i don't really agree. if sturrudge had gone up top and held it up we'd have seen a different story. sturridge can do it if he wants to. I do agree that carroll's style is a hassle ofr most defenders but for half the prem even though he's a nuisance he's still easy enough to marshall. you might as well have me as carrol v stoke or the like... I do not want to keep him though. i never wanted him, he misses too many, he is too slow and ponderous and frankly injury prone too. If we can get that 17mil we'll be lucky and should do it.
Let's put it this way. If we were planning to buy Carroll from West Ham this summer for £12m at 80£k pw, what would everyone think? I would put my head in my hands and sigh because he is not what we need and is not value for money. So by that reckoning if we can get £12m for him and shift his wages off the books we should do it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the only punishment for not complying to FFP being banned from European competition? If so, what's to stop a team from League One investing heavily, getting to the PL and consolidating their position for a few years before cutting back on their spending? At which point they'll have better sponsorship deals and a larger support anyway.
I think the EPL has just passed there own set of financial controls - I'm not sure what the punishment is for breaking those but I doubt it's allowed to have anything to do with Europe. I'm not sure about none premiership English football teams though.
They can still fine clubs, but yes if they aren't in Europe there isn't much they can do. Which, imo, is fair enough - I don't think many people would have a problem with an investor investing in a club to put them, for example, on financial parity with Liverpool or Spurs. It's when they start taking the piss and investing half a billion quid over two or three years purely to chase the CL that the market gets distorted. The PL rules allow you to make up to £105 million in subsidised losses over three years IIRC, with penalties including a fine and points deduction. So that would limit the ability of clubs to do what you suggest anyway, whilst again still permitting reasonable investment by clubs who aren't in Europe.
Rules are there to be 'interpreted'. It matters not if those rules were created in the best interests of football or not. As soon as you put pen to paper you have created the possibility for accountants, lawyers and administrators to find 'wriggle-room'.
Championship and lower have financial rules in place already. I think the Premier League have just passed some financial rules that will come into force in the next couple of seasons. However, QPR just tried this and its failed miserably!
What I find ridiculous is this "parachute payment" for relegated clubs which is now £60mil each over a 4 year period! Doesn't have much effect on us but mid table teams hoping to progress and push on in the Championship are going to really struggle in the next few years as they won't be able to invest heavily using their owners money due to the FL implementing it's own FFP rules. This means that 3 teams each year will get a massive transfer budget in comparison to others which will cause the same 6 or 7 teams alternate between promotion and relegation each year. Why clubs are "rewarded" for getting relegated is stupid if you ask me. I'm assuming it's to help them so they don't go into administration by not being able to pay Premier League wages while in the Championship but then Owners should be smart enough to work to a budget and prepare for the fact that they may go down rather than doing a QPR and just spending a ridiculous amount and then having a stupidly expensive team playing in the Championship.
