Premier League 2019-2020 we’re off

[Deleted member 16999]

Of course its brought them success they have regularly outspent clubs over the last 10 years, the vast majority out of the owner;s pockets, not the club's, and illegally to boot.

LFC had spent more than any other Club in the previous 4 years. - We all know that taken in isolation, it can be a skewed figure - why not also insert the line about Jurgen only building a team on a nett. spend of 20m a year since he's been there?

if you sell Lukaku for say 100 million, then buy 2-3 players for 100 million - it may make you a big spender, but not based on the fact that you have lost a very good player, and you have to replace him, sometimes not like-for-like either.

We sold Coutinho, who has been world class for 18 months before, but we replaced him with 2 world class players(luckily). City would have been able to keep the world class player and still sign the other two - therin the difference.

But why shouldn’t an owner spend his money how he wants?
Pre FFP it wasn’t a problem to 99% of the Clubs, so just who does FFP benefit?

Football since it began has had rich and poor Clubs, FFP doesn’t help the poorer Clubs it stifles the rich.

The only Clubs that complain about FFP are those in direct competition to City/PSG/RM etc and I very much doubt they have the interests of the lesser Clubs in their respective leagues at heart.

As an add on(seperate to the discussion), the Coutinho argument is a red herring imo, fact is you’d of bought VVD at a much lower price if the Club had behaved properly, Coutinho may of gone cheaper if he’d of got his way in the summer and if Soton hadn’t of took the money and complained to the PL about the VVD saga yous could of easily got a transfer ban and not had the players you have.

As we’ve agreed in the past, ALL Clubs have pushed the boundaries on the rules over time.

 

[Liverbirdie]

But why shouldn’t an owner spend his money how he wants?
Pre FFP it wasn’t a problem to 99% of the Clubs, so just who does FFP benefit?

Football since it began has had rich and poor Clubs, FFP doesn’t help the poorer Clubs it stifles the rich.

The only Clubs that complain about FFP are those in direct competition to City/PSG/RM etc and I very much doubt they have the interests of the lesser Clubs in their respective leagues at heart.

As an add on(seperate to the discussion), the Coutinho argument is a red herring imo, fact is you’d of bought VVD at a much lower price if the Club had behaved properly, Coutinho may of gone cheaper if he’d of got his way in the summer and if Soton hadn’t of took the money and complained to the PL about the VVD saga yous could of easily got a transfer ban and not had the players you have.

As we’ve agreed in the past, ALL Clubs have pushed the boundaries on the rules over time.

We're going round in circles.

An owner can spend as much as he wants on infrastructure, stadium etc, they are only limited on losses for the playing squad only. Some agree, some disagree - but I want it to be a sport and not just who spends most. You are saying you want one, but excuse the other.

I agree that it protects the elite clubs clubs to an extent, but it does also protect the game IMO.

However, its not perfect and the next stage for me is to more evenly distribute some of the money.

Why is the Coutinho a red herring, prices change all of the time, and we would have only got VVD for maybe £20 mill cheaper anyway, not 50m cheaper.

Yes, and lots of clubs have been punished for various mis-demeanours, as city are now. If its true, they were brazen, unhelpful with the investigation and so obvious about it, even to the man in the street.

Maybe your just aligning your arguments for Usmanov's future potential " cash injections"? I can see the Toffee lady being sponsored for 20 mill a season.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

We're going round in circles.

An owner can spend as much as he wants on infrastructure, stadium etc, they are only limited on losses for the playing squad only. Some agree, some disagree - but I want it to be a sport and not just who spends most. You are saying you want one, but excuse the other.

I agree that it protects the elite clubs clubs to an extent, but it does also protect the game IMO.

However, its not perfect and the next stage for me is to more evenly distribute some of the money.

Why is the Coutinho a red herring, prices change all of the time, and we would have only got VVD for maybe £20 mill cheaper anyway, not 50m cheaper.

Yes, and lots of clubs have been punished for various mis-demeanours, as city are now. If its true, they were brazen, unhelpful with the investigation and so obvious about it, even to the man in the street.

Maybe your just aligning your arguments for Usmanov's future potential " cash injections"? I can see the Toffee lady being sponsored for 20 mill a season.

What I mean about the Coutinho red herring is how it is dragged out by Reds (not you) as some sort of proof how yous have done good business in the “Nett transfer table”
It wasn’t planned to buy those 2 by selling Coutinho, if anything Klopp wanted VVD and Coutinho in the same side, circumstances led to it falling that way but some use it as proof of a tactical masterplan by FSG and Klopp.

As for our future, I’ll have no sympathy if we fall foul, we’ve no excuses not to comply.

 

[pendodave]

but I want it to be a sport and not just who spends most.

The trouble is, FFP doesn't address this. Money spent has never been a better predictor of success than now. FFP just wants to make sure that only existing 'big clubs' can spend it, none of these nasty upstarts...
This is not intended as supporting CIty per se (I abhor their sportswashing raison d'etre), or a vested interest in my own club (who are shocking whichever way you slice it). It's just a statement of the obvious.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

What I mean about the Coutinho red herring is how it is dragged out by Reds (not you) as some sort of proof how yous have done good business in the “Nett transfer table”
It wasn’t planned to buy those 2 by selling Coutinho, if anything Klopp wanted VVD and Coutinho in the same side, circumstances led to it falling that way but some use it as proof of a tactical masterplan by FSG and Klopp.

As for our future, I’ll have no sympathy if we fall foul, we’ve no excuses not to comply.

Can only deal in facts - Coutinho was looking too leave , the club looked to get as much as they can and with that money they were able strengthen the team - how can that not been seen as good business ?

The club were able to purchase players to strengthen the squad by Using money from players sales - who knows what Klopp plans were the next summer after Coutinho left but they went and used the money well.

We have been able to strengthened the squad to allow us to challenge for the major trophies without breaking the bank or dipping into personal fortunes - good sound football business

The trouble is, FFP doesn't address this. Money spent has never been a better predictor of success than now. FFP just wants to make sure that only existing 'big clubs' can spend it, none of these nasty upstarts...
This is not intended as supporting CIty per se (I abhor their sportswashing raison d'etre), or a vested interest in my own club (who are shocking whichever way you slice it). It's just a statement of the obvious.

Each team sport has some sort of financial restrictions in place - spending and wage caps etc

I don’t think anything that would be put in place will be perfect but at least with FFP it’s trying to ensure clubs are financially safe and forcing clubs to be smarter with their purchases etc

If there isn’t FFP in place what could replace it ? A wage cap maybe ?

I don’t know - I just don’t think someone should be able to just go mad with money because it would then come down to who has the richest owner

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Can only deal in facts - Coutinho was looking too leave , the club looked to get as much as they can and with that money they were able strengthen the team - how can that not been seen as good business ?

The club were able to purchase players to strengthen the squad by Using money from players sales - who knows what Klopp plans were the next summer after Coutinho left but they went and used the money well.

We have been able to strengthened the squad to allow us to challenge for the major trophies without breaking the bank or dipping into personal fortunes - good sound football business


Each team sport has some sort of financial restrictions in place - spending and wage caps etc

I don’t think anything that would be put in place will be perfect but at least with FFP it’s trying to ensure clubs are financially safe and forcing clubs to be smarter with their purchases etc

If there isn’t FFP in place what could replace it ? A wage cap maybe ?

I don’t know - I just don’t think someone should be able to just go mad with money because it would then come down to who has the richest owner

Pete, I’m not criticising how you’ve spent or who on, some just see it as 2 + 2 = 4, when in reality it wasn’t that simple.
As I put, you’d of bought VVD regardless of Coutinho going or staying.

Look how well Klopp has got yous playing, now if you read the papers or look at social media yous are linked with all sorts or some of your players are linked to other Clubs.

Do you really believe FSG would ask Klopp to sell before bringing anyone in? That would be madness!
Strengthening and replacing are 2 entirely different elements as you know.

 

[GB72]

FFP does confuse me somewhat in that I am not sure that I understand why it is there. Is it to stop clubs spending beyond their means and thus prevent clubs going bust. Firstly, it has clearly not done that and, furthermore, if wealthy owners want to inject cash then that is not spending beyond your means.

Is the basis then to give some degree of parity in spending. Clearly that cannot work. All that it would ever do is allow the biggest clubs to become bigger and keep winning and their global revenue is greater whilst preventing smaller clubs growing by buying bigger names and increasing their recognition around the world. Parity can only come by either capping the spend on salaries or, like I believe is the case with the NFL, dividing all revenue equally including from merchandising.

In this case, I have a small degree of sympathy with Man City and some of what they say about trying to break into a cartel. On a global scale, they were a small club. Through buying big names, developing the team and winning things, they have become more of a global brand and so have increased revenue and so can spend more but how do you increase your revenue and global recognition without first being allowed to spend. How does a small club become big enough to challenge the established names in a generation that does not think football existed before the premier league when they are only allowed to spend a fraction of what the big clubs can spend even if their owner has pockets deep enough to bankroll it.

 

[Tashyboy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51528427

good read re FFP if anyone is interested. If that does pan out don’t think this will be sorted next week. Could well be next decade ?

 

[Lord Tyrion]

FFP does confuse me somewhat in that I am not sure that I understand why it is there. Is it to stop clubs spending beyond their means and thus prevent clubs going bust. Firstly, it has clearly not done that and, furthermore, if wealthy owners want to inject cash then that is not spending beyond your means.

Is the basis then to give some degree of parity in spending. Clearly that cannot work. All that it would ever do is allow the biggest clubs to become bigger and keep winning and their global revenue is greater whilst preventing smaller clubs growing by buying bigger names and increasing their recognition around the world. Parity can only come by either capping the spend on salaries or, like I believe is the case with the NFL, dividing all revenue equally including from merchandising.

In this case, I have a small degree of sympathy with Man City and some of what they say about trying to break into a cartel. On a global scale, they were a small club. Through buying big names, developing the team and winning things, they have become more of a global brand and so have increased revenue and so can spend more but how do you increase your revenue and global recognition without first being allowed to spend. How does a small club become big enough to challenge the established names in a generation that does not think football existed before the premier league when they are only allowed to spend a fraction of what the big clubs can spend even if their owner has pockets deep enough to bankroll it.

My understanding was that it was initally for this reason. As you say though, it has not worked and it largely protects the existing top team cartels. Only the ones that are seriously mismanaged on the pitch, AC Milan and potentially Utd, leave this group. Otherwise FFP prevents others from entering. The only ones who seem to really demand it, clubs and fans, are those in the cartel. The rest of us don't care and quite enjoy it when a new boy comes along and upsets the apple cart, whoever they may be.

 

[Tashyboy]

FFP does confuse me somewhat in that I am not sure that I understand why it is there. Is it to stop clubs spending beyond their means and thus prevent clubs going bust. Firstly, it has clearly not done that and, furthermore, if wealthy owners want to inject cash then that is not spending beyond your means.

Is the basis then to give some degree of parity in spending. Clearly that cannot work. All that it would ever do is allow the biggest clubs to become bigger and keep winning and their global revenue is greater whilst preventing smaller clubs growing by buying bigger names and increasing their recognition around the world. Parity can only come by either capping the spend on salaries or, like I believe is the case with the NFL, dividing all revenue equally including from merchandising.

In this case, I have a small degree of sympathy with Man City and some of what they say about trying to break into a cartel. On a global scale, they were a small club. Through buying big names, developing the team and winning things, they have become more of a global brand and so have increased revenue and so can spend more but how do you increase your revenue and global recognition without first being allowed to spend. How does a small club become big enough to challenge the established names in a generation that does not think football existed before the premier league when they are only allowed to spend a fraction of what the big clubs can spend even if their owner has pockets deep enough to bankroll it.

Good write up GB.
City in the early years ( Of Mansoor ) bought players City fans could only dream of. Robinho, Aguero, Silva etc etc. But they payed over the odds for them. Purely to get them to City. That went on for a fair few seasons. When it was mentioned that FFP was being brought in for ? 2011 Season. City went mad spending money. In essence they had no choice. FFP was coming in and they needed to be knocking on the top table before then.
Over the last couple of seasons, City’s transfer strategy has changed somewhat. The days of paying over the odds or being held to ransom for players has all but gone. City were interested in both VVD and Maguire. But pulled out of both Due to the transfer valuation. VVD with hindsight was a steal.
The thing re City as a club and global brand, since Mansoor bought City in 2008 for £210 million. November of last year the business was valued at £4.8 Billion. However you dress it up. that is some serious business. Business that has been done within ( and I use that term very loosely) under the financial constraints of FFP.

 

[Tashyboy]

My understanding was that it was initally for this reason. As you say though, it has not worked and it largely protects the existing top team cartels. Only the ones that are seriously mismanaged on the pitch, AC Milan and potentially Utd, leave this group. Otherwise FFP prevents others from entering. The only ones who seem to really demand it, clubs and fans, are those in the cartel. The rest of us don't care and quite enjoy it when a new boy comes along and upsets the apple cart, whoever they may be.

LT,
When doing me last post there’s a good read up on Wikipedia re FFP. Platini ? states that 50 % of clubs have over spent. Still not saved clubs from going bust though.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

FFP does confuse me somewhat in that I am not sure that I understand why it is there. Is it to stop clubs spending beyond their means and thus prevent clubs going bust. Firstly, it has clearly not done that and, furthermore, if wealthy owners want to inject cash then that is not spending beyond your means.

FFP still allows clubs to run at a loss to a certain level

Clubs like Bolton suffered because there was no FFP early stages - they suffered with the level of wages they paid without bringing the finances to support it

Portsmouth got loans from their owner and then couldn’t pay them back and suffered

Since FFP has arrived within the Prem and also some level lower down if clubs stick to it should ensure they don’t hit financial difficulties

Injecting cash is allowed again on some areas within the football club - for example into training grounds to help develop the players or stadiums to try and increase rbe commercial revenue

Is the basis then to give some degree of parity in spending. Clearly that cannot work. All that it would ever do is allow the biggest clubs to become bigger and keep winning and their global revenue is greater whilst preventing smaller clubs growing by buying bigger names and increasing their recognition around the world. Parity can only come by either capping the spend on salaries or, like I believe is the case with the NFL, dividing all revenue equally including from merchandising.

I don’t think sport and certainly football can follow the model they have within the NFL etc - should Bournemouth for example get a share of the money that Man Utd generate through shirts sales ? I don’t think so - football is become a competitive business on and off the field.

In this case, I have a small degree of sympathy with Man City and some of what they say about trying to break into a cartel. On a global scale, they were a small club. Through buying big names, developing the team and winning things, they have become more of a global brand and so have increased revenue and so can spend more but how do you increase your revenue and global recognition without first being allowed to spend. How does a small club become big enough to challenge the established names in a generation that does not think football existed before the premier league when they are only allowed to spend a fraction of what the big clubs can spend even if their owner has pockets deep enough to bankroll it.

Owners can still bankroll teams but it’s at a level that is trying to ensure the teams are more financially aware

Football teams should be able to have the mix - develop their players , bringing youngsters through and supplement them with purchases - It all changed when Abramovich arrived then Mansour - it was just buy buy buy - spend £50 mil on a cb , if that didn’t work out , spend another £50 mil , etc etc - so it was all about who has the biggest purse - City and Chelsea got their success through the funding as opposed to through the footballing means.

It’s trying to find a balance between the two - I don’t think there is ever a right answer beyond maybe a salary cap ?

 

[Liverbirdie]

What I mean about the Coutinho red herring is how it is dragged out by Reds (not you) as some sort of proof how yous have done good business in the “Nett transfer table”
It wasn’t planned to buy those 2 by selling Coutinho, if anything Klopp wanted VVD and Coutinho in the same side, circumstances led to it falling that way but some use it as proof of a tactical masterplan by FSG and Klopp.

As for our future, I’ll have no sympathy if we fall foul, we’ve no excuses not to comply.

I dont blame them for "dragging it out".

Club recruitment is sometimes planned years, months in advance, but also reactionary as well (especially in the transfer window).

Do you not think that we will have 5-25 options for each position scouted, just in case someone has a bad injury, loss of form, is tempted elsewhere? I wouldnt think it would just be LFC either, BTW.

Having the money to do anything about them is another matter though, and once the windfall came for Coutinho, we has the money spent already on 2 targets that were overdue, especially in the keeper dept.

 

[Liverbirdie]

The trouble is, FFP doesn't address this. Money spent has never been a better predictor of success than now. FFP just wants to make sure that only existing 'big clubs' can spend it, none of these nasty upstarts...
This is not intended as supporting CIty per se (I abhor their sportswashing raison d'etre), or a vested interest in my own club (who are shocking whichever way you slice it). It's just a statement of the obvious.

Ok we could dispense with FFP then, and maybe split the telly money down the lines of the TV watch figures, which really equates to the big clubs getting the bigger share of the pie then and to hell with Bournemouth and Norwich...........is that fairer than an FFP system?

# I'm not advocating that BTW.

 

[Deleted member 1418]

Football teams should be able to have the mix - develop their players , bringing youngsters through and supplement them with purchases - It all changed when Abramovich arrived then Mansour - it was just buy buy buy - spend £50 mil on a cb , if that didn’t work out , spend another £50 mil , etc etc - so it was all about who has the biggest purse - City and Chelsea got their success through the funding as opposed to through the footballing means.

It’s trying to find a balance between the two - I don’t think there is ever a right answer beyond maybe a salary cap ?

I can totally see where you're coming from here Phil, but let's face it football has always been about who has the biggest purse. I cannot remember the last time a team was consistently winning league titles and domestic cups with a majority of players who had come through the youth system ore reserves. City and Chelsea have taken it to the extreme, but in actual fact are they any different to the great Liverpool teams of the late 70s to mid 80s; or the great Man Utd teams under Ferguson purchasing great British or Foreign players? Yes the sums of money spent on these players are vastly different, but the principle is exactly the same - buy the best you believe will strengthen your team.

When Liverpool and United were dominating English football everyone wanted to play for them when the managers/Chairmen came calling. All the top players want to play for the clubs that are successful. Some signings worked out; some didn't. What happened to those that didn't? They were sold on; and replacements brought in that - again - were paid for.

I was a ball-boy at Stamford Bridge the day Liverpool clinched the title in the 85/86 season and the Liverpool team that day I believe did not contain one player that came through the youth team. So all were purchased. Therefore we could argue that Liverpool side was in fact worse than the Chelsea side of 04/05 under Mourinho as we had JT in the side who had come through the youth ranks!!

But I agree with you in that there should be a balance between the two. And there won't ever be a salary cap in English football as the clubs and owners are now too powerful. If the PL went to all the clubs and said "salary cap" then the owners will just turn round and say "No thanks. European Super League. See you later". Jimmy Hill's lasting legacy to the game!!

 

[Deleted member 16999]

FFP still allows clubs to run at a loss to a certain level

Clubs like Bolton suffered because there was no FFP early stages - they suffered with the level of wages they paid without bringing the finances to support it

Portsmouth got loans from their owner and then couldn’t pay them back and suffered

Since FFP has arrived within the Prem and also some level lower down if clubs stick to it should ensure they don’t hit financial difficulties

Injecting cash is allowed again on some areas within the football club - for example into training grounds to help develop the players or stadiums to try and increase rbe commercial revenue



I don’t think sport and certainly football can follow the model they have within the NFL etc - should Bournemouth for example get a share of the money that Man Utd generate through shirts sales ? I don’t think so - football is become a competitive business on and off the field.



Owners can still bankroll teams but it’s at a level that is trying to ensure the teams are more financially aware

Football teams should be able to have the mix - develop their players , bringing youngsters through and supplement them with purchases - It all changed when Abramovich arrived then Mansour - it was just buy buy buy - spend £50 mil on a cb , if that didn’t work out , spend another £50 mil , etc etc - so it was all about who has the biggest purse - City and Chelsea got their success through the funding as opposed to through the footballing means.

It’s trying to find a balance between the two - I don’t think there is ever a right answer beyond maybe a salary cap ?

How many youngsters have you brought through under FSG? I agree you haven’t spent the same as others but let’s not pretend you’ve not bought, bought bought as well.

Prior to Klopp you wasted money and even he has had millions to spend.

Trust me, as a blue I know all about wasting money.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I can totally see where you're coming from here Phil, but let's face it football has always been about who has the biggest purse. I cannot remember the last time a team was consistently winning league titles and domestic cups with a majority of players who had come through the youth system ore reserves. City and Chelsea have taken it to the extreme, but in actual fact are they any different to the great Liverpool teams of the late 70s to mid 80s; or the great Man Utd teams under Ferguson purchasing great British or Foreign players? Yes the sums of money spent on these players are vastly different, but the principle is exactly the same - buy the best you believe will strengthen your team.

When Liverpool and United were dominating English football everyone wanted to play for them when the managers/Chairmen came calling. All the top players want to play for the clubs that are successful. Some signings worked out; some didn't. What happened to those that didn't? They were sold on; and replacements brought in that - again - were paid for.

Great Post

I think though there are a few subtle differences between the way teams built up in the 70’s and 80’s - even when we were at the top it was rare for us to spend big ( for that period in time ) UTD and a few others were spending more - I think our biggest signing in that 85/86 side was pretty much the manager , but in a period where clubs were breaking the £1mil barrier we weren’t - players were sourced from good scouting etc and then team stuck with players for a considerable period of time. But even when UTD were spending most of the time the money was gained through the success of the club

When Chelsea arrived it was like opening Aladdin’s cave - buying multiple players at a time for millions each time , if one didn’t work out , sold at a loss then another arrives - no cheap gems , no players arriving at a young age and then built up - it was more the instant success funded by money. Chelsea have now gone through that and I suspect are a club who live through their own money made - City and PSG took that to another level - PSG even more so £400mil on two players alone !.

Some people don’t mind it - I’m not a fan of it , I prefer for clubs to be able to build a base and then look for success , more sustainable

I was a ball-boy at Stamford Bridge the day Liverpool clinched the title in the 85/86 season and the Liverpool team that day I believe did not contain one player that came through the youth team. So all were purchased. Therefore we could argue that Liverpool side was in fact worse than the Chelsea side of 04/05 under Mourinho as we had JT in the side who had come through the youth ranks!!

But I agree with you in that there should be a balance between the two. And there won't ever be a salary cap in English football as the clubs and owners are now too powerful. If the PL went to all the clubs and said "salary cap" then the owners will just turn round and say "No thanks. European Super League. See you later". Jimmy Hill's lasting legacy to the game!!

I think the only two in squad that season were Ablett and Lee ? But don’t think they played too much - certainly was a mixed back of players with I don’t believe any player bought from a rival ?

And yes you are right about clubs just picking up their toys and leaving if they apply a salary cap - the clubs have the power now

 

[Deleted member 18121]

Looking forward to the game tonight... Trying to pick who I want to win is like asking me which STI I'd prefer to have. So let's hope for an entertaining 3-3 draw.

 

[Slime]

Maguire maybe a bit fortunate there ................... I think.

 

[fundy]

nice to know kicking someone in the balls isnt violent conduct