Summer Transfer Window

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Vegan Beast | Tash said:
No one cares about Chelsea throwing 60m + 80m etc on fullbacks in quick succession....
Click to expand...

Or Manure (who are in huge debt) spunking:
£63 on Casemiro
£52m on Martinez
£13m on Malacia
While also chasing Antony for around £80m and De Jong for something similar.

Yet the only press they get from pundits is "they need to spend big".

They are in debt. We are not.
 
Obi Wan said:
Or Manure (who are in huge debt) spunking:
£63 on Casemiro
£52m on Martinez
£13m on Malacia
While also chasing Antony for around £80m and De Jong for something similar.

Yet the only press they get from pundits is "they need to spend big".

They are in debt. We are not.
Click to expand...
Debt isn’t the issue.
 
Big Sur said:
Debt isn’t the issue.
Click to expand...

I know, it's largely based on revenue streams. But it makes a complete mockery of FFP when some clubs can spend way beyond their means. Their debt is huge. Yet the media expectation is than Man U should continue to spend big, while we should be restrained. Why?
 
Obi Wan said:
I know, it's largely based on revenue streams. But it makes a complete mockery of FFP when some clubs can spend way beyond their means. Their debt is huge. Yet the media expectation is than Man U should continue to spend big, while we should be restrained. Why?
Click to expand...
Because they can finance their debt.
 
Big Sur said:
Because they can finance their debt.
Click to expand...

Can they though? I thought that had been brought into question with the Glazers.

But regardless, you could say the same goes. In theory we could spend huge and PIF could back the finances. But it doesn't mean we can do that under FFP.

FFP mainly seems to help prop up the big clubs overspending.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Judge Death
Obi Wan said:
Can they though? I thought that had been brought into question with the Glazers.

But regardless, you could say the same goes. In theory we could spend huge and PIF could back the finances. But it doesn't mean we can do that under FFP.

FFP mainly seems to help prop up the big clubs overspending.
Click to expand...
The one thing Ashley did was give us the chance to spend 400m and not be hindered by FFP.

Then the sponsorship deals will come in.

This is the beginning. 200m+ in the first year is jizz material.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FadgewackeR and Obi Wan
Obi Wan said:
Can they though? I thought that had been brought into question with the Glazers.

But regardless, you could say the same goes. In theory we could spend huge and PIF could back the finances. But it doesn't mean we can do that under FFP.

FFP mainly seems to help prop up the big clubs overspending.
Click to expand...
Club revenue and profits. Our spending is huge compared to our revenue. We’ve spent more on signings than we’ll take in this financial year. I presume they have massive commercial deals lined up for next season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FadgewackeR
Geordieginola said:
The one thing Ashley did was give us the chance to spend 400m and not be hindered by FFP.

Then the sponsorship deals will come in.

This is the beginning. 200m+ in the first year is jizz material.
Click to expand...
400m? Jordan just pulled that figure out of his backside. Note the comment he tacks on the end… if that spending gets us the level of success you’d hope… in other words a regular place in the CL. Absolutely no guarantee of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FadgewackeR
Big Sur said:
400m? Jordan just pulled that figure out of his backside. Note the comment he tacks on the end… if that spending gets us the level of success you’d hope… in other words a regular place in the CL. Absolutely no guarantee of that.
Click to expand...
No it actually is that figure. It’s actually a lot more. Depending on the structure of the deals.

There was an article done by I think the athletic which says that technically we could spend upwards of 400m.

Honestly the only thing hindering us is commercial deals.

The 400m is over 3 years mind.
 
Big Sur said:
400m? Jordan just pulled that figure out of his backside. Note the comment he tacks on the end… if that spending gets us the level of success you’d hope… in other words a regular place in the CL. Absolutely no guarantee of that.
Click to expand...
Yeah I take what Jordan says with a pinch of salt. Although I agree with the essence, we were in decent financial health compared with most. We just need new sponsorship deals to boost revenues.

Success based revenues (especially CL qualification) are certainly not guaranteed.

But my main point is that the way FFP is structured, it simply helps those at the top stay at the top. How is that 'fair'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back