|
Post by moon on Jan 16, 2024 13:55:58 GMT
Remember listening to Simon Jordan ages ago saying FFP wouldn't stop shitebags taking over small clubs because what serious business interest, unless they're a fan, are going to take over a side where they can't invest especially if the club are shit? It's purely there to stop another Man City disturbing the hierarchy. The issue too is if Saudi does take off then FFP becomes obsolete. It's wild really that Newcastle and Stoke are completely wedged but both are completely skint at the same time - makes no sense.
I don't think Saudi is ever going to take off, players can go their for the money but they'll quickly be forgotten, like Oscar wasting his peak years in the Chinese league.
Who wants to play in empty stadiums in a league that nobody watches and nobody cares about, for a last paycheck before retiring fair enough, but there is no way someone like Ronaldo would've gone there in his peak years.
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Jan 16, 2024 14:00:46 GMT
Remember listening to Simon Jordan ages ago saying FFP wouldn't stop shitebags taking over small clubs because what serious business interest, unless they're a fan, are going to take over a side where they can't invest especially if the club are shit? It's purely there to stop another Man City disturbing the hierarchy. The issue too is if Saudi does take off then FFP becomes obsolete. It's wild really that Newcastle and Stoke are completely wedged but both are completely skint at the same time - makes no sense. I don't think Saudi is ever going to take off, players can go their for the money but they'll quickly be forgotten, like Oscar wasting his peak years in the Chinese league. Who wants to play in empty stadiums in a league that nobody watches and nobody cares about, for a last paycheck before retiring fair enough, but there is no way someone like Ronaldo would've gone there in his peak years.
There already seems to be players queuing up to leave but the thing is they've literally money to burn so they can play the long game. With how corrupt UEFA appear genuinely wouldn't be surprised if something stupid happened with them entering teams in the Champions League or joining the Spanish league as example given the bucket loads of cash they have. Can't see it just suddenly imploding like the Chinese league.
|
|
|
Post by samdan on Jan 16, 2024 15:50:22 GMT
I am totally on board with the principle of FFP. Without it success is simply something you go out and buy. That’s exactly what happens anyway with or without it. It isn’t just the first team investment either. As with Chelsea they hoover up the young talent and the likes of Stoke take them on loan paying fees. The system it’s totally broken and in no way helps the clubs outside of the top 7.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jan 16, 2024 16:00:18 GMT
Do you mean the long contracts Chelsea have done? I've got a feeling it's a big gamble for them. More likely to bite them in the arse than pay off big. Unless there's another thing they did. I think that it will likely screw them as well but it’s just another way that the biggest clubs can play with the rules. The laughable thing is that both Man City and Chelsea were nothing clubs before they squeezed in at the end of the ffp push. Now, they skirt/just flagrantly ignore the rules anyways. Didn't Chelsea buy up a load of players just before FFP started? I'm sure that gave them an advantage but they seem to have blown it now.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jan 16, 2024 16:01:25 GMT
FFP only helps with fair play if teams truly are working off the same budgets. Otherwise, it's impossible to disrupt the established elite. It shouldn't be scrapped, for the sustainability reasons already mentioned, but the current model is terrible. Has to be a better way. Sharing TV money etc better would help, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 16, 2024 16:31:32 GMT
FFP only helps with fair play if teams truly are working off the same budgets. Otherwise, it's impossible to disrupt the established elite. It shouldn't be scrapped, for the sustainability reasons already mentioned, but the current model is terrible. Has to be a better way. Sharing TV money etc better would help, wouldn't it? That's coming quite soon, just a matter of the details. Even the big clubs know they're going to have to cascade more money down. That's why offers have already been made with a lot of strings attached trying to get out in front of a football regulator imposing a settlement without them.
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Jan 16, 2024 17:02:46 GMT
The system isn’t perfect, but let’s face it, the rules on losses are clear and if you breach them you deserve the sanction - whether it’s points deductions or other penalties. Sympathy for Everton seems nuts to me. They breached the clear rules over 2 three year periods - knowingly and probably the only reason they are still in the Prem today. Forest also, in as clear a way than any other. We have been battling to remain on the right side of the line despite a legacy of contracts that needed to be unwound. This has delayed our progress, so for clubs who frankly couldn’t give a toss and spent no effort on keeping within the rules, I say throw the book at them. My only issue is with the likes of Man City who blatantly disregarded rules and are now playing legal roulette to avoid the charges. Their penalty should be magnified as they have been seen to avoid the obvious penalties due. The bottom line is that those who breach rules knowingly, have to face the penalties otherwise it’s a mockery for all those clubs who manage responsibly to do so. Penalise them to the limit of the law and I say any sympathy for the likes of Everton et-al is pure bollocks. Not perfect is a massive understatement, together with the TV income distribution model, it is fundamentally flawed, affects competitiveness, drives financial instability and incentivises risk taking and poor decision-making. While U have defended the club especially to our friend from Bristol, we shouldn’t forget without Covid, we would have been hit very hard. We recorded record EFL losses and were luckily able to write off what were ludicrously bad transfer deals. On Everton’s case, their breach seems relatively small & a lot hinges on the decision on treatment of interest payments. Hoever to be changed twice for overlapping time periods seems very harsh. If the first case had been resolved in time, they might have been able to avoid a second. Forest are arguing they were never at financial risk as they were always going to sell Johnson but wanted to maximise his price. Jtjst seems a rational business approach which has increased their financial strength. In effect they have been penalised for doing what the rules intend. Until he was sold, Johnson had zero value on Forest’s books, which is clearly wrong. The whole system is flawed. There should be a debate the fan led review and Tracey Crouch largely ignored on key issues. As one example. Why can’t owners invest what they want if they put up the funds in advance, like any norrmal business? Jim Radcliffe, with.a business based in Monaco, can invest several hundred million in Manchester United with the equity available for transfers, but the Coates family, among the highest tax payers as individuals and a business in the UK, are limited to £13m a year? What we need is forward looking rules based on cash flow not backward looking accounts as part of a full reform of the whole model.
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Jan 16, 2024 17:06:52 GMT
I am totally on board with the principle of FFP. Without it success is simply something you go out and buy. And thereby lies the problem without FFP. If all 20 clubs in the Premier League spent beyond their means to achieve success, there will always be 19 clubs saddled with enormous debts that they can't afford. Of course this wouldn’t happen.Firstly, not all clubs would spend. Those owned by private equity would stop before the returns collapsed and probably sell out. Second, clubs like Stoke City and Forest and Villa have owners who can spend and not rely on debt. The current model preserves the dominance of the elite and unfairly subsidises clubs in the rest of the PL. Man City invested massively and are now one of the few profitable clubs why can’t our owners do the same?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jan 17, 2024 7:40:19 GMT
And thereby lies the problem without FFP. If all 20 clubs in the Premier League spent beyond their means to achieve success, there will always be 19 clubs saddled with enormous debts that they can't afford. Of course this wouldn’t happen.Firstly, not all clubs would spend. Those owned by private equity would stop before the returns collapsed and probably sell out. Second, clubs like Stoke City and Forest and Villa have owners who can spend and not rely on debt. The current model preserves the dominance of the elite and unfairly subsidises clubs in the rest of the PL. Man City invested massively and are now one of the few profitable clubs why can’t our owners do the same? Last year Man City did turn a profit of £40 million on a revenue of £600 million. Our revenue is nowhere near that - to complete with Man City our owners would have to pump in way more money because we don't have the ground capacity, fanbase and global exposure to generate anywhere near the same income. To go toe to toe with Man City we would have to nearly double our ground capacity, increase our attendances threefold and have ten consecutive years in the top 4 in the Premiership with the associated global exposure and completion winnings. If the owners were allowed to "invest" to achieve that do you actually think the owners would be insane enough to do it or Denise Coates or others involved in Bet365 allow them? The talk of "investment" is badly used here. There is some money poured into clubs that can be seen as an "investment" - money spent on assets like land and property that appreciate over time. However the vast amount of money put into a football club is just lost. There is no actual monetary return, if anything it's the worst possible "investment" anyone could make. Man City's owners will never recoup the money they have put in and neither would ours. At the moment our wage bill is 120% of our income - that "investment" is money being pumped in just to keep the lights on. Our owners are not being prevented from making an "investment". They are being prevented from burning their money to earn those egging them on some bragging rights.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 17, 2024 9:56:25 GMT
Of course this wouldn’t happen.Firstly, not all clubs would spend. Those owned by private equity would stop before the returns collapsed and probably sell out. Second, clubs like Stoke City and Forest and Villa have owners who can spend and not rely on debt. The current model preserves the dominance of the elite and unfairly subsidises clubs in the rest of the PL. Man City invested massively and are now one of the few profitable clubs why can’t our owners do the same? Last year Man City did turn a profit of £40 million on a revenue of £600 million. Our revenue is nowhere near that - to complete with Man City our owners would have to pump in way more money because we don't have the ground capacity, fanbase and global exposure to generate anywhere near the same income. To go toe to toe with Man City we would have to nearly double our ground capacity, increase our attendances threefold and have ten consecutive years in the top 4 in the Premiership with the associated global exposure and completion winnings. If the owners were allowed to "invest" to achieve that do you actually think the owners would be insane enough to do it or Denise Coates or others involved in Bet365 allow them? The talk of "investment" is badly used here. There is some money poured into clubs that can be seen as an "investment" - money spent on assets like land and property that appreciate over time. However the vast amount of money put into a football club is just lost. There is no actual monetary return, if anything it's the worst possible "investment" anyone could make. Man City's owners will never recoup the money they have put in and neither would ours. At the moment our wage bill is 120% of our income - that "investment" is money being pumped in just to keep the lights on. Our owners are not being prevented from making an "investment". They are being prevented from burning their money to earn those egging them on some bragging rights. Of course it’s an investment all investments are not sound or profitable. Allowing owners to invest more equals introducing money into the game that it is currently denying itself. The vast majority of owners are on an ego trip and “investing” on a scale that will not seriously damage their overall wealth. It’s almost like a voluntary taxation on the super rich for the entertainment of the plebs. Now there are so many better things they could, should and in some cases are investing their money in with no personal return but with the right protections for clubs in place (forward funding?) why should the game seek to prevent their folly?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 17, 2024 10:15:12 GMT
Not FFP but are Newcastle going to end up in trouble here?
Hardly passes the fit and proper owner test ...
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 17, 2024 10:21:44 GMT
Not FFP but are Newcastle going to end up in trouble here? Hardly passes the fit and proper owner test ... Really? Couldn’t you apply that to all billionaires.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 17, 2024 10:25:44 GMT
Not FFP but are Newcastle going to end up in trouble here? Hardly passes the fit and proper owner test ... Really? Couldn’t you apply that to all billionaires. What, kidnapping children?
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 17, 2024 10:28:40 GMT
Really? Couldn’t you apply that to all billionaires. What, kidnapping children? Harming silencing and ultimately destroying people and families. If you find one that hasn’t done it look for the roots of their billions and it will be there. It’s what they do.
|
|
|
Post by independent on Jan 17, 2024 10:30:10 GMT
There is no end to greed. The real problem is the vast amount of money being taken out of the game by Agents and Players. Was it £269m by Agents last year? £20m salaries for individual players. No matter how fast the Premier Leagues income grows, the outflows outgrow it. A wage cap is inevitable eventually, so that all these "Investers" can reap a guaranteed profit annually. The present system is unstable and must eventually change. The pressures on it from the EFL,Clubs in Europe,and the "Need" to fund Women's Football will force a regulator to reassign the distribution of money within the game. Anyone who thinks entrusting the future of Football to a Government appointee will work out well, can only be described as an optimist. There is going to be a lot of pain for most of the interests within the game. At the moment everyone seems to think that they can get a share of the Premier Leagues income from the regulator with no painful strings attached.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 17, 2024 10:35:14 GMT
What, kidnapping children? Harming silencing and ultimately destroying people and families. If you find one that hasn’t done it look for the roots of their billions and it will be there. It’s what they do. That maybe but we're talking about kidnapping children.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 17, 2024 10:48:24 GMT
Harming silencing and ultimately destroying people and families. If you find one that hasn’t done it look for the roots of their billions and it will be there. It’s what they do. That maybe but we're talking about kidnapping children. You can’t apply Western culture and values to Arabs. Backward peoples with a penchant for savagery and slaughtering one another going back centuries that they just can’t or won’t shake off. The Western ones just have a glossier veneer see Epstein.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 17, 2024 11:00:48 GMT
That maybe but we're talking about kidnapping children. You can’t apply Western culture and values to Arabs. Backward peoples with a penchant for savagery and slaughtering one another going back centuries that they just can’t or won’t shake off. The Western ones just have a glossier veneer see Epstein. Okay buddy.
|
|
|
Post by skip on Jan 17, 2024 11:24:21 GMT
That maybe but we're talking about kidnapping children. You can’t apply Western culture and values to Arabs. Backward peoples with a penchant for savagery and slaughtering one another going back centuries that they just can’t or won’t shake off. The Western ones just have a glossier veneer see Epstein. Self own of the day.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 17, 2024 11:56:18 GMT
You can’t apply Western culture and values to Arabs. Backward peoples with a penchant for savagery and slaughtering one another going back centuries that they just can’t or won’t shake off. The Western ones just have a glossier veneer see Epstein. Self own of the day. I’m afraid you’d have to explain the term for it to have any meaning. Naah didn’t think so, if it might be controversial it must therefore be wrong. FFS how naive can you get.
|
|
|
Post by Glory Hunter on Jan 17, 2024 13:45:56 GMT
The system isn’t perfect, but let’s face it, the rules on losses are clear and if you breach them you deserve the sanction - whether it’s points deductions or other penalties. Sympathy for Everton seems nuts to me. They breached the clear rules over 2 three year periods - knowingly and probably the only reason they are still in the Prem today. Forest also, in as clear a way than any other. We have been battling to remain on the right side of the line despite a legacy of contracts that needed to be unwound. This has delayed our progress, so for clubs who frankly couldn’t give a toss and spent no effort on keeping within the rules, I say throw the book at them. My only issue is with the likes of Man City who blatantly disregarded rules and are now playing legal roulette to avoid the charges. Their penalty should be magnified as they have been seen to avoid the obvious penalties due. The bottom line is that those who breach rules knowingly, have to face the penalties otherwise it’s a mockery for all those clubs who manage responsibly to do so. Penalise them to the limit of the law and I say any sympathy for the likes of Everton et-al is pure bollocks. Not perfect is a massive understatement, together with the TV income distribution model, it is fundamentally flawed, affects competitiveness, drives financial instability and incentivises risk taking and poor decision-making. While U have defended the club especially to our friend from Bristol, we shouldn’t forget without Covid, we would have been hit very hard. We recorded record EFL losses and were luckily able to write off what were ludicrously bad transfer deals. On Everton’s case, their breach seems relatively small & a lot hinges on the decision on treatment of interest payments. Hoever to be changed twice for overlapping time periods seems very harsh. If the first case had been resolved in time, they might have been able to avoid a second. Forest are arguing they were never at financial risk as they were always going to sell Johnson but wanted to maximise his price. Jtjst seems a rational business approach which has increased their financial strength. In effect they have been penalised for doing what the rules intend. Until he was sold, Johnson had zero value on Forest’s books, which is clearly wrong. The whole system is flawed. There should be a debate the fan led review and Tracey Crouch largely ignored on key issues. As one example. Why can’t owners invest what they want if they put up the funds in advance, like any norrmal business? Jim Radcliffe, with.a business based in Monaco, can invest several hundred million in Manchester United with the equity available for transfers, but the Coates family, among the highest tax payers as individuals and a business in the UK, are limited to £13m a year? What we need is forward looking rules based on cash flow not backward looking accounts as part of a full reform of the whole model. A very fair and reasoned response. I suppose the only thing I can say is that we DID manage to stay on the right side of the rules as they are (even if Covid helped with that) and neither Everton or Forest (and hopefully Man City too) did. I agree the rules need changing but at present they are the rules so no excuse for breaking them.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jan 17, 2024 14:57:55 GMT
Last year Man City did turn a profit of £40 million on a revenue of £600 million. Our revenue is nowhere near that - to complete with Man City our owners would have to pump in way more money because we don't have the ground capacity, fanbase and global exposure to generate anywhere near the same income. To go toe to toe with Man City we would have to nearly double our ground capacity, increase our attendances threefold and have ten consecutive years in the top 4 in the Premiership with the associated global exposure and completion winnings. If the owners were allowed to "invest" to achieve that do you actually think the owners would be insane enough to do it or Denise Coates or others involved in Bet365 allow them? The talk of "investment" is badly used here. There is some money poured into clubs that can be seen as an "investment" - money spent on assets like land and property that appreciate over time. However the vast amount of money put into a football club is just lost. There is no actual monetary return, if anything it's the worst possible "investment" anyone could make. Man City's owners will never recoup the money they have put in and neither would ours. At the moment our wage bill is 120% of our income - that "investment" is money being pumped in just to keep the lights on. Our owners are not being prevented from making an "investment". They are being prevented from burning their money to earn those egging them on some bragging rights. Of course it’s an investment all investments are not sound or profitable. Allowing owners to invest more equals introducing money into the game that it is currently denying itself. The vast majority of owners are on an ego trip and “investing” on a scale that will not seriously damage their overall wealth. It’s almost like a voluntary taxation on the super rich for the entertainment of the plebs. Now there are so many better things they could, should and in some cases are investing their money in with no personal return but with the right protections for clubs in place (forward funding?) why should the game seek to prevent their folly? Because usually their folly impacts the future prospects of the club they are involved with. Most owners give money to their clubs in the form of loans which loads their club with debt so if they decide to pull out their money is intact and the club carries the financial burden and goes bust. This is actually the sane and financially responsible thing to do. FFP is primarily aimed to protect clubs from sane rich people. Financially irresponsible/insane owners just chuck money at a club knowing they are never going to get it back. Either that or they are doing it for nefarious reasons like whitewashing their brand or laundering their money. The problem for clubs with sugar daddy owners is what happens when the money is cutoff for whatever reason. If a club is living beyond it's means it has a problem when the money keeping them afloat disappears. The closest example to our our owners is Jack Walker and look what happened there. It's completely naive to think that the Coates family will keep bankrolling the club and it's a massive assumption that they would blow even more money if FFP were to be got rid of. Why the hell should they? I wouldn't and push comes to shove those thinking they would wouldn't do it either. Forward funding is just burning money earlier rather than later. It might deter the owners who currently load debt onto their club (which would result in a net reduction in the money going into the game) but it doesn't solve the problem of sugar daddy owners waking up one day and realising they are being taken for fools. Investments might indeed fail and the investor might lose money but it was an investment in the first place because the intention was to make money. When owners chuck money at a football club in the form of loans they might make money but it will be the clubs that will be saddled with the debt and they won't see it. When owners just chuck money at a football club it isn't an investment because they know full well they will never make any money on the deal. Our owners are not investing in the club - they are chucking money into a money pit and there is going to be a limit to their financial largesse.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 17, 2024 15:27:27 GMT
Of course it’s an investment all investments are not sound or profitable. Allowing owners to invest more equals introducing money into the game that it is currently denying itself. The vast majority of owners are on an ego trip and “investing” on a scale that will not seriously damage their overall wealth. It’s almost like a voluntary taxation on the super rich for the entertainment of the plebs. Now there are so many better things they could, should and in some cases are investing their money in with no personal return but with the right protections for clubs in place (forward funding?) why should the game seek to prevent their folly? Because usually their folly impacts the future prospects of the club they are involved with. Most owners give money to their clubs in the form of loans which loads their club with debt so if they decide to pull out their money is intact and the club carries the financial burden and goes bust. This is actually the sane and financially responsible thing to do. FFP is primarily aimed to protect clubs from sane rich people. Financially irresponsible/insane owners just chuck money at a club knowing they are never going to get it back. Either that or they are doing it for nefarious reasons like whitewashing their brand or laundering their money. The problem for clubs with sugar daddy owners is what happens when the money is cutoff for whatever reason. If a club is living beyond it's means it has a problem when the money keeping them afloat disappears. The closest example to our our owners is Jack Walker and look what happened there. It's completely naive to think that the Coates family will keep bankrolling the club and it's a massive assumption that they would blow even more money if FFP were to be got rid of. Why the hell should they? I wouldn't and push comes to shove those thinking they would wouldn't do it either. Forward funding is just burning money earlier rather than later. It might deter the owners who currently load debt onto their club (which would result in a net reduction in the money going into the game) but it doesn't solve the problem of sugar daddy owners waking up one day and realising they are being taken for fools. Investments might indeed fail and the investor might lose money but it was an investment in the first place because the intention was to make money. When owners chuck money at a football club in the form of loans they might make money but it will be the clubs that will be saddled with the debt and they won't see it. When owners just chuck money at a football club it isn't an investment because they know full well they will never make any money on the deal. Our owners are not investing in the club - they are chucking money into a money pit and there is going to be a limit to their financial largesse. You have a very narrow definition that an investment is supposed to make money that I think many would disagree with . The Coates invest money into causes in the case of Stoke City it could be argued they’re investing in the community, people invest in things all the time to enhance their life experience knowing they’ll never see a return on it or even recoup their investment. Football is that type of investment to people like the Coates. Where will they draw the line who knows it’s entirely up to them, despite their investments in the club their wealth is still accumulating. Peter is worth over £1B in his own right and John considerably more. Forward funding would not reduce money flow into the game because it’s proposed for club owners who want to go further not replace the allowed losses. Why is it naive to think the Coates would do it when that’s what they say and that’s what they lobby the football authorities to be allowed to do. You can’t take your own very narrow definition of investment and try to apply it to everyone else then accuse them of being naive. Fact is you’ve no more idea of the future direction of the game, the club or FFP than anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jan 17, 2024 15:47:33 GMT
Because usually their folly impacts the future prospects of the club they are involved with. Most owners give money to their clubs in the form of loans which loads their club with debt so if they decide to pull out their money is intact and the club carries the financial burden and goes bust. This is actually the sane and financially responsible thing to do. FFP is primarily aimed to protect clubs from sane rich people. Financially irresponsible/insane owners just chuck money at a club knowing they are never going to get it back. Either that or they are doing it for nefarious reasons like whitewashing their brand or laundering their money. The problem for clubs with sugar daddy owners is what happens when the money is cutoff for whatever reason. If a club is living beyond it's means it has a problem when the money keeping them afloat disappears. The closest example to our our owners is Jack Walker and look what happened there. It's completely naive to think that the Coates family will keep bankrolling the club and it's a massive assumption that they would blow even more money if FFP were to be got rid of. Why the hell should they? I wouldn't and push comes to shove those thinking they would wouldn't do it either. Forward funding is just burning money earlier rather than later. It might deter the owners who currently load debt onto their club (which would result in a net reduction in the money going into the game) but it doesn't solve the problem of sugar daddy owners waking up one day and realising they are being taken for fools. Investments might indeed fail and the investor might lose money but it was an investment in the first place because the intention was to make money. When owners chuck money at a football club in the form of loans they might make money but it will be the clubs that will be saddled with the debt and they won't see it. When owners just chuck money at a football club it isn't an investment because they know full well they will never make any money on the deal. Our owners are not investing in the club - they are chucking money into a money pit and there is going to be a limit to their financial largesse. You have a very narrow definition that an investment is supposed to make money that I think many would disagree with . The Coates invest money into causes in the case of Stoke City it could be argued they’re investing in the community, people invest in things all the time to enhance their life experience knowing they’ll never see a return on it or even recoup their investment. Football is that type of investment to people like the Coates. Where will they draw the line who knows it’s entirely up to them, despite their investments in the club their wealth is still accumulating. Peter is worth over £1B in his own right and John considerably more. Forward funding would not reduce money flow into the game because it’s proposed for club owners who want to go further not replace the allowed losses. Why is it naive to think the Coates would do it when that’s what they say and that’s what they lobby the football authorities to be allowed to do. You can’t take your own very narrow definition of investment and try to apply it to everyone else then accuse them of being naive. Fact is you’ve no more idea of the future direction of the game, the club or FFP than anyone else. I am talking about "investment" in economic terms because this discussion is about the financing of football which is a matter of economics. A pretty standard definition of the term "investment" is: "An asset or item acquired with the goal of generating income or appreciation". That isn't me narrowing the definition of the term "investment" - that is the meaning of "investment" in the context of economics. The Coates family aren't stupid. They know they are chucking money at Stoke City football club because they genuinely love the club and what it means to its supporters but they know full well they will never see a return on the money they have put in. It's not even a shitty "investment" - it's money they are prepared to chuck away and never see again. It's great hey are doing it but from a purely economic perspective it's mental.
|
|
|
Post by skip on Jan 17, 2024 16:17:09 GMT
I’m afraid you’d have to explain the term for it to have any meaning. Naah didn’t think so, if it might be controversial it must therefore be wrong. FFS how naive can you get. Well, it reads as you define one culture as having a penchant for savagery and butchery but then say the West is no different but its a bit more shiny.
|
|
|
Post by skip on Jan 17, 2024 16:22:47 GMT
You have a very narrow definition that an investment is supposed to make money that I think many would disagree with . The Coates invest money into causes in the case of Stoke City it could be argued they’re investing in the community, people invest in things all the time to enhance their life experience knowing they’ll never see a return on it or even recoup their investment. Football is that type of investment to people like the Coates. Where will they draw the line who knows it’s entirely up to them, despite their investments in the club their wealth is still accumulating. Peter is worth over £1B in his own right and John considerably more. Forward funding would not reduce money flow into the game because it’s proposed for club owners who want to go further not replace the allowed losses. Why is it naive to think the Coates would do it when that’s what they say and that’s what they lobby the football authorities to be allowed to do. You can’t take your own very narrow definition of investment and try to apply it to everyone else then accuse them of being naive. Fact is you’ve no more idea of the future direction of the game, the club or FFP than anyone else. I am talking about "investment" in economic terms because this discussion is about the financing of football which is a matter of economics. A pretty standard definition of the term "investment" is: "An asset or item acquired with the goal of generating income or appreciation". That isn't me narrowing the definition of the term "investment" - that is the meaning of "investment" in the context of economics. The Coates family aren't stupid. They know they are chucking money at Stoke City football club because they genuinely love the club and what it means to its supporters but they know full well they will never see a return on the money they have put in. It's not even a shitty "investment" - it's money they are prepared to chuck away and never see again. It's great hey are doing it but from a purely economic perspective it's mental. Maybe someone can confirm or correct me, but when still in the Premier League, wasn't there a common perception that Denise/365 wanted Stoke City to eventually become self sufficient? Which is sublime in its naivety as we all know that owning a football club is not, as you define above, an investment in any real sense, definitely regarding clubs that are anything other than insanely wealthy and mostly stupidly successful as a result. If we were to get promoted again, would we have Incredibly Wealthy Owners, but not ones who are prepared to splash zillions on the team in the vain hope of maintaining Premier League status, let alone having a tilt at the top six? And I bet if they did, some sanctimonious twat who supports Newcastle, Man City or similar, would baulk at the source of our money.
|
|
|
Post by dirtclod on Jan 17, 2024 22:00:27 GMT
I am talking about "investment" in economic terms because this discussion is about the financing of football which is a matter of economics. A pretty standard definition of the term "investment" is: "An asset or item acquired with the goal of generating income or appreciation". That isn't me narrowing the definition of the term "investment" - that is the meaning of "investment" in the context of economics. The Coates family aren't stupid. They know they are chucking money at Stoke City football club because they genuinely love the club and what it means to its supporters but they know full well they will never see a return on the money they have put in. It's not even a shitty "investment" - it's money they are prepared to chuck away and never see again. It's great hey are doing it but from a purely economic perspective it's mental. Maybe someone can confirm or correct me, but when still in the Premier League, wasn't there a common perception that Denise/365 wanted Stoke City to eventually become self sufficient? Which is sublime in its naivety as we all know that owning a football club is not, as you define above, an investment in any real sense, definitely regarding clubs that are anything other than insanely wealthy and mostly stupidly successful as a result. If we were to get promoted again, would we have Incredibly Wealthy Owners, but not ones who are prepared to splash zillions on the team in the vain hope of maintaining Premier League status, let alone having a tilt at the top six? And I bet if they did, some sanctimonious twat who supports Newcastle, Man City or similar, would baulk at the source of our money. Yes I can confirm the "self sufficiency" being mentioned when we were in the PL. Not sure if it was JC, Denise or Scholes who said it now.
|
|
|
Post by blackpoolred on Jan 17, 2024 22:24:03 GMT
Love to see a fairer game and more level playing field. Money has ruined football in all the major European countries - where just a handful of teams win everything year in year out - utterly tedious - who wants to watch Man City v Burnley, for instance, other than City fans - I am betting half the Burnley fans have little interest.
Love to see major changes in England, but will never happen because of money: Capped wages, 8 home grown players in a starting 11 etc
Best thing to happen would have been the breakaway Champions League and then there would be a great chance for reset.
I want to see 2 teams evenly matched having a go at each other or at least a competitive game of football - not attack v defence for 90 minutes
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jan 18, 2024 8:40:55 GMT
Maybe someone can confirm or correct me, but when still in the Premier League, wasn't there a common perception that Denise/365 wanted Stoke City to eventually become self sufficient? Which is sublime in its naivety as we all know that owning a football club is not, as you define above, an investment in any real sense, definitely regarding clubs that are anything other than insanely wealthy and mostly stupidly successful as a result. If we were to get promoted again, would we have Incredibly Wealthy Owners, but not ones who are prepared to splash zillions on the team in the vain hope of maintaining Premier League status, let alone having a tilt at the top six? And I bet if they did, some sanctimonious twat who supports Newcastle, Man City or similar, would baulk at the source of our money. Yes I can confirm the "self sufficiency" being mentioned when we were in the PL. Not sure if it was JC, Denise or Scholes who said it now. Which is the financially responsible thing to do - the club should be able to run itself and not be reliant on a constant stream of external money whether in the form of a gift or debt the club can't afford to pay off. It also confirms what I've been saying about there being a limit to how much the owners will invest if FFP were to be scrapped - even if Peter and John are reluctant to turn off the tap someone at Bet366 will do it for them.
|
|
|
Post by dirtclod on Jan 18, 2024 12:57:35 GMT
Yes I can confirm the "self sufficiency" being mentioned when we were in the PL. Not sure if it was JC, Denise or Scholes who said it now. Which is the financially responsible thing to do - the club should be able to run itself and not be reliant on a constant stream of external money whether in the form of a gift or debt the club can't afford to pay off. It also confirms what I've been saying about there being a limit to how much the owners will invest if FFP were to be scrapped - even if Peter and John are reluctant to turn off the tap someone at Bet366 will do it for them. It's better than out of control spending which ends up dragging your club to very bad places yes, I agree. We've all seen what that's done to other clubs. It's an owner's obvious prerogative as to how much they want to invest in the first place. Under the current FFP structure, it's madness to try to get into the Top 6 financially and doing it with the ability to "recruit only diamonds" obviously isn't going to happen when you're competing with a top 6 that can simply hoover up talent and out-bid you when it suits them. You can hope for the Leicester Miracle season, but to expect it year in /year out is delusional. Don't think the Coates are going to fall for that, in my opinion - they are trying to set the club up so that it WILL BE AROUND in the future. They've made many obvious mistakes, but I still think we're lucky to have them as owners. The gulf between the haves and have nots in the PL is obvious - there's no parity. If you're going to stay up there and be competitive, you have to spend, but you can do it semi-wisely and do what we did for all those years. I wasn't "disappointed" with the 9th places and damned sure didn't EXPECT us to lock into the Top 6 permanently. If the Coates hadn't limited spending during our time in the PL just look at the FFP mess we would have been in after relegation. My only critique (WITH HINDSIGHT) is that they probably could have kept us up there, but we signed stupid players, ridiculous managers and reaped the stupid rewards. Forget Top 6, that's how everybody gets into trouble. It's spending levels in that Top 6 that drive up costs for the whole pyramid . That league is set up like segregation was. You can play around all you want, but stay away from the "Big House" or you'll get the strap. Let the Big 6 go ahead and join that stupid "Super" League - they eventually will anyway. I can't stand any of those teams. But unless they change the current structure, I fear it'll only create a NEW Big 6 with even more irritating members. I STILL maintain that any financial rules should be related to a clubs DEBT. Because it's DEBT in the end that kills you. That's why I'm learning not to freak out about league position until you're near either the relegation spots or conversely the play-off spots. It's more about HOW the team plays together or not for me. I take it a game at a time, just like when I played sports. Looking too far forward gets your arse beat. Until they change something with FFP this is where we're stuck. And no, even with FFP completely lifted, I don't think we can expect our owners to spend on the same level as Man City etc. The "life cycle" of these top players isn't long enough to justify $200 million, just look at that mess with Neymar and PSG. (Speaking of player salary-inflation) Unless that player singlehandedly is bringing you 200 million in revenue (Which I'm sure he didn't) then you're in a losing proposition just on one player. Stretch that over 25 players and you have a future in bankruptcy court if you have just one bad year. For all the stick our owners get on here, at least they aren't stupid enough to fall for THAT trap.
|
|