Even if this is true, which is by no means certain, it's pretty thin on details. Is there supposed to be an implication that we have done something wrong?
The terminology used would suggest that. To me, (I know nothing about this really) it seems like this could be a red rope for the elite? And the "except European Competitions income" thing doesn't seem too fair either. So those clubs have extra on the others again.... But yeah, this is Charles Sale and he likes making out that we have done wrong. He's a pal of Rupert Lowe's too! In any event, if we are going to fight the details - clubs need to work together and know what the aims are.
I had the opposite impression from the European income bit, my understanding from the article was that clubs would have to keep their wage spending under their domestic TV income? I could be wrong but I'm not sure how else it could be interpreted, maybe you can enlighten me! Fair to say there are many legitimate reason for opposing the plans, though I'd love to know what specifically Cortese opposes. Perhaps the limits on increasing wage expenditure?
i think NC is against the whole thing on the basic principle that businesses which includes football clubs should be allowed to run their affairs as they see fit.
I think that Cortese feels that clubs should be free to run their business as they please, because the new rules favour the status quo. Big clubs having an unfair advantage over up and coming clubs.
Yeah, tell that to the Portsmouth fans, to the Farnborough fans, to the Leeds fans, to the Plymouth fans, to the QPR fans,the AFC Wimbledon fans, the Luton fans, the Blackburn fans etc. If that is his motivation then that's a thoroughly selfish and self-centred view to take: don't give a toss about fans at other clubs being screwed over by their owners, just so long as he can get his own way. (yes, I know, this post will probably be received badly....
Well I see your side of it, but I also see his side of it in "don't punish me because others can't run a business properly". But, I agree there is a need for some restrictions. However, I am also yet to be convinced by the current proposals.
You had crap owners. It was the "Fair and Fitness" test that failed you, not so much the spending habits. Also important to remember is that you spent those vast sums of money in an effort to compete with the bigger clubs. All this rule does is prevent you from spending. You won't go bust, but you won't ever be able to compete either. The spending pace was hurting everyone. It drove you bankrupt, but it was also driving Liverpool and even Man U to the limits. Now that you can't spend, they don't have to either so they can just continue winning and throwing their weight around as long as they wish. All it is really, is some of the big clubs telling you to stay in your place and stop and never aim above your station. What kind of competition is that? If they were at all serious about Fair Financial Play, they would pool up all the revenues and distribute them fairly among all the teams and set a salary cap. That would ensure that ALL teams don't go bust and that smaller teams would have a chance to compete as well. But they actually don't care about financial fair play at all. They only don't want Portsmouth and others to go bust because who will they have to beat, and who will provide a source of young talent for them to strip? They want you to be their farm team.
Interesting mix of clubs that voted no West Brom & Swansea seem like well run clubs that have not overspent. Villa and Fulham have invested heavily in the past, but now look like taking on a more sustainable approach. What does link them all is that they have ambitious owners and don't belong to the established elite of clubs with regular European football.
