But, 100 years, this is why the whole system is a farce from top to bottom, because only those (rich) clubs that can afford to be in profit will be able to continue to flout the system.
I love it FFP hailed as the greatest thing since sliced bread when misinformed media outlets claim Chelsea won't qualify and rival fans fall for it yet as soon as we make profit the system is "flawed"
FFP is what's flawed. It will only make the big clubs more succcessful and the small clubs less successful. You cannot legislate to make Clubs equal.Many have tried, all have failed.
If Chelsea are excluded because of the rules of FFP then so will about a dozen other of the best clubs in Europe , thereby turning it into the European Micky Mouse Cup!
Spot on CP. All Chelsea fans (and fans of City I'm sure as well) have said this on deaf ears and been accused of acting with self interest
hhhh is not like it was 100m profits ...you were so skinned that you end up 6th in league without spending !! it is barely a 1m profit thanks to wining extra 20m for CL and another 20m for selling players and making profits from selling !!! yepp you will meet FFP if you keep selling players and winning CL oh wait .. that is impossible .. oppps
9.30 Saturday night - that explains it; you must've had a few to post that tripe. Have another couple and toddle off to bed like a good little boy.
Slightly skewed news story... Well done Chelsea for balancing the books. It is impressive. However, look at the article and you'll see that a huge part of it is converting 166m debt into equity. It shuffles the money around the balance sheet. Essentially, it amounts to Abramovich saying "ok, I'm going to completely write off this debt." In other words, this will only really work the once- you'll struggle to both balance the books and spend the amount on players you have over the past year again. Then again, FFP will ensure nobody can spend that much on players, so you won't lose out. All the same, it shows that you've put yourself in a position to gradually become self-sufficient. Man U did it in the late 80s, so they can have no complaints. In other words, you've splashed the cash just in time to ensure that FFP will keep you competitive.
FFP is a complete joke - If UEFA were serious about it then they'd a) impose a transfer limit - clubs can only sign 3 players per 12 month period or have a £30m spend limit per 12 month period. b) not allowed to change managers during the season c) have a £100m per year wage limit. This will never happen so everything else is pointless. As for the city, chelsea bought the league .... it's no different to what Liverpool did (the figures were just smaller back then) or Blackburn, United or what Newcastle did when they just missed out etc. To be honest if UEFA were interested in fairness they'd make clubs have to have a large percentage of seats for less than £15 per match...but there's more chance of us winning the prem than there is of that
1)Not a bad idea. 2)No employer has to keep an employee that isn't doing their job.Sorry,joke suggestion. 3)So instead of going to the players the money goes to the owners.I'm sure the yank owners will like that suggestion at least.
The reason I don't think a club should change a manager mid season is that it'll give managers a chance to bed in and, more importantly, it will make clubs do their research properly. We sacked Martin Jol for Ramos in a knee jerk reaction every club has a similar story. As for the wages....if it was limited then the clubs will have no excuse for not dropping ticket prices
Why would clubs drop prices when they already sell out at todays prices? As I say,you're just moving the money from the players to the owners and then you're limiting what the owners are allowed to spend so that money just goes out the game. The limit on the number of transfers is a good idea though but the players union will no doubt be against that one as it could restrict their members potential earnings.
