- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Facing multiple legal challenges, UEFA set to ease FFP restrictions
Posted on 5/18/15 at 8:59 am
Posted on 5/18/15 at 8:59 am
2
Posted on 5/18/15 at 10:00 am to Draconian Sanctions
listening to TalkSport and they are saying the expected changes will allow for owners to spend their own money, provided they do it in cash and not in the form of a loan to the club or anything else that will add debt. This will still protect clubs and supporters from owners putting a club into a Portsmouth situation, but will allow people to spend money they have on hand in the way they see fit. That's what FFP should have been in the first place.
Posted on 5/18/15 at 10:16 am to Draconian Sanctions
SCH and DS:28 pages.
Everyone else:3 pages.
Everyone else:3 pages.
Posted on 5/18/15 at 10:18 am to St Augustine
I said it was an illegal rule and would eventually be either changed or overturned. I am being proven correct
Posted on 5/18/15 at 10:54 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
listening to TalkSport and they are saying the expected changes will allow for owners to spend their own money, provided they do it in cash and not in the form of a loan to the club or anything else that will add debt
So basically PSG and City get to spend 100 million every window.
While Chelsea who actually can meet FFP can not now. Bc they are in debt to their owner.
Them passing this would create even more of a shite storm.
The EPL rules are already much more lenient than the rest of Europe.
If a club like PSG really brought in 400+ million pounds and City 350+ they should be self sufficient.
We know their revenue streams are suspect.
People like you complain about FFP already favoring the larger clubs well now its going to get worse if this passes.
Clubs like Milan for example could go back to becoming a power over night. Despite being ran like a mikey mouse outfit.
This post was edited on 5/18/15 at 11:01 am
Posted on 5/18/15 at 10:59 am to StraightCashHomey21
Annnnnd it begins 
DS will get his arse stomped by SCH as usual and he will up vote his own posts to make him feel better.
DS will get his arse stomped by SCH as usual and he will up vote his own posts to make him feel better. Posted on 5/18/15 at 11:03 am to EastNastySwag
quote:
he will up vote his own posts to make him feel better.
Glad I'm not the only one who thinks that
Posted on 5/18/15 at 11:06 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
So basically PSG and City get to spend 100 million every window.
If that's how those owners want to spend their money
quote:
While Chelsea who actually can meet FFP can not now. Bc they are in debt to their owner.
Roman can still put in whatever money he wants
quote:
Clubs like Milan for example could go back to becoming a power over night. Despite being ran like a mikey mouse outfit.
Why do you get to be the arbiter of what makes an owner "good" and another "bad"? If an owner isn't putting debt onto the club then what's the problem?
If I own a successful toothpaste company, then decide to get involved in the lawn care industry, why should I be prevented from using the money I made in toothpaste to build up my new lawn care service?
This post was edited on 5/18/15 at 11:16 am
Posted on 5/18/15 at 11:08 am to StraightCashHomey21
If anything I downvote my own posts just to help get the vitrol really flowing and make you think more people are on your side than really are
Posted on 5/18/15 at 11:15 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
If anything I downvote my own posts just to help get the vitrol really flowing and make you think more people are on your side than really are
Posted on 5/18/15 at 11:18 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
If that's how those owners want to spend their money
until the books are really opened
quote:
Roman can still put in whatever money he wants
Difference is he runs it more like a business not some pet project or toy. Thats why he loaned the money to the club.
quote:
Why do you get to be the arbiter of what makes an owner "good" and another "bad"? If an owner isn't putting debt onto the club then what's the problem?
If I own a successful toothpaste company, then decide to get involved in the lawn care industry, why should I be prevented from using the money I made in toothpaste to build up my new lawn care service?
I get your argument but the City and PSG's owners are not successful business men, they are royalty who control oil when it comes down to it
Posted on 5/18/15 at 11:20 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
So basically PSG and City get to spend 100 million every window.
I mean I won't complain if City get to blow the top off their bank accounts. I think they should be able to spend every season if they want to, and not just them, but all clubs.
However, I do think there should be a cap that all clubs can spend per season (both windows). Maybe you make that 100 million or 75 million. I don't know, but being able to spend 100-200 million every window is certainly not a good thing.
Posted on 5/18/15 at 11:24 am to StraightCashHomey21
It really just comes down to this: I agree the clubs should be protected from what happened to Portsmouth, Leeds, and Rangers. Those clubs had huge debts racked up onto their balance sheets and suffered hugely for it. But if an owner or a shareholder has cash on hand of their own money for a transfer, and they are going to pay it all up front and no debt will be added to the clubs finances then I don't think it's right to make that kind of a transaction illegal.
Posted on 5/18/15 at 11:25 am to McCaigBro69
quote:
I mean I won't complain if City get to blow the top off their bank accounts. I think they should be able to spend every season if they want to, and not just them, but all clubs.
Yea but say they keep doing this and then boom they sell the club and all those shitty contracts are on the club that they can't pay anymore bc the owner was just fronting the money.
quote:
However, I do think there should be a cap that all clubs can spend per season (both windows). Maybe you make that 100 million or 75 million. I don't know, but being able to spend 100-200 million every window is certainly not a good thing.
A hard cap will never fly, the idea of being based on the club being self sufficient has already proven to work.
Posted on 5/18/15 at 11:26 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
It really just comes down to this: I agree the clubs should be protected from what happened to Portsmouth, Leeds, and Rangers. Those clubs had huge debts racked up onto their balance sheets and suffered hugely for it. But if an owner or a shareholder has cash on hand of their own money for a transfer, and they are going to pay it all up front and no debt will be added to the clubs finances then I don't think it's right to make that kind of a transaction illegal.
Sure they can transfer or front money to cover transfers or wages but once that stops and a club can not cover those wages on its own. Then a shite storm starts.
I am all for investment, but reckless spending on a year by year basis is just bad for the game.
This post was edited on 5/18/15 at 11:28 am
Posted on 5/18/15 at 11:30 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
but once that stops and a club can not cover those wages on its own. Then a shite storm starts.
I just don't see that as the same kind of dangerous activity as what was going on at those clubs in terms of moving money around and financing huge transfer fees over long periods with big interest accrued.
Just a simple wage bill is going to be covered by any owner and a new owner will have access to those numbers before they come on board. They won't be shocked to find that YaYa makes 250k a week or whatever. It's public knowledge.
Posted on 5/18/15 at 11:31 am to StraightCashHomey21
Lets also not overlook the fact on who pays Platini's son salary.
Posted on 5/18/15 at 11:31 am to StraightCashHomey21
Less of this
More of this
You two are being entirely too civil here. We finally have some godamn movement on the subject from multiple major news outlets.
quote:
I get your argument
I agree
More of this
You two are being entirely too civil here. We finally have some godamn movement on the subject from multiple major news outlets.
This post was edited on 5/18/15 at 11:36 am
Posted on 5/18/15 at 11:34 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
I just don't see that as the same kind of dangerous activity as what was going on at those clubs in terms of moving money around and financing huge transfer fees over long periods with big interest accrued.
Just a simple wage bill is going to be covered by any owner and a new owner will have access to those numbers before they come on board. They won't be shocked to find that YaYa makes 250k a week or whatever. It's public knowledge.
A club like City just does not bring in enough to sustain their habits, if it was sold. It wouldn't have no where near the sponsorship money if its owner didn't have ties to Etihad.
Posted on 5/18/15 at 11:37 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
A club like City just does not bring in enough to sustain their habits, if it was sold. It wouldn't have no where near the sponsorship money if its owner didn't have ties to Etihad.
Sure but you could let a player go on a free if you really had to get rid of those wages.
Again it's just not the same as well we paid 80 million on a transfer fee for this guy 3 years ago and that money was financed over 6 years at 7.5% a year and that debt isn't going anywhere and the new owner might not even know about it until it's too late.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News