- 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
Legal challenge to FFP moving along
Posted on 3/2/15 at 11:18 pm
Posted on 3/2/15 at 11:18 pm
2
Posted on 3/3/15 at 1:08 am to Draconian Sanctions
Posted on 3/3/15 at 2:41 am to StraightCashHomey21
I don't understand why people are so against this? I'm a City fan and I think FFP is probably one of the better things to happen to the sport.
Don't get me wrong, I love seeing City beat Sunderland or another lower end PL club 5-0, but it's knowing that these rules are in place that make it more enjoyable for me. City do spend more than say Sunderland, but they would spend even more if the rules weren't there The big clubs just can't binge spend without returning a profit and I do think it creates somewhat of a vastly larger playing field.
I hope FFP stays around for good. I think it will ultimately lead to more entertaining sport.
Don't get me wrong, I love seeing City beat Sunderland or another lower end PL club 5-0, but it's knowing that these rules are in place that make it more enjoyable for me. City do spend more than say Sunderland, but they would spend even more if the rules weren't there The big clubs just can't binge spend without returning a profit and I do think it creates somewhat of a vastly larger playing field.
I hope FFP stays around for good. I think it will ultimately lead to more entertaining sport.
Posted on 3/3/15 at 3:48 am to McCaigBro69
quote:
I don't understand why people are so against this? I'm a City fan and I think FFP is probably one of the better things to happen to the sport.
Don't get me wrong, I love seeing City beat Sunderland or another lower end PL club 5-0, but it's knowing that these rules are in place that make it more enjoyable for me. City do spend more than say Sunderland, but they would spend even more if the rules weren't there The big clubs just can't binge spend without returning a profit and I do think it creates somewhat of a vastly larger playing field.
I hope FFP stays around for good. I think it will ultimately lead to more entertaining sport.
FFP forced City to be a club again and not a play toy.
It protects the club and forced development even if it will be a write off it was still done.
Most clubs don't turn a profit and the path City is on which was even worse they were never would have made a profit.
People against FFP say who cares if the owner just keep dumping in money on players and crazy wages if they can afford it, but eventually shite will hit the fan.
City and PSG basically ruined the market jacking up transfer fees and wages.
They took what United, Arsenal or Liverpool and other big clubs used to do for one or two players a year and used that as their whole transfer system every year. Chelsea used to but have done a 180.
This post was edited on 3/3/15 at 4:22 am
Posted on 3/3/15 at 7:23 am to McCaigBro69
Look at Malaga. Some oil sheik got sick of it and put the club into a shite situation. In essence, FFP is supposed to protect the club itself from some being a shiny toy.
Posted on 3/3/15 at 7:49 am to EastNastySwag
Nobody has a problem with a rule preventing an owner from saddling a club with a huge amount of debt.
But there is no legitimate reason for preventing an owner from using cash to improve their squad, other than to protect the top clubs and give more frugal owners an excuse to justify their lack of investment. That's the issue and it's mind boggling why any intellectually honest person would support this aspect of the rule.
But there is no legitimate reason for preventing an owner from using cash to improve their squad, other than to protect the top clubs and give more frugal owners an excuse to justify their lack of investment. That's the issue and it's mind boggling why any intellectually honest person would support this aspect of the rule.
Posted on 3/3/15 at 7:58 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
But there is no legitimate reason for preventing an owner from using cash to improve their squad, other than to protect the top clubs and give more frugal owners an excuse to justify their lack of investment. That's the issue and it's mind boggling why any intellectually honest person would support this aspect of the rule.
Then why was FFP voted yes by every club other than City and PSG
Posted on 3/3/15 at 8:12 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Draconian Sanctions
quote:
FFP
DNR
Posted on 3/3/15 at 8:14 am to StraightCashHomey21
QPR didn't, I'm sure there are others. And besides, I already told you why: protectionism or to give a frugal owner an excuse for supporters as to why they can't move forward.
The fact that you can't address the issue without deflecting shows how weak your position is.
Where would Chelsea be if FFP had been in place 15 years ago? They'd still be a mid table side with little hope of ever breaking into the upper echelon, and the BPL would be a less interesting place for that. Sure, that would be good for Manchester United, more trophies for you, but it would be bad for the league. There has to be some modicum of uncertainty and hope for a club that they too can one day be a top side. You've taken that away from most supporters.
You can protect clubs from excessive debt and still allow for owners to spend their own money to improve their positions but that's not what FFP was ever about.
The fact that you can't address the issue without deflecting shows how weak your position is.
Where would Chelsea be if FFP had been in place 15 years ago? They'd still be a mid table side with little hope of ever breaking into the upper echelon, and the BPL would be a less interesting place for that. Sure, that would be good for Manchester United, more trophies for you, but it would be bad for the league. There has to be some modicum of uncertainty and hope for a club that they too can one day be a top side. You've taken that away from most supporters.
You can protect clubs from excessive debt and still allow for owners to spend their own money to improve their positions but that's not what FFP was ever about.
This post was edited on 3/3/15 at 8:34 am
Posted on 3/3/15 at 8:33 am to McCaigBro69
quote:
I'm a City fan and I think FFP is probably one of the better things to happen to the sport.
Would you have agreed with this 8 years ago??
I kind of have mixed feelings about it... I should like it, but I'm not thoroughly convinced..
edit: all that said, it is in place and I'm not that bothered by it..
This post was edited on 3/3/15 at 8:34 am
Posted on 3/3/15 at 8:35 am to TFTC
If it were just a rule about adding debt to a club that would be fine. Nobody wants to see clubs go into administration. But if I'm an owner and I have 20 million lying around that I want to use on a striker instead of another yacht, why shouldn't I be allowed to pay cash for that transfer?
Posted on 3/3/15 at 8:40 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
QPR didn't, I'm sure there are others. And besides, I already told you why: protectionism or to give a frugal owner an excuse for supporters as to why they can't move forward.
lol QPR just posted a loss of only around 10 million pounds.
Thats peanuts in world football. They clearly are figuring it out.
quote:
Where would Chelsea be if FFP had been in place 15 years ago? They'd still be a mid table side with little hope of ever breaking into the upper echelon, and the BPL would be a less interesting place for that. Sure, that would be good for Manchester United, more trophies for you, but it would be bad for the league. There has to be some modicum of uncertainty and hope for a club that they too can one day be a top side. You've taken that away from most supporters.
You can protect clubs from excessive debt and still allow for owners to spend their own money to improve their positions but that's not what FFP was ever about.
You act as if Chelsea wasn't successful right before the were bought
They were a club on the rise
Get your protecting the top dogs conspiracy out of here.
Posted on 3/3/15 at 8:46 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
You act as if Chelsea wasn't successful right before the were bought
Hadn't won the league in 50 years, only a small handful of top 4 finishes in that time. You're really going to try to say with a straight face they would be where there are now if FFP were instituted in say, 1999?
quote:
Get your protecting the top dogs conspiracy out of here.
If that's not what it is then tell me why they didn't stop at just limiting debts? Why shouldn't owners be able to spend their own cash to improve their clubs?
quote:
lol QPR just posted a loss of only around 10 million pounds.
You said PSG and City were the only 2 clubs against FFP, I proved you wrong.
This post was edited on 3/3/15 at 8:52 am
Posted on 3/3/15 at 8:54 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Hadn't won the league in 50 years, only a small handful of top 4 finishes in that time. You're really going to try to say with a straight face they would be where there are now if FFP were instituted in say, 1999?
Would they be as good, of course not. Difference they got their kick start and changed their ways. City and PSG have no intentions of doing so. City was a yoyo club that the initial cash helped. But spending over 100 million window after window is absurd. Chelsea didn't even do that.
Since the premier league started City have almost caught Chelsea in money spent on players even though Chelsea had a huge head start. The revolving door at City is bad for the league and especially for youth players who are english or anywhere else.
quote:
You said PSG and City were the only 2 clubs against FFP, I proved you wrong.
They were in the Championship at the time, like they were even relevant. Along with other Championship clubs who voted against it.
This post was edited on 3/3/15 at 8:57 am
Posted on 3/3/15 at 9:10 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
If that's not what it is then tell me why they didn't stop at just limiting debts? Why shouldn't owners be able to spend their own cash to improve their clubs?
Then why was Liverpool under FFP investigation for 3 years.
This supposed to keep the status quo right
Posted on 3/3/15 at 9:23 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Difference they got their kick start and changed their ways. City and PSG have no intentions of doing so.
So are you saying you'd be okay with an initial large outlay of funds to kick start a club and build a fanbase/extra revenue streams?Posted on 3/3/15 at 9:24 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Then why was Liverpool under FFP investigation for 3 years.
This supposed to keep the status quo right
you're not even making sense now. What exactly are you trying to say here? Posted on 3/3/15 at 9:26 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
So are you saying you'd be okay with an initial large outlay of funds to kick start a club and build a fanbase/extra revenue streams?
I don't think anyone has an issue with a injection of cash into clubs. The issue is the continued reckless spending.
In terms of building extra fan base. Thats not really going to happen and City is a perfect example. Due to the tribalistic nature of european soccer.
Extra revenue streams, you mean shady over inflated sponsorship deals. No way you can say with a straight face the naming rights to City's stadium is worth 350 million pounds.
This post was edited on 3/3/15 at 9:28 am
Posted on 3/3/15 at 9:37 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
I don't think anyone has an issue with a injection of cash into clubs. The issue is the continued reckless spending.
So you're not totally in favor of FFP either.
quote:
Extra revenue streams, you mean shady over inflated sponsorship deals. No way you can say with a straight face the naming rights to City's stadium is worth 350 million pounds.
If the club has a contract, that's going to guarantee a revenue source for the club for the length of that deal and won't add debt on the club. I don't see what the issue is.
That's not really what I meant though. Chelsea, through their success, has expanded their fan base dramatically over the last 10 years, which equates to more shirt/merchandise sales and completely legitimate sponsorships that they would not have gotten if not for their spending in the first 6-8 years of the Abramovich era. That model is now illegal.
quote:
In terms of building extra fan base. Thats not really going to happen and City is a perfect example. Due to the tribalistic nature of european soccer.
There are droves upon droves of American Chelsea fans, many of whom would have picked another club if not for their recent success.
Hell, after the news the other day there are a bunch of Chelsea fans who live in freaking Manchester apparently. Europe is not immune from bandwagoning.
This post was edited on 3/3/15 at 9:40 am
Posted on 3/3/15 at 9:40 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
If the club has a contract, that's going to guarantee a revenue source for the club for the length of that deal and won't add debt on the club. I don't see what the issue is.
The issue is whether or not the value paid for said naming rights is fair market value, or simply a loophole or technicality which has been taken advantage of in a timely manner.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News