- 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: Kompany says it
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:55 am to BleedPurpleGold
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:55 am to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
but my point is, that decision effects how other clubs spend their money.
That's the club in questions decision and that's on them, not the club who spent the money in the first place.
If we both have internet companies, and I spend a bunch of money I made owning a series of Burger Kings to improve the quality of my cable fiber, you can either choose to play catch up or you can come up with a different strategy to compete. Getting a law written that says you can only use profits from your internet company to improve said company is not a solution.
2
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:56 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
How many clubs have gone under in the last 20 years? Portsmouth, Leeds, Rangers all still exist and now ironically are prevented from ever getting back to their former glory because of these rules!
In the last twenty years? 67 clubs have been in administration just in British (England and Scotland) football alone. Of the 655 clubs in Europe, half of them were operating at a loss. 22 Spanish clubs have entered bankruptcy since 2004. Parma, Fiorentina and Napoli are notable examples from British football. Dortmund is a notable example from Germany. I could find a lot more if I had time. All of these have been in the last twenty years.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:57 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
In the last twenty years? 67 clubs have been in administration just in British (England and Scotland) football alone. Of the 655 clubs in Europe, half of them were operating at a loss. 22 Spanish clubs have entered bankruptcy since 2004. Parma, Fiorentina and Napoli are notable examples from British football. Dortmund is a notable example from Germany. I could find a lot more if I had time. All of these have been in the last twenty years.
And how many of them have gone away like as regular business would?
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:58 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Getting a law written that says you can only use profits from your internet company to improve said company is not a solution.
A law written that had, as far as I can find, unamimous appropval from the ECA, the organization which represents major clubs, including Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 11:00 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
And how many of them have gone away like as regular business would?
Fiorentina and Napoli are separate organizations that are basically new clubs that took the names of the old clubs, as is Rangers. The others I would actually have to investigate on a case by case basis.
Regardless, you are pretending there isn't a problem of clubs not being able to remain solvent, which is the major driver behind FFP, not the spending of PSG and Man City.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 11:04 am to crazy4lsu
(no message)
This post was edited on 9/8/25 at 11:06 am
Posted on 4/12/15 at 11:04 am to GeauxTigers2020
quote:
Not hard to qualify for FFP.
So easy Chelsea can do it
Posted on 4/12/15 at 11:07 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Getting a law written that says you can only use profits from your internet company to improve said company is not a solution.
You signed that law! And even if you didn't, as you so eloquently put it:
quote:
come up with a different strategy to compete.
If you don't like the law, leave UEFA. You are a part of that organization and whether you like it or not it is an aspect of its laws. If you didn't sign off on it, I'm sure your club can just "come up with a different strategy."
Posted on 4/12/15 at 11:09 am to crazy4lsu
As long as this guy believes going into administration is not a big deal, there will be absolutely no logical argument here. He has got to try to take himself out of his ethnocentric sports mentality.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 11:11 am to BleedPurpleGold
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/12/15 at 11:12 am
Posted on 4/12/15 at 11:25 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Their answer to everything is just throw money at it.
the answer to all major clubs' issues is throwing money at it. man u JUST did that this offseason
Posted on 4/12/15 at 11:25 am to BleedPurpleGold
frick me. I keep responding in the wrong thread.
This post was edited on 4/12/15 at 11:26 am
Posted on 4/12/15 at 11:28 am to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
You've always said you were for parity
for the record, i'm not "for parity" i'm "for freedom" to manage your club as the ownership pleases
quote:
but the point of antitrust is to prevent a corporation from exercising too much control over everyone else's money.
and instead you implement a regulatory scheme that benefits the "has" groups at the time of implementation and excludes the "has nots" in perpetuity. that's the nature of regulation and the basis of crony capitalism
Posted on 4/12/15 at 11:30 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
So easy Chelsea can do it
not if they had been bought 10 years later
Posted on 4/12/15 at 11:31 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
for the record, i'm not "for parity" i'm "for freedom" to manage your club as the ownership pleases
I was speaking directly to DS.
quote:
and instead you implement a regulatory scheme that benefits the "has" groups at the time of implementation and excludes the "has nots" in perpetuity. that's the nature of regulation and the basis of crony capitalism
It doesn't matter who it benefits. That changes over decades and centuries of a market. The sole beneficiary should be the market itself.
And for the record I never intended for this to be a discussion about antitrust principles. I was just responding to the irony I read in DS's post earlier.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 11:34 am to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
It doesn't matter who it benefits.
sure it does, and it's funny that a big money club fan is trying to dismiss the major point of the issues of FFP
quote:
The sole beneficiary should be the market itself.
wut m8?
regulation doesn't "benefit the market" it skews the market by picking winners and losers (by regulating them out of the market)
Posted on 4/12/15 at 11:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
sure it does, and it's funny that a big money club fan is trying to dismiss the major point of the issues of FFP
No, it doesn't. You don't pass regulatory law taking into account which club benefits at the time. You pass it taking into account the market itself because the market is eternal and will always be there.
quote:
regulation doesn't "benefit the market" it skews the market by picking winners and losers (by regulating them out of the market)
You're the child Adam Smith never had. I'm sure he's smiling down on you right now.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 11:41 am to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
You're the child Adam Smith never had. I'm sure he's smiling down on you right now.
what i stated is true, regardless of how you view freedom in markets. the very nature of regulation is to punish a behavior, thus "picking a loser". the output is that those not engaging in that behavior benefit, so the regulation "picks a winner" in those actors
Posted on 4/12/15 at 11:43 am to SlowFlowPro
Given the economic state of Europe at the time FFP was being discussed, and given its sstate right now, there absolutely had to be regulation. Whether FFP was the right one is another question but given that something like 15% of European clubs have entered administration by my cursory and non-scientific count, something had to be done.
Regulation isn't socialism and we should stop pretending that it is. If you look at the facts European football was in crisis, is in crisis, so UEFA did something.
Regulation isn't socialism and we should stop pretending that it is. If you look at the facts European football was in crisis, is in crisis, so UEFA did something.
This post was edited on 4/12/15 at 11:44 am
Posted on 4/12/15 at 11:45 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
what i stated is true, regardless of how you view freedom in markets. the very nature of regulation is to punish a behavior, thus "picking a loser". the output is that those not engaging in that behavior benefit, so the regulation "picks a winner" in those actors
No, it depends on your definition of what a healthy market is. 90% of the world would agree that competition and parity in spending make a healthy market. Regulation that seeks to level the playing field and allow all players a say in price helps a market in this situation because it creates a stable base. You're speaking from a pure capitalist free market perspective. Others see that model as a very unhealthy market. Its the perspective of the person and context of the market that matter when speaking of what is healthy and what isn't. All of it is opinion. Which is why we'll run in circles around the subject until the end of time. Neither of us are going to convince the other here.
Page 9 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News