So this is where my problem lies a little bit, and it might sound like a dig at Liverpool and Man Utd but it's not really. When you won all your titles and dominated English football in the 70's and 80's it was because you had more money than anyone else and preyed and smaller teams taking their better players. When Man Utd did it in the 90's it was for the exact same reason, same with Blackburn, same with Chelsea and same with Man City. FFP was brought in for 2 teams and 2 teams only. Barcelona and Real Madrid who both cried like **** at how they couldn't compete with the premier leagues tv deal and rich owners. Then as teams struggled to break the stranglehold of others they joined the crying bitches party. Then we got to the point when our takeover went through and FSG proposed new rules once again that sponsorship rules had to be implemented for 3rd party companies belonging owners. This after they tried to create the Super League - and make no mistake about it, it was them that was the major driving force behind the whole bloody thing - dumb ****ing greedy yanks who don't have a clue how the rest of the world enjoys its sport. I really hope they get ****ing stung on this deal and it becomes a nightmare for them to sell it. The whole FFP thing is just wrong. I have no issues with football clubs having their finances monitored, no issue where a club can spend what it can within its own means to a certain point, but eventually I can see it where they will have to allow wealthy investors to grow their clubs by paying wages and transfer fees into holding accounts that would take them over their FFP limits. Anything else is simply a restriction of trade for every other club other than the established big clubs regularly playing in the Champions League.
See when I say ffp I don’t think it’s current guise works. I don’t think it should be a case that the teams at the bottom who don’t make as much as money can’t spend as much as teams at top etc. I don’t think it’s right it was brought in for Barca and Madrid. I think it was brought in cos teams would spend beyond their means trying to reach the prem then going bust. My idea of ffp would be for all clubs to be able to spend the same amount of money, but no more. A simplistic view, but every club has a budget of £50m each season plus what ever you make in sales. So if your owner is worth 20bn or 500m makes no diff, can only spend £50m on new players. yes maybe it means that lower clubs might take bit more time to go up the ladder but also means top clubs can’t just go and hover up all the best young players, and would also bring transfer fees back to some sort of normality.
Easy way to bring transfer fees into the realms of reality is do away with clubs paying and employing agents. As far as I'm concerned Agents represent the players. If players had to pay Agents themselves - a % of their weekly wage for example, they would get an even better service, agents would then be forced to do things like financial management, legal assistance etc which isn't a bad thing. Again, I think it's too late to bring a transfer or salary cap in. Thats great for the likes of Liverpool, Man Utd, Barca etc who have legacy. Not so great for up-and-coming teams. I see the sense in it, but we're talking about a game that's been around for nearly 150 years. My view on it weather we'd been bought or not would be clubs can spend up to their FFP limit. That way it secures the long-term futures of the clubs but if they want to go above that then the owner has to pay the entire transfer fee up front, and the players entire contract and signing fee must be put into an escrow account held by the PL. This allows clubs to grow as clubs and as businesses without the same restriction of trade and puts an end to some of the bollox that City and PSG are quite clearly pulling. In addition UEFA need to **** off the TV companies and take control of their competitions. Straight back to knockout football, no seeding. If TV companies want it they pay for it, if not the clubs should take TV deals in-house. Too many **** rules been brought in to protect too many rich owners and investors that has started to ruin the game.
So are you saying each team in the same league has the same budget/spend capabilities or every Club regardless of league? I think it’s probably the former but that’s just as daft as the current system but for different reasons. Why, for example, should Bournemouth be able to spend the same as Man Utd when their commercial incomes are like chalk and cheese? Why should Man Utd not be able to spend all their income? What happens to the “profit”? Or if that limit is too high why should Bournemouth be allowed to spend way more than they have coming in thereby risking liquidation? There are other ways to control hoovering up of talent such as only allowing clubs to loan players out in emergency situations for the club receiving the player. That would also affect transfer fees as young players would be more spread out amongst the clubs and “lower” clubs could sell players to say City as opposed to paying for the privilege of loaning them.
Just stop beating around the Bush and let clubs spend what they like . These so called great clubs that think they're special can all die as far as I'm concerned. All dynasties end and theirs is over.. end of
As aggressive as that reads, there is a huge element of truth in what your saying here that I wonder if Biscan sees this. I can guarantee he thinks I'm trying to argue we should be able to spend what we like to benefit us whilst his argument is benefiting the Liverpool's and Man Utd's of this world. If we went back to the 50's we were a bigger power than Liverpool were. Our time came and went and they massively overtook us in the end. We've been mismanaged and ****ed over by so many clueless owners over the years whilst others prospered. It's the way of the world. I don't understand why governing body's try protecting the likes of Liverpool's, Barca's, Milana's, Juve's of the world. Also why the **** media companies get so much say in the rules of the game and when games are played is beyond me, they should be ****ed right off. Clubs should stream games to their own fans online. Also European Cip for league winners and domestic cup winners and league cup winners, Uefa cup for league runners up, cup runners up and league cup runners up and the rest go in the conference. Brings back prestige to all the competitions and gets them taken more seriously.
But that's what all this fear is over mate. Your dynasty wont even begin if the great clubs have the same to spend as the oil rich part time abomination clubs. please log in to view this image
The agency thing won’t work. Clubs don’t want players to pay their agents, because it works best for everyone from a tax perspective that clubs pay them.
Your not a great club, Your a historic club whose currently level with Fulham and Palace FFS, There's levels to this game and it's called a league table
Your wrong. Speak with owners and former chairmen and they'll tell you. Go watch a load of Simon Jordan on Talksport to get an idea.
Because that is then fair. All clubs are able to spend the same amount of money. What you seem to be suggesting is that the current ffp is fine then? That the small clubs can’t spend more money, and only the big clubs can spend money? Doesn’t that just keep the stays quo.
As I said, historically great club and currently *checks table again* 8th best in England. Need to stop living in the past mate. It's a bright new future to look forward to.
Good open debate there… ‘no your wrong’. Excellent… https://www.danielgeey.com/post/sho...ays because the agent,can work for both sides. Here you go. If players paid their agents, theyd want a higher weekly wage, which means e clubs paying more tax and NI.
You don’t know how lucky you had it. You got an owner who as an owner speculated to accumulate. They took a gamble in terms of growing the club and by gosh this did. They turned a 300m club into a 3bill club. Whether you think they did that with their own investment is completely irrelevant. We had an owner (Ashley) who asset stripped out club. Bought it for 160m and sold it for 300m after 14 years. Taking inflation into account he made **** all and that’s because he didn’t spend money. Not his own. But the clubs in the right areas. You Liverpool fans don’t know how lucky you have had it. You have had years of success. And you still complain at lack of investment. Wow!
I think someone else already picked up on another of these today mate. Did you get some Charles Dickens books for your birthday or something?
I'll be honest I was quite enjoying Biscan's take on things. He put me right on a couple of things I wrongly assumed, and he comes across as quite knowledgeable. I assumed FSG had invested in infrastructure, and it appears it was a loan etc, that being said they've done that club and city proud. Klopp has turned into a proper moaning twat in the last 12-18 months but again, what a ****ing job the bloke has done. Full credit to the lot of them. What they aren't quite grasping, is football has always been about money, Liverpool got their domination by being the richest club, by picking players up from poorer clubs, Barnes from Watford and Beardsley from us being prime examples. But ****ing hell the self-entitlement of them is something to behold. We're no longer richest club so we want FFP, We might struggle to get into CL so we want Super League (granted a lot of their fans didn't), We don't like not competing so we want historic achievements to be considered in Champions League placings, We can't compete with the team bottom of the PL so we want more rules brought in to stop them. We ****ed our league campaign up but won the Champions League, please change the rules, Guarantee if they get a mega wealthy owner they are leading the charge to have FFP knocked on its head.
