-
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...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
We are proof that this is not the case. We have been fully compliant and challenged DESPITE the fact the two most successful clubs of the past 20 years have been built in a way which is not compliant.
Grow your club like spurs = good
Grow your club like city and Chelsea = bad
Edit:
bus-conductor
Deuterz
A regulator is a stupidly naive idea that the football world is getting behind hoping that it waves a magic wand to cure ills. Much like when everybody demanded VAR before, they'll find out eventually that ultimately you're still getting humans and their flaws (plus vested interests) making decisions and it will achieve very little.
Even if it is taken for granted that government wouldn't be involved, you know already what will happen, it won't be very "independent" and every single representative group going will want their stake in it by demanding representation.
The Premier League will argue for someone from their background on it.
As will the Football League.
As will the Non League.
As will the grassroots.
As will the FA.
Probably the broadcasters.
Definitely the fans.
Guaranteed to be some "high profile" appointees for the PR aspect - eg. Gary Neville, or similar.
Then they will have to make sure every other box is ticked in terms of inclusion:
Women.
Black.
Asian.
LGBT.
Disabled.
And so on.
Whilst any properly "independent" regulators - eg. legal people - you just know as soon as it becomes knowledge which teams they support then that will set opposition fans off and cries of conspiracy whenever decisions get made that they don't like.
It will just be like now - a lot of arguing, not much getting done, people looking out for their vested interests and being afraid to make tough decisions.
Even if it is taken for granted that government wouldn't be involved, you know already what will happen, it won't be very "independent" and every single representative group going will want their stake in it by demanding representation.
The Premier League will argue for someone from their background on it.
As will the Football League.
As will the Non League.
As will the grassroots.
As will the FA.
Probably the broadcasters.
Definitely the fans.
Guaranteed to be some "high profile" appointees for the PR aspect - eg. Gary Neville, or similar.
Then they will have to make sure every other box is ticked in terms of inclusion:
Women.
Black.
Asian.
LGBT.
Disabled.
And so on.
Whilst any properly "independent" regulators - eg. legal people - you just know as soon as it becomes knowledge which teams they support then that will set opposition fans off and cries of conspiracy whenever decisions get made that they don't like.
It will just be like now - a lot of arguing, not much getting done, people looking out for their vested interests and being afraid to make tough decisions.
Firstly what you're proposing isn't a fair system either by the way in fact the new system at least protect the smaller sides from going out of business.
Smaller teams closing the gap on bigger teams is just pie in the sky nonsense, it's very rare a Sugar daddy comes into a club and turns it's fortunes around and it's increasingly more rare that there's owners out there who are willing to put money into their teams just so they can be successful, owners who normally do that are in it to either Sports wash or launder their money because as a business owner it's one of the worst investments you can make as there's minimal returns.
The Chelsea/City owners are just outliers considering how many owners have come into football and how many of them are in it for different reasons - I think people just use them as examples of when they get it right but forget that clubs like Portsmouth, Liverpool (pre FSG) Leeds, Blackburn, Everton etc...all had owners who were in it for interests other than football reasons and did their best to put them out of business
Secondly the big boys at the top will stay at the top regardless of what system you put in place, if UEFA don't put FFP in place then you have a higher chance of a Super League happening because all these clubs are going to do is follow the money. The ESL is even worse when it comes to protecting the football pyramid and sporting integrity, there's absolutely 0 chance of those smaller clubs closing the gap because the ESL is literally a closed shop for the big boys.
Horse has already bolted when it comes to football now, people are just going to have to accept that football in it's current state isn't going to be fixed anytime soon but it's probably the best solution we can hope for.
Edit - In regards to your first point, you missed the point, I was talking about the aim is to play fair on the pitch therefore you need to aim to play fair off it.
Last edited:
There’s a lot to unpack there and frankly you just kind of sound pissed off in general rather than about this specific issue.
Humans are fallible and rarely get it totally right the first time, and there‘s no chance everyone will be happy all at the same time. It’s maybe a decent start to put some additional controls in place though where less existed before. It’s not like things were running well prior to this.
Not really, it depends on P&S surely? Newcastle being a prime example.
Are Newcastle or Man City really unsustainable? They have the backing of two of the richest nations in the world behind them.
Not sure I was proposing anything.
The rest of it was too long and tbh I couldn't be fucked to read it all. Sorry.
Depends on who is putting the controls in. Have you met the British Government?
(See below)
You asked a question I answered it
Don't blame me if you forgot what you're arguing about.
Of course, standard stuff from you to stick your fingers in your ears when you're clearly incapable of rebutting a point, you should read it - you might learn something after all.
I see we've reached that stupid part of the debate again when you're just arguing the toss yet again haven't we, cool have a good day anyway
Has anyone opened a book on who the regulator will be?
Tony Blair.
John Major would actually be a good shout. Genuine fan and decent bloke.
They wont be a spurs fan. Probably a gooner or chav.
We are proof that this is not the case. We have been fully compliant and challenged DESPITE the fact the two most successful clubs of the past 20 years have been built in a way which is not compliant.
Grow your club like spurs = good
Grow your club like city and Chelsea = bad
Edit:
Ignoring whatever the outcomes and outliers there may or may not be, the part of UEFA’s FFP that limited ownership investment, prohibited inflated related sponsorship and revenue related spending was all added very late in the drafting of the rules after UEFA were blackmailed by the G14 club group with the threat of a breakaway super league.
FFP was originally going to be purely designed to improve the fiscal governance of clubs and make sure they were run sustainably etc.
And it was designed to protect their hegemony and prevent future Chelsea’s etc from that threat.
When it comes to Spurs, on the one hand you could say we are FFP’s shining example, but the truth is we’ve been sustainably run since Sugar, we were traditionally a bigger club than the likes of Chelsea and City, and had the geographical advantage of London that smaller provincial clubs will never have and - we still haven’t won anything substantial for decades.
Chelsea under Abramovic were more solvent and in less fiscal peril than ManU after their leveraged purchase by the Glazers.
Daniel Levy
They can't use that backing without cheating though can they?
Newcastle are the prime example because they've already stated that they'll likely have to sell players to maintain their P&S conformity.
It's only cheating because they created new rules saying it is.
I'm just commenting on the rules. IMO if an owner guarantees a certain level of investment then the club is sustainable for the period that investment is guaranteed.
Why shouldn't the Forest owner spend his money to get his club into the Premier League and stay there? If it's his money, why should a regulation prevent him doing it?
The Everton situation is unsustainable because those owners can't prove they have the money. 777 ownership is absolutely unsustainable and there should be regulations to stop them getting involved.
Where was the regulation to stop the Glaziers asset-stripping Man Utd?