What are you laughing at you condescending ****?
Michel Platini: Uefa to 'ease' financial fair play rules
- Thread starter Drifter
- Start date
Conspiracy theories deserve laughter. Here's another one for good measure:
One thing I liked about rugby was that teams did well with players from their academies. Good coaching, smart signings and a good academy could take you to the top of Europe. My local team Leinster won 3 European cups playing brilliant rugby with about 12 of the starting 15 being Irish. Now Toulon have won 3 fairly easily.
I know football isn't the same but allowing clubs with the financial backing of City to spend what they like just adds another barrier to seeing a club genuinely improve.
We weren't the biggest spenders because we got lucky with a great set of youth players, we still had the largest wage bill for most of the 1990s, Roy Keane was the first £50k a week player in the Premier League, would he have stayed for half of that amount? Probably not.
Obviously there's a 'natural' order, but I'm talking about smaller clubs being able to reach a bit higher. Billionaire owners pretty much stamp that out.
Conspiracy theories? What are you on about? You don't think City's owners will have been lobbying hard to get FFP sanctions removed? Yeah, 'cause no wealthy party ever lobbies for its betterment.Conspiracy theories deserve laughter. Here's another one for good measure:
Here's something for good measure: feck off and don't reply to me.
It's true. If you allow Chelsea, madrid, City and PSG to spend more then clubs like Arsenal can forget about building on what they have now because never mid the transfer fees, the wages offered up will give those clubs no chance.
What about the likes of Everton and villa who see their best players picked off by richer clubs, traditional and newly rich? Didn't Manchester United throwing cash at a once in a generation youth player before he was even out of his teens add another barrier to improve? Didn't villa seeing lescott and young get bought set them back?
We earned that money. That said, as I said to BigDunc, I'd like to see our spending being limited to an extent too.
I completely disagree.
So will the FFP regulations be lifted completely or will there still be limitations?
So we got 'lucky', yet still won 5/13 titles after definitely not being the richest club in the league? Okay.
I think we all know what you meant by convenient in scare quotes.
Maybe not good measure, but here's some advice: learn how to act like a grown up or use the ignore list.
That was a ton of money back then.
No, billionaire owners are the difference between a smaller club reaching Europa League football and actually doing something worthwhile and challenging the 'natural' order. Clubs like Southampton have still being able to reach a bit higher with the likes of City and Chelsea knocking about. The only way the status quo could be challenged was through exorbitant spending. Any club attempting to grow organically just has its best players snapped up, unless they have adequate financial backing. Thus, external sources of finance were 100% necessary to breaking United and Arsenal's stranglehold on the Premier League title.
This is the crux of the issue. Ask villa supporters if they thought "it sucks to lose Milner and Young but at least the transfer fee for Young was paid by money their earned". Speaking for myself, it didn't make a difference to me when the RVP fee was from "earned" money and the Nasri fee wasn't.
This is a distinction that only supporters of the old money care about. For the rest of football, losing your best players to richer clubs sucks and that's all there is too it.
It's got nothing to do with conspiracy. I said that to emphasise my theory that UEFA have most likely buckled under the pressure of some big players with deep pockets. I'm not saying there's been death threats and Swiss bank accounts. Powerful people/organizations have a way of getting what they want.
Seems it was Citeh and PSG that put in a complaint.
Manchester United bayern Munich Real Madrid and Barcelona are much more powerful voices than Manchester city.
I bet it made a world of difference to Everton when they lost their best player in Rooney to United and not Chelsea, for example. Selling him to Chelsea would have been just morally wrong.
Since Chelsea, City and PSG, A. Madrid, Dortmund and now Juve have reached the Champions League final. Those teams barely have the financial strength of Liverpool - Dortmund and A. Madrid probably aren't even at Liverpool's level. There's no reason a Southampton or Tottenham couldn't eventually do well in the Champions League if they were able to get in it in the first place.
I would say the problem with Gary's view or at least what he has said (City should 'take' on FFP being the oddest moment) is that he seem perfectly fine for dictatorship's to buy football clubs. Which I would suggest isn't very good for anyone but the dictators(and well a couple of old blokes at FIFA and Uefa).
Gary and a lot people it seems think that the owners of City and PSG(Could include Abramovich in this as he pretty much nicked it from the Russian people)are canny business men who have earned their money and should be able to spend it however they like. But in reality it's completely untrue and in terms of the City and PSG owners it's the equivalent of The Queen using public money to a buy and fund a football. It's that fecking mental.
But hey what ever make the Premier League more competitive.
Although I know FFP wasn't really going to stop this it was at least a idea that you couldn't just throw a almost ultimate amount of money.
Last edited:
He is saying that Newcastle only bid 5 million less. However United gave us money when they won a league tititle, A cup etc. Plus we got Neville, Howard and Gibson cheaper than they would of been because of the Rooney deal I believe.
Real Madrid's stadium is going to be renamed Abu Dhabi Bernabeu or some shit, and Barcelona are sponsored by the Qatar Foundation. The Arab billionaires have a huge influence in football now.
Sure was, no one will deny that. However your initial argument was about no other clubs even dreaming about spending as much money as 'Man Utd'..
Contrary to that impression, a lot of teams had the financial were-withal to match United's bids for the likes of Rooney. But ultimately, most of the times it boiled down to the players' preference for playing under the likes Fergie or Wenger, and being part of a club that was successful. United undoubtedly spent big money on transfers, but so did a lot of other clubs evidenced by the transfer tags of Emile Heskey, Sylvain Wiltord, Stan Collymore, van Bronkhost, Jose Reyes, Shearer and so forth.
You don't give a feck about the middle ground. Few fans of United, Madrid, Bayern or Barcelona care. No one gave a feck about the inequality in football before the big bad wolves of Chelsea, City and PSG came along and ruined everything for the poor Southamptons, Evertons and Atleticos who were otherwise on their way to the top.
As opposed to the oil clubs preventing those clubs sharing the trophies?Inevitable really. FFP means that the sugar daddy clubs can't pump so much money into football and therefore, there are plenty in football who will react against it (interesting that Dupont was working for an agent).
Hopefully their greed won't see football go the way of rugby where Toulon win 3 European Cups in a row just because of the money.
And hopefully, the big clubs like Barca, Real, Bayern and United are able to prevent football from being a sport where rich owners just share the trophies between them.
People on British tv are saying the opposite.
If anything selling to Chelsea would of gotten us a bigger fee to reinvest in the squad. Can't believe you lot never bid.
Fair enough but it's kind of like the hazard situation. Manchester United could get in the ballpark but ultimately couldn't/wouldn't compete at the very top with Chelsea. If it truly became a bidding war then, there was only going to be one winner. Spoiler alert: it wasn't going to be Newcastle.
The idea behind FFP was to (according to UEFA) to prevent clubs going bust. It wasn't, it was to maintain the Status Quo.
if they really wanted to safeguard teams then a solution would be that a owner has to set up a fund to allow the club to survive for 3 years in the event of an emergency. If the club posts losses of £100 million then the owner must put £300 million into the fund to allow the club to survive for 3 years. If they lose £80 million the next year, then the owner removes £60 million from the fund.
if they really wanted to safeguard teams then a solution would be that a owner has to set up a fund to allow the club to survive for 3 years in the event of an emergency. If the club posts losses of £100 million then the owner must put £300 million into the fund to allow the club to survive for 3 years. If they lose £80 million the next year, then the owner removes £60 million from the fund.
Those transfers don't really compare to Van Nistelrooy for £19m, Veron £28.1m and Ferdinand who went for £30m.
Perhaps. But one thing is abundantly clear when you look at the transfer history of United, Liverpool when they were successful, Arsenal, and the likes. They only went up to a limit rather than making it an all out arms race like the nouveau rich or Real Madrid do. If prices got out of hand, they backed off and went for another player, which kind of preserved the amount of inflation in terms of transfer fee paid.
That particular element has gone to pot with owners having seemingly infinite amounts of money to spare, exemplified by mentalist transfers like David Luiz's, which in turn leads to a domino effect throughout the football world, and even smaller clubs going crazy and losing perspective of transfer value. It all affects the general masses in a trickle down kind of way, something that gets devalued in arguments of this nature. In order to keep up with the likes of City or PSG, the other clubs will have to compensate in some shape or form. Which ultimately leads to inflated tickets, FA common pool of television subscription fee, etc.
Who said it did ?
Completely unsurprising.
The newly rich clubs spend more because they have to. All things being equal, players won't join them.
Ticket prices are not linked to club spending. Ticket prices are a function of what the market will bear.
Ignore Eboue, he's never once contributed anything worthwhile to a conversation I've seen.
I agree with this. I wish young and talented players would stay longer at their home clubs, give those clubs a chance to shine and make the league more competitive.
Every emerging talent is quickly snapped up by some richer club.
Wasn't your point that other teams were able compete financially with United?
Last edited:
The Shearer one does. £15m in '95 (I think) was a world record transfer fee. It would be the equivalent of about £30-35m today, adjusted for inflation.
I agree with you to an extent, someone should be allowed to invest money to grow a team to compete at the top certainly. But there has to be rules to stop someone coming and doing it the way City and PSG went about it, thats just not healthy for football long term.
Or before long the the situation you describe would happen all over again just this time with a select few clubs owned by oil billionaires winning everything instead of Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern etc.
Currently FFP does this by forcing City and PSG to spend within their means. Well the means of the their fake sponsorships anyway. Right now City have one of the biggest turnovers in world football if they can't compete on that budget then they are doing something wrong.