Man. City - Attack the best means of Defence

[tomski]

Hope Man City wipe the cunts out of existence. 
 

VAR vote 19-1 to keep. What a shit league.

[Dr. Feelgood]

26 minutes ago, tomski said:

VAR vote 19-1 to keep. What a shit league.

For all the whinging, knowing how the fans hate it, the wankers vote to keep it. All of 'em except Wolves. Tosspots.

[DazBob]

2 hours ago, Zico said:

It hasn't stopped Chelsea 

 

Without doing any research whatsoever, I'd imagine Chelsea have been able to sell a lot of players and also generate a lot more income, especially through their hotel.

They've also been very smart by offering very lengthy contracts, therefore spreading the cost of signing players over a longer period than normal.

Still, having watched the Newcastle documentary on Netflix, it's mentioned on there quite a few times how they cannot just spend willy nilly because of FFP.

[DazBob]

2 hours ago, Zico said:

There needs to be something in place to stop clubs spending money they don't have

Agree with this.

... But surely there's a way that mega rich owners can ensure that all liabilities are covered to ensure the club cannot go under if/when they pull the plug.

Newcastle's owners could do this with £1bn that they've found behind the couch and not even flinch... But they're not allowed to. 

FFP should be there to protect clubs from shysters like Ken Anderson, not from billionaires.

[Cheese]

4 minutes ago, DazBob said:

Agree with this.

... But surely there's a way that mega rich owners can ensure that all liabilities are covered to ensure the club cannot go under if/when they pull the plug.

Newcastle's owners could do this with £1bn that they've found behind the couch and not even flinch... But they're not allowed to. 

FFP should be there to protect clubs from shysters like Ken Anderson, not from billionaires.

Would we have fallen foul of FFP when we were flying high with Eddie Davies' money?

[DazBob]

3 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Would we have fallen foul of FFP when we were flying high with Eddie Davies' money?

Who gives a fuck? 😉

Seriously, I have no idea but I'd imagine so .. as would most other clubs.

TBF,  I'd not have an issue with that because we didn't have the money in reserve. Newcastle and Man City do have, so shouldn't be.prevented from spending to be the best they can be.

[Cheese]

6 minutes ago, DazBob said:

Who gives a fuck? 😉

Seriously, I have no idea but I'd imagine so .. as would most other clubs.

TBF,  I'd not have an issue with that because we didn't have the money in reserve. Newcastle and Man City do have, so shouldn't be.prevented from spending to be the best they can be.

I don't give a fuck. I've genuinely no idea about FFP rules. I don't have any interest in football outside of BWFC and occasionally England.

[Dr Faustus]

8 hours ago, Zico said:

I don't think there's a fair answer 

The issue is when it becomes relative 

Bournemouth should be able to spend as much as United if they want, they shouldn't be restricted by incoming revenue 

But then an owner shouldn't be able to rack up massive debts trying to compete for a few years then fuck off and leave a club in turmoil

In any case 

City have been snide 

You either punish them or fuck it all of completely 

City will be fine, Newcastle will be fine 

Forest might not be

There needs to be something in place to stop clubs spending money they don't have

 

[Zico]

8 hours ago, DazBob said:

They've also been very smart by offering very lengthy contracts, therefore spreading the cost of signing players over a longer period than normal.

I'm not sure about that

Yes the players are on less money and have more resale value if things don't work out

But the transfer fee won't be spread over the length of the contract 

They signed Caciedo for £100m on an 8 year contract 

There is no way Brighton have agreed to receive the fee over 8 seasons, they'll want it all right away or as soon as, other add ons may occur further down the line but the terms Chelsea offer players have zero influence on the fee they have to pay

So they've still spent well over £1bn since that new owner came in

[DazBob]

4 minutes ago, Zico said:

I'm not sure about that

Yes the players are on less money and have more resale value if things don't work out

But the transfer fee won't be spread over the length of the contract 

They signed Caciedo for £100m on an 8 year contract 

There is no way Brighton have agreed to receive the fee over 8 seasons, they'll want it all right away or as soon as, other add ons may occur further down the line but the terms Chelsea offer players have zero influence on the fee they have to pay

So they've still spent well over £1bn since that new owner came in

I might be wrong but I thought that whilst the cash might have gone out of the door, the P&L impact isn't anywhere near showing £1bn in expenditure, due to the fees being amortised over the length of the contract.

Edited June 7, 2024 by DazBob

[green genie]

8 hours ago, Cheese said:

Would we have fallen foul of FFP when we were flying high with Eddie Davies' money?

You wouldn’t have been able to get into Europe, that’s for sure 

[DirtySanchez]

7 minutes ago, DazBob said:

I might be wrong but I thought that whilst the cash might have gone out of the door, the P&L impact isn't anywhere near showing £1bn in expenditure, due to the fees being amortised over the length of the contract.

Aye

For FFP that's how it's worked out so say if you buy a player for £10m on a five year contract, his 'worth' goes down by £2m each year until it's zero at the end of it 

Derby tried a different approach in their accounts stating that they would sell a player for say £5m so therefore that's what he's worth. It boosted the value of their assets so they could spend more 

But they didn't make it to the prem and it all came crashing down 

[gonzo]

8 hours ago, Cheese said:

Would we have fallen foul of FFP when we were flying high with Eddie Davies' money?

Well we ultimately fell foul of no FFP in the end.

We nearly didn't exist anymore. We are the exact reason FFP should be in existence.

[Zico]

22 minutes ago, DazBob said:

I might be wrong but I thought that whilst the cash might have gone out of the door, the P&L impact isn't anywhere near showing £1bn in expenditure, due to the fees being amortised over the length of the contract.

 

10 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

Aye

For FFP that's how it's worked out so say if you buy a player for £10m on a five year contract, his 'worth' goes down by £2m each year until it's zero at the end of it 

Derby tried a different approach in their accounts stating that they would sell a player for say £5m so therefore that's what he's worth. It boosted the value of their assets so they could spend more 

But they didn't make it to the prem and it all came crashing down 

It's no wonder clubs take the piss if they can get creative like this 

If you give Brighton £100m for a player in 2023 your finances should show you spent £100m in 2023

Not £12.5m a season for 8 seasons 

No wonder clubs spend what they want and just challenge everything 

As yet no one who's fallen foul of FFP have really been adversely affected by it 

City got their CL ban lifted on appeal then carried on doing the same thing

Forest and Everton got points deducted and stayed up

Fines won't touch the sides 

Business as usual

[wakey]

11 hours ago, Rival Son said:

Great history lesson for those that don’t know. Add to that, a significant piece of Bolton Wanderers, breaking the world record transfer fee to take David Jack.

My favourite nugget of Arsenal history;

Never been relegated since getting into top flight at start of the 1920s ... but never actually won promotion in the first place.

[DirtySanchez]

24 minutes ago, Zico said:

 

It's no wonder clubs take the piss if they can get creative like this 

If you give Brighton £100m for a player in 2023 your finances should show you spent £100m in 2023

Not £12.5m a season for 8 seasons 

No wonder clubs spend what they want and just challenge everything 

As yet no one who's fallen foul of FFP have really been adversely affected by it 

City got their CL ban lifted on appeal then carried on doing the same thing

Forest and Everton got points deducted and stayed up

Fines won't touch the sides 

Business as usual

That's why Chelsea were buying youngsters on 8 year contracts. Say after two years they're shit, they can sell them saying he's two years into an eight year contract, therefore we want £xm

Daft thing is if you sell a player for £50m that immediately counts as your income for that year and not spread over the length of the contract they sign with whoever bought them

Think UEFA want to say it's worked out over 5 years regardless of the contract length 

Doubt the PL will go along with it protect the 'big six'

Edited June 7, 2024 by DirtySanchez

[Zico]

13 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

That's why Chelsea were buying youngsters on 8 year contracts. Say after two years they're shit, they can sell them saying he's two years into an eight year contract, therefore we want £xm

Daft thing is if you sell a player for £50m that immediately counts as your income for that year and not spread over the length of the contract they sign with whoever bought them

Think UEFA want to say it's worked out over 5 years regardless of the contract length 

Doubt the PL will go along with it protect the 'big six'

It's also easier to move a player who's on 50k (over 8 years) then one one 100k (over 4 years)

[Popeye doyle]

1 hour ago, wakey said:

My favourite nugget of Arsenal history;

Never been relegated since getting into top flight at start of the 1920s ... but never actually won promotion in the first place.

Indeed and voted in at the expense of Spurs. 

[masi 51]

More and more teams starting to align themselves with City

I can see the Breakaway/up of the Premier league in the near future

It is what the Arabs and Americans want