GarethRDR Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 well with norwich charging 45 for away fans they must be racking it in They need a shit spreader Don't they already have Wiz? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Gus Poyet on Sky last night was trying to explain its going to be terrible in Championship. As its unpredictable now but with FFP the parachute payments clubs will dominate it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiegoD Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Surprised so many clubs voted for it, terrible rules that will entrench the status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicMushroom Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Surprised so many clubs voted for it, terrible rules that will entrench the status quo. When has football ever looked at anything long term? Thats been the problem. Concentrating on short term gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romavillan Posted April 12, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted April 12, 2013 the big clubs have the power and will never support anything that isn't in their direct interest. the last thing that man u, man city, chelsea, arsenal etc. want is a compettive league where they have more competition for the CL spots. look at liverpool, they are struggling to get back in the top 4 after not having the CL cash for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 am sure City actually voted against it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 am sure City actually voted against it And Chelsea I believe.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted April 12, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted April 12, 2013 (edited) If this had have been introduced when football started in 1992 then yeah, I'm all for it. But it's gone way past the point that it needed to be introduced, it's just too late now. Edited April 12, 2013 by PieFacE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabby Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Surprised so many clubs voted for it, terrible rules that will entrench the status quo. The voted as it means they can just tick away nicely in the Prem League am sure City actually voted against it And Chelsea I believe.. I think it was Us ,Fulham ,Chelsea ,Man City ,Soton against it in the end.Swansea changed vote from previous meeting from No to Yes and Reading refused to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 baggies voted no too, i think us, fulham and them suggested that it limited our appeal to foreign investment and made it harder to sell the club, on that basis i dont know why everton voted yes its the death of competitive prem football / start of a european super league, the problem is the likes of us a few years back and everton come close to getting 4th, spurs get 4th and even when the likes of wigan give utd a good game we are told what a great competitive league the prem is, utter bollocks, if you are lucky then its a 2 horse race for the title most seasons, this will only make it worse it makes it **** pointless, in a week when utd sign a deal worth £160m for their training kit the prem decides on rules that limit spending to earnings, i take it wigan and norwich and some of the other smaller clubs who voted yes werent bothered that utd's official japanese paint partners pay them more than their main shirt sponsor... and thats before you start looking at how much the top 4 rake in from CL prize money, £40m just for turning up in the group stages? plus the addiitonal sponsorship money it brings, take away roman's cash and chelsea still had a £100m headstart on us last summer so how is that "fair" what can we do? to be fair to faulkner he's got us some cash in, but on the pitch we have years of young / milner type deals to look forward to, we take a gamble on a player, turns out great, leaves us for a top 4 club who can pay him wages that we simply cant because of these restrictions, benteke will be next and he wont be the last what they should have done is enforced the 25 man squad rule and then used that as a basis for controlling spending, maximum wage caps for the 25 being the easiest, IMO its not yaya toure signing for city for silly money thats killing the prem its their subs / reserves not palying and still being on silly money when they should be playing every week for someone else 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Folski Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 baggies voted no too, i think us, fulham and them suggested that it limited our appeal to foreign investment and made it harder to sell the club, on that basis i dont know why everton voted yes its the death of competitive prem football / start of a european super league, the problem is the likes of us a few years back and everton come close to getting 4th, spurs get 4th and even when the likes of wigan give utd a good game we are told what a great competitive league the prem is, utter bollocks, if you are lucky then its a 2 horse race for the title most seasons, this will only make it worse it makes it **** pointless, in a week when utd sign a deal worth £160m for their training kit the prem decides on rules that limit spending to earnings, i take it wigan and norwich and some of the other smaller clubs who voted yes werent bothered that utd's official japanese paint partners pay them more than their main shirt sponsor... and thats before you start looking at how much the top 4 rake in from CL prize money, £40m just for turning up in the group stages? plus the addiitonal sponsorship money it brings, take away roman's cash and chelsea still had a £100m headstart on us last summer so how is that "fair" what can we do? to be fair to faulkner he's got us some cash in, but on the pitch we have years of young / milner type deals to look forward to, we take a gamble on a player, turns out great, leaves us for a top 4 club who can pay him wages that we simply cant because of these restrictions, benteke will be next and he wont be the last what they should have done is enforced the 25 man squad rule and then used that as a basis for controlling spending, maximum wage caps for the 25 being the easiest, IMO its not yaya toure signing for city for silly money thats killing the prem its their subs / reserves not palying and still being on silly money when they should be playing every week for someone else I agree with this, being Irish, every time I see England knocked out of major competition, there is always this talk of how to improve the English team and what needs to be done. Scott Sinclair, Jack Rodwell should both be playing 30+ games this year for Swansea & Everton but have managed 11 between them in the Premier League for Man City. What do they expect, look at the progress Milner was making here as a centre midfielder, now he's struggling to play for Man City & his recent inclusion has been more down to Nasri being shite than anything, and when he does play he plays right midfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughes Posted April 12, 2013 Author Share Posted April 12, 2013 I genuinely want to understand why we vote against. Granted, these rules may favor ManU, Pool and Arsenal as they have substantial turnover and income (but the 52 million wage cap will apply to them as well). However, I would have thought that this should be beneficial to us, at least over time, as we should be able to increase our income and because these rules should avoid another Man City / Chelsea popping out of nowhere.Maybe because voting against it is the right thing to do. Ok, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughes Posted April 12, 2013 Author Share Posted April 12, 2013 baggies voted no too, i think us, fulham and them suggested that it limited our appeal to foreign investment and made it harder to sell the club, on that basis i dont know why everton voted yes its the death of competitive prem football / start of a european super league, the problem is the likes of us a few years back and everton come close to getting 4th, spurs get 4th and even when the likes of wigan give utd a good game we are told what a great competitive league the prem is, utter bollocks, if you are lucky then its a 2 horse race for the title most seasons, this will only make it worse it makes it **** pointless, in a week when utd sign a deal worth £160m for their training kit the prem decides on rules that limit spending to earnings, i take it wigan and norwich and some of the other smaller clubs who voted yes werent bothered that utd's official japanese paint partners pay them more than their main shirt sponsor... and thats before you start looking at how much the top 4 rake in from CL prize money, £40m just for turning up in the group stages? plus the addiitonal sponsorship money it brings, take away roman's cash and chelsea still had a £100m headstart on us last summer so how is that "fair" what can we do? to be fair to faulkner he's got us some cash in, but on the pitch we have years of young / milner type deals to look forward to, we take a gamble on a player, turns out great, leaves us for a top 4 club who can pay him wages that we simply cant because of these restrictions, benteke will be next and he wont be the last what they should have done is enforced the 25 man squad rule and then used that as a basis for controlling spending, maximum wage caps for the 25 being the easiest, IMO its not yaya toure signing for city for silly money thats killing the prem its their subs / reserves not palying and still being on silly money when they should be playing every week for someone else Thanks, good post. However: If we voted against because it makes it harder to sell the club, does that mean Randy is selling? Would be interesting if true. From replies it looks like the minor clubs voted for in order to shut Championship clubs out, whereas the top/biggest clubs voted for because they want to reinforce their dominance. Fine, but where does that leave us? Leaving the possibility that Randy wants to sell aside, does our vote not mean one out of three: 1) Randy was looking to make big investments into Villa out of his own money, and the new rules will prevent that. Does not really seem likely, but who knows. 2) Villa voted against because the rules do not go far enough, as you say; there would be alternatives that would perhaps be more effective and more radical. 3) The rules will hit us as we will find ourselves in violation (?) and face the risk of sanctions. I did not start this thread to discuss whether the new rules are good or bad as such, but to discuss why Villa voted against. There surely must have been thorough assessments by Randy and the board before the vote was cast and that reasoning would be, I believe, extremely interesting to have knowledge of as it must say quite a bit about how Randy is looking at the future. So, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstonMartin82 Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 what they should have done is enforced the 25 man squad rule and then used that as a basis for controlling spending, maximum wage caps for the 25 being the easiest, IMO its not yaya toure signing for city for silly money thats killing the prem its their subs / reserves not palying and still being on silly money when they should be playing every week for someone else Nail. Head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRS-T Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 So, why? Chances of Villa winning the title before FFP = 1% (takeover by Bill Gates) Chances of Villa winning the title after FFP = 0% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 We vote against because these rules will not work and we want rules that are more restrictive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skruff Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 In some ways I wish the premier league was run similiar to the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 what they should have done is enforced the 25 man squad rule and then used that as a basis for controlling spending, maximum wage caps for the 25 being the easiest, IMO its not yaya toure signing for city for silly money thats killing the prem its their subs / reserves not palying and still being on silly money when they should be playing every week for someone else Nail. Head. Agree 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danceoftheshamen Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 (edited) Well it is clearly a rigged competition anyway so i see little changing really.. The FA want Man U, Liverpool, Chelsea & to a point Arsenal at the top, & in that order its apparent too as that is the order in which those clubs bring in overseas revenue. Chelsea & Man City more due to their mega rich owners flooding the game with cash no doubt... Surely this is obvious in the way results & protection rackets such as this new FFP are devised? Edited April 13, 2013 by danceoftheshamen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supernova26 Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Malaga have been banned from European competition under FFP. They are likely to finish in a Europa League spot but will not me allowed to compete. How are PSG getting around it then? And City? I guess City got into Champions League just in time to improve their revenue stream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts