FFP was brought in to stop clubs spending irresponsibly and “doing a Leeds”.Good Lord give it a rest man.
If owners have the money and want to pump it into their club to win, what’s problem of they are loaded enough to cover the losses?
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
FFP was brought in to stop clubs spending irresponsibly and “doing a Leeds”.Good Lord give it a rest man.
FFP was brought in to stop clubs spending irresponsibly and “doing a Leeds”.
If owners have the money and want to pump it into their club to win, what’s problem of they are loaded enough to cover the losses?
Might be wrong, but I'd expect that % to have decreased over the last 2 seasons considering our increased spending in recent years......
Also: Lets say that 14% of what we are currently spending roughly equates to 20m quid p/a..... If that 20m quid is still going towards projects that are increasing our spendable revenue (eg stadium repayments, go carts and other crap) then it's a circularly funding scenario.
Yeah I think it will have gone down too. I was being facetious.
The commercial revenue of PSG is greater than the other 19 teams in Ligue 1. It’s the only L1 side in the most populous city in France so an advantage would be expected but, with the doping, PSG will dominate domestic competition to the point that it’s unlikely that they’ll lose a domestic tournament—unless managed by Poch. Does anyone really want to watch a league that the same team wins 12 times in a row usually by a comfortable margin? And, if they’re beaten, then they just buy the best players of the team that beat them?Because it's unfair for the vast majority of football teams and kills sporting integrity?
What's the point of having a sport where teams play fair on the pitch but play unfair off it?
1. They don’t play fair on the pitch. They constantly look to cheat officials and bend the rules. Then there is the doping question which is very much an open question.Because it's unfair for the vast majority of football teams and kills sporting integrity?
What's the point of having a sport where teams play fair on the pitch but play unfair off it?
Current FFP regulations weren’t brought in to stop this. And tbh we had the sky 4 dominance through financial advantages for years before City came along.The commercial revenue of PSG is greater than the other 19 teams in Ligue 1. It’s the only L1 side in the most populous city in France so an advantage would be expected but, with the doping, PSG will dominate domestic competition to the point that it’s unlikely that they’ll lose a domestic tournament—unless managed by Poch. Does anyone really want to watch a league that the same team wins 12 times in a row usually by a comfortable margin? And, if they’re beaten, then they just buy the best players of the team that beat them?
The revenue inequality, driven by (but not entirely down to) nation states and oligarchs, just pushes us further and further towards a closed shop super league.
If the two options are domestic leagues that serve no purpose because they’re always won by the same team or a closed shop super league then I’m going to give up on top tier football.
Can’t see this season’s relegation being solved outside of litigation.How the fuck is anyone supposed to keep track of who is going down or staying up?
Because it’s unsustainable. Everton and Forest are close to going out of business on paper - at some point their mad owners will stop spending and they will go popFFP was brought in to stop clubs spending irresponsibly and “doing a Leeds”.
If owners have the money and want to pump it into their club to win, what’s problem of they are loaded enough to cover the losses?
Just seems like FFP is in place to stop teams outside the "big 6" from challenging tbh.
This is fundamentally all this part (ie the control of income and transfer spend) of FFP was ever about.
Because it’s unsustainable. Everton and Forest are close to going out of business on paper - at some point their mad owners will stop spending and they will go pop
Abramovic was sustainable until he was unsustainable - nothing lasts for everUnsustainable depends on the owner, surely?
So why didn’t forest do a Chelsea and say we are paying for these players over ten seasons?
FFP was brought in to stop clubs spending irresponsibly and “doing a Leeds”.
If owners have the money and want to pump it into their club to win, what’s problem of they are loaded enough to cover the losses?
Political interference Vs government interference,it is different.I thought fifa prohibited government interference in a country’s football affairs?
Surely they won’t be happy at this, although I’ve no idea if similar is set up in other countries. Anyway, I wouldn’t want any government near controlling anything in football. It won’t do it well.
Every club that's failed so far has blamed Spurs