Arsenal's & Utd's FFP Plot

[Den10kamp]

Does this not show they are desperatly clutching at straws

GAZIDIS OUT f**king SNAKE I really hope he gets caught in a bondage dungeon or something by the red tops

KROENKE needs to do one fast = he has no ambition

[augie]

Somewhere back some time ago I broke with the norm and expressed my total opposition to FFP - I argued at the time that it was a self serving plan that would prevent any club breaking into the challengers group and each and every season we would see the same teams at the top of the league

Don't we see the same teams at the top of the league anyway, FFP or not?

And 4 years ago were citeeh at the top ? Or ten years ago were the chavs at the top of the league ? Wealthy owners have come in and changed their fortunes as did jack walker many years ago for blackburn and personally I like the freshness new challengers brings (although I would prefer if the chavs were not one of them ). Ruling out the possibility of joining the elite for clubs like norwich, villa etc to keep the status quo is unfair and makes for a stagnent league.
Fact is that we as a club generate a shit load of money and have a wealthy owner (and a mega wealthy 30% shareholder who cannot get onto the board ) so we shouldnt need FFP - however the fact is that he and his c**ts on the board want to achieve success on the cheap and want the authorities to make it easier for them. Those fans that support FFP have absolutely no probs in our club using our financial clout to cherry pick players from clubs like southampton so financial equality has never really existed and nor should it imo - I love the way in the nfl all franchises have to adhere to financial wage caps but the reality is that it is easier to enforce that policy when all the clubs compete in the one league but in football it is impossible to work that system when players and teams are spread over different continents never mind different countries.

We shouldnt need FFP to make us competitive we have enough funds in the transfer kitty to bring in a few quality players and we have a wage budget to support that plan if we were using our resources properly instead of overpaying average crap. I know that we would not be in a position to sustain 20 top quality players like citeeh or the chavs do but the fact is that they can stockpile all the players they want but they can only play 11 at any one time - I accept that there will always be players like adam johnson and scott sinclair who will chase the money at the chavs or citeeh but most players would not be happy sitting on a bench if given a choice between signing for them or playing regularly for another top team and if we signed a few quality players then we could be that team

[northbank123]

Wealthy owners aren't the be all and end all of financial equality. Even if FFP came in to the full extent and was properly enforced, would that stop, for example, United constantly weakening their opponents? Fact is, since the beginning of the PL United have used their financial resources and size as a club to weaken rivals.

Cantona (Leeds)
Cole (Newcastle)
Yorke (Villa)
Ferdinand (Leeds)
Rooney (Everton)
Carrick (Spurs)
Berbatov (Spurs)
van Persie (Arsene Wenger PLC)

Most of these were bought for huge fees and not only strengthened United but weakened opponents, nearly all of whom were at least top 6 at the time. Looking further afield they've also thrown their financial clout about to sign Valencia, Young, Smalling and Jones from PL clubs for substantial fees in the last three seasons alone. United can still pay £20-30m for these players and be FFP-compliant. Clubs aren't going to be able to challenge as long as the bigger clubs are poaching their best players year-on-year, regardless of FFP.

[DB10GOONER]

Somewhere back some time ago I broke with the norm and expressed my total opposition to FFP - I argued at the time that it was a self serving plan that would prevent any club breaking into the challengers group and each and every season we would see the same teams at the top of the league

Don't we see the same teams at the top of the league anyway, FFP or not?

And 4 years ago were citeeh at the top ? Or ten years ago were the chavs at the top of the league ? Wealthy owners have come in and changed their fortunes as did jack walker many years ago for blackburn and personally I like the freshness new challengers brings (although I would prefer if the chavs were not one of them ). Ruling out the possibility of joining the elite for clubs like norwich, villa etc to keep the status quo is unfair and makes for a stagnent league.
Fact is that we as a club generate a shit load of money and have a wealthy owner (and a mega wealthy 30% shareholder who cannot get onto the board ) so we shouldnt need FFP - however the fact is that he and his c**ts on the board want to achieve success on the cheap and want the authorities to make it easier for them. Those fans that support FFP have absolutely no probs in our club using our financial clout to cherry pick players from clubs like southampton so financial equality has never really existed and nor should it imo - I love the way in the nfl all franchises have to adhere to financial wage caps but the reality is that it is easier to enforce that policy when all the clubs compete in the one league but in football it is impossible to work that system when players and teams are spread over different continents never mind different countries.

We shouldnt need FFP to make us competitive we have enough funds in the transfer kitty to bring in a few quality players and we have a wage budget to support that plan if we were using our resources properly instead of overpaying average crap. I know that we would not be in a position to sustain 20 top quality players like citeeh or the chavs do but the fact is that they can stockpile all the players they want but they can only play 11 at any one time - I accept that there will always be players like adam johnson and scott sinclair who will chase the money at the chavs or citeeh but most players would not be happy sitting on a bench if given a choice between signing for them or playing regularly for another top team and if we signed a few quality players then we could be that team

Agree with most of that, except the last bit. Do you honestly think "most" players, augie? I would say it is the minority, the top 10% of elite players that aren't just motivated by money but are absolute alpha dogs that want to win titles as much as (and in some cases maybe more than) just earn crazy money. I'd say the majority of modern players would be contented to sit on the bench and earn millions. Or am I just too cynical and disillusioned?

[spendsum4uckingmoney]

Guy is obviously a Chelsea/Man City fan. Oh no we may actually have a league that doesnt have billionaires buying the league. UTD wont win the league every season no matter how wealthy they are. Look at Bayern Munich being rivaled by Dortmund.

[OneBardGooner]

Just seeing the other clubs represented on Arsenal paper makes me feel sick to gut.....and then of course there is the whole sneaky, slimey, back-stabbing agenda - seemingly headed by those who represent OUR Club, and get handsomely rewarded for it...They have tarnished OUR Club and continue to do so.....They're no better than the scumbag banks and Lending Banks that screwed everyone when the financial crunch happened....

We are no longer the club we once were...Besides loving Arsenal (Team, PLayers etc) I used to be proud to know and say I am 'Gooner' (btw They're still trying to trademark the term Gooner now FFS! - which would have Huge implications for the small/indie merchandising people/stalls/the Gooner Magazine - even this website)...now The Arsenal means something very different and (sadly) I don't see us being able to change that, not when these corrupt(allegedly) cocrrupt *word censored* run OUR club.

So when I read "In addition, there is his slot on the FA’s Professional Game Board, the FA Council, FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber and the Premier League’s Working Group for Elite Player Performance. Quite the busy boy, considering he joined Arsenal as chief executive only in 2009. A cynic would think he had an agenda: or a plan." ..it simply confirmed what I'd suspected all along Gazidis is a back stabbing, ladder climbing sneaky twat...one of those kids in school who'd grass you up , just to get in the teachers good books.

[VoiceOfReason]

Somewhere back some time ago I broke with the norm and expressed my total opposition to FFP - I argued at the time that it was a self serving plan that would prevent any club breaking into the challengers group and each and every season we would see the same teams at the top of the league

Don't we see the same teams at the top of the league anyway, FFP or not?

And 4 years ago were citeeh at the top ? Or ten years ago were the chavs at the top of the league ? Wealthy owners have come in and changed their fortunes as did jack walker many years ago for blackburn and personally I like the freshness new challengers brings (although I would prefer if the chavs were not one of them ). Ruling out the possibility of joining the elite for clubs like norwich, villa etc to keep the status quo is unfair and makes for a stagnent league.

I'm pretty shocked by this statement tbh. Do we really want foreign owners 'buying' the title for clubs with no history like Man City and Chelsea just to 'keep it fresh'? I agree that it's always more interesting to see different clubs challenging, but not in this manner, surely.

I'm not waxing lyrical over Arsenal's financial model either, because it's at the extreme opposite end of the spectrum. I just don't think that a club like Coventry (for instance) should be able to overtake a club like ours overnight with a billionaire investor marching them to the title, when we've worked hard to organically grow the club to the point it's at now.

[northbank123]

Somewhere back some time ago I broke with the norm and expressed my total opposition to FFP - I argued at the time that it was a self serving plan that would prevent any club breaking into the challengers group and each and every season we would see the same teams at the top of the league

Don't we see the same teams at the top of the league anyway, FFP or not?

And 4 years ago were citeeh at the top ? Or ten years ago were the chavs at the top of the league ? Wealthy owners have come in and changed their fortunes as did jack walker many years ago for blackburn and personally I like the freshness new challengers brings (although I would prefer if the chavs were not one of them ). Ruling out the possibility of joining the elite for clubs like norwich, villa etc to keep the status quo is unfair and makes for a stagnent league.

I'm pretty shocked by this statement tbh. Do we really want foreign owners 'buying' the title for clubs with no history like Man City and Chelsea just to 'keep it fresh'? I agree that it's always more interesting to see different clubs challenging, but not in this manner, surely.

I'm not waxing lyrical over Arsenal's financial model either, because it's at the extreme opposite end of the spectrum. I just don't think that a club like Coventry (for instance) should be able to overtake a club like ours overnight with a billionaire investor marching them to the title, when we've worked hard to organically grow the club to the point it's at now.

I personally don't enjoy CHelsea or City prospering so I'm not desperate to see them keep their advantage, but equally don't see why UEFA should intervene. They are a bunch of corporate money-grabbing wankers who care primarily about revenue, secondly about football and thirdly about ethics. And more or less all clubs want to rip their fans off for as much as they can, difference with us is the fans will pay those ridiculous prices.

The people in charge want football to be a business, which it is, so it should be run as a business. Of which capital investment is a huge feature. If I set up a small business and then somebody else in the vicinity ploughs their considerable savings into creating a far larger business of the same nature, what can I do? I can accept I can't compete and pack it in or settle for second best (as Arsenal have metaphorically, literally we've settled for fourth best), or I can look for advantages that my business has and hone my methods in order to try and compete. What you can't do is moan about how unfair it is and cry that everybody should be equal (here's where FFP comes in).

[officepest]

Wealthy owners aren't the be all and end all of financial equality. Even if FFP came in to the full extent and was properly enforced, would that stop, for example, United constantly weakening their opponents? Fact is, since the beginning of the PL United have used their financial resources and size as a club to weaken rivals.

Cantona (Leeds)
Cole (Newcastle)
Yorke (Villa)
Ferdinand (Leeds)
Rooney (Everton)
Carrick (Spurs)
Berbatov (Spurs)
van Persie (Arsene Wenger PLC)

Most of these were bought for huge fees and not only strengthened United but weakened opponents, nearly all of whom were at least top 6 at the time. Looking further afield they've also thrown their financial clout about to sign Valencia, Young, Smalling and Jones from PL clubs for substantial fees in the last three seasons alone. United can still pay £20-30m for these players and be FFP-compliant. Clubs aren't going to be able to challenge as long as the bigger clubs are poaching their best players year-on-year, regardless of FFP.

Nail on the head sir.

[olgitgooner]

I'm totally in favour of any FFP arrangement which will actually work.

The stupid money thrown about by Man Utd and Chelsea in recent years has had a detrimental effect on other clubs. And has reduced competition. Man City are just the latest club to join the elite trophy purchasers.

Anyone who wants to justify this by saying that Blackburn Rovers won the league with Jack Walker's money can fuck off. There is no comparison there at all. Jack spent a lot of money. But it was nothing compared to the spending of the billionaire clubs we have today.

My local club (Brighton) now have a sugar daddy owner. And a new stadium. At last. They showed a loss of £8million in the last financial year. They will have a similar loss this year. After that they reckon to lose £3million. Beyond that they need to show a profit, or at least break even. Failure to do so could mean sanctions including a ban on buying new players. Financial fines would go into a separate pot and be shared out equally amongst all their competitors. Which means they would potentially be helping the hated Crystal Palace to gain promotion. This,to my mind, is a great way to create a level playing field for all clubs.

Bring back the good old days(?) when small clubs like Aston Villa, Nottingham Forest and Derby County won titles. And Manchester United and Sp*rs got relegated.

[augie]

I'm totally in favour of any FFP arrangement which will actually work.

The stupid money thrown about by Man Utd and Chelsea in recent years has had a detrimental effect on other clubs. And has reduced competition. Man City are just the latest club to join the elite trophy purchasers.

Anyone who wants to justify this by saying that Blackburn Rovers won the league with Jack Walker's money can fuck off. There is no comparison there at all. Jack spent a lot of money. But it was nothing compared to the spending of the billionaire clubs we have today.

My local club (Brighton) now have a sugar daddy owner. And a new stadium. At last. They showed a loss of £8million in the last financial year. They will have a similar loss this year. After that they reckon to lose £3million. Beyond that they need to show a profit, or at least break even. Failure to do so could mean sanctions including a ban on buying new players. Financial fines would go into a separate pot and be shared out equally amongst all their competitors. Which means they would potentially be helping the hated Crystal Palace to gain promotion. This,to my mind, is a great way to create a level playing field for all clubs.

Bring back the good old days(?) when small clubs like Aston Villa, Nottingham Forest and Derby County won titles. And Manchester United and Sp*rs got relegated.

So who exactly could realistically win the league if the chavs and citeeh hadnt found their pots of gold ? The red or blue scousers ? Doubtful I would say wouldnt you ? If I was pushed then I reckon us and maybe the scum would be classed as challengers but manure would be miles ahead of the rest of us......every fcuking season What is competitive about that ? Realistically we have the funds to challenge now so along with manure, citeeh and the chavs and again maybe the scum, there is 4 or 5 clubs that can challenge and if a sugar daddy came in and took over sunderland or villa or some club like that then it would only increase competition at the top not diminish it. Of course the gap between the top clubs and the bottom clubs would widen but none of the big clubs give a fcuk about that anyway

[olgitgooner]

I'm totally in favour of any FFP arrangement which will actually work.

The stupid money thrown about by Man Utd and Chelsea in recent years has had a detrimental effect on other clubs. And has reduced competition. Man City are just the latest club to join the elite trophy purchasers.

Anyone who wants to justify this by saying that Blackburn Rovers won the league with Jack Walker's money can fuck off. There is no comparison there at all. Jack spent a lot of money. But it was nothing compared to the spending of the billionaire clubs we have today.

My local club (Brighton) now have a sugar daddy owner. And a new stadium. At last. They showed a loss of £8million in the last financial year. They will have a similar loss this year. After that they reckon to lose £3million. Beyond that they need to show a profit, or at least break even. Failure to do so could mean sanctions including a ban on buying new players. Financial fines would go into a separate pot and be shared out equally amongst all their competitors. Which means they would potentially be helping the hated Crystal Palace to gain promotion. This,to my mind, is a great way to create a level playing field for all clubs.

Bring back the good old days(?) when small clubs like Aston Villa, Nottingham Forest and Derby County won titles. And Manchester United and Sp*rs got relegated.

So who exactly could realistically win the league if the chavs and citeeh hadnt found their pots of gold ? The red or blue scousers ? Doubtful I would say wouldnt you ? If I was pushed then I reckon us and maybe the scum would be classed as challengers but manure would be miles ahead of the rest of us......every fcuking season What is competitive about that ? Realistically we have the funds to challenge now so along with manure, citeeh and the chavs and again maybe the scum, there is 4 or 5 clubs that can challenge and if a sugar daddy came in and took over sunderland or villa or some club like that then it would only increase competition at the top not diminish it. Of course the gap between the top clubs and the bottom clubs would widen but none of the big clubs give a fcuk about that anyway

Hiya Augie

Why would man utd now be miles ahead of us? They are mortgaged up to the hilt. Their huge historical spending can no longer be sustained. Yes I know they just bought RVP for big money. Brilliant buy. So far. And, yes, they have massive income from a worldwide fan base. But they still have a huge debt to service. Which limits their spending power in the long term. Which is why they suddenly are subscribing to the FFP idea. They can now not compete with their nearest neighbours. And they hate it.

Take away the spending power of the top three. Fine them for overspending. Distribute those fines equally among their competitors. I reckon there are at least four other teams with a chance of winning the title within a couple of seasons. Which has to be good for football.

[Barriecuda]

My experience growing up in North America has been primarily watching salary capped leagues. The NHL (National Hockey League) has been a proponent of this model for a while now, and to be honest it's fantastic - lots of parity, lots of new teams competing every year. The only downside is the draft system that rewards teams for being awful (and gives them a reason to lose late in the season, trying to ensure a better draft pick for the next year).

Anyway, caps don't really work in football as other posters have mentioned. But, leagues need to start placing some restrictions on this radical free-spending by clubs. FFP is at least one proposed strategy, even if it has its faults.

The insane spending of the Chavs and Citeh has significantly inflated wage prices in football. That has a dual impact: 1. teams need to find more money (as the article mentions) and 2. players become disenfranchised easier. The second point is understated but particularly damning. A player can have an exceptional season with a club, or even half a season (like Nasri); they gain a couple suitors and then fuck off for 15-20m, a fee that no reasonable spending club would risk on such a player. Someone in Nasri's position can easily be tempted away from their current club because of the substantial payday they can gain by moving - and because they may not be capable of playing at that level consistently, they're all the more likely to jump as soon as they can.

All a decent player needs to do these days is put in a few good months at a club and then wait for the "bigger teams" to come calling. Look at Zaha, for example. He'll probably get a fat payday despite still being a raw and unproven player. That might have always been the case, but as clubs continue to try to find 'cheaper' options, they're going to continue to spend large amounts even on youngsters just trying to avoid the cost of a 30-50m "finished product". Inflation inflation inflation - it all starts with clubs splashing out artificial money on players trying to build a competitive team 'quickly'.

Maybe the system should be as simple as capping the amount of "investment" (i.e. money beyond revenues) within a 1, 5 and 10 year period. At least then teams can't literally do the "overnight" transformation like City has, and it forces them to invest smartly rather than heavily.

[TeeCee]

Look, FFP just won't happen! The first 'big' club that UEFA/FIFA try to take action on, there will be a threat to form a breakaway super league and UEFA will back down instantly and if they don't, then the biggest Euro clubs WILL form a European Super league (which has always been on the cards anyway). Arsenal will be desperate to be part of that league, absolutely desperate and of course, we would be one of the poorest relations if we did join a league like that. They'd let us in of course, because we would be the main supplier of players for the top 5 clubs!!

[northbank123]

I'm totally in favour of any FFP arrangement which will actually work.

The stupid money thrown about by Man Utd and Chelsea in recent years has had a detrimental effect on other clubs. And has reduced competition. Man City are just the latest club to join the elite trophy purchasers.

Anyone who wants to justify this by saying that Blackburn Rovers won the league with Jack Walker's money can fuck off. There is no comparison there at all. Jack spent a lot of money. But it was nothing compared to the spending of the billionaire clubs we have today.

My local club (Brighton) now have a sugar daddy owner. And a new stadium. At last. They showed a loss of £8million in the last financial year. They will have a similar loss this year. After that they reckon to lose £3million. Beyond that they need to show a profit, or at least break even. Failure to do so could mean sanctions including a ban on buying new players. Financial fines would go into a separate pot and be shared out equally amongst all their competitors. Which means they would potentially be helping the hated Crystal Palace to gain promotion. This,to my mind, is a great way to create a level playing field for all clubs.

Bring back the good old days(?) when small clubs like Aston Villa, Nottingham Forest and Derby County won titles. And Manchester United and Sp*rs got relegated.

So who exactly could realistically win the league if the chavs and citeeh hadnt found their pots of gold ? The red or blue scousers ? Doubtful I would say wouldnt you ? If I was pushed then I reckon us and maybe the scum would be classed as challengers but manure would be miles ahead of the rest of us......every fcuking season What is competitive about that ? Realistically we have the funds to challenge now so along with manure, citeeh and the chavs and again maybe the scum, there is 4 or 5 clubs that can challenge and if a sugar daddy came in and took over sunderland or villa or some club like that then it would only increase competition at the top not diminish it. Of course the gap between the top clubs and the bottom clubs would widen but none of the big clubs give a fcuk about that anyway

Hiya Augie

Why would man utd now be miles ahead of us? They are mortgaged up to the hilt. Their huge historical spending can no longer be sustained. Yes I know they just bought RVP for big money. Brilliant buy. So far. And, yes, they have massive income from a worldwide fan base. But they still have a huge debt to service. Which limits their spending power in the long term. Which is why they suddenly are subscribing to the FFP idea. They can now not compete with their nearest neighbours. And they hate it.

Take away the spending power of the top three. Fine them for overspending. Distribute those fines equally among their competitors. I reckon there are at least four other teams with a chance of winning the title within a couple of seasons. Which has to be good for football.

So an actual Robin Hood tax on the best teams? You think the FA would legally be allowed to fine incorporated companies like that? Not a chance.

And this debt has been there for years and years. United as a business are an absolute enigma, they have a gearing ratio about 30 times higher than what is generally accepted to be workable. They have a debt to service but continue to generate ridiculous revenue, people have been saying since the Glazers took over they'll have no money to spend but they have.

And they subscribe to FFP because it gives them a huge advantage over City and Chelsea, who are reliant on flouting those rules or sidestepping them at best. FFP doesn't take into account debt interest repayments, merely revenue vs wages + transfers. And their revenue dwarves City and Chelsea's. United are pretty comfortably FFP compliant I think, if they were breaking it on a regular basis their actual accumulated losses would be completely unsustainable. So it makes complete sense for them to oppose it anyway.