Transfer Rumours Transfer Rumours thread

[Libby]

i said help but it they can only put rules in place to try and stop financial mismanagement but if owners just ignore them it is hardly the Leagues fault .

Well this is my point, the rules purpose isn't to stop financial mismanagement. If they were then they wouldn't allow clubs to rack up huge debts.

Bury were never charged with any FFP offences as far I remember. Which means a criminal owner was able to completely ruin the club financially without falling foul of regulations that are supposedly there to stop that.

The rules were brought in to protect the big clubs pure and simple. They didn't like the fact that Chelsea (and later City) bought their way into the top table and wanted the try and mitigate against more clubs doing the same thing.

Look at Everton and Leicester, both had rich owners willing to invest but reached a point where they were no longer able to die to the rules preventing them. Even Newcastle are starting to feel the effects of it and therefore are trying to get round it in other ways like selling players Saudi etc.

20 years ago Newcastle would have already dropped over half a billion by now and the rules were brought in to stop them doing so.

FFP is the only reason that FSG bought you too imo. It means they can own a big club without investing anything but still outspend the vast majority of the league. It's also why they wanted the super league.

 

[Libby]

because what happens when the owner pulls the plug and with outgoings exceeding the revenue bankruptcy awaits .
The better known PL clubs have the advantage that normally a buyer would be found easily* but further down the food chain far less likely

*much to the relief of our neighbours

Yeah that's what I was referring to when I said that's what the rules should be aimed at imo. If a club owner wants to invest beyond the clubs means then they should be personally liable for that with full contract amounts placed into a trust of sorts which is used to cover wages etc

That would actually drastically reduce the risk of clubs going bust because high value contracts would be covered up front.

FFP doesn't because do that because it wasn't its true purpose.

 

[Sucky]

Same **** everytime with fsg.

Cl winners, no money

Record revenues, no money

Prem winners, no money

Cl runners up x 2, no money

Tight ****s

Ten hag has just surpassed jurgens klopps net spend.

Thats Klopps net spend since he arrived btw 6/7 years ago.

Our owners are absolutely fuking dogshit when it comes to backing Klopp with hard cash.

This summer klopp was promised major funds to compete again.


5 out
2 in

And pinching pennies lor lavia

After a year of falsely grooming Bellingham.


Same **** different summer.

[HASHTAG]#fsgout[/HASHTAG]

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

Personally I don't agree with it. Although I'd never want Saints to be run that way I don't see why an owner shouldn't be allowed to pump money into a business as long as they're covering the losses (which is what the regulations should be aimed at imo), or why can't a rich fan throw some of their wealth at their club eg Jack Walker.

Can you imagine in any other industry business owners being told they're not allowed to invest their money to try and improve profits and their standing? It's absolute nonsense.

I'd be all for salary caps btw but it'd have to be worldwide and will never happen.

there are loads of laws related to anti competitive behaviour

in the end the only people paying are the fans every single week.

if one rich wonder get to do what he liked then 90 other clubs have to find a way to keep up even down the leagues and all the fans pay

 

[Solid Air]

Well this is my point, the rules purpose isn't to stop financial mismanagement. If they were then they wouldn't allow clubs to rack up huge debts.

Bury were never charged with any FFP offences as far I remember. Which means a criminal owner was able to completely ruin the club financially without falling foul of regulations that are supposedly there to stop that.

The rules were brought in to protect the big clubs pure and simple. They didn't like the fact that Chelsea (and later City) bought their way into the top table and wanted the try and mitigate against more clubs doing the same thing.

Look at Everton and Leicester, both had rich owners willing to invest but reached a point where they were no longer able to die to the rules preventing them. Even Newcastle are starting to feel the effects of it and therefore are trying to get round it in other ways like selling players Saudi etc.

20 years ago Newcastle would have already dropped over half a billion by now and the rules were brought in to stop them doing so.

FFP is the only reason that FSG bought you too imo. It means they can own a big club without investing anything but still outspend the vast majority of the league. It's also why they wanted the super league.

the PL and EFL have different rules and FSG in their naivety thought FFP in PL would be enforced but as of yet no club has been sanctioned for breaches.

 

[saintanton]

Ten hag has just surpassed jurgens klopps net spend.

Thats Klopps net spend since he arrived btw 6/7 years ago.

Our owners are absolutely fuking dogshit when it comes to backing Klopp with hard cash.

This summer klopp was promised major funds to compete again.


5 out
2 in

And pinching pennies lor lavia

After a year of falsely grooming Bellingham.


Same **** different summer.

[HASHTAG]#fsgout[/HASHTAG]

Who do you want to replace them with?

 

[Libby]

the PL and EFL have different rules and FSG in their naivety thought FFP in PL would be enforced but as of yet no club has been sanctioned for breaches.

Yeah sorry I was meant to mention that specifically is what pushed them to super league but forgot to add it in.

 

[Libby]

there are loads of laws related to anti competitive behaviour

in the end the only people paying are the fans every single week.

if one rich wonder get to do what he liked then 90 other clubs have to find a way to keep up even down the leagues and all the fans pay

Funny you mention anti competive as in my opinion that's exactly what FFP is. The top clubs now will always be the top clubs and there's no realistic prospect of that ever changing.

TV money and global audiences changed everything. The formation of the PL was the first step on a path which has led us to where we are now.

 

[Sucky]

Who do you want to replace them with?

Ill go for someone who actually puts any money into the clubs squad.

 

[Solid Air]

Funny you mention anti competive as in my opinion that's exactly what FFP is. The top clubs now will always be the top clubs and there's no realistic prospect of that ever changing.

TV money and global audiences changed everything. The formation of the PL was the first step on a path which has led us to where we are now.

Well Newcastle and Man City beg to differ and Spurs are much closer to being elite than they have been for 60 years plus of course Leicester .

 

[Solid Air]

Ill go for someone who actually puts any money into the clubs squad.

why should an owner put money into the club ?

 

[Libby]

Well Newcastle and Man City beg to differ and Spurs are much closer to being elite than they have been for 60 years plus of course Leicester .

Man City got in just in time and already spent loads before any regulations came in. Newcastle will likely get there eventually but it'll take far longer and insane amounts and they were already a fairly big club with far reaching support. Spurs have won **** all and will begin to drop off again soon.

The thing is this isn't just about the oil clubs and extreme examples where the wealth is so vast they can get around it. The fact is an owner can't really invest their own money to try and improve the business is anti-competitive.

It's like when we went down to league one. Markus Liebherr saw a well supported club in the third tier with top flight facilities and sensed an opportunity.

He bought the club and cleared out debts for around 30 million, and invested a similar amount into the squad and infrastructure. 3 seasons later we're back in the top flight and another 3 seasons after that his daughter sold 80% of the club for £180m.

Why shouldn't owners who see a business opportunity not be allowed to invest to try and realise it?

 

[Ivan Dobsky]

Well this is my point, the rules purpose isn't to stop financial mismanagement. If they were then they wouldn't allow clubs to rack up huge debts.

Bury were never charged with any FFP offences as far I remember. Which means a criminal owner was able to completely ruin the club financially without falling foul of regulations that are supposedly there to stop that.

The rules were brought in to protect the big clubs pure and simple. They didn't like the fact that Chelsea (and later City) bought their way into the top table and wanted the try and mitigate against more clubs doing the same thing.

Look at Everton and Leicester, both had rich owners willing to invest but reached a point where they were no longer able to die to the rules preventing them. Even Newcastle are starting to feel the effects of it and therefore are trying to get round it in other ways like selling players Saudi etc.

20 years ago Newcastle would have already dropped over half a billion by now and the rules were brought in to stop them doing so.

FFP is the only reason that FSG bought you too imo. It means they can own a big club without investing anything but still outspend the vast majority of the league. It's also why they wanted the super league.

You were doing so well till you said that. We haven't even outspent Bournemouth, net spend.

 

[Libby]

The other thing I find interesting about this is no one ever seems to talk about owners investing money into clubs pre the millennium.

Are we saying that no owner of Liverpool FC has at any point has ever put their own money into the club? That for your entire 120somethjng year history you have only ever used income? The Shankly rebuild and subsequent success was covered on gate receipts only?

I mean that may be true (I genuinely don't know) but I find it pretty unlikely. And if not then I'd wager it's an utter rarity across football clubs in England.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

Funny you mention anti competive as in my opinion that's exactly what FFP is. The top clubs now will always be the top clubs and there's no realistic prospect of that ever changing.

TV money and global audiences changed everything. The formation of the PL was the first step on a path which has led us to where we are now.

yes the logical outcome of the Premier league was this. it took football off the masses and onto pay TV and super leagues and so forth are the ultimate outcome.

ffp is not really anti competitive as the route to building your club is wide open and fully exploited by some. it's just not "instant" like some want. they can build anything they want stadium wise and fake any revenue they want

the oil sportswashers can do it easily.

 

[Libby]

You were doing so well till you said that. We haven't even outspent Bournemouth, net spend.

Sorry missed out a word, should have said 'can outspend'.

Although I also wasn't talking just fees, don't you have one of the biggest wage bills in world football?

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

Man City got in just in time and already spent loads before any regulations came in. Newcastle will likely get there eventually but it'll take far longer and insane amounts and they were already a fairly big club with far reaching support. Spurs have won **** all and will begin to drop off again soon.

The thing is this isn't just about the oil clubs and extreme examples where the wealth is so vast they can get around it. The fact is an owner can't really invest their own money to try and improve the business is anti-competitive.

It's like when we went down to league one. Markus Liebherr saw a well supported club in the third tier with top flight facilities and sensed an opportunity.

He bought the club and cleared out debts for around 30 million, and invested a similar amount into the squad and infrastructure. 3 seasons later we're back in the top flight and another 3 seasons after that his daughter sold 80% of the club for £180m.

Why shouldn't owners who see a business opportunity not be allowed to invest to try and realise it?

OR the rules were changes in response to these clubs antics.

saying they just got in in time makes.it sound like they didn't nothing wrong

 

[Solid Air]

Man City got in just in time and already spent loads before any regulations came in. Newcastle will likely get there eventually but it'll take far longer and insane amounts and they were already a fairly big club with far reaching support. Spurs have won **** all and will begin to drop off again soon.

The thing is this isn't just about the oil clubs and extreme examples where the wealth is so vast they can get around it. The fact is an owner can't really invest their own money to try and improve the business is anti-competitive.

It's like when we went down to league one. Markus Liebherr saw a well supported club in the third tier with top flight facilities and sensed an opportunity.

He bought the club and cleared out debts for around 30 million, and invested a similar amount into the squad and infrastructure. 3 seasons later we're back in the top flight and another 3 seasons after that his daughter sold 80% of the club for £180m.

Why shouldn't owners who see a business opportunity not be allowed to invest to try and realise it?

owners can invest in the business and nothing stops them the only caveat to that is you are , meant , to be limited to making only £105m in losses in any 3 year period after excluding infrastructure , womens team , community work and god knows what other write offs .i.e. you can spend a billion on a new stadium and training ground without it impacting FFP

 

[Libby]

OR the rules were changes in response to these clubs antics.

saying they just got in in time makes.it sound like they didn't nothing wrong

Yeah that's what I said. The rules were changed because of City and Chelsea buying their way to the top and the big clubs here and abroad didn't like it so FFP was introduced to mitigate against that.

And I don't believe City did do anything wrong immediately post takeover. This is my entire point - owners should be allowed to invest in their clubs.

Like I said though I wouldn't want Saints ran like City myself, and I don't give them huge amounts of credit for sweeping up trophy wise either as its to be expected. But an owner investing money in their business shouldn't be taboo.

 

[Libby]

owners can invest in the business and nothing stops them the only caveat to that is you are , meant , to be limited to making only £105m in losses in any 3 year period after excluding infrastructure , womens team , community work and god knows what other write offs .i.e. you can spend a billion on a new stadium and training ground without it impacting FFP

Isn't that what Everton did re stadium? Think they also claimed they lost money on Richarlison cos of pandemic

£35m a season won't get you far in the PL mind. Think they've just changed it too but can't recall details?

What Liebherr did for us would fall foul of EFL rules now I'm certain.