Cisse Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 No worries, I'm sure we get left back cover from conference and striker from league 2 so Glick will be boasting with pride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Possibly but won't we be one of many boats without paddles? We'll definitely be in a phantom, FFP compliant coracle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted April 5, 2012 Author Share Posted April 5, 2012 Has it not already started to happen? Rangers can not play in Europe next season. All that came about because Abramavic & co. want to protect their investment, they don't want any more clubs like Man City spending more than their income and breaking into their carve up of the Champions League. It means the clubs currently in the CL can spend far more than their competitors. And besides, how does that affect us? If we spend that 500k on a new striker we're not going to be allowed into Europe next season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BondJovi Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Fans may well have been deciding on football reasons,FFP being the straw that may break the camel's back.Your first point might have more validity if the owners had said that the primary motivation for cutbacks was that they didn't want (as others are doing) to continue to fund losses.However,we were continually told that this was something we must do to meet FFP requirements. So seeing as it seems FFP is unlikely in the near future, how now do the owners justify all the wages cuts etc. Do they now claim it is to prevent funding losses? Do they continue believing FFP will come in? I may be wrong here, just waffling really, but surely the Premier League is the only financial opportunity and have we spent the last few seasons making that a harder reality? Or have we provided a solid base to build from? I guess you could now argue that without FFP it means playing ultra safe does not offer much incentive. I have to admit, just from what Glick had said, you could believe FFP was a certainty (as I remember his comments) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 All that came about because Abramavic & co. want to protect their investment, they don't want any more clubs like Man City spending more than their income and breaking into their carve up of the Champions League. It means the clubs currently in the CL can spend far more than their competitors. And besides, how does that affect us? If we spend that 500k on a new striker we're not going to be allowed into Europe next season? The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer, of course this will help us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Tom's reaction to the news.................. http://www.synergyalliance.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/danbachman-up-a-creek-without-a-paddle-960x447 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 So seeing as it seems FFP is unlikely in the near future, how now do the owners justify all the wages cuts etc. Do they now claim it is to prevent funding losses? Do they continue believing FFP will come in? I may be wrong here, just waffling really, but surely the Premier League is the only financial opportunity and have we spent the last few seasons making that a harder reality? Or have we provided a solid base to build from? I guess you could now argue that without FFP it means playing ultra safe does not offer much incentive. I have to admit, just from what Glick had said, you could believe FFP was a certainty (as I remember his comments) I'm sure Glick presented it as something that just had to be rubber stamped at the next meeting.I've said for some time that I suspected it to be something of a smokescreen for the real reasons for sustainability (viz an unwillingness to fund more future losses) -just my opinion though.I think the PL is a long way away unless Nige produces a miracle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BondJovi Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 I'm sure Glick presented it as something that just had to be rubber stamped at the next meeting.I've said for some time that I suspected it to be something of a smokescreen for the real reasons for sustainability (viz an unwillingness to fund more future losses) -just my opinion though.I think the PL is a long way away unless Nige produces a miracle. Agree with that. Glick has some thinking to do! And it would take a miracle, a miracle that would only need huge sensible investment to prevent another humiliation. Not something I wish to think about at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bourneyesterday Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 I'm sure Glick presented it as something that just had to be rubber stamped at the next meeting.I've said for some time that I suspected it to be something of a smokescreen for the real reasons for sustainability (viz an unwillingness to fund more future losses) -just my opinion though.I think the PL is a long way away unless Nige produces a miracle. i have said it before but i don't mind saying it again, don't fund these useless parasites anymore. Stop buying season tickets en masse and they will look to sell up. They sure as **** won't want to run the club out of their own money and even if they sold players and refused to buy new ones there are still bills to pay. Anyone who tolerates this after all that has gone before needs to take a good long look at their lives and consider do they really have nothing else to do on a saturday PM Come on u rams ...............goodbye uncle sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Agree with that. Glick has some thinking to do! And it would take a miracle, a miracle that would only need huge sensible investment to prevent another humiliation. Not something I wish to think about at this time. We'll be told it's still eventually going to come in,and that we're even further ahead of the pack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2tups Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Tom's reaction to the news.................. http://www.synergyalliance.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/danbachman-up-a-creek-without-a-paddle-960x447 A favourite Half Man Half Biscuit line comes to mind, we're up **** creek and never mind the paddle boys. we haven't even got a canoe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisse Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 We will be even more ahead of other teams if they change football to strictly amateur sports. Like Olympics 100 hundred years ago, no professionals allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 It was the years big sales pitch, wouldn't be good for the fans to realise it was all a crock of ****. The article clearly says it was expected to happen. Not everything that changes in life is a lie or a conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritty Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 i have said it before but i don't mind saying it again, don't fund these useless parasites anymore. Stop buying season tickets en masse and they will look to sell up. They sure as **** won't want to run the club out of their own money and even if they sold players and refused to buy new ones there are still bills to pay. Anyone who tolerates this after all that has gone before needs to take a good long look at their lives and consider do they really have nothing else to do on a saturday PM Come on u rams ...............goodbye uncle sam This is ridiculous. A parasite is something that feeds off a bigger animal. It takes. Our owners are net givers, not takers. Your comment about them not wanting to fund it from their own money is frankly ludicrous given they have invested £44mn already. The fact they don't want to do that foreveer is not unreasonable. Other than Man City and Chelsea that's a similar aim of nearly every owner. Do you want an owner to come in and get the club into loads of debt gambling on promotion, fail and financially ruin the club? For all the posts about "you have to speculate to accumulate", I'd say that for every Southampton there are 3 or 4 Leicester's, Forests, Sheff Weds etc. I'd much rather have GSE than Leicester's owners who have not invested share cpaital into Leicester but made massive loans at commercial rates in a gamble they will get promotion. They are not going to get promoted and suddenly the entire business model looks flawed. And if the owner's get bored and walk away, and call in the loans, Leicester go bust.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Can I just say the article says it is on hold but it is likely to be implemented but with no sanctions next season. Similar to this from Ipswich Town which says no sanctions for 2 seasons while current contracts run down. http://www.twtd.co.uk/news.php?storyid=20372 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Can I just say the article says it is on hold but it is likely to be implemented but with no sanctions next season. Similar to this from Ipswich Town which says no sanctions for 2 seasons while current contracts run down. [url=http://www.twtd.co.uk/news.php?storyid=20372]http://www.twtd.co.u...p?storyid=20372 . Interesting. I wonder if clubs will look at some high pay but short term contracts. Maybe bringing in aging/experienced Prem players in on 1-2 year contracts. I reckon clubs will look at season long loans from Prem clubs as a short term gamble, with no consequences when the sanctions kick in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 i have said it before but i don't mind saying it again, don't fund these useless parasites anymore. They sure as **** won't want to run the club out of their own money and even if they sold players and refused to buy new ones there are still bills to pay. Some people really don't get it do they?! Ramblur, you are good at explaining things....can you think of an easier way of explaining to this guy that the owners are now into us to the tune of approx £44million? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Just as an aside, do people here generally welcome FFP or would people prefer it not to come in at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Just as an aside, do people here generally welcome FFP or would people prefer it not to come in at all? I don't think that it will ever be implimented and if it were, it would be a terrible idea. The basic principle of reducing the running costs of clubs to a level where they can live within their means is not a bad idea, but probably only achievable by market forces - if enough clubs go bust the others won't be able to borrow and no sensible investors will put money in. Eventually this will have a deflationary effect and will moderate football without the need for ill thought out regulation,. Under FFP, the big get bigger and the small get smaller. Limiting club's spending to their earnings would eventually make all the leagues uncompetitive and create huge discrepancies between divisions. Relegation and promotion would become a forgone conlcusion - leading, imo, to a move towards fixed divisions. This lack of competitiveness would see gates falling and this great game start to wither. To improve competion within a division the best way forward would be for each club to be allowed to pay the same wages and transfer fees. Apart from probably being an illegal restraint of trade, this system would cause huge problems for relegated and promoted teams and probably increase the gap between the Premier League and the Chanpionship. If it were only introduced in England it could also see all the best players move abroad. IMO the best way forward is to remove the football creditors first rule and just let the market regulate club's spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Football clubs are owned by the community that supports them, owners are just custodians on a piece of paper. Owners will change over the course of time whereas the fanbase wont something needs to be down to protect this. There should be rules in place that mean an owner cannot get bored and bankrupt a club and more stringent controls put in place to stop fans having to go through what happens at least 5 times a year to a set of unlucky fans! I do think there should be a wage cap in the game but set per league not per turnover, that would be a much fairer way of doing it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.