What's new

Financial Fair Play (general thread)

E17yid

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2013
17,790
33,287
Here We go again.

People who haven't had to compete to get their wealth and do as they please without people being able to say no to them are saying the league does not promote competitiveness cause they can't do as they please.
They’ll all be saying the premier league is Islamophobic next.
 

SirHarryHotspur

Well-Known Member
Aug 9, 2017
5,642
8,568
Need this weeks tribunal to come out with a verdict that the PL rules are not anti competitive to stop all this from certain clubs, that's assuming the tribunal is sitting , has there actually been any official confirmation that it is taking place.
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2005
47,122
106,156
Need this weeks tribunal to come out with a verdict that the PL rules are not anti competitive to stop all this from certain clubs, that's assuming the tribunal is sitting , has there actually been any official confirmation that it is taking place.

Yeah it started Monday but I’d going to last 10 days. Not sure how long it takes to come to a decision but apparently a lot of it is based in law which will be very dry so it could take a while to get a result.
 

Misfit

President of The Niles Crane Fanclub
May 7, 2006
21,636
36,487
How much further along would we have been without Chelsea for a decade and then Citeh on top of that for the last 10 years?

Utter bastards.
 

Yiddo100

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2019
10,389
53,576
It’s a shame all PL clubs can’t get in a room and all agree on rules which will last a few years and help their clubs be financially secure. That way they all know the rules therefor they won’t need to argue about the rules in the future.

Ah Nevermind
 

Hotspur33

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2014
1,665
4,018
How much further along would we have been without Chelsea for a decade and then Citeh on top of that for the last 10 years?

Utter bastards.
Chelsea, or more specifically, Abramovic’s money is the reason the premier league is what it is today.
We probably wouldn’t have the state of the art facilities we have now, the stadium would probably have had a much smaller budget.
Almost certainly would not have made the champions league final.
 

allatsea

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
9,194
16,601
Here We go again.

People who haven't had to compete to get their wealth and do as they please without people being able to say no to them are saying the league does not promote competitiveness cause they can't do as they please.
and ignoring the sustainability part of the rules.
 

allatsea

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
9,194
16,601
Chelsea, or more specifically, Abramovic’s money is the reason the premier league is what it is today.
We probably wouldn’t have the state of the art facilities we have now, the stadium would probably have had a much smaller budget.
Almost certainly would not have made the champions league final.
So stealing and cheating is to the benefit of the PL ?
 

FibreOpticJesus

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2005
2,923
5,234
It’s a shame all PL clubs can’t get in a room and all agree on rules which will last a few years and help their clubs be financially secure. That way they all know the rules therefor they won’t need to argue about the rules in the future.

Ah Nevermind
But they all know the rules. It’s just that some don’t want to abide by them when they break them or their situation changes when a sugar daddy buys them.
 

BehindEnemyLines

Twisting a Melon with the Rev. Black Grape
Apr 13, 2006
4,788
14,135
Chelsea, or more specifically, Abramovic’s money is the reason the premier league is what it is today.
We probably wouldn’t have the state of the art facilities we have now, the stadium would probably have had a much smaller budget.
Almost certainly would not have made the champions league final.
I would say the opposite - without chelsea (and later Man City) Spurs would probably have been in the Champions League the vast majority of the last 20 years, would have a far higher profile, better players, and probably have won something in that time........those two clubs have kept Spurs on the periphery for much of that time.
 

GMI

G.
Dec 13, 2006
3,209
12,544
I would say the opposite - without chelsea (and later Man City) Spurs would probably have been in the Champions League the vast majority of the last 20 years, would have a far higher profile, better players, and probably have won something in that time........those two clubs have kept Spurs on the periphery for much of that time.
Fully agree. We would have picked up a decent haul of trophies had those two not doped themselves above us. We would also have signed a number of the players that were lured to Chelsea and City by their inflated wages.
 

Misfit

President of The Niles Crane Fanclub
May 7, 2006
21,636
36,487
Chelsea, or more specifically, Abramovic’s money is the reason the premier league is what it is today.
We probably wouldn’t have the state of the art facilities we have now, the stadium would probably have had a much smaller budget.
Almost certainly would not have made the champions league final.
Disagree. They spent their wealth on themselves. Are you trying to credit Abramovic with the PL's global popularity? I think you've got that backwards. He bought an English club as it was already the league on the rise and he got Chelsea for a song as they were hours from potential obsolescence after their first trial run at winning things by outspending others obscenely in the mid-late 90s. The 90s were fairly bleak initially after the Europe ban etc but things had corrected by the early 00s and Yanited were a global juggernaut. Serie A was on a downturn and La Liga was La Liga. Always relevant because of Barca and RM.

Chelsea spending did help to massively inflate transfer fees. It wasn't that long ago when £20M was still considered a hefty fee. Now you're lucky if it gets you a promising youngster. Not to mention the wages they pay, and force other top clubs to pay as a result. Another development these clubs have helped along which has long screwed clubs like us.

In short they have utterly screwed the footballing landscape, on and off the pitch, to their favour.

I'd open a bottle of bubbly if they and other clubs like them folded overnight.
 
Last edited:

Westmorlandspur

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2013
3,150
5,134
It’s a shame all PL clubs can’t get in a room and all agree on rules which will last a few years and help their clubs be financially secure. That way they all know the rules therefor they won’t need to argue about the rules in the future.

Ah Nevermind
F the problem with Abu Dhabi and Saudi. They will always be financially secure. They could take the league apart if let loose with their money.
There are financial rules in Spain, Italy and Germany. Not sure about the rest of Europe.
They are used to doing what they want. Anybody speaks against them and they dont speak no more.
This will ruin our football if it continues.
 

TC18

Lurker
Jan 27, 2011
614
1,847
Disagree. They spent their wealth on themselves. Are you trying to credit Abramovic with the PL's global popularity? I think you've got that backwards. He bought an English club as it was already the league on the rise and he got Chelsea for a song as they were hours from potential obsolescence after their first trial run at winning things by outspending others obscenely in the mid-late 90s. The 90s were fairly bleak initially after the Europe ban etc but things had corrected by the early 00s and Yanited were a global juggernaut. Serie A was on a downturn and La Liga was La Liga. Always relevant because of Barca and RM.

Chelsea spending did help to massively inflate transfer fees. It wasn't that long ago when £20M was still considered a hefty fee. Now you're lucky if it gets you a promising youngster. Not to mention the wages they pay, and force other top clubs to pay as a result. Another development these clubs have helped along which has long screwed clubs like us.

In short they have utterly screwed the footballing landscape, on and off the pitch, to their favour.

I'd open a bottle of bubbly if they and other clubs like them folded overnight.
It’s what clubs like villa don’t get. They keep saying it anticompetitive, what would happen if they were allowed to spend what they wanted? Clubs like spurs couldn’t afford to keep up, that is anticompetitive.
 

TC18

Lurker
Jan 27, 2011
614
1,847
Football fans piss me off in general.

We all want quick fixes, money splashed out on players, regardless. But the fans of, Villa and Newcastle in particular are even more grating.

They just cannot understand that the rules are there to help them if something was to go wrong. They have it in their heads that the league is set up to favour “The Red Clubs”. Jesus wept. No self awareness. Backing City and Chelsea is dancing with the devil and incredibly short sited.

I mean Newcastle could challenge Man City if they were allowed to have their way, but Villa would be left in the dust, then how long until the owner gets bored? Then they are lumbered with a massive wage bill, shit infrastructure and no way to sustain there current spending.. then what? Will they moan that nothing was in place to prevent their club from going down?
 

newbie

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2004
6,270
6,709
But they all know the rules. It’s just that some don’t want to abide by them when they break them or their situation changes when a sugar daddy buys them.

exactly

they had an advantage as other teams had to play by the rules.

not to mention what about every club docked points for administration or Everton or Nottingham forest are they owed compensation?
 

Metalhead

But that's a debate for another thread.....
Nov 24, 2013
25,958
39,631
Football fans piss me off in general.

We all want quick fixes, money splashed out on players, regardless. But the fans of, Villa and Newcastle in particular are even more grating.

They just cannot understand that the rules are there to help them if something was to go wrong. They have it in their heads that the league is set up to favour “The Red Clubs”. Jesus wept. No self awareness. Backing City and Chelsea is dancing with the devil and incredibly short sited.

I mean Newcastle could challenge Man City if they were allowed to have their way, but Villa would be left in the dust, then how long until the owner gets bored? Then they are lumbered with a massive wage bill, shit infrastructure and no way to sustain there current spending.. then what? Will they moan that nothing was in place to prevent their club from going down?
Thing is that club owners gaslight their fans into thinking that they are victims whereas it's the rest of the clubs in the premier league who are the victims if two or three clubs get to spend without any kind of restriction.
 
Top