Orrrrrr!
Ice Cream Vans selling Coal.
You mean like this thread?augie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:27 pmAnother long, but really excellent article
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... -BENT.html
Of course ultimately it will be pointless article
If someone had the balls to govern football properly, then this thread would be totally relevant. Saracens have been taken to task over financial issues, so should City be.OneBardGooner wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:03 pmYou mean like this thread?augie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:27 pmAnother long, but really excellent article
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... -BENT.html
Of course ultimately it will be pointless article
Rugby is less corrupt than football at the moment and the other clubs have been at the league for a while to reel Saracens in .nut flush gooner wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:57 pmIf someone had the balls to govern football properly, then this thread would be totally relevant. Saracens have been taken to task over financial issues, so should City be.OneBardGooner wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 3:03 pmYou mean like this thread?augie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 1:27 pmAnother long, but really excellent article
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... -BENT.html
Of course ultimately it will be pointless article
My comparison between footballs FFP rules and Rugby's salary cap weren't intended to be looked at on a money level. It's more how the authorities have enforced the letter of the law and how everyone expects UEFA to capitulate here. Plus the lack of noise coming out from the UK footballing authorities is not missed on me.northbank123 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:01 pmAlso Saracens and City are completely different.
The rugby salary cap was brought in because it is a completely financially unsustainable sport where all clubs make losses. The salary cap was designed to stop it from being run into oblivion.
FFP were arbitrary rules which were brought in by those trying to protect their privileged position (RM, Barca, United) and the nouveau riche (Chelsea) solely to feather their own nests. The rules were ridiculous - only transfer and wages expenditure counted, so a club could be compliant whilst running at a loss of £100m if that loss was caused by tax, spending on training facilities / youth team and exorbitant interest on loans. UEFA never really had any intention of seriously enforcing it until their hatred of English football got too much.
Can I ask why you think that mate?nut flush gooner wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 7:25 amMy comparison between footballs FFP rules and Rugby's salary cap weren't intended to be looked at on a money level. It's more how the authorities have enforced the letter of the law and how everyone expects UEFA to capitulate here. Plus the lack of noise coming out from the UK footballing authorities is not missed on me.northbank123 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:01 pmAlso Saracens and City are completely different.
The rugby salary cap was brought in because it is a completely financially unsustainable sport where all clubs make losses. The salary cap was designed to stop it from being run into oblivion.
FFP were arbitrary rules which were brought in by those trying to protect their privileged position (RM, Barca, United) and the nouveau riche (Chelsea) solely to feather their own nests. The rules were ridiculous - only transfer and wages expenditure counted, so a club could be compliant whilst running at a loss of £100m if that loss was caused by tax, spending on training facilities / youth team and exorbitant interest on loans. UEFA never really had any intention of seriously enforcing it until their hatred of English football got too much.
You can look at the principle of FFP in many ways, the way it has been implemented it is a way of footballs elite stopping outsiders from gatecrashing the party. But regardless of this, and I made this point earlier in this thread no billionaire should be allowed to turn a football club from an uncompetitive shell into a team of world-beaters purely by throwing money at them without there being some organic growth. City took a short cut, and now they have to face the consequences.
The same applies to Chelski who went through this process before FFP started to bite. The authorities allowed the benefactor of a state-run oil business (Abramovich) to plough his billions into a UK football club and property to as far as I am concerned launder money at a state level.
The reason I think that is because it makes a mockery of the game. If you let it go unchecked it will just be a case of billionaires trying to outspend each other and ultimately the ones with the deepest pockets prevailing. That in its own right creates an elite set of clubs.Clash wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:00 amCan I ask why you think that mate?nut flush gooner wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 7:25 amMy comparison between footballs FFP rules and Rugby's salary cap weren't intended to be looked at on a money level. It's more how the authorities have enforced the letter of the law and how everyone expects UEFA to capitulate here. Plus the lack of noise coming out from the UK footballing authorities is not missed on me.northbank123 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:01 pmAlso Saracens and City are completely different.
The rugby salary cap was brought in because it is a completely financially unsustainable sport where all clubs make losses. The salary cap was designed to stop it from being run into oblivion.
FFP were arbitrary rules which were brought in by those trying to protect their privileged position (RM, Barca, United) and the nouveau riche (Chelsea) solely to feather their own nests. The rules were ridiculous - only transfer and wages expenditure counted, so a club could be compliant whilst running at a loss of £100m if that loss was caused by tax, spending on training facilities / youth team and exorbitant interest on loans. UEFA never really had any intention of seriously enforcing it until their hatred of English football got too much.
You can look at the principle of FFP in many ways, the way it has been implemented it is a way of footballs elite stopping outsiders from gatecrashing the party. But regardless of this, and I made this point earlier in this thread no billionaire should be allowed to turn a football club from an uncompetitive shell into a team of world-beaters purely by throwing money at them without there being some organic growth. City took a short cut, and now they have to face the consequences.
The same applies to Chelski who went through this process before FFP started to bite. The authorities allowed the benefactor of a state-run oil business (Abramovich) to plough his billions into a UK football club and property to as far as I am concerned launder money at a state level.
I accept its not ideal and not something any of us can have a lot of respect for when its done that way ... but why should it not be allowed? Once a club is owned, why should there be restrictions on how much the owners can spend or how quickly they can spend it?
I would prefer a system where Billionaire owners or organisations were not able to own football clubs ... but unfortunately its too late for that.
And sadly the organic method of building your reputation and growing its fanbase through success on the pitch is no longer an option like it once was.
The game is far too elitist and competitions like the CL are vile because it makes the gap wider by favouring the elite clubs and excluding the rest.
If any team outside the elite did start to emerge, the big clubs would soon be circling like vultures waiting to use their wealth and their name to entice the best players away.
For me Man City have been a breath of fresh air in many ways and denied more success to teams I detest. Arsenal gave up even trying to compete in the last decade so they haven't denied us anything. Wenger was the one who did that. If anything City overpaid us for some of the players we sold to them. Of course ever the hypocrite, Wenger complained that they were distorting the market. Why not say no to the sales then?
Anyway, stealing, cheating, bribing opponents and officials or any form of corruption should be punished ... but spending money isn't a crime. And if bending the rules is a crime .... does anyone seriously think Man City are the only ones who have bent the rules?
PSG currently have the two most expensive players in the world in their team. An average club from a shithole like Paris playing in a shite league. How is that possible within the restrictions of FFP?
I don't disagree at all with it making a mockery of the game ... but I think we were already at that stage to a large extent with CL and PL, the TV money and all the revenue from the Asian market that clubs like Liverpool and Man United exploit.nut flush gooner wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:12 amThe reason I think that is because it makes a mockery of the game. If you let it go unchecked it will just be a case of billionaires trying to outspend each other and ultimately the ones with the deepest pockets prevailing. That in its own right creates an elite set of clubs.Clash wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:00 amCan I ask why you think that mate?nut flush gooner wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 7:25 amMy comparison between footballs FFP rules and Rugby's salary cap weren't intended to be looked at on a money level. It's more how the authorities have enforced the letter of the law and how everyone expects UEFA to capitulate here. Plus the lack of noise coming out from the UK footballing authorities is not missed on me.northbank123 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 10:01 pmAlso Saracens and City are completely different.
The rugby salary cap was brought in because it is a completely financially unsustainable sport where all clubs make losses. The salary cap was designed to stop it from being run into oblivion.
FFP were arbitrary rules which were brought in by those trying to protect their privileged position (RM, Barca, United) and the nouveau riche (Chelsea) solely to feather their own nests. The rules were ridiculous - only transfer and wages expenditure counted, so a club could be compliant whilst running at a loss of £100m if that loss was caused by tax, spending on training facilities / youth team and exorbitant interest on loans. UEFA never really had any intention of seriously enforcing it until their hatred of English football got too much.
You can look at the principle of FFP in many ways, the way it has been implemented it is a way of footballs elite stopping outsiders from gatecrashing the party. But regardless of this, and I made this point earlier in this thread no billionaire should be allowed to turn a football club from an uncompetitive shell into a team of world-beaters purely by throwing money at them without there being some organic growth. City took a short cut, and now they have to face the consequences.
The same applies to Chelski who went through this process before FFP started to bite. The authorities allowed the benefactor of a state-run oil business (Abramovich) to plough his billions into a UK football club and property to as far as I am concerned launder money at a state level.
I accept its not ideal and not something any of us can have a lot of respect for when its done that way ... but why should it not be allowed? Once a club is owned, why should there be restrictions on how much the owners can spend or how quickly they can spend it?
I would prefer a system where Billionaire owners or organisations were not able to own football clubs ... but unfortunately its too late for that.
And sadly the organic method of building your reputation and growing its fanbase through success on the pitch is no longer an option like it once was.
The game is far too elitist and competitions like the CL are vile because it makes the gap wider by favouring the elite clubs and excluding the rest.
If any team outside the elite did start to emerge, the big clubs would soon be circling like vultures waiting to use their wealth and their name to entice the best players away.
For me Man City have been a breath of fresh air in many ways and denied more success to teams I detest. Arsenal gave up even trying to compete in the last decade so they haven't denied us anything. Wenger was the one who did that. If anything City overpaid us for some of the players we sold to them. Of course ever the hypocrite, Wenger complained that they were distorting the market. Why not say no to the sales then?
Anyway, stealing, cheating, bribing opponents and officials or any form of corruption should be punished ... but spending money isn't a crime. And if bending the rules is a crime .... does anyone seriously think Man City are the only ones who have bent the rules?
PSG currently have the two most expensive players in the world in their team. An average club from a shithole like Paris playing in a shite league. How is that possible within the restrictions of FFP?
Honestly, what is more of an achievement buying Vieira and Petit on a shoestring and turning them into world-beaters or spending hundreds of millions of pounds to bring the title back to Chelski for the first time in 50 years?
"I think that a significant factor, 90 per cent, in why we achieved so much is that Danny Fiszman invested £50m in the club and we were able to go to the next level," he said. "I got my first decent contract at the club, so did David Seaman, we were able to bring in Dennis Bergkamp – and that was before Arsène arrived – David Platt, Patrick Vieira, Nicolas Anelka, and were able to pay them – top players from around the world.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foo ... r3z-addoor