The all-new Premier League thread Page 3230

  • Page

    of 5488 First / Last

  • Ultrasoundwave 5 Feb 2013 10:40:40 3,305 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    puddleduck wrote:
    It limits the chance of the likes of another Man City coming in and usurping the big clubs who basically have a monopoly on the big rewards in football. It does very little to stop mid-table clubs bankrupting themselves. It's just another way of safeguarding the big guys... you know, the same ones who generally get to vote on all this stuff in the first place.
    Speaking of Man City, i only just realised that, in terms of transfers, they actually made money in the January window.

    WTF?

    "The worst part is, I'll have to have the break-up sex with myself!"

  • kalel 5 Feb 2013 10:41:12 87,775 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    The possible punishments are:

    Reprimand / Warning
    Fine
    Deduction of Points
    Withholding of Revenue from UEFA competition
    Prohibition to register new players for UEFA competitions;
    A restriction on the number of players that a club may register for UEFA competitions
    Disqualification from a competition in progress
    Exclusion from future competitions
  • kalel 5 Feb 2013 10:42:12 87,775 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Ultrasoundwave wrote:
    puddleduck wrote:
    It limits the chance of the likes of another Man City coming in and usurping the big clubs who basically have a monopoly on the big rewards in football. It does very little to stop mid-table clubs bankrupting themselves. It's just another way of safeguarding the big guys... you know, the same ones who generally get to vote on all this stuff in the first place.
    Speaking of Man City, i only just realised that, in terms of transfers, they actually made money in the January window.

    WTF?
    They sold Balotelli and didn't buy anyone.

    ZOMG!!!! :o
  • puddleduck 5 Feb 2013 10:46:14 1,854 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    It basically is. All those punishments are basically UEFA competitions. As in Champs League/Europa League. Gotta love the idea though, that a club who has spent beyond their means and reached a position that might bail them out... is then denied the means to do so. Like any start-up business, sometimes you gotta lose money to make money, and unfortunately more often then not they fail.
  • kalel 5 Feb 2013 10:46:32 87,775 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    It's ludicrously complicated and explained in great detail here, but simply put it does affect all clubs.

    http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php
  • Ultrasoundwave 5 Feb 2013 10:46:36 3,305 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Ultrasoundwave wrote:
    puddleduck wrote:
    It limits the chance of the likes of another Man City coming in and usurping the big clubs who basically have a monopoly on the big rewards in football. It does very little to stop mid-table clubs bankrupting themselves. It's just another way of safeguarding the big guys... you know, the same ones who generally get to vote on all this stuff in the first place.
    Speaking of Man City, i only just realised that, in terms of transfers, they actually made money in the January window.

    WTF?
    They sold Balotelli and didn't buy anyone.

    ZOMG!!!! :o
    I fully endorse your ZOMG!!!!

    Seriously though, how did Citeh go through an entire window without signing anyone?

    "The worst part is, I'll have to have the break-up sex with myself!"

  • Deleted user 5 February 2013 10:48:43
    Ultrasoundwave wrote:
    puddleduck wrote:
    It limits the chance of the likes of another Man City coming in and usurping the big clubs who basically have a monopoly on the big rewards in football. It does very little to stop mid-table clubs bankrupting themselves. It's just another way of safeguarding the big guys... you know, the same ones who generally get to vote on all this stuff in the first place.
    Speaking of Man City, i only just realised that, in terms of transfers, they actually made money in the January window.

    WTF?
    It's like 10 year ago :)
  • kalel 5 Feb 2013 10:49:39 87,775 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    puddleduck wrote:
    It basically is. All those punishments are basically UEFA competitions. As in Champs League/Europa League. Gotta love the idea though, that a club who has spent beyond their means and reached a position that might bail them out... is then denied the means to do so. Like any start-up business, sometimes you gotta lose money to make money, and unfortunately more often then not they fail.
    It's been made clear that clubs that are moving in the right direction and can demonstrate that they are providing means to be in a greater future financial position will not be punished.

    It also specifically doesn't include money spent on youth development and things like that. The whole point is to stop clubs getting themselves into trouble, not punish those being upwardly mobile.

    I'm sure it'll have its issues and wrinkles, but there's no point being all conspiracy theory about it.
  • puddleduck 5 Feb 2013 10:53:03 1,854 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    The whole thing only protects the pre-existing rich clubs though. The richer clubs will always be able to spend more because the poorer club can't possibly take a financial gamble. I'm all for clubs focussing on their youth plans and self sustainability should be the goal of every club, but let's not ignore the fact that by making it an actual enforceable law it does nothing but protect the existing big clubs from being usurped by any potential sugar daddied clubs in the future.
  • Shikasama 5 Feb 2013 10:54:26 6,844 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Then what would we talk about?

    Football?
  • kalel 5 Feb 2013 10:56:21 87,775 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    puddleduck wrote:
    ...let's not ignore the fact that by making it an actual enforceable law it does nothing but protect the existing big clubs from being usurped by any potential sugar daddied clubs in the future.
    It does so so much more than that, and also it doesn't do that.
  • puddleduck 5 Feb 2013 11:01:14 1,854 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    What does it do then? Clubs should be run the correct way, of course they should. However, if a club is run the wrong way and overspends beyond their means who is reponsible? The fans? The players? The club itself? Or is it fact the owners?

    So when the owners, who have spent the club into oblivion and achieved nothing decide to abandon ship who suffers? It's certainly not the owners who are then banned from potential competitions or financial rewards. It's the club. Who suffered, Peter Risdale, or Leeds?

    Clubs should be looking to run the right way, a law penalising the ones who are run the wrong way does little to change that. Would Sheik Mansour buy City today if the FFP was in place? Would he be able to instigate drastic and sweeping changes to the personel and playing squad to bring a title within years rather than decades?

    If the answer to that is no, then who is it actually protecting? The next Man City, or the existing Man City?

    Edited by puddleduck at 11:34:52 05-02-2013
  • kalel 5 Feb 2013 11:06:56 87,775 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    It's a deterrent. That's literally the whole point. They don't want to punish clubs that get into trouble, they want to stop clubs getting into trouble full stop.

    Again, the Man City thing is missing the point. This isn't about Man City. It's about Portsmouth and Rangers and Espanyol. It's not about punishing them. It's about putting systems in place so they don't get in that position in the first place.

    There's also nothing to stop billionaires coming in, paying off debts, building a new training ground, investing in youth training and generally helping a club become self-sustainable and successful. Yes, it is now less easy for them to come in and just sign a load of expensive players on stupid wages, and make the club totally relient on the billionaire staying or they're forever fucked - and that's a good thing!
  • puddleduck 5 Feb 2013 11:14:40 1,854 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    It's certainly a good thing if your club is one of the elite clubs that already have a monopoly on financial clout and as such most of the young talent in the country.

    If investing in youth training was really a viable way to the top, Crewe would be a champions league team by now ;)
  • askew 5 Feb 2013 11:15:45 12,293 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    New Arsenal.com is pretty slick. Not quite as good as City's but a marked upgrade on the old site, which looked as though it were stuck in 2006.
  • puddleduck 5 Feb 2013 11:18:54 1,854 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    In fact, without Chelsea's big investment from Roman and Man City's from Mansour, would anyone other than Man U have won the league since Arsenal? Is that really what we're looking at?

    Germany is about the only league where there is balanced system for teams to bring through youth development, and that's something that goes far deeper than an enforced system. That's more of a mindset in the clubs themselves to play young players and not just hoard them all in your own youth teams just in case they actually turn out to be any good.

    Also, we'll see if this really does stop the clubs that are under the radar of UEFA going bankrupt, or whether they only step in when it starts affecting Champions League like Malaga.

    Edited by puddleduck at 11:20:34 05-02-2013
  • Dougs 5 Feb 2013 11:24:09 67,829 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Don't forget that the PL us trying to come up with their own FFP. Think Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs are together, with city and Chelsea opposed to the proposals. Something like that anyway.
  • puddleduck 5 Feb 2013 11:32:08 1,854 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Of course Arsenal and Spurs will be behind it. I wouldn't be surprised if Smaug himself is asleep in the Arsenal vault, whilst Levy would probably refuse to lend his own mother a tenner unless she promised him interest :p

    Still, interesting then that they're trying to come up with their own one if the main one is actually supposed to apply to all clubs?

    Don't get me wrong either, I think in principle all clubs should try and run in a way that makes them sustainable and essentially adheres to the FFP, but it's not going to stop the crooks like Risdale running a club into the ground and making themselves a profit in the process. The people that will suffer are the clubs themselves and the fans, the people that will benefit is the already rich who can now only be surpassed by clubs slowly trying to build for the future... whilst simultaneously watching all their young promising talent getting poached by the already big and rich clubs.

    Maybe I'm just a cynical old bastard now :p

    Edited by puddleduck at 11:35:19 05-02-2013
  • faux-C 5 Feb 2013 11:35:25 9,381 posts
    Seen 34 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    When did Martin Samuel start posting in the thread?
  • Dougs 5 Feb 2013 11:38:23 67,829 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Here's the apparent latest position.

    Premier League split over domestic financial fair play regulations | Owen Gibson

    http://gu.com/p/3d425
  • puddleduck 5 Feb 2013 11:53:34 1,854 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Interesting read, but merely highlights that the FFP is something which benefits certain clubs.

    I particularly like West Brom's position that they run their clubs correctly in the first place, it's not down to UEFA or the Premiership to make sure others do as well. Whilst considering the success of Everton, WBA or Swansea, it's hard to take West Ham's issues of controlling spiralling agents fees seriously. Yes agents are a scourge on the game, but it's clubs (or mugs) like West Ham and QPR that give them their power. If a player, and their agent, are taking you to the cleaners, then that's the player you avoid because when shit hits the fan, they probably threw it.

    Funny how Man U, being rich and with sufficient revenue streams, and Spurs and Arsenal are all so keen. The analogy of 'closing the drawbridge behind them' is spot on.

    Anyway, enough discussion from me, I think I've made my point (a few times too many perhaps heh) and it was fun debating with you Kalel. In the long run I guess we'll see how it all pans out.
  • LeoliansBro 5 Feb 2013 11:55:22 44,321 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I think the idea is that a club is socially more important than any one board at any one time, and that they can't be relied on to act prudently and so must have stricter guidelines.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Shikasama 5 Feb 2013 11:59:30 6,844 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Yeah it was a bit rich when Sullivan came out with that horseshit.

    If you were looking at the ONE player who could possibly improve your team, then you can be held to ransom by an agent. West Ham aren't in that position...just move along.
  • kalel 5 Feb 2013 12:18:53 87,775 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Again, it's going to be hugely problematic in its implementation but its intention is to be a positive force, not to punish. And the suggestion that it's all about helping the top clubs retain their monopoly is conspiratorial nonsense.

    Also please stop posting anti-Semitic comments about Daniel Levy. Nobody finds them funny and at least one person finds them offensive.
  • puddleduck 5 Feb 2013 12:20:17 1,854 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Well I'm Jewish and a Spurs fan so I'll post what I want :p Funny though that you took that as meaning I was calling him tight because he's Jewish. I was merely suggesting he is tight... which he is.

    I'm also fully aware it's nothing more than speculation, but you know, I am allowed to speculate and it wouldn't be the first time in history that a law change has secondary benefits.

    Edited by puddleduck at 12:20:57 05-02-2013

    Edited by puddleduck at 12:24:49 05-02-2013
  • kalel 5 Feb 2013 12:22:14 87,775 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    If you are Jewish then you should know better than to say those kinds of things. Best case scenario you get a cheap laugh. Worst case you validate the anti-Semitic views that others may already have.
  • kalel 5 Feb 2013 12:23:16 87,775 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    puddleduck wrote:
    Well I'm Jewish and a Spurs fan so I'll post what I want :p Funny though that you took that as meaning I was calling him tight because he's Jewish. I was merely suggesting he is tight... which he is.
    Yeah right. What about this one then?

    puddleduck wrote:
    Don't be ridiculous. Unless Levy can find a way to pay half of what he's worth, he'll never sanction it... Once a Jew, always a Jew :lol:
    Edited by kalel at 12:23:33 05-02-2013
  • Shikasama 5 Feb 2013 12:24:19 6,844 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Racism debate hooooooooo!
  • Deleted user 5 February 2013 12:24:22
    The smiley makes it.
  • Page

    of 5488 First / Last

Log in or register to reply