harry's a hypocrite for mouthing off now when he was totally happy to try and spend his way out of trouble two years ago, and he has a track record of bankrupting clubs with the way he carries on. that said, ffp is bollocks to ensure the door is closed on clubs outside the elite breaking in, and hypocrite or not, he's got a point.
Well you get a lot more in TV money than £21 mil. Think that's more a case of you not spending much this window than us overspending.
I don't see how FFP can 'close the door' on any of the teams deemed to be not in the very top bracket. My club put in hard work in the markets that paid dividends, raising the profile of the club for years when every other team were just pottering around. We shouldn't be punished for that by being made to cap anything, if we spend within our limits then there's no issue, try to cap a company's spending when they are operating within their means under any circumstances and you're looking at a legal case well above FIFA's remit. Harry Redknapp doesn't have a leg to stand on, he's probably spent a fortune on about 70 players over the past couple of years and they don't have a single player on their books who looks like a profitable investment. Even when they signed Remy they were that desperate that they put an £8m release clause in his contract. He's a ****ing pigeon.
FFP means you can reap what you sow surely - As has been said, why should a club with 70000 fans week in week out and a waiting list be limited to the same as a club who are lucky to get 20000 fans every week? As terry said - Harry spends without care - look at the clubs he has managed - Bournemouth (Admin), Southampton (Admin), Portsmouth (Admin), West Ham - close to admin, Spurs - Levy pushed him before he could **** things up, and now QPR who are in a whole load of **** because of Redknapp. I agree it's totally unfair howe Man City and Chelsea have bankrolled their way from being no bigger than us to being massive multi global continuous titlke contenders (10 years ago where were Man City? Pretty much yoyoing around like we have in the past) although City are paying for their frivolous spending nature ATM. United, however, have a massive turnover season on season and have had for a long time. But if the people don't step in then where does it stop?
Spot on about Redknapp Marcus and his previous clubs, He spent stupid fees on players at Spurs and Bale 'bailed' Spurs out of another Redknapp clusterfuck. He stated after the game yesterday "Green had nothing to do first half"... I watched this interview last night when I was back home, in astonishment. His keeper had to fish the ball out of his net three times and he claims he "had nothing to do"... if this isn't hard evidence that the guy has lost his marbles then what is? He needs fired asap for QPR's future safety. We spent £59m on Di Maria and we had to play Burnley and Dyche didn't utter a single word, then we got Falcao on loan for £6m and all of a sudden it's not fair cos Arry's team don't get to spend that amount. The guy is a cancer on the game, I have no doubt about it if he wasn't a manager he'd be an agent.
Oh so easy to make this sweeping statement from your clubs high position eh? You're so lucky in that, Fergie turned things around just as the Premier League was being established. The only people protected by FFP are the big clubs (especially Man U. ) that don't want their feeder clubs possibly being able to hold onto their own young players that have came through the ranks. (Or God forbid being able to outbid them on foreign players.) If it hadn't been for a rich investor in Man U's past your club would have disappeared for ever. If FFP had been in place then, that is exactly what would have happened. I can hear you now, "Ah but that was in the old days!" And I would argue that what's good for the goose. FFP stops clubs from advancing and rocking the top clubs boats. Same as the share out from the Champions league perpetuates the top clubs. IMHO if a rich owner buys into a club and wants to spend his money to make that club better more power to his elbow. (Same as that guy did in Manchester Uniteds past) Put in place rules where the new owners cannot borrow against the actual club or ground and all is fair. Our owner is doing a hell of a job trying to balance our books under the present climate. But that doesn't alter the facts, the top clubs will continue to dominate by their buying power. And their's nothing fair about that.
Hang on, I've no gripe against any particular poster here. But let's just talk about Man. U. for a moment. For a start, I've been to Old Trafford once in my entire life, and that was in Len Shackleton's last season (1955-56, though he did play one game in 1956-57). Manchester United had their ground bombed during the war, they had an ageing side which won the Cup in 1948 and then promptly fell apart. After that, Busby reared a bunch of young kids because he couldn't afford much else. By 1958. those kids had won two titles, but were lost in the Munich air crash. The chairman, Louis Edwards, saw his chance. He marketed the young team, the dream for the future, relentlessly. O.k., the cynics might say Manchester United were built on 'the pity vote', and they were in a sense. But a business man saw a business opportunity, and grabbed it. Much richer clubs like ours, didn't take the hint, and over the years, quite simply got left behind. The future of football clubs lay in marketing, and Louis Edwards saw it first. I don't begrudge them a thing. They have the money to spend because they earned it - a lesson we're just learning from a canny capable American chap, after 60 years of dawdling about. Never mind whingeing at others. It's up to us.
No pal, FFP keeps clubs from going to the wall. The reason they can't stop United or other huge clubs spending so much is because it is illegal on every level and FIFA are only allowed to govern us as a team, not a club or a company, our team, including what we spend on it is always within our own limitations. There's always going to be 'ulterior motive' conspiracies but that's all they are. The likes of United will always end up looking like they're being favoured because we were already prepared for it, it didn't uproot our whole system or cause us even a minor headache, because we are in control of our fiances. We show consistent good behaviour financially and have earned the right to spend big when necessary, not every year like Chelsea or PSG might but when we need players we will use our muscle to do so. I have no idea of the sugar daddy you speak of, the Edwards family owned United for ages pre-glazer, they attempted to sell it to Knighton at one stage for £10m but he wasn't rich by any means, we floated the club but that only benefitted shareholders and directors. Our winning mentality under Fergie earned us fans from all corners of the world, and with clever marketing it's been simple evolution. If you're resigned to never being able to exploit these markets and always being a 'feeder' club then I fail to see how that's United's fault, wasn't it not that long ago you lot secured the best shirt sponsor deal in the league or something? In every other walk of life success brings fortune, which you can spend as you please... Why should it be any different for us just because others are struggling to match our own standards? I thought everybody was pissing themselves at our 'plight'... "United are finished, no CL money, no big players will sign for a club outside the top four" it's all we've heard for months, out of nowhere comes a £750m kit deal tht makes even Real Madrid look like minnows in comparison and out comes the chequebook, legally, all above board, without loopholes.
Oh I see! Me having an opposing view is now seen as whinging! A few facts. The £40,000+ investment James Gibson made in Uniteds early days and rebuilding Old Trafford after the war would be absolutely millions now. SO what you are saying is because it worked out for United and from there they are set for the foreseeable future. No other rich man has the right to try to do that at some other club. Well that seems fair. Not! That isn't even taking into consideration the times United have been floated on the stock market. The only difference in that is that there were numerous rich people buying shares rather than a single rich buyer! I'm sorry I don't see a difference. As for your Busby babes comment, wasn't Harry Gregg a rather expensive PURCHASE? You are making it sound like all this happened for free and all the players came through the ranks, they didn't. They spent to build and grow. Same as other clubs want to do NOW but the FP rules will stop them. Which is exactly what the big four want.
fact is that with ffp, other clubs cannot rock the boat. to break into the top four, you have to spend money - there will never be another wimbledon, or dare i say it on here, a newcastle under keegan, again. by stopping the smaller clubs from being able to spend if they get a rich owner, the whole things is stitched up forever.
Had to look it up as it is years since I read it. Newton Heath was £3000 in debt and was close to being liquidated. John Davies invested clearing debt and buying players and renamed you Manchester United. Under these new rules a rich man can no longer do that for a club. Lets be honest about this marketing of Manchester United. This imo came about because of the players you had at the time, rather than just marketing the brand Manchester United. You could have had the best marketing firm in the world pushing MU at the time and if they had had a crap group of players nothing would have happened. As it was in the early nineties even one of my sons insisted on wearing a Cantona shirt. In every other walk of life investment is needed to move forward, investment has more chance of success than luck. The only proviso I would make on football investment would be that the club and ground can not be used as bargaining chips. Or invest money as so called loans, as in the case of Portsmouth. It is unfair to say to smaller teams, yes we have invested heavily in the past, but now we and the other top teams are set for the foreseeable future, so you can't make similar investments. FP is not to stop clubs going to the wall. Placing rules in place to stop fly by nights would. FP only benefits the richest clubs, because they are ALREADY rich with large fan bases and can cope with it. And that is the way they want it. Which is why Man U Liverpool etc. are all for it.
MR our period of success isn't as directly attributable to some fella sticking £3k into the club 100 years ago as it is to a period of domination as a direct result of blooding the best group of youngsters this country has ever seen or will ever see. The Class of 92 were the making of Fergie and his path to success was paved by those boys. A club who prides itself on youth development and attacking football, Jesus if that doesn't deserve reward I don't know what does. We are of course all for FFP because we have put the graft in, naturally who wants to do hard work then see some other tiny club like Anzhi start to price you out of the market for players? I don't see your logic claiming you'll never get to where we are, with FFP in place you as a SAFC fan have way more of a chance than without regulation, your owner isn't rich enough to bankroll you to the highest echelons but your club has the foundations and infrastructure to make it happen naturally, on a level playing field. Teams making losses consistently isn't sport as far as I'm concerned. Forget about United, we are a freak exception, it's really irresponsible for somebody like Redknapp to suggest he should be allowed to spend big money, considering QPR have no fall back plan should the unforeseen happen just like when Shinawatra was busted... City got lucky but could have went to ****.
we won't though, as the financial disparity is so much - for a less established club to get success, we would need to match the wages of the bigger clubs to develop, or all our players will get snapped up (see southampton this summer). with ffp we can't buy comparable players to you or pay them the same wages, so we can't compete. if we can't compete, we can't make money, which means we can't get the players, or keep bargains we find/kids we develop. ffp means the whole thing is self-perpetuating.
FFP is a nice idea in principal as it stops teams going down the road of Leeds or Pompey etc. But all it does is maintain the status quo, City got in jus the right time. A bit of a kick in the teeth for fans of smaller clubs. For the forseeable future it will just be the same top 6/7 in some order and then the other 13 essentially in a relegation battle.
I'm not saying it as a SAFC fan marra. I'm saying it as a football fan. And from that viewpoint FP rules look to me like a way to keep the rich clubs rich. You still missed my point. In your past you have had rich investors who have pulled you out of the ****e. FP stops another rich man doing that for another team. I wouldn't trust Saggy Chops as far as I could fling him mate. And I don't know the details of the investments made at QPR. Chelski and Man City have had huge investment from their respective owners, and it's not for me to say that there may be some dodgy sponsorship deals flying about . But that is my worry, that there will be dodgy deals going on in the background to cover losses and shortfalls. Look at Blackburn Rovers a rich huge fan invested in them to help them win the league. Under FP rules this could never happen again. And before anyone says look at Blackburn now, their plight is down to the people who came after Warner. You can't sit their in your castle and say the serfs have to live in their huts, even though a rich man wants to build them a castle.
Exactly. Lets assume a lesser team has the next Messi and Ronaldo. IF they could keep them of course they would raise the profile of their club world wide. BUT that is one hell of an IF, as one of the top teams would come in and steal them away offering wages the parent club could never match. Those players move on and the parent club drops back to obscurity. That is FP in a nutshell.
Exactly. Lets assume a lesser team has the next Messi and Ronaldo. IF they could keep them of course they would raise the profile of their club world wide. BUT that is one hell of an IF, as one of the top teams would come in and steal them away offering wages the parent club could never match. Those players move on and the parent club drops back to obscurity. That is FP in a nutshell.[/QUOTE] Indeed you only need to look at us last year, finished 8th but hit a glass ceiling as ffp wouldn't allow us to take the next step. Que the big clubs coming in and ripping us apart. I mean what hope is there for a Leicester say of coming up and having a go? 'yeaaaahhhh we just got promoted to the least competitive competition in the world, cannon fodder until inevitable relegation at some point down the line' This is why I had a big argument last year with fellow Saints fans about prioritising the Cup over league position, and I still stand by I would rather win the FA Cup n go down (ala Wigan) than finish 8th, I mean what's the point of being in the Prem unless you're one of the top clubs. The sooner there is a European Super League the better for English football as a whole
Indeed you only need to look at us last year, finished 8th but hit a glass ceiling as ffp wouldn't allow us to take the next step. Que the big clubs coming in and ripping us apart. I mean what hope is there for a Leicester say of coming up and having a go? 'yeaaaahhhh we just got promoted to the least competitive competition in the world, cannon fodder until inevitable relegation at some point down the line' This is why I had a big argument last year with fellow Saints fans about prioritising the Cup over league position, and I still stand by I would rather win the FA Cup n go down (ala Wigan) than finish 8th, I mean what's the point of being in the Prem unless you're one of the top clubs. The sooner there is a European Super League the better for English football as a whole [/QUOTE] I understand your stance, but.... I know that winning the FA cup can take you into Europe and I would love that for SAFC. But the huge amounts of money to be made in the Prem have to be a clubs priority, which is a very big point of being in this league.
It doesn't mate, it just stops that respective club being allowed to play in Europe. If there's any domestic punishment it's a fine, if the owner is rich enough then they'll pay the fine. The fine part of it, I don't agree with, if a company is struggling then the last thing they need is a fine, that's where I think FFP was created to line the pockets of all the wrong people, who will syphon the money one way or another. If for example with the new influx of money, you end up with a better turnover than the likes of Napoli, Benfica, Porto then how can you blame anybody other than yourselves if you're under achieving? We didn't need FFP to come in and save our bacon, we've batted away Abramovic and the Sheiks enough times to prove we didn't need intervention from anybody. From a football point of view and especially an English football point of view, FFP will stand every club in good stead providing clubs play by the rules. The rules state you can't make consecutive losses over a 4 year period or something so it doesn't stop you splashing out once in a while. The top players will end up in this league, more than ever.
That's just bullshit though isn't it, I could say that. We didn't win the league last year cos FFP wouldn't let Moyes buy Ronaldo and Fabregas, so we finished 7th. Who were you in the market for that didn't come because of FFP that would have pushed you on to the next level? Your owner made your plans very clear when she started offloading your top players. If Athletic Bilbao could tell us to **** off for Herrera for an entire summer despite us dangling £30m under their noses, then why couldn't you do that with Lallana? Shaw? Lovren? You're not in Europe and as far as I know you'd not made any significant losses so why not go and attack the market and add to your squad and 'push on'? It's nothing like you say it is, your owner wouldn't even if she could and that's the entire story.
