KopTalk

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 462
L
Under 16 Player
Offline
Under 16 Player
L
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 462
Originally Posted By EnergisedReds
Originally Posted By ecnirp98
Originally Posted By klopp4kop
I honestly don't think they should be banned - having thought over it. I mean, if they are going to punish Man City, what about Madrid, PSG, and Barcelona? Where are they getting their money from? FFP is there to ensure that smaller teams are able to compete with the big teams - and make the league more competitive - do I want that as a Liverpool fan? No - I want us to win everything. But as a football fan, you can't possibly agree with these stupid regulations?


FFP was brought in to stop clubs going into debt and spending more than their income, so we didn't get a repeat of the likes of Leeds & Portsmouth, who gambled spending money they did not have.

The problem is the rule doesn't consider teams like City, who have super rich owners who can bank roll the club, they have no debt, so that's an envious position, but they are penalised as their income is lower than their spending, even though any shortfall is covered by the owners and they have no real debt and allot of assets.

Then you look at Man Utd who have like £600 million debt and their owners taking £milllions (£30 million was what I heard this year) out of the club every year for themselves, but because their income is so high, they meet the FFP criteria, even though before the Glazers bought them they had no real debt!

FFP tends to keep small clubs small and the big clubs big, under FFP the likes of Blackburn could not have won the PL, as Jack Walkers £Millions would not have been allowed as Blackburn had very low income, same with Chelsea, Abromovich could not have bankrolled their early success, so we will end up with the same big clubs getting bigger and the smaller clubs not being able to bridge the gap.

So I can see City's argument, but they are exceptional in having very rich state owners who can bankroll them, the same rules for another chancer and they could go under, look at us with Hicks & Gillet, they piled debt and loans on us, but if they would have got Klopp as manager instead of Hodgson, their model may have worked and we are PL & CL winners with the club worth £2+ billion for their initial purchase of £200 million ?????

You can see why Uefa brought in FFP, as clubs were taking huge risks and gambling their futures, but it's very difficult to create a model for all clubs and owners to operate under. My stance is City knew the rules before they started the season, so they should stick to them, if they broke them, they should be penalised.

As for PSG, Barca, RM etc Uefa must deal with them in the same way if they broke the rules, I am sure Man City will be stating their practices as part of City's defence, this could get very messy, but Uefa must be very confident in their evidence to throw the book at City, as they must have known the reaction they would get.

Part of the reason FSG bought Liverpool was FFP, they could see with FFP coming in and Liverpools brand and history, we were going to be a big player who was available at a relatively low fee, it's turned out to be a vert wise investment.


Totally agree that the FFP protect the big clubs with history hindering smaller clubs closing the gap. And yes City knew the rules, so no hiding, their defence will be interesting to say the least



On the other hand, the FFP also protect the small clubs financially.

The salaries of the players increased significantly in the last ten years.

The FFP is trying to restrict the increment of the salaries for those football players.

I cant see a lot of small club can survive if the wage bills continue to increase.

Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,054
E
1st Team Squad
Offline
1st Team Squad
E
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,054
It sounds like the appeal will be well into next season with City legal challenges, so any resultant ban will not come into effect until the season after.

So that ties in well for Pep leaving as his contract ends the end of next season, City will get a CL ban and a new manager comes into start the rebuilding, as the likes of Aguero/Silva/Fernandinho will be gone then, De Bruyne will be in his early 30's and likely to want a move if no CL.

Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
Offline
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Originally Posted By Liverotto
Originally Posted By EnergisedReds
Originally Posted By ecnirp98
Originally Posted By klopp4kop
I honestly don't think they should be banned - having thought over it. I mean, if they are going to punish Man City, what about Madrid, PSG, and Barcelona? Where are they getting their money from? FFP is there to ensure that smaller teams are able to compete with the big teams - and make the league more competitive - do I want that as a Liverpool fan? No - I want us to win everything. But as a football fan, you can't possibly agree with these stupid regulations?


FFP was brought in to stop clubs going into debt and spending more than their income, so we didn't get a repeat of the likes of Leeds & Portsmouth, who gambled spending money they did not have.

The problem is the rule doesn't consider teams like City, who have super rich owners who can bank roll the club, they have no debt, so that's an envious position, but they are penalised as their income is lower than their spending, even though any shortfall is covered by the owners and they have no real debt and allot of assets.

Then you look at Man Utd who have like £600 million debt and their owners taking £milllions (£30 million was what I heard this year) out of the club every year for themselves, but because their income is so high, they meet the FFP criteria, even though before the Glazers bought them they had no real debt!

FFP tends to keep small clubs small and the big clubs big, under FFP the likes of Blackburn could not have won the PL, as Jack Walkers £Millions would not have been allowed as Blackburn had very low income, same with Chelsea, Abromovich could not have bankrolled their early success, so we will end up with the same big clubs getting bigger and the smaller clubs not being able to bridge the gap.

So I can see City's argument, but they are exceptional in having very rich state owners who can bankroll them, the same rules for another chancer and they could go under, look at us with Hicks & Gillet, they piled debt and loans on us, but if they would have got Klopp as manager instead of Hodgson, their model may have worked and we are PL & CL winners with the club worth £2+ billion for their initial purchase of £200 million ?????

You can see why Uefa brought in FFP, as clubs were taking huge risks and gambling their futures, but it's very difficult to create a model for all clubs and owners to operate under. My stance is City knew the rules before they started the season, so they should stick to them, if they broke them, they should be penalised.

As for PSG, Barca, RM etc Uefa must deal with them in the same way if they broke the rules, I am sure Man City will be stating their practices as part of City's defence, this could get very messy, but Uefa must be very confident in their evidence to throw the book at City, as they must have known the reaction they would get.

Part of the reason FSG bought Liverpool was FFP, they could see with FFP coming in and Liverpools brand and history, we were going to be a big player who was available at a relatively low fee, it's turned out to be a vert wise investment.


Totally agree that the FFP protect the big clubs with history hindering smaller clubs closing the gap. And yes City knew the rules, so no hiding, their defence will be interesting to say the least



On the other hand, the FFP also protect the small clubs financially.

The salaries of the players increased significantly in the last ten years.

The FFP is trying to restrict the increment of the salaries for those football players.

I cant see a lot of small club can survive if the wage bills continue to increase.


Yes on the spending side, but it also prevents a small club to become big when it prevents capital injection by its owners, this makes no sense to me. Why can an owner like Glazer be allowed to take money out of United but the owner of City cannot put money in? If they really wanted to be fair then they should have implemented a spending cap in absolute terms, then clubs like Barca and Real wouldn't be able to do what they want on the transfer market.

Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  KopTalk Team 

Link Copied to Clipboard
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Advertisements
Liverpool FC Discussion