|
Post by greyface on Sept 14, 2014 18:55:07 GMT
When ffp kicks in, I'm pretty sure that you have to be able to balance the books spending what you get in gate receipts, shirt sales, sponsorship etc...
What's to stop Mr Coates from signing Stoke up to a record 2 year £600m sponsorship deal with Bet365?
I'm not suggesting that we have to spend that much but at least it's then available.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Sept 14, 2014 19:00:00 GMT
When ffp kicks in, I'm pretty sure that you have to be able to balance the books spending what you get in gate receipts, shirt sales, sponsorship etc... What's to stop Mr Coates from signing Stoke up to a record 2 year £600m sponsorship deal with Bet365? I'm not suggesting that we have to spend that much but at least it's then available. Because the sponsorship deal would be studied and they will decide if the value of it is a genuine reflection of it's worth.
|
|
|
Post by greyface on Sept 14, 2014 19:00:26 GMT
Doh!
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Sept 14, 2014 19:00:46 GMT
Smaller clubs like ourselves should get together and challenge this ffp nonsense. It's designed to keep the status quo and prevent clubs challenging the elite.
The lawyer who won the Bosman case is challenging it - he needs to be backed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2014 21:30:33 GMT
Well said Pugs. The whole rigmarole stinks!
|
|
|
Post by siggy on Sept 14, 2014 22:17:55 GMT
Well said Pugs. The whole rigmarole stinks! Its funny thats exactly how I see it but lots of people think its going to be good for small clubs that "balance the books" - yes you will balance the books but you will never compete with the likes of Manure Arse and barca etc on the field because ftp won't let you pay the wages for the players that can compete!
|
|
|
Post by prem4stoke on Sept 14, 2014 22:32:10 GMT
Man City will be the last club to buy its way to the top. It will take some kind of miracle for other clubs to compete now. Look at Man U this season spending £150M just to compete again we couldn't do it even if we had the cash but they can somehow, that isn't fair but apparently it is.
|
|
|
Post by MarkWolstanton on Sept 14, 2014 22:36:22 GMT
Yes I agree with what is being said. The spirit of the thing is good in so much that it reduces the probability of sugar daddy types pumping in money only to get bored and leave the clubs with commitments such as long and expensive player contracts they cannot meet without the cash of said owner but the flaw is that it will increase the gap further between the big brand clubs and the rest.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 14, 2014 23:09:53 GMT
Yes I agree with what is being said. The spirit of the thing is good in so much that it reduces the probability of sugar daddy types pumping in money only to get bored and leave the clubs with commitments such as long and expensive player contracts they cannot meet without the cash of said owner but the flaw is that it will increase the gap further between the big brand clubs and the rest. Isn't that exactly what UEFA want? Keep the power where it is. Keep the rest in their place.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Sept 14, 2014 23:11:54 GMT
Well said Pugs. The whole rigmarole stinks! Its funny thats exactly how I see it but lots of people think its going to be good for small clubs that "balance the books" - yes you will balance the books but you will never compete with the likes of Manure Arse and barca etc on the field because ftp won't let you pay the wages for the players that can compete! WTF has file transfer protocol got to do with this?
|
|
|
Post by CalgaryPotter on Sept 15, 2014 2:58:23 GMT
I watched the shit game today & was thinking about FFP.
I don't profess to understand what it all means. I thought it was to be a good thing, something to stop teams spending like drunken sailors. Then they comment on Falcao's wage of 340k per week.
How can this be allowed in a team that have crippling debt & no European football to boost their revenues that have spent north of 200M in the transfer window?
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Sept 15, 2014 3:55:40 GMT
I watched the shit game today & was thinking about FFP. I don't profess to understand what it all means. I thought it was to be a good thing, something to stop teams spending like drunken sailors. Then they comment on Falcao's wage of 340k per week. How can this be allowed in a team that have crippling debt & no European football to boost their revenues that have spent north of 200M in the transfer window? They make stupid money from merchandise and the like, so it helps balance things out a little.
|
|
|
Post by CalgaryPotter on Sept 15, 2014 5:20:03 GMT
I watched the shit game today & was thinking about FFP. I don't profess to understand what it all means. I thought it was to be a good thing, something to stop teams spending like drunken sailors. Then they comment on Falcao's wage of 340k per week. How can this be allowed in a team that have crippling debt & no European football to boost their revenues that have spent north of 200M in the transfer window? They make stupid money from merchandise and the like, so it helps balance things out a little. Stupid money from merchandise pays the interest on their ridiculously large debt doesn't it? I thought they made a loss last year along with their neighbours.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 15, 2014 6:57:03 GMT
Smaller clubs like ourselves should get together and challenge this ffp nonsense. It's designed to keep the status quo and prevent clubs challenging the elite. The lawyer who won the Bosman case is challenging it - he needs to be backed. The Bosman lawyer is challenging the UEFA FFP rules. The Premier League rules FFP are very different and arguably more sensible. The UEFA rules only really affect clubs which qualify for Europe. I don't think we are in any danger of breaching the UEFA rules. Peter Coates and his family are all in favour of the Premier League FFP rules - they voted in favour of them - understandably so, as they want the club to become self sustatining which is what the Premier League FFP rules are trying to do. So they are hardly likely to challenge them in court, are they?
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Sept 15, 2014 7:04:17 GMT
When ffp kicks in, I'm pretty sure that you have to be able to balance the books spending what you get in gate receipts, shirt sales, sponsorship etc... What's to stop Mr Coates from signing Stoke up to a record 2 year £600m sponsorship deal with Bet365? I'm not suggesting that we have to spend that much but at least it's then available. Man City brokered a £400m ten year sponsorship with Etihad Airways couple of years ago and Arsenal have a similar sponsorship with Emirates. That's how to riggle out of the FFP rules. It is surprising that Man Utd have not renamed Old Trafford under a massive Sponsorship deal tbh. Anybody know what our sponsorship deal with Britannia Building Society is worth?
|
|
|
Post by liathroid on Sept 15, 2014 10:10:41 GMT
When ffp kicks in, I'm pretty sure that you have to be able to balance the books spending what you get in gate receipts, shirt sales, sponsorship etc... What's to stop Mr Coates from signing Stoke up to a record 2 year £600m sponsorship deal with Bet365? I'm not suggesting that we have to spend that much but at least it's then available. Man City brokered a £400m ten year sponsorship with Etihad Airways couple of years ago and Arsenal have a similar sponsorship with Emirates. That's how to riggle out of the FFP rules. It is surprising that Man Utd have not renamed Old Trafford under a massive Sponsorship deal tbh. Anybody know what our sponsorship deal with Britannia Building Society is worth? Britannia seems to be gone off the official partners list and been replaced by Leek Building Society ,are we replacing them soon with new naming for the ground
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 15, 2014 10:15:11 GMT
Man City brokered a £400m ten year sponsorship with Etihad Airways couple of years ago and Arsenal have a similar sponsorship with Emirates. That's how to riggle out of the FFP rules. It is surprising that Man Utd have not renamed Old Trafford under a massive Sponsorship deal tbh. Anybody know what our sponsorship deal with Britannia Building Society is worth? Britannia seems to be gone off the official partners list and been replaced by Leek Building Society , are we replacing them soon with new naming for the ground I doubt it very much. I would not have thought that the Leek B/S were big enough or high enough profile to benefit from a sponsorship deal for the ground - maybe they might sponsor Clayton Woods. I expect a bigger sponsor will step in to sponsor the Brit and I'd expect Bet 365 to sponsor it, as a fall back position, if a suitable larger sponsor does not come forward.
|
|
|
Post by liathroid on Sept 15, 2014 10:21:30 GMT
Britannia seems to be gone off the official partners list and been replaced by Leek Building Society , are we replacing them soon with new naming for the ground I doubt it very much. I would not have thought that the Leek B/S were big enough or high enough profile to benefit from a sponsorship deal for the ground - maybe they might sponsor Clayton Woods. I expect a bigger sponsor will step in to sponsor the Brit and I'd expect Bet 365 to sponsor it, as a fall back position, if a suitable larger sponsor does not come forward. didn't mean it to sound like Leek were going to sponsor the ground ,they are listed as club partners and Britannia arnt
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 15, 2014 10:24:27 GMT
FFP is a load of bullshit imo. It allows teams like Man Utd with no money to harbour huge amounts of debt, while Peter Coates who has a lot of money, his own money, wouldn't be allowed to invest much of it without being sanctioned. Total big-team bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Sept 15, 2014 10:24:37 GMT
Something had to be done because spending was and still is getting out of control.
Next we need a salary cap and a limit on agents fees
Unregulated markets are proven to create unsustainable bubbles. When the crash happens its the everyday Joe that foots the bill.
And its a case of WHEN not IF. Eventually Sky will pull the plug and the house of cards will fall
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 15, 2014 10:25:48 GMT
I doubt it very much. I would not have thought that the Leek B/S were big enough or high enough profile to benefit from a sponsorship deal for the ground - maybe they might sponsor Clayton Woods. I expect a bigger sponsor will step in to sponsor the Brit and I'd expect Bet 365 to sponsor it, as a fall back position, if a suitable larger sponsor does not come forward. didn't mean it to sound like Leek were going to sponsor the ground ,they are listed as club partners and Britannia arnt Leek B/S are listed as official partners because of the new S&S account. Coop/Britannia have ceased to be a partner but as the word Britannia isn't copyright we can keep that as the name of the stadium until a new sponsor is found. The Sentinel a few weeks back carried a story saying that the Britannia name might stay as part of the stadium name if a new sponsor agreed. Personally I think that "the Bet365 Britannia" sounds fine.
|
|
|
Post by liathroid on Sept 15, 2014 10:27:53 GMT
didn't mean it to sound like Leek were going to sponsor the ground ,they are listed as club partners and Britannia arnt Leek B/S are listed as official partners because of the new S&S account. Coop/Britannia have ceased to be a partner but as the word Britannia isn't copyright we can keep that as the name of the stadium until a new sponsor is found. The Sentinel a few weeks back carried a story saying that the Britannia name might stay as part of the stadium name if a new sponsor agreed. Personally I think that "the Bet365 Britannia" sounds fine. cheers
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Sept 15, 2014 10:34:33 GMT
didn't mean it to sound like Leek were going to sponsor the ground ,they are listed as club partners and Britannia arnt Leek B/S are listed as official partners because of the new S&S account. Coop/Britannia have ceased to be a partner but as the word Britannia isn't copyright we can keep that as the name of the stadium until a new sponsor is found. The Sentinel a few weeks back carried a story saying that the Britannia name might stay as part of the stadium name if a new sponsor agreed. Personally I think that "the Bet365 Britannia" sounds fine. Sounds like a bloody casino!
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 15, 2014 10:38:53 GMT
Leek B/S are listed as official partners because of the new S&S account. Coop/Britannia have ceased to be a partner but as the word Britannia isn't copyright we can keep that as the name of the stadium until a new sponsor is found. The Sentinel a few weeks back carried a story saying that the Britannia name might stay as part of the stadium name if a new sponsor agreed. Personally I think that "the Bet365 Britannia" sounds fine. Sounds like a bloody casino! Good idea!
|
|
|
Post by liathroid on Sept 15, 2014 10:40:47 GMT
How much do the Official Partners put into the pot ,does anybody know
|
|
|
Post by block27row27 on Sept 15, 2014 10:43:07 GMT
Its funny thats exactly how I see it but lots of people think its going to be good for small clubs that "balance the books" - yes you will balance the books but you will never compete with the likes of Manure Arse and barca etc on the field because ftp won't let you pay the wages for the players that can compete! WTF has file transfer protocol got to do with this? Ooih somebody works in IT
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Sept 15, 2014 17:37:13 GMT
A lot of chairman at clubs like stoke preyed and voted for it. It allows them to rake it in whilst being able to tell the fans we'd love to spend but can't.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Sept 15, 2014 17:48:55 GMT
A lot of chairman at clubs like stoke preyed and voted for it. It allows them to rake it in whilst being able to tell the fans we'd love to spend but can't. 1 million percent correct.
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on Sept 15, 2014 18:39:52 GMT
Couldnt agree more - seems to be taking a grip at some clubs while others (eg Hull, West Ham) dont give it a second thought. Having said that I havent really heard our owners trot it out as that much of an excuse - they have just said they dont want to spend much and thats the end of it - which is totally within their rights.
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Sept 15, 2014 18:59:14 GMT
If it is believed there is money to spend, then surely if we don't spend it we must show decent profits as we can only spend what we are allowed.
I know some on here bang on that we spent the equivalent of what united have spent this summer on signing on fees and agents fees but surely we haven't got anywhere near our budget.
|
|