MrBlack Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 (edited) 32 minutes ago, sne said: Considering FIFA is ran by Infantino who is very much in the pocket of Saudi Arabia I doubt they will push for something that hinders the Saudi Super League ploy. I'm not expecting it to come in.. I'm just saying it's the only way to fix it in a way that doesn't protect the existing elite. Edited February 20 by MrBlack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyAnty Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 8 hours ago, CVByrne said: What do you mean? Owners can and do inject cash as new equity into clubs. Atarios for example have invested in V Sports that's new shares issued and new capital added to V Sports to spend on adding value to the Company. Spurs don't have a sugar daddy and have to run like a self sustainable private company. They got low interest loans to fund their stadium. The additional income they generate from the new stadium pays down their loans over time Man utd are 1.2 billion in debt and aren’t doing what spurs did. The club was bought with the debt as were so many other clubs. You’re assuming that every club who’s in debt like utd are doing a spurs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 9 hours ago, HeyAnty said: Man utd are 1.2 billion in debt and aren’t doing what spurs did. The club was bought with the debt as were so many other clubs. You’re assuming that every club who’s in debt like utd are doing a spurs No now you're making up things, I said "It's a fallacy to assume all debt is bad debt". Debt the Glazers took which was Loans to buy United and then putting those loans on the club to repay is clearly bad debt. While Spurs making a strategic decision to build a new stadium and fund it by debt is an example of good debt. Hence not all debt is bad debt. It's all about what you use the money for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 2 hours ago, CVByrne said: No now you're making up things, I said "It's a fallacy to assume all debt is bad debt". Debt the Glazers took which was Loans to buy United and then putting those loans on the club to repay is clearly bad debt. While Spurs making a strategic decision to build a new stadium and fund it by debt is an example of good debt. Hence not all debt is bad debt. It's all about what you use the money for. the glazers would probably disagree... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted February 21 VT Supporter Share Posted February 21 (edited) On 19/02/2024 at 17:15, ROTTERDAM1982 said: I'm a bit perplexed about FFP. Man Citeehhh and Chelsk have had at least a decade to build their club up to their current financial position without any threat of FFP. I would argue that they have made the League better because the traditionally richer clubs have been joined by them. So instead of just Arse and Ure like it was, there are now 4/5 clubs who are competative. Noocastle and Villa , who have rich owners, could probably run at a loss for a short period of time, to raise the profile/ revenue of their clubs, to possibly join them clubs and make the league even more competative. On a lower level, I would argue that if Forest had not spent the £100m plus, then they would have been relegated, so by spending the money, and running at a significant loss, they actually protected the future of the club. FFP is a tool used to protect the status quo, its restrictive, and unnecessary, Villa and Noocastle as football clubs, should not be consticted by accountants. The arguement is going to be that you are protecting the future of the clubs, but when was the last time a reasonably sized club went bust? its a lazyt misnomer to deflect from the true reason for the inception of FFP, which is protecting the self annoited big clubs. I hope Citeeeh or Noocastle take them to court for a restriction of trade. Amazon buy, or destroy , their competitors, it happens in all forms of industry/business. Instead of us talkinfg about signing Neto for example, we are saying we might have to sell Ramsey. Its ridiculous. You get to the level where you are about to compete, and the carpet is pulled from unser your feet. The PL needs to be careful it doesn't become a boring cartel Without FFP, the gap between us and the "top 4" would be even wider. I don't think it protects the status quo at all. If anything, it stops them running away with it even further. Is it a perfect system? Nope. But is is better than 0 financial restrictions.... Yep. In an ideal world it would have been introduced with the inception of the Premier League but it's better late than never. Without FFP the Top 4 teams would just stockpile players. Pau Torres having a good season? Off to Man City he goes on massive wages. Bailey having a good season? Off to Chelsea he goes on massive wages. It would be ridiculous. Edited February 21 by PieFacE 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 14 minutes ago, PieFacE said: Without FFP, the gap between us and the "top 4" would be even wider. I don't think it protects the status quo at all. If anything, it stops them running away with it even further. Is it a perfect system? Nope. But is is better than 0 financial restrictions.... Yep. In an ideal world it would have been introduced with the inception of the Premier League but it's better late than never. Without FFP the Top 4 teams would just stockpile players. Pau Torres having a good season? Off to Man City he goes on massive wages. Bailey having a good season? Off to Chelsea he goes on massive wages. It would be ridiculous. I agree with the first bit but disagree with teams just stockpiling players for the hell of it. I reckon 99% of footballers actually want to play football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted February 21 VT Supporter Share Posted February 21 3 minutes ago, bobzy said: I agree with the first bit but disagree with teams just stockpiling players for the hell of it. I reckon 99% of footballers actually want to play football. You have more faith in footballers than I do 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 20 minutes ago, bobzy said: I agree with the first bit but disagree with teams just stockpiling players for the hell of it. I reckon 99% of footballers actually want to play football. The thing is though the likes of man city chasing 6 trophies a year can give them 30+ games a season, as a percentage it will be lower than what they'd get here but they still play Grealish started say 50% of man city's games in the treble season, that's still 30 games For us playing 38 league games, 1 FA cup and 1 League cup it's not actually a huge difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 (edited) You know what would put the ‘fair’ in to financial play? Clubs that are trying to increase revenue via success can allow owners to ‘invest’ more money in to the club then those that are already there. Hence making it a more level playing field. But we all know the overarching reason for FFP is for no more clubs to crash the party. Allowing City and Chelsea in was bad enough for the big boys. They can’t let anyone else in ! Edited February 21 by Vive_La_Villa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedClaretAndBlue Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 2 minutes ago, BleedClaretAndBlue said: That's a weird tweet. Surely they've notified all 20 clubs that they intend to call a meeting of the 20 clubs? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 19 hours ago, villa4europe said: They should have done a cap a long time ago, it's not necessarily Chelsea or city's spending that killed it it was city in particular spending money on players they don't need, all the way back to Scott sinclair and then registering him, grealish, Phillips etc they're signing key players to be back up, they're poaching youngsters to flip for ffp Got no problem with say Declan Rice going to Arsenal for £100m and being a key player there but when city sniff round paqueta for £60m that's what kills football, he's moving from a key player to a bit part player for more money There should be a cap that stops someone like Sergio Gomez going there to play 12 games a year on £80k a year But, to the contrary, it then allows other clubs to develop. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that we wouldn't be where we are now if we hadn't sold Grealish for £100m. I don't want to see a cap - I don't understand what particular problem it's solving. You want clubs to be able to expand and invest and there's an obvious flow of Premier League talent going to wealthier clubs, allowing less wealthy clubs to develop (Grealish, Rice, Caicedo, Phillips et al). They might not always make the most of this, but sometimes they will. The homegrown quota means that English talent will always be in demand and the amount of money in the league means that sides can charge an absolute premium for these players. Bringing a cap just means that competitiveness outside the league weakens. That the better players go to other leagues instead. I can't see the net benefit - even if you may get some variation in the seasonal title/relegation challenges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 29 minutes ago, bobzy said: But, to the contrary, it then allows other clubs to develop. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that we wouldn't be where we are now if we hadn't sold Grealish for £100m. I don't want to see a cap - I don't understand what particular problem it's solving. You want clubs to be able to expand and invest and there's an obvious flow of Premier League talent going to wealthier clubs, allowing less wealthy clubs to develop (Grealish, Rice, Caicedo, Phillips et al). They might not always make the most of this, but sometimes they will. The homegrown quota means that English talent will always be in demand and the amount of money in the league means that sides can charge an absolute premium for these players. Bringing a cap just means that competitiveness outside the league weakens. That the better players go to other leagues instead. I can't see the net benefit - even if you may get some variation in the seasonal title/relegation challenges. to me a cap wouldnt stop grealish joining city but it should stop chuk joining chelsea and angelo, and washington, and sandry and lavia and fofana etc etc etc city do it more slyly and using their feeder clubs but they're buying 4 or 5 south americans most summers with very little intention of playing them, they sign say diego rosa from gremio for £5m, they loan him 5 times in 5 years and then sell him at a profit without him ever kicking a ball for city, what if he signed for crystal palace instead and made them a better team? that's what a cap should be aiming to stop, its not every club but city and chelsea are the worst for it but it would need to be used in conjunction with fixing the loan system, overhauling the loan system would probably be as much benefit as a cap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 46 minutes ago, bobzy said: But, to the contrary, it then allows other clubs to develop. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that we wouldn't be where we are now if we hadn't sold Grealish for £100m. I don't want to see a cap - I don't understand what particular problem it's solving. You want clubs to be able to expand and invest and there's an obvious flow of Premier League talent going to wealthier clubs, allowing less wealthy clubs to develop (Grealish, Rice, Caicedo, Phillips et al). They might not always make the most of this, but sometimes they will. The homegrown quota means that English talent will always be in demand and the amount of money in the league means that sides can charge an absolute premium for these players. Bringing a cap just means that competitiveness outside the league weakens. That the better players go to other leagues instead. I can't see the net benefit - even if you may get some variation in the seasonal title/relegation challenges. The cap has to be football wide to work, then it gives you the seasonal rotation as well as limiting the ability for a club to spend whatever it can fraudulently claim its earned. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osmark86 Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 47 minutes ago, bobzy said: But, to the contrary, it then allows other clubs to develop. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that we wouldn't be where we are now if we hadn't sold Grealish for £100m. I don't want to see a cap - I don't understand what particular problem it's solving. You want clubs to be able to expand and invest and there's an obvious flow of Premier League talent going to wealthier clubs, allowing less wealthy clubs to develop (Grealish, Rice, Caicedo, Phillips et al). They might not always make the most of this, but sometimes they will. The homegrown quota means that English talent will always be in demand and the amount of money in the league means that sides can charge an absolute premium for these players. Bringing a cap just means that competitiveness outside the league weakens. That the better players go to other leagues instead. I can't see the net benefit - even if you may get some variation in the seasonal title/relegation challenges. This wouldn't work if all leagues don't implement it. They won't and we'll continue enjoying increasing wealth concentrations, like any markets really, perpetually until the inflation of wages/transfer fees further and further cements the top clubs in the top. The long-term crowding out of competition turning the sport into an oligarchy of rich clubs at the expense of the product itself to the consumers, us fans. This happens time and time again, so why not to football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 11 minutes ago, villa4europe said: to me a cap wouldnt stop grealish joining city but it should stop chuk joining chelsea and angelo, and washington, and sandry and lavia and fofana etc etc etc city do it more slyly and using their feeder clubs but they're buying 4 or 5 south americans most summers with very little intention of playing them, they sign say diego rosa from gremio for £5m, they loan him 5 times in 5 years and then sell him at a profit without him ever kicking a ball for city, what if he signed for crystal palace instead and made them a better team? that's what a cap should be aiming to stop, its not every club but city and chelsea are the worst for it but it would need to be used in conjunction with fixing the loan system, overhauling the loan system would probably be as much benefit as a cap They did that with Douglas Luiz, and we benefitted. We’re doing it with West Brom’s academy (lol) and I’m sure we’ll look wider afield when our finances allow. It’s a club generating finance. I don’t see the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 10 minutes ago, MrBlack said: The cap has to be football wide to work, then it gives you the seasonal rotation as well as limiting the ability for a club to spend whatever it can fraudulently claim its earned. You can’t implement a football wide cap - the difference in economies is too great. Therefore, a cap is a non-starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 7 minutes ago, bobzy said: You can’t implement a football wide cap - the difference in economies is too great. Therefore, a cap is a non-starter. That's why you set it at the highest level. It's no different from now for those other leagues (who can implement their own fair play rules on top if they want) but stops the highest league from accelerating further away from them, and the biggest clubs in that league from stretching further away from everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 13 minutes ago, MrBlack said: That's why you set it at the highest level. It's no different from now for those other leagues (who can implement their own fair play rules on top if they want) but stops the highest league from accelerating further away from them, and the biggest clubs in that league from stretching further away from everyone. I disagree because up and coming leagues should be able to do what they want. If we take Saudi Arabia, they want to attract the biggest names to help develop their league. With a worldwide cap, they can’t do that. You’re ensuring that the Premier League remains the best league and not allowing competition to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted February 21 Share Posted February 21 (edited) 13 minutes ago, bobzy said: I disagree because up and coming leagues should be able to do what they want. If we take Saudi Arabia, they want to attract the biggest names to help develop their league. With a worldwide cap, they can’t do that. You’re ensuring that the Premier League remains the best league and not allowing competition to that. No more so than it does now in my view. PL is extending its position at the top under the current rules, not being caught up. Putting the cap in will maybe maintain that as it is, but at the same time it allows clubs in that league to compete with those at the top of the league. Over time the cap serves to equalise everything as other leagues get the inflation to catch up, and the start being held back by the cap. As I said originally proposing it, the cap can't stay fixed, but controlling its growth you could do a better job of making things fairer than they are now. Moot point anyway, as no cap is getting agreed even in the PL, let alone across FIFA. I can't see a way to make things fair aside from this though. Unless they kick out Man City and Newcastle's owners. Edited February 21 by MrBlack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts