Original Dub wrote:You listened to that entire interview and all you took from it was "so we don't have another portsmouth"??
Excellent yet again.
stop bullying him. You might turn him into a reasonable poster. Dickhead.
cheers
Original Dub wrote:You listened to that entire interview and all you took from it was "so we don't have another portsmouth"??
Excellent yet again.
Piccsnumberoneblue wrote:Oh how about a rule whereby the gate receipts are shared between two participating clubs and perhaps a rule whereby television money is shared equally? That would surely help all we clubs stay in business and perhaps be competitive and ambitious.
Oh yeah, it uses to be like that before those 'concerned' clubs like filth, arse and Liverpool threatened to form a breakaway league if it wasn't ended. Never ever believe for one second they give a shit about the likes of Pompey
phips wrote:while i agree that its bullshit as is, shouldn't we have something like this in place? so we avoid stuff like what happened to Portsmouth...
Sideshow Bob wrote:phips wrote:while i agree that its bullshit as is, shouldn't we have something like this in place? so we avoid stuff like what happened to Portsmouth...
a football club is a business. some businesses fail. what is the problem with that?
DoomMerchant wrote:Piccsnumberoneblue wrote:Oh how about a rule whereby the gate receipts are shared between two participating clubs and perhaps a rule whereby television money is shared equally? That would surely help all we clubs stay in business and perhaps be competitive and ambitious.
Oh yeah, it uses to be like that before those 'concerned' clubs like filth, arse and Liverpool threatened to form a breakaway league if it wasn't ended. Never ever believe for one second they give a shit about the likes of Pompey
US sports leagues have similar models to what you've described, and the NFL, arguably the most even playing field among all the leagues in terms of competitiveness, has the most shared revenue model...all the licensing, and TV rights are shared equally, and visiting teams get 40% of the gate from a game. And there's more, but that's a basic overview. It works in addition to the caps, and financial models that basically have created parity if your team is managed well, which means the frontoffice setup, scouting, and player analysis is even more critical than ever.
No reason English football shouldn't be investing in itself and making the teams at the bottom of the league capable of finding amazing players and grooming them. As it stands now, the "cartel" is the main reason that English football has suffered internationally imho.
cheers
phips wrote:while i agree that its bullshit as is, shouldn't we have something like this in place? so we avoid stuff like what happened to Portsmouth...
FA cup winners 2006 wrote:Are we coming to a stage where we would be in favour of FFP?
Sheikh Mansour was never going to put in hundreds of millions year after year for transfers. Although we didnt want FFP while we were investing heavily, i feel we are now at the point where we have assembled a quality squad, put the infrastructure in place for youth development and we have grown our revenues substantially. If some sort of FFP was not introduced, then the danger would be that we would never see the youth players introduced as challenging the new rich club in town would mean spending big every summer and not giving the 18/19 year olds a chance in the team. Going forward i hope we will be able to see a blend of experienced long serving players and quality youth products from the academy.
Even though this may not be the fairest system, it is probably too late to hurt us significantly, maybe slow us down, and our management team (Txiki, Sorriano etc) are probably in favour of such a system, and need such a system to fill the first team with academy graduates.
Socrates wrote:FA cup winners 2006 wrote:Are we coming to a stage where we would be in favour of FFP?
Sheikh Mansour was never going to put in hundreds of millions year after year for transfers. Although we didnt want FFP while we were investing heavily, i feel we are now at the point where we have assembled a quality squad, put the infrastructure in place for youth development and we have grown our revenues substantially. If some sort of FFP was not introduced, then the danger would be that we would never see the youth players introduced as challenging the new rich club in town would mean spending big every summer and not giving the 18/19 year olds a chance in the team. Going forward i hope we will be able to see a blend of experienced long serving players and quality youth products from the academy.
Even though this may not be the fairest system, it is probably too late to hurt us significantly, maybe slow us down, and our management team (Txiki, Sorriano etc) are probably in favour of such a system, and need such a system to fill the first team with academy graduates.
This is why the club always backed FFP, they saw it as potentially advantageous but after growing to a critical size. The response was never to fight it just to get big before it was implemented. People thought they were just playing lip service but all the evidence suggests otherwise.
Ted Hughes wrote:City don't back FFP at all, they voted against it & fought to stop it being brought into the Premier League, so they are hardly going to be backing it in Europe.
Not one shred of evidence to suggest City backed ffp anywhere at any time. They have reserved the right to take legal action as well.
Absolutely the plan has been to break even & become self sufficient, but that's got fuck all to do with ffp, it's just that nobody in their right mind would want to keep spending 100 mil per year on a football club, when it's perfectly capable of financing itself long term.
Socrates wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:City don't back FFP at all, they voted against it & fought to stop it being brought into the Premier League, so they are hardly going to be backing it in Europe.
Not one shred of evidence to suggest City backed ffp anywhere at any time. They have reserved the right to take legal action as well.
Absolutely the plan has been to break even & become self sufficient, but that's got fuck all to do with ffp, it's just that nobody in their right mind would want to keep spending 100 mil per year on a football club, when it's perfectly capable of financing itself long term.
They opposed the Premier League version as it is more restrictive and, more importantly, removed the option of spending as they wished and just being restricted for a while in UEFA competitions. They certainly have made no such noises about the UEFA version other than when they felt they were being treated unfairly by the sanctions under it. Is perfectly possible to back one but not the other if you see one as ultimately being in your favour but not the other.
DoomMerchant wrote:Holy shit... So Soccs is a chunky windbag of bolloxy proportions whose opinions shift like the wind when cornered? Well I never....
Cheers
Return to The Maine Football forum
Users browsing this forum: Harry Dowd scored, HBlock Cripple, Indianablue, Mase, patrickblue, PeterParker, Scatman and 251 guests