Reply
Level 4
 
Playstation Staff

Re: Barclays Premier League Thread


martyn__gibbs wrote:

Gawge wrote:
A Real Madrid fan complaining about high spending - i've seen it all now :smileyvery-happy:

:Lol:



I'm not against high spending, I always hated the suggestion of a salary cap for Europe. I'm against clubs spending money they have not earnt the right to.

Please use plain text.
0 Kudos
Message 8858 of 9,254 (94 Views)
0 Kudos
Level 4
 
Playstation Staff

Re: Woy

Out of the two, Harry would probably be the more likely to keep on the 'old guard'.

Apart from what he has done at Tottenham, Harry hasn't really done all that much. Jumped around the South Coast a bit, a relegation here, a promotion there. Roy has done great jobs at a number of clubs - and you would imagine that he knows much more about the international game and other teams too.
Please use plain text.
0 Kudos
Message 8859 of 9,254 (132 Views)
0 Kudos
Level 4
 
Playstation Staff

Re: Barclays Premier League Thread


Rayhaan1 wrote:

martyn__gibbs wrote:

Gawge wrote:
A Real Madrid fan complaining about high spending - i've seen it all now :smileyvery-happy:

:Lol:



I'm not against high spending, I always hated the suggestion of a salary cap for Europe. I'm against clubs spending money they have not earnt the right to.



Forgive me for not knowing much at all about the history of Real Madrid - but I assume that through the during the 50's that Madrid were spending more than their income - and if they were not, that is most likely due to the nature of wages and football at the time. Ultimately - Madrid invested, and have been reaping the rewards since. 

 

In the late 80's Man Utd, another giant in world football, also invested more than their income in order to reap the rewards later. Now Man Utd, like Madrid, have fantastic revenues. But you have to invest first - FFP stops this. 

 

Why stop allowing clubs to do what made the current juggernauts of the world game what they are today?

Please use plain text.
0 Kudos
Message 8860 of 9,254 (158 Views)
0 Kudos
Level 4
 
Playstation Staff

Re: Barclays Premier League Thread

[ Edited ]

Gawge wrote:

Rayhaan1 wrote:

martyn__gibbs wrote:

Gawge wrote:
A Real Madrid fan complaining about high spending - i've seen it all now :smileyvery-happy:

:Lol:



I'm not against high spending, I always hated the suggestion of a salary cap for Europe. I'm against clubs spending money they have not earnt the right to.



Forgive me for not knowing much at all about the history of Real Madrid - but I assume that through the during the 50's that Madrid were spending more than their income - and if they were not, that is most likely due to the nature of wages and football at the time. Ultimately - Madrid invested, and have been reaping the rewards since. 

 

In the late 80's Man Utd, another giant in world football, also invested more than their income in order to reap the rewards later. Now Man Utd, like Madrid, have fantastic revenues. But you have to invest first - FFP stops this. 

 

Why stop allowing clubs to do what made the current juggernauts of the world game what they are today?



The Second World War destroyed the club, losing everything from staff members to trophies. We came out in a very poor state, Barcelona and Athletic Bilbao the dominant teams and we weren't even the biggest club in Madrid, Atleti were. The Prime Minister kicked out our President to make it even worse. We had to turn to our former player, Santiago Bernabeu, to become our new President.

 

Since he was a football player, I'm fairly sure he had little money. He completely revised the club without the large pockets that owners have currently. Also, we aren't owned by a single person like the Premier League, the fans own the club. The President cannot give a team £1 billion like the Man City owner did.

 

I never seen accounts for the club back in the '50s so I cannot say whether we did spend more than our income. Although that is something all big corporations do at times so it's not necessarily a problem. While it's absolutely true that you have to spend money to make money, I can't see FFP stopping that. You are still allowed to spend money, you just aren't allowed to have someone else spend that initial money for you.

 

I've always argued against people who say footballers don't deserve the amount of money they get. The clubs have the money, generated in part by the players, so they deserve a slice of the money. Man City aren't a club that have the money to spend what they are, they have an owner that does. All that needs to happen is for the owner to stop giving them money for whatever reason and they will be gone. Clubs already make financial decisions based on expecting return e.g. CL qualification, it's not safe to assume that an owner will always bail them out Chelsea-style when they need help.

Please use plain text.
0 Kudos
Message 8861 of 9,254 (148 Views)
0 Kudos
Level 4
 
Playstation Staff

Re: Barclays Premier League Thread


Rayhaan1 wrote:

 

While it's absolutely true that you have to spend money to make money, I can't see FFP stopping that. You are still allowed to spend money, you just aren't allowed to have someone else spend that initial money for you.



You are only allowed to spend money proportionate to your income - so you can't invest with a view to getting a return.

 

FFP would have meant that Man Utd couldn't do what they did in '89. It would mean that neither Chelsea or Man City could do what they have done either. 

 

I suppose you could argue that it would be good in Man Utd, Chelsea and Man City didn't spend beyond their means - that's a decent argument. But we can't turn back time - football is how it is at the moment - we have some juggernaut clubs with massive revenues. FFP just means that these clubs can stay at the top, benefitting from their investment - with no potential challengers. That doesn't really seem fair.

 

The way I see it - there are two options:

 

1) Leave football to the free market.

 

2) Introduce real financial restrictions to make everybody even. 

 

Personally, I favour the free market approach - but I respect the other option far more than FFP. If you think that football is 'out of control', you don't like the high wages, you think clubs shouldn't be able to spend crazy money thanks to a rich owner - then fine - campaign for salary caps, transfer limits, quotas and so on. 

 

Although i'm not in favour of salary caps etc... myself, at least I can respect that point of view. It puts teams on an even footing - anybody can compete for the league with some prudence and know-how, it requires no big investment. 

 

FFP is a, quite frankly, pathetic compromise between the two. It attempts to look like it is stopping football from getting 'out of control' whilst at the same time keeping the big clubs happy - making sure they can't be challenged. The only people I can see being in favour of it are those at established top clubs - but surely even supporters of the Man Utds of this world can see that it clearly is not good for football as a whole in the long run.  

Please use plain text.
0 Kudos
Message 8862 of 9,254 (142 Views)
0 Kudos
Level 4
 
Playstation Staff

Re: Barclays Premier League Thread

Agree with Gawge...FFP makes it pretty much impossible for teams to challenge the top clubs. Really can't see any benefits to it at all.

 

Also, surprised Rooney won the Goal of the 20 Seasons award. Thought Bergkamp's vs Newcastle was genius.

Please use plain text.
0 Kudos
Message 8863 of 9,254 (133 Views)
0 Kudos
Level 5
 
Playstation Staff

Re: Barclays Premier League Thread

[ Edited ]

Two area's of expendature are exempt from the FFP:

  • Infrastructure - Stadium, Training Facilities, etc.
  • Youth - Considered to be purchases and other expenses related to players in the Under-15's category and below.

 

As such, a rich owner can still come in and expand the business but only through a means that ensures the club can only spend on the first team through cash the club made itself. This scenario means a club like Everton could potentially be taken over or stick with the current board and engage in a loan from banks, and a new Stadium built with a capacity of 55,000 or more. The cost of the stadium is ignored by UEFA as the business model behind the decision is designed to increase profit which is what the FFP initiative is all about.

 

I hope that clears a few things up for you guys. :smileyhappy:

Please use plain text.
0 Kudos
Message 8864 of 9,254 (127 Views)
0 Kudos
Level 4
 
Playstation Staff

Re: Barclays Premier League Thread


martyn__gibbs wrote:

 

Also, surprised Rooney won the Goal of the 20 Seasons award. Thought Bergkamp's vs Newcastle was genius.



Yeah, I voted for Bergkamp.

 

Rooney's was a great goal - but it probably won because it was the only one from the last 10 years.

Please use plain text.
0 Kudos
Message 8865 of 9,254 (122 Views)
0 Kudos
Level 5
 
Playstation Staff

Re: Barclays Premier League Thread

It had to be Bergkamp for me. That goal was genius. As was he.
Property of xLegioNx
Please use plain text.
0 Kudos
Message 8866 of 9,254 (119 Views)
0 Kudos
Level 4
 
Playstation Staff

Re: Barclays Premier League Thread

I don't see why you can't invest with a view on getting return. What you seem to be implying is that FFP will only end up with the elite becoming more elite. I do think initially there will be less going on in the transfer market but once clubs have finally got to a sensible financial standpoint, all will be much more fair.

 

Wigan have found many good players over the last couple years but have had to sell them to balance the books. If they didn't have to sell those players, the would be a good candidate for a team pushing for European football.

 

Security checks had to made at airports due to abuse and hijackings. Before the checks, many occured. But the checks had to be introduced to increase the safety. While it would be nice to go back in time and stop instances like D. B. Cooper, we can't. Similarly, FFP is a reaction to the problem of excessive spending.

 

If by real financial restrictions you are referring to salary caps, I really cannot see them working. We are not like the NBA where they have a single-tier league. It would be a punishment to the clubs able to earn more than the cap. What are the clubs expected to do with the extra money? Clubs may end up paying more for transfer prices. Teams already full will not be able to buy a certain player to take them to the next level because they don't have enough room. Does the cap remain throughout the football league? If it decreases per tier, what happens when a club is relegated? They have to sell all their players.

 

There seems to be too much wrong with it to me. And it still doesn't stop the problem of overspending. It won't affect the smaller teams in the league because they'll still be able to spend as much as they want, past the revenue they make.

 

I've never been to Hull so forgive me if I'm mistaken but it doesn't seem the most attractive place in the country. I think you're suggesting that every club has the oppotunity of acquiring a sugar daddy and being moved up to the top of the league. But the places where rich owners have invested tend to be in glamorous locations, London, Milan, Paris etc. Abramovich would have never come to England and chosen Stoke or Middlesborough as the club he wanted.

 

Germany are a great example of how clubs don't need rich owners but can still turn profit and be competitive. Bayern are possible the best built club in the world. The have potentially the World's best youth system, a sold out stadium every game and passionate former players in charge throughout the club. Borussia Dortmund have the highest average attendance in Europe despite not having the largest stadium. Half of the top 8 highest average attendances are from the Bundesliga. 

 

Villarreal are situated in a city of about 50,000 people. And that's almost their whole fan base. Other than Within the last five seasons they've managed a CL semi (which they could've won if Riquelme didn't miss that penalty) and beaten Barcelona by 10 points in La Liga (winning home and away).

 

There's plenty of other examples like Udinese and Porto where clubs have managed to succeed in football the way they should. By being a sensible club. There's also clear examples of big clubs not being able to spend sensibly. Rangers right now are an example, basically half of Scottish football. Valencia and Leeds are previous examples. We don't want to see clubs being destroyed because they can't handle their finances.

Please use plain text.
0 Kudos
Message 8867 of 9,254 (118 Views)
0 Kudos