The Footie Thread

[Billysboots]

Ffp is a massive myth, it was designed to keep the big clubs big and stop people doing a city / Chelsea , just loop holes being used now

I mean if someone wanted to take over Boro to go for it and make you a super successful team they wouldn't be able to anymore .. how is that "fair" but because united have been successful for years they should be forever?

I don’t fully understand FFP, but I’m not sure it’s that simple. United may have spent money this summer, but there are absolutely limitations on them because of FFP - if they were free to spend whatever they wanted then there are definitely other signings which would have been made.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I’m all for free market capitalism, just have protection to stop crooks getting into the game. If a club has a sugar daddy, fine. If it’s successful and can generate extra cash, fine. Why handicap them.

Do we really want to see the sport being just about who has the richest sugar daddy or which club has the richest state owner ?


FFP was brought in when a good number of a clubs were spending way beyond their means and then having issues paying the bills - up and down the leagues clubs were going into admin because they spent more than they earned

Clubs should be more focused on developing themselves , bring through their own players , make the club attractive to bring in the sponsors, better scouting to get the players before they are £100mil players , great coaching and management - Brighton should be a blueprint to how a club can build itself up

Removing FFP will make the sport even more money orientated than it is now

It’s why the results of the independent panel for Citys 100 plus charges are key to the sport - UEFA made a mess of it and they got away with it - but If these charges stand up for then it could be the perfect turning point for the sport

 

[Pin-seeker]

FFP is all well and good,but seems like the ones with the biggest problem with it are the “big clubs” that don’t want anyone crashing the party.
They’re the ones whinging because they don’t have the pick of the crop when making signings anymore.

 

[Hobbit]

Do we really want to see the sport being just about who has the richest sugar daddy or which club has the richest state owner ?


FFP was brought in when a good number of a clubs were spending way beyond their means and then having issues paying the bills - up and down the leagues clubs were going into admin because they spent more than they earned

Clubs should be more focused on developing themselves , bring through their own players , make the club attractive to bring in the sponsors, better scouting to get the players before they are £100mil players , great coaching and management - Brighton should be a blueprint to how a club can build itself up

Removing FFP will make the sport even more money orientated than it is now

It’s why the results of the independent panel for Citys 100 plus charges are key to the sport - UEFA made a mess of it and they got away with it - but If these charges stand up for then it could be the perfect turning point for the sport

If the big clubs have already been bought up, as they have, how do the smaller club break into the big time without a sugar daddy? The big clubs have their sugar daddy and, with the aid of the football authorities, have ensured no one else can join the top table. Yes, ensure the right safe guards are in place but I think the current system is seriously flawed and weighted in favour of those already up there.

 

[Billysboots]

FFP is all well and good,but seems like the ones with the biggest problem with it are the “big clubs” that don’t want anyone crashing the party.
They’re the ones whinging because they don’t have the pick of the crop when making signings anymore.

I certainly don’t hear United whinging about FFP and its impact on their transfer dealings. As I say, I don’t really understand the nuances, but it strikes me the club are trying to work within the framework. If they weren’t, then surely another midfielder and central defender would have been brought in by now, rather than the club trying to move the likes of Maguire and McTominay on before making further signings.

Elsewhere, however, at least one club is continuing to splurge ridiculous sums of money and literally winging it, knowing that if this season on the pitch is a repeat of last, then they are likely to have the book thrown at them.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

If the big clubs have already been bought up, as they have, how do the smaller club break into the big time without a sugar daddy? The big clubs have their sugar daddy and, with the aid of the football authorities, have ensured no one else can join the top table. Yes, ensure the right safe guards are in place but I think the current system is seriously flawed and weighted in favour of those already up there.

The two biggest clubs in the county don’t have sugar daddies spending money on them

Both of those clubs are spending the money they have made after building their success

Brighton have made it into the big time without a sugar daddy

It’s supposed to be a sport not about having the richest owners

Remove the restrictions and it just turns the whole sport into a sports washing exercise for the Middle East

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I certainly don’t hear United whinging about FFP and its impact on their transfer dealings. As I say, I don’t really understand the nuances, but it strikes me the club are trying to work within the framework. If they weren’t, then surely another midfielder and central defender would have been brought in by now, rather than the club trying to move the likes of Maguire and McTominay on before making further signings.

Elsewhere, however, at least one club is continuing to splurge ridiculous sums of money and literally winging it, knowing that if this season on the pitch is a repeat of last, then they are likely to have the book thrown at them.

With the huge Saudi investment into Clearlake there is no doubt that if the club didn’t get that income from the pitch then a number of Saudi clubs will be buying up those huge contracts to help them out

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The two incidents in the Man Utd match

Penalty

https://twitter.com/x/status/1695479596794212825

Red Card

https://twitter.com/x/status/1695500265640575434

 

[Hobbit]

The two biggest clubs in the county don’t have sugar daddies spending money on them

Both of those clubs are spending the money they have made after building their success

Brighton have made it into the big time without a sugar daddy

It’s supposed to be a sport not about having the richest owners

Remove the restrictions and it just turns the whole sport into a sports washing exercise for the Middle East

Fairly sure my post you quoted says “ensure the right safe guards are in place.“ And it’s about being able to service the debt. The govt put the right financial restrictions in place for banks, i.e. that they have twice the operating cost in the coffers. Why can’t that be in place for football clubs? No more building a house of cards.

As for it’s supposed to be a sport, not about having the richest owners. It’s a business, and a successful business is run on money not hairy fairy ideas.

Your last sentence… can you provide the lottery numbers too. We don’t know how the sport will evolve but I expect FIFA & UEFA will protect the sport in that respect.

Brighton might do a Leicester but where are Leicester now. Outliers don’t prove a point. Over a period of time they’re seen exactly as that, anomalies.

 

[Pin-seeker]

The two incidents in the Man Utd match

Penalty

https://twitter.com/x/status/1695479596794212825

Red Card

https://twitter.com/x/status/1695500265640575434

After seeing that it’s a clear dive,on par with Dom.
Embarrassing

 

[Billysboots]

After seeing that it’s a clear dive,on par with Dom.
Embarrassing

It’s a Tweet, or whatever they’re called these days, from someone allied with Forest. It’s going to show the angle which best supports any Forest grievance.

Have you seen the angle shown on the Sky Sports coverage? Clear contact.

 

[Pin-seeker]

It’s a Tweet, or whatever they’re called these days, from someone allied with Forest. It’s going to show the angle which best supports any Forest grievance.

Have you seen the angle shown on the Sky Sports coverage? Clear contact.

No I’ve not seen it.

 

[Aztecs27]

It’s a Tweet, or whatever they’re called these days, from someone allied with Forest. It’s going to show the angle which best supports any Forest grievance.

Have you seen the angle shown on the Sky Sports coverage? Clear contact.

do you have a link to that angle? Because none I’ve seen show clear contact which would warrant a penalty.

 

[Billysboots]

do you have a link to that angle? Because none I’ve seen show clear contact which would warrant a penalty.

It’s in the highlights package on the Sky Sports app.

 

[Pin-seeker]

It’s in the highlights package on the Sky Sports app.

Always handy if you can post a link on here

 

[pendodave]

The two biggest clubs in the county don’t have sugar daddies spending money on them

Maybe my memory fails me, but for about 50 years Liverpool was funded by a betting company and ended up having the head of the family as a chairman
They were petty successful back then iirc.
But presumably that doesn't count....

 

[Billysboots]

Always handy if you can post a link on here

Just been on MOTD.

Ashley Williams perfectly happy there was contact. Neither Lineker nor Danny Murphy disagreed. Enough for a penalty although they suggested it was soft. I’ve already said as much.

All a bit of a non-story, really. Wonder if Martin Keown has changed his mind yet.

 

[clubchamp98]

For me that’s not a pen on Rashford.
Yes there is minimal contact.
but anytime a player chooses to go down it’s not a pen.
Contact should bring him down not give him a choice.

 

[Billysboots]

For me that’s not a pen on Rashford.
Yes there is minimal contact.
but anytime a player chooses to go down it’s not a pen.
Contact should bring him down not give him a choice.

But how does the referee or anyone else know what a player “chooses” to do?

There’s contact, a player goes down under that contact. The referee gives it, there’s no way VAR is ever going to call it a clear and obvious error.

Even the Forest players didn’t really protest.

 

[Pin-seeker]

For me that’s not a pen on Rashford.
Yes there is minimal contact.
but anytime a player chooses to go down it’s not a pen.
Contact should bring him down not give him a choice.

Totally agree,just as long as it’s consistent.