea and City have made the league more competitive. I think Scudamore would argue this, so probably would Sky and Samuels.
Without the sugar daddies how many titles would United have won, the mind boggles. The Prem would have been even worse than La Liga and the Scottish Prem, being a virtual one horse race.
Yes, it would have been better for us had Chelsea and City not won the lottery, Would we have won the title, I doubt it very much, unless we'd have won the lottery instead of Chelsea which might have been a possibility.
Things would have also been better for Arsenal as they could have carried on their cosy carve up of the league with Utd, as very much the junior partner of course.
As has been said it can easily be argued that Chelsea and City have made the league more competitive. I think Scudamore would argue this, so probably would Sky and Samuels.
Without the sugar daddies how many titles would United have won, the mind boggles. The Prem would have been even worse than La Liga and the Scottish Prem, being a virtual one horse race.
Yes, it would have been better for us had Chelsea and City not won the lottery, Would we have won the title, I doubt it very much, unless we'd have won the lottery instead of Chelsea which might have been a possibility.
Things would have also been better for Arsenal as they could have carried on their cosy carve up of the league with Utd, as very much the junior partner of course.
Spursalot
Jimmy McCormick
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
I disagree with this.
Without Chelsea and Arsenal the other 'big clubs' would have found it easier to buy players as there would have been a far less competitive market as well as a much reduced wage inflation.
In addition to which it is possible other clubs would have sprouted up and become top 4 regulars.
United weren't winning the league every year before Chelsea and City, so there is no reason to assume they would be without Chelsea and City.
I disagree with this.
Without Chelsea and Arsenal the other 'big clubs' would have found it easier to buy players as there would have been a far less competitive market as well as a much reduced wage inflation.
In addition to which it is possible other clubs would have sprouted up and become top 4 regulars.
United weren't winning the league every year before Chelsea and City, so there is no reason to assume they would be without Chelsea and City.
Crawley
Board Legend
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
Arsenal won titles without massive financial input. They built teams. As did United to a point (although prior to Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project we would probably have accused them of reckless spending).
We ourselves have shown over recent years that it is possible to build a competitive team without that type of outlay, and, lets face it, were City and Chelsea not in the positions they were financially, there is every chance it would have been us in the title fight. And of course, if our manager had kept his eye on the right prize (sorry to bring that up, but relevant to the last couple of seasons).
Arsenal won titles without massive financial input. They built teams. As did United to a point (although prior to Chelsea and Emirates Marketing Project we would probably have accused them of reckless spending).
We ourselves have shown over recent years that it is possible to build a competitive team without that type of outlay, and, lets face it, were City and Chelsea not in the positions they were financially, there is every chance it would have been us in the title fight. And of course, if our manager had kept his eye on the right prize (sorry to bring that up, but relevant to the last couple of seasons).
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
That's kind of my point, Arsenal and Utd would have dominated without Chelsea and City, so it can be argued they made the lge more competitive.
As for us, we've finished behind Arsenal and Utd every season this century so I see no cause to believe we would have won the title. We would have got closer I'm pretty sure, but title winners, I don't see it. Unless of course we'd have got RA's money which would have transformed our chances completely.
That's kind of my point, Arsenal and Utd would have dominated without Chelsea and City, so it can be argued they made the lge more competitive.
As for us, we've finished behind Arsenal and Utd every season this century so I see no cause to believe we would have won the title. We would have got closer I'm pretty sure, but title winners, I don't see it. Unless of course we'd have got RA's money which would have transformed our chances completely.
Crawley
Board Legend
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
Fair points, but as someone already said, the multitude of players Chelsea and City have bought couldnt ALL just go to United. The option for them to be elsewhere would have existed. Backed-up by Edin Hazard coming out and saying he would have signed for us had we not been pipped to CL by the cheats.
Fair points, but as someone already said, the multitude of players Chelsea and City have bought couldnt ALL just go to United. The option for them to be elsewhere would have existed. Backed-up by Edin Hazard coming out and saying he would have signed for us had we not been pipped to CL by the cheats.
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
Fair points in turn. We're dealing in hypotheticals we'll never know the answer to. As I say I think we would have done better had Chelsea and City not won the lottery.
But the definite fact is Arsenal and Utd have both finished above us every season this century so it's a big stretch to say we would have won the title in that time. For me we don't have winning mentality that's necessary. Yes that can change, but both our players and crowd would need to get a whole lot more positive and will to win before I see us as title winners, given we don't win the lottery.
Fair points in turn. We're dealing in hypotheticals we'll never know the answer to. As I say I think we would have done better had Chelsea and City not won the lottery.
But the definite fact is Arsenal and Utd have both finished above us every season this century so it's a big stretch to say we would have won the title in that time. For me we don't have winning mentality that's necessary. Yes that can change, but both our players and crowd would need to get a whole lot more positive and will to win before I see us as title winners, given we don't win the lottery.
jts1882
Dean Richards
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
This is true, but we don't know how close we could have got. Without Chelsea and City we would probably have been an established CL club by now, which would have brought the financial rewards. This would have allowed us to attract players and retain them. Perhaps Berbatov and Modric would have stayed. A big reason we can land the star striker we crave is we are not on the CL and cannot offered the wages. Hazard commented that the reason he didn't join us was because he wanted to play in the CL. On top of this, without Chelsea and City we wouldn't have see such wage inflation which would have further helped our competitiveness.
United and Arsenal would still have had an advantage but we might have been staying close. Then say Bale and Modric had made their break through when we were close to the top instead of close to fourth?
This is true, but we don't know how close we could have got. Without Chelsea and City we would probably have been an established CL club by now, which would have brought the financial rewards. This would have allowed us to attract players and retain them. Perhaps Berbatov and Modric would have stayed. A big reason we can land the star striker we crave is we are not on the CL and cannot offered the wages. Hazard commented that the reason he didn't join us was because he wanted to play in the CL. On top of this, without Chelsea and City we wouldn't have see such wage inflation which would have further helped our competitiveness.
United and Arsenal would still have had an advantage but we might have been staying close. Then say Bale and Modric had made their break through when we were close to the top instead of close to fourth?
Bedfordspurs
Arthur Rowe
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
I don't have a problem with benficators - I have an issue with the constant loses which truly does create unfair competition
Every club should be made o stand up against its numbers even with a benefactor
I don't have a problem with benficators - I have an issue with the constant loses which truly does create unfair competition
Every club should be made o stand up against its numbers even with a benefactor
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
I sort of agree with this. Mansour can spend as much as he likes on transfer fees, but the wages they can offer should be limited by the turnover of the club.
I sort of agree with this. Mansour can spend as much as he likes on transfer fees, but the wages they can offer should be limited by the turnover of the club.
Superhudd
Simon Davies
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
Why shouldn't Arsenal and Man Utd win the titles, they have worked hard as clubs to work a position of strength. Something Tottenham are doing now, as are Everton and Stoke. If it were us constantly in the top 4 then we would have been able to keep Berbatov, Carrick and Modric, which would have weaken Utd. We would also dare I say it be sitting in a new stadium, thus challenging the likes of Man Utd and Arsenal. Basically it comes down to the shrewd running of a football club.
IMO football would just have been as competitive, just with teams that have worked hard to get to that point.
The natural order is how sport is found, not artificially infected with one mans desires.
Why shouldn't Arsenal and Man Utd win the titles, they have worked hard as clubs to work a position of strength. Something Tottenham are doing now, as are Everton and Stoke. If it were us constantly in the top 4 then we would have been able to keep Berbatov, Carrick and Modric, which would have weaken Utd. We would also dare I say it be sitting in a new stadium, thus challenging the likes of Man Utd and Arsenal. Basically it comes down to the shrewd running of a football club.
IMO football would just have been as competitive, just with teams that have worked hard to get to that point.
The natural order is how sport is found, not artificially infected with one mans desires.
Last edited:
I must admit, this stance seems a little bizarre. Why are wages different to transfer fees? I imagined there are just three camps to be in: anti-investment, pro-investment or not arsed either way.
Bedfordspurs
Arthur Rowe
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
Yeah that's not what I meant. I meant external investment is fine but the club should still be able to fund everything through its own generation. E.g. Not subsidised losses as in City's or Chelsea case.
How you have an organisation be allowed to lose X amount of money yet still be deemed to be positive and right is bonkers.
If our banks started losing the kind of % numbers of football clubs there would have been a civil war!
In City's case there losses have been greater than the turnover prior to the investment.cHelsea have continued to lose circa £100M per annul which is greater that 99% of their competitions turnover.
If Roman stopped bank rolling it could they survive? That's the key
Yeah that's not what I meant. I meant external investment is fine but the club should still be able to fund everything through its own generation. E.g. Not subsidised losses as in City's or Chelsea case.
How you have an organisation be allowed to lose X amount of money yet still be deemed to be positive and right is bonkers.
If our banks started losing the kind of % numbers of football clubs there would have been a civil war!
In City's case there losses have been greater than the turnover prior to the investment.cHelsea have continued to lose circa £100M per annul which is greater that 99% of their competitions turnover.
If Roman stopped bank rolling it could they survive? That's the key
Bedfordspurs
Arthur Rowe
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
I think I've not explained my post well
Basically my thoughts are that every club must have Return on Investment that's achievable and sustainable within a year of the purchase. That way if a sheik invests £10M and the clubs profits grow by £10m that year thanks to that investment then that's right
I think I've not explained my post well
Basically my thoughts are that every club must have Return on Investment that's achievable and sustainable within a year of the purchase. That way if a sheik invests £10M and the clubs profits grow by £10m that year thanks to that investment then that's right
Spur of the moment
Frederic Kanoute
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
From what I've read so far the message seems to be that regardless of the way FFP is configured, our chances of winning the PL will not be enhanced one iota.
Therefore, I'm out.
From what I've read so far the message seems to be that regardless of the way FFP is configured, our chances of winning the PL will not be enhanced one iota.
Therefore, I'm out.
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
If we are going to allow to investments in stadiums, training grounds etc., then the leap to players isn't that far. The day to day running of the club however should always be limited by their turnover to prevent any problems should the benefactor get bored.
To compare it with real life, any business would require investment to get started, but as the sport is supposed to be about football and not how much money you're willing to throw away, the losses you can run have to be limited somehow.
If we are going to allow to investments in stadiums, training grounds etc., then the leap to players isn't that far. The day to day running of the club however should always be limited by their turnover to prevent any problems should the benefactor get bored.
To compare it with real life, any business would require investment to get started, but as the sport is supposed to be about football and not how much money you're willing to throw away, the losses you can run have to be limited somehow.
braineclipse
Willie Hall
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
To avoid running operating losses?
Clubs sign contracts with the players, the commit to paying that money over several years. A single investment in a player is a different thing, although I'm not sure I agree with Jordinho on this idea, it does make some sense.
To avoid running operating losses?
Clubs sign contracts with the players, the commit to paying that money over several years. A single investment in a player is a different thing, although I'm not sure I agree with Jordinho on this idea, it does make some sense.
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
My theory is that it doesn't matter if some mid table club are willing to pay silly money for players if they can only offer them half the wages they get elsewhere. They would then have to think long term with their investments and gradually improve and grow, instead of jumping straight to the top of the league. Without the possibility of instant reward some of the sugar daddies might think of better ways to spend their wealth.
My theory is that it doesn't matter if some mid table club are willing to pay silly money for players if they can only offer them half the wages they get elsewhere. They would then have to think long term with their investments and gradually improve and grow, instead of jumping straight to the top of the league. Without the possibility of instant reward some of the sugar daddies might think of better ways to spend their wealth.
braineclipse
Willie Hall
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
So to allow sugar daddies, but somewhat limit just how much of an impact they can have short term. I think that sounds reasonable.
------------------------
About our situation without the money men at Chelsea and City i think it could have changed things quite dramatically. We would most likely have gotten several seasons in the CL in a row, might have helped us keep our best players and helped us grow quicker. But I suppose we'll never know.
So to allow sugar daddies, but somewhat limit just how much of an impact they can have short term. I think that sounds reasonable.
------------------------
About our situation without the money men at Chelsea and City i think it could have changed things quite dramatically. We would most likely have gotten several seasons in the CL in a row, might have helped us keep our best players and helped us grow quicker. But I suppose we'll never know.