- This topic has 794 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Let’s try and forget the role of individual clubs in inflating transfer prices and try and discuss whether the FFP 2 proposal of limiting Club’s expenditure to 100m Euros net would be beneficial in reducing transfer fees. Personally I think it would be and it would descalate transfer prices.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
I didn’t blame anybody you did nine! I just corrected you. I wasn’t talking about player inflation you were. But while you on about it just remind me which club has broken the British transfer record more than any other. It ain’t Chelsea and it ain’t City and that record has been broken many times before our clubs came into money. Ps I couldn’t care less about UEFA or FIFa both are run by a bunch of incompetent fools at best and gangsters at worst. You can of course choose to nail your colours to whatever last you like, I am a bit more choosy.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Sorry nine but so called FFP 2 looks like just more protectionist bollox for the so called super clubs.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Jim, seemingly we both agree with Adlab “It maybe the going rate but it is getting out of hand. Clubs should say no. Too much. And with the money saved reduce season tickets”.
I guess the question is if we are going to see transfer prices reduce how do we achieve that FFP 2 seemed like a way of achieving that perhaps there are other ways particularly as it’s all gone quiet on FFP 2. It was due to be debated with the ECA at the end of May?
Just for the record though I share your concerns about FIFA and UEFA and I’m certainly not nailing my colours to their masts.
But if nothing is done transfer prices will continue to rise and I’m not sure that’s in the best interests of anyone other than the Agents and the players who take their slice of any transfer fee when the move is completed.
Ps Have you had a bad day? Peace and love. ? Cheers 999
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Still think you’re both chasing your own tails here.
Turkey’s don’t vote for Christmas, do they? The only rule that should really be in existence is simply any money given to a club by its owners should automatically be considered a “gift”, and not a “loan”… therefore the clubs can’t do a Portsmouth/Leeds etc…
There’s never to going to a be a restriction on spending or workable FFP rules as clubs can afford better lawyers and will always figure out the loopholes (exactly the same with paying your taxes!), and to be honest, I think it would be better for the game anyway, and will potentially allow any club the chance to get to the top of the tree.
Anything else is something designed by the Golden Oldies in an effort to claw back history.
Call me heartless but I don’t care about history, if you ain’t good enough, you ain’t good enough, don’t matter what you did 20/30/40/50 years ago.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
FFP will almost certainly continue in its current form with updates as deemed necessary and whether we like it or not it has had an effect in limiting Club’s spending albeit it has had no effect on the size of the transfer fees.
No point in falling out with each other over it though. Probably best to leave it there as FFP is always a bit of a sensitive subject whenever it gets discussed. Cheers All 999
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Dude, there is no FFP… the nearest you’ve got to it is certain clubs not wanting to spunk wads of cash and using the existing “FFP” rules as some sort of excuse…
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Chucky, if there was no FFP then Psg would have out right signed Mbappe instead of taking him on a season long loan and AC Milan wouldn’t have been at CAS last week appealing their season long ban from the Europa League. It’s far from perfect but it is having an effect
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Just wish those in charge would for once put the fans first and particularly the match going fans, rather than thinking about lining their own pockets and making clubs and players richer. Aside from the cap for away games at Β£30 50% more than the campaign of twenty is plenty by the way. When was the last time anything was done for the benefit of match going fans. The twats in charge of the FA the PL and UEFA need sacking as they clearly couldn’t give a shit and are so detached from the reality of a typical match going fan on an average wage.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Jim, 100% agree with you re the match going fans. Cheers 999
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Just logged in and read the posts.
We all know FFP never seems to hit certain clubs and we all know which. There ought to be a debt:equity requirement – this might make owners think twice about spending money and increasing debt. They can say to selling clubs we just cant do it. To make this work though would require a more sophisticated look at company accounts and the football clubs holding companies. Owners would also be required to sign a declaration of full information as fit and proper persons – not signed by a puppet CEO or similar.I also think limiting the net spend makes sense. (100m seems the right sort of figure. Any more than that, an equivalent amount to reduce seΓ son ticket prices.
But.. FIFA, UEFA, EPL, would never agree!
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Chelsea will hold out for a Β£70 million bid from Barcelona for Willian, according to the London Evening Standard.
Pushing it a tad if this is accurate rather see Willian join Barca than United and the Barca bid of Β£65m again if accurate looked more than fair to me.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
9x9x9x3… so FFP had an “effect” when PSG bent the watertight rules and loaned a 160 million rated player instead of buying him (FFP really solved that one) and Milan got sent to the naughty corner and had the metaphorical equivalent of no butter on their crumpets for “breaking” the stringent FFP rules…
Yeap, those rules are really clamping down and sorting things out aren’t they?
Clubs are pissing all over those rules like a Trump orgy in a Moscow hotel.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Chucky, I never said FFP was watertight I said it was far from perfect and the Mbappe loan to PSG highlighted that but that loan only happened because PSG weren’t in a position to buy Mbappe because of FFP but loan deals like that are something UEFA should be doing something to prevent going forwards.
Personally I thought the Milan ban from the Europa League was too extreme versus other punishments that have been handed out to other clubs who broke the FFP rules but all club’s have the right to appeal to CAS in respect of any punishments handed down and Milan quite rightly imo took that route and CAS requested that UEFA should come up with a more suitable punishment which seems a sensible suggestion to me.
I’m not Championing or defending FFP it’s a long way from perfect but imo it’s better than having nothing in place as the reduction of Club debt across Europe since it’s introduction demonstrates.
I’m not sure why but FFP seems to bring out the beast in posters.? But it’s pointless arguing about it, FFP is there and Club’s participating in Europe are required to follow the FFP rules whether we like them or not.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
the only way to stop players like mbappe going on loan and allowing teams to “beat the system”, is by banning all loan deals. how can it work otherwise? UEFA determine a players worth and no play over a certain value can be loaned? or you implement an official ranking system and no players in the top 100 can be loaned out. it cant work.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Good solutions Paxton.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
the problem is that system is still open to corruption. PSG just call UEFA and say “Hi UEFA, we want to get Mbappe on loan again. Any chance you can rank him 101. Also, unrelated, we have a really nice gift box for you guys at the office, we’ll send it out for you ASAP.”
its not like UEFA are saints.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Ranking players could work though and the Mbappe loan deal was obvious to all that it was PSG not wanting to run foul of FFP by buying him that forced them to take him on loan. Such big loan deals will always include a to buy clause and the value of that would be the give away.
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
Can’t see how you could rank 100 players like Paxo suggests, look at the problem we’ve had on working between Lampard, Gerrard and Hibbbert. Times that by 50…
I’d like to see some sort of “Squad Size” ruling, limit clubs to say only 24 “over 21”, then you’ll a one-in, one-out, that will sort out prices a bit I reckon.
As for “beastly”, this is me in my “couldn’t crush a grape” mood…
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
A slight variation on Paxton’s solution, which is not open to corruption, is to say that the top x (say 30?) richest clubs by turnover are forbidden from loaning players in. Simple solution which can’t be disputed. Why should the richest clubs need to loan players anyway?!
_____________________________
React below π
*hover/click on the number below the reaction to see who reacted
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.