I don't think Liverpool have made such an impact about this issue, we have simply stated on numerous occasions that we will set ourselves up to be self-sustainable as per the imminent FFP where it relates to Europe. United are now championing a seperate FFP for the PL because they know they can no longer compete financially with the likes of City and Chelsea - Even Spurs seem to be in a better position to 'splash the cash' than Utd do - I have stated the facts, if you don't agree with them it's because you are (Please tick the appropriate): A, Too thick to realise the funding isn't there anymore B, You are so niaive you still think Fergie only just joined you and will emmbark on 2 decades of inexcusable highly inflated prices or C, Because you are United Thanks for your time
Do you think FFP has a chance of standing up in court though if contested by a multi-million pound Chel-City legal team?? I dont think it has a chance. If I decided to make a new brand of coke and had massive backing for it, would it be legal for Pepsi and Coca-Cola to block me from receiving the investment?? FFP is anti-competitive and isnt worth the the paper its written on. Its all about keeping the big boys big....
I think the arguments are pretty pointless as I cant see FFP holding up I cant see UEFA saying to Barca or Real Madrid you cant play in the Champions league the only way they will make it stick is to kick out one of the big boys and then other teams may take note.
Lord god, give me patience. Manchester Citys owners own a chain of companies and are a conglomerate. One of their companies can sponsor another. There is no rules to suggest that they can't.
Once fully implemented should a team fair to meet the regulations Uefa have little choice but to act. It was the clubs who started this, not uefa. Uefa are doing what the clubs asked so if a club, even big clubs fails to adhere to the rules then the chances of Uefa acting are almost certain
It seems to me that most UTD are relying on FFP to become competitive again. What happened to the 'Chelsea had money and we overcame them' spirit you used to have?? lol
I have disagree with that, yes it would cost millions to improve the brand and to get it to the stage where it doesn't have to spend a fortune on advertising because its a well known brand. But all brands have to start somewhere. The FFP wants to ensure all clubs are self sustainable. If they make x and after expenses are left with x, thats all they have to spend. So if Manchester City make £140 million and pay £150 million in wages, they can't sign players, and that applies to all clubs.
Ah, I see. So Liverpool haven't made any statements at all pushing for the PL to adopt FFP? Not at all. You sure? http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...league-financial-fair-play-rules-8030642.html All this jogging you'll be the next Mo Farah Course it will. You forget FIFA regulations which state that any use of a civil court in footballing matters brings an immediate penalty. That rule has been in force for years and has always succeeded in preventing any legal actions. Take a look at FC Sion - they took UEFA to court in Switzerland and won. Net result? FIFA threatened to ban all Swiss clubs from Europe unless Sion withdrew their case. The Swiss FA then forced Sion to back down and agreed to issue them a 36 point penalty for going to court. You really think City and Chelsea are going to risk that happening to them?
In other news today "The sky is blue" UIR "No it isn't! I want proof and will sit arouind waiting for proof. Will you get me proof? No because there is no proof! I will keep waiting until you provide me with proof that the sky is blue! Could be waiting sometime!" The guy is a grade A clown. I was hoping normal service would resume given the schools have returned but no such luck!
yeh you have no club at all Slevin. Platini himself has stated that sponsorship deals will be put up against current deals. Example. Man Utd receive £200million over 10 years from their shirt sponsor. Man City strike a deal for £500million for 10 years with a new sponsor ( related to Shake ) Uefa will disregard what they feel to be above market value....... for this example based on the size of both clubs, £450million would be counted. So the owners friends and family cannot just sponsor city for any amount they feel like, they can do it at market value only.
So where does it quote Henry as having said "Liverpool are campaigning to have the FFP implemented" ??? It doesn't does it Swarbs what it actually says is ""There are a lot of clubs within the league that support financial fair play. We believe the league itself may have to adopt its own rules given that club's seem to be ignoring UEFA's rules, which may be porous enough to enable clubs to say that the trend of huge losses is positive and therefore be exempt from any meaningful sanctions."
That is the biggest load of rubbish I have ever heard. That translates as ''Nobody can have a bigger sponsorship deal than Manchester United, cos we're the most famous''. It was the owners of Manchester City who owned the company that sponsored Manchester City that dictated the market value.
Fair enough, might be just out, but it's easy to find clubs wages and is readily available on the internet kid.
Maybe thats where clubs might need a bit of restbite... Clubs should be allowed to build a team/brand but maybe limit it to a few seasons. I just dont like the idea of blocking investment. Man city are spending there own money which is an important thing to remember though, if they were borrowing it all from banks to compete then I would be concerned. Its that we need to stop.
