- 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
re: FFP - Man City and PSG Punishment
Posted on 5/6/14 at 2:12 pm to crazy4lsu
Posted on 5/6/14 at 2:12 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
When a new owner comes in and sees he can simply buy a team and reach the top, that's what he is going to do
Whoa whoa pump the brakes. I get some of the points you are trying to make. United have over the years laid out some large fees on transfers and prized away some promising young talent from clubs who could not afford to say no. I would never deny that. And if you want to blame United for driving the market in that way then that's fine.
But to act like that's been the only formula for success is disingenuous. United have mixed in transfer market purchases with product from its youth academy. The purchases of Keane, Cole, and Yorke accompanied the development of the class of '92, along with Cantona who was purchased from Leeds at a very reasonable price.
United have always been responsible in the way they've bought and sold players as well. Just look at the netspend figures I posted earlier. To say that they have somehow contributed to reasons for FFP is not totally right. United haven't recklessly bought players on the market and racked up major losses for the club in the process, like PSG and City. Rather, United have embodied aptitude on the market by buying and selling players at a relatively low net spend for the type of success the club has enjoyed.
3
Posted on 5/6/14 at 2:14 pm to StraightCashHomey21
I don't think you are getting what I'm saying. In my view the inflated transfer market that existed at the beginning of the noughties necessitated either one of two models: the historically big team with a massive stadium and fanbase, with gigantic revenue streams from matchday income and sponsorship, and the team owned by a billionaire who invested money into the squad. Man U was definitely a massive part of this market inflation, as they had the biggest stadium and were flush with massive amounts of cash, where they could pay whatever ridiculous sum for players. Barca, Real, and the Italian teams are the principal culprits in this false market. When Abramovich came, he simply took a promising club and invested money into it, just like Danny Fiszman did with Arsenal in the 90's, but Roman did it on a much bigger scale. When that model worked almost immediately, what do you think other teams and billionaires thought? It was right at that time that David Dein decided Arsenal needed their own sugar-daddy, and now, ten years later, each of the top four is owned by a billionaire, all with their varying models of running the day to day affairs, but always doing what they must to protect an extremely valuable asset.
Whether this has been detrimental to the sport is another issue, but it has created a situation the real loser is the local fan who has been priced out of not only owning a small part of his team (as was the case with fanshare) but also even seeing his local team.
We could argue that the billionaire model has turned the sport into a massive international entertainment vehicle, but it also has the potential to create a bubble unless there is oversight. And now we have oversight, though we won't know its effectiveness for some years.
Whether this has been detrimental to the sport is another issue, but it has created a situation the real loser is the local fan who has been priced out of not only owning a small part of his team (as was the case with fanshare) but also even seeing his local team.
We could argue that the billionaire model has turned the sport into a massive international entertainment vehicle, but it also has the potential to create a bubble unless there is oversight. And now we have oversight, though we won't know its effectiveness for some years.
Posted on 5/6/14 at 2:16 pm to PeepleHeppinBidness
quote:
Whoa whoa pump the brakes. I get some of the points you are trying to make. United have over the years laid out some large fees on transfers and prized away some promising young talent from clubs who could not afford to say no. I would never deny that. And if you want to blame United for driving the market in that way then that's fine.
But to act like that's been the only formula for success is disingenuous. United have mixed in transfer market purchases with product from its youth academy. The purchases of Keane, Cole, and Yorke accompanied the development of the class of '92, along with Cantona who was purchased from Leeds at a very reasonable price.
United have always been responsible in the way they've bought and sold players as well. Just look at the netspend figures I posted earlier. To say that they have somehow contributed to reasons for FFP is not totally right. United haven't recklessly bought players on the market and racked up major losses for the club in the process, like PSG and City. Rather, United have embodied aptitude on the market by buying and selling players at a relatively low net spend for the type of success the club has enjoyed.
Very well put
Like I said earlier I have no problem with City spending and spending but be prepared to pay the price. It would be one thing if they took 100 million one year in losses but the next turned a profit or only took 10 million in the red. But thats not that case 300 million in two years is absurd. Lets right off 60 for youth system and facilities. Thats still 240 in the red.
Posted on 5/6/14 at 2:19 pm to PeepleHeppinBidness
quote:
But to act like that's been the only formula for success is disingenuous.
There is one formula for immediate success, and that is paying a lot of money for the best players. Chelsea, City, PSG, and Monaco have shown us that. All four have shown that if you are willing to spend, you can have a pretty good team in a very small amount of time.
Posted on 5/6/14 at 2:20 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
When Abramovich came, he simply took a promising club and invested money into it, just like Danny Fiszman did with Arsenal in the 90's, but Roman did it on a much bigger scale. When that model worked almost immediately, what do you think other teams and billionaires thought? It was right at that time that David Dein decided Arsenal needed their own sugar-daddy, and now, ten years later, each of the top four is owned by a billionaire, all with their varying models of running the day to day affairs, but always doing what they must to protect an extremely valuable asset.
Ok heres the thing. Once Roman got his team into the the upper echelon of English and European football he curbed his spending and keep the Chelsea youth system alive.
When City had its take over it used the same model but has not stopped yet even after winning trophies. Once FFP was announced Chelsea pumped the brakes big time and City did not.
Chelsea was not even in danger of FFP punishment this year and should be good again b/c Jose is going to off load alot of dead weight this summer.
Posted on 5/6/14 at 2:25 pm to PeepleHeppinBidness
quote:
And if you want to blame United for driving the market in that way then that's fine.
I'm blaming all the big clubs at the turn of the century for this. Bigger TV deals and success made these clubs flush with cash and willing to pay insane prices that haven't gone down in 14 years. That is why we have FFP now, because we have the cautionary tales of Leeds, Dortmund, Portsmouth and others who spent beyond their means. PSG and City aren't spending beyond their owner's means though. They are simply paying slightly above market value for a large group of players in a short amount of time. The fact that the group of teams willing to pay 30 mil plus for world class players makes what was once a false market now the actual market, and that isn't a good thing for the most part. You'll continue to see insane wages, insane agent fees, etc, until FFP is enforceable, which we won't know for a couple more years.
Posted on 5/6/14 at 2:27 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Once FFP was announced Chelsea pumped the brakes big time and City did not.
City and PSG are backed by massive oil wealth so all these fees aren't much to them. They still have very little incentive to stop paying well above market value, especially if they win the inevitable appeal.
Posted on 5/6/14 at 2:28 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Ok heres the thing. Once Roman got his team into the the upper echelon of English and European football he curbed his spending
and
quote:
When City had its take over it used the same model but has not stopped yet even after winning trophies.
Aren't the same. Chelsea had WAY more success in those first 5 years than City has had.
quote:
Chelsea was not even in danger of FFP punishment this year and should be good again b/c Jose is going to off load alot of dead weight this summer.
Of course they weren't. It has been 11 years since Roman got there. They're established. They have achieved what MCFC is going for and had a 5 year head start.
This post was edited on 5/6/14 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 5/6/14 at 2:34 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Ok heres the thing. Once Roman got his team into the the upper echelon of English and European football he curbed his spending and keep the Chelsea youth system alive.
When City had its take over it used the same model but has not stopped yet even after winning trophies. Once FFP was announced Chelsea pumped the brakes big time and City did not.
chelsea net spending
2010/11: -95.0m
2011/12: -62.9m
2012/13: -79.0m
2013/14: -79.4m
city net spending
2010/11: -127.4m
2011/12: -57.4m
2012/13: -15.6m
2013/14: -91.7m
city's net spending has been less than chelsea's for three of the last four years.
This post was edited on 5/6/14 at 2:36 pm
Posted on 5/6/14 at 2:36 pm to Srbtiger06
I have no issue with City spending
But alot of the stuff city has done FFP has been announced looks like o shite o shite, B/c it was clear they never had any intent to change their spending habits.
The youth system and facilities are much needed and great but that only bought you guys time.
Unneeded stadium expansion and over inflated sponsorship deals that are tied to your owner trying to act like they are separate income just wont fly.
But alot of the stuff city has done FFP has been announced looks like o shite o shite, B/c it was clear they never had any intent to change their spending habits.
The youth system and facilities are much needed and great but that only bought you guys time.
Unneeded stadium expansion and over inflated sponsorship deals that are tied to your owner trying to act like they are separate income just wont fly.
Posted on 5/6/14 at 2:40 pm to theOG
quote:
city's net spending has been less than chelsea's for three of the last four years.
Not sure how legit that is b/c Chelsea was not facing FFP punishment. They also have a smaller stadium than City but it could come down to revenue from other things.
Posted on 5/6/14 at 2:40 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
The youth system and facilities are much needed and great but that only bought you guys time.
maybe so, but the youth system and facilities are certainly necessary for sustained success. i'd bet that that was always in the plans at city, even if it may have been sped up by FFP.
Posted on 5/6/14 at 2:43 pm to theOG
quote:
maybe so, but the youth system and facilities are certainly necessary for sustained success. i'd bet that that was always in the plans at city, even if it may have been sped up by FFP.
Not going to disagree and Im happy it happened b/c it will only push United's academy to be just that much better. Also gives more local Manchester lads a chance.
Posted on 5/6/14 at 2:48 pm to StraightCashHomey21
i read a rumor the other day that RVP's kid is in the city youth setup. any truth to this?
Posted on 5/6/14 at 2:50 pm to theOG
quote:
i read a rumor the other day that RVP's kid is in the city youth setup. any truth to this?
Yup its true
No reason Manchester should not have two premier league teams. If the scousers can we sure as hell better.
Posted on 5/6/14 at 2:57 pm to theOG
He's like 6.
Posted on 5/6/14 at 3:00 pm to crazy4lsu
so?
Posted on 5/6/14 at 3:02 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
There is one formula for immediate success, and that is paying a lot of money for the best players. Chelsea, City, PSG, and Monaco have shown us that. All four have shown that if you are willing to spend, you can have a pretty good team in a very small amount of time.
I agree. It is the quickest path to success. Building a youth system takes time. And these clubs have the right to spend whatever they want on players under FFP, so long as it is supported by the revenue on the books.
quote:
PSG and City aren't spending beyond their owner's means though. They are simply paying slightly above market value for a large group of players in a short amount of time. The fact that the group of teams willing to pay 30 mil plus for world class players makes what was once a false market now the actual market, and that isn't a good thing for the most part.
Clubs like PSG and City aren't spending above the owner's means, but are spending above the club's means, based on what the club's revenue sources can support. I think this is the major reason for FFP - to keep clubs from spending more than their resources allow. If the club's owners pulled out their personal support, the club would be left bloated, overvalued, and strung out too thin to meet obligations. A la Leeds, Dortmund, Portsmouth, and others.
The troubling aspect of today's market is the explosion in the number of excessive fees being paid on transfers. The worry is that this is poisoning the well for everyone and is being supported by a few clubs who are outspending their means. I get that you are tracing this motivation back to a few of the larger clubs who went and bought players they wanted because they had the means and carried a big stick. But I would like to blame a few egotistical owners who saw economic opportunity and had motivations independent from the influence of any clubs in the late 90s-early 00s.
Posted on 5/6/14 at 3:02 pm to theOG
quote:
so?
i know right
Danny was spotted by United scouts at 6 and was in the youth set up at 8
our youth system guys looking good today
This post was edited on 5/6/14 at 3:06 pm
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News