Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

2022/23 Sean Dyche

Status
Not open for further replies.
Saint Domingo said:
One chance, that’s the difference.

United and Arsenal can be as poor as they want for as long as they want outside the top 4 and they can just keep buying player after player and manager after manager until they get it right again.

Leicester did everything right, and got themselves to fifth twice, United felt a bit threatened so just dropped 60 mill on Fernandes in a Jan window to make sure. 70 mill Sancho doesn’t work out? Just pay 80 mill for Antony. Leicester are now in a relegation battle and can barely afford to sign new players unless they sell their best ones.

Newcastle will have one opportunity as well. If they don’t make it in a three year period, then they’re looking at either selling all their star assets, artificially inflating their sponsorship revenues, or kicking their wounds for 3 years whilst the operating losses fall off their books.

Meanwhile the top 6 will just spend whatever they want.
Click to expand...

The top 6 make absolute fortunes through sponsorship and player sales and we don’t, that’s why they can spend more than us. I really don’t know why this has to keep being pointed out. Our commercial performance is absolute diarrhoea, as is our ability to make a profit on players. If we didn’t keep buying players for £30m and releasing them for free then we’d be allowed to spend loads too.
 
MikeH72 said:
The top 6 make absolute fortunes through sponsorship and player sales and we don’t, that’s why they can spend more than us. I really don’t know why this has to keep being pointed out. Our commercial performance is absolute diarrhoea, as is our ability to make a profit on players. If we didn’t keep buying players for £30m and releasing them for free then we’d be allowed to spend loads too.
Click to expand...
Im not sure they do. When you look at the net spend of say chelsea and man utd its huge!! Commercial perfomance is smoke and mirrors for all but man utd who are the only ones in my eyes that make a proper commercial profit.
 

ForeverBlue92 said:
lol

Come on mate if the authorities really wanted that then they just put in transfer/salary caps across the board.

Chelsea have spent about £500 million in 12 months. Nothing sustainable about that if the owners decide not to put their hands in their pockets any further / the sponsers pull oot.
Click to expand...
It is sustainable when u have revenues of 500m a year. They are clearly not going to be spending that kind of money every year and they are getting all their transfers in early. The strategy from Chelsea is fairly easy to see. A young progressive manager that likes to play good football and build the correct culture in the club. To add to that they have bought lots of the best young footballers in the world for the manager to work with. And guess what, in the next year or two you will see the older players at leaving the club without being replaced. That is a sustainable, sensible approach. Yes, it has risks and yes it takes a large initial spend and yes they are going to have to write off a lot of money previously spent on players like Lukaku but the strategy looks very sound imo
 
Saint Domingo said:
It’s not mutually exclusive to admit that Everton have absolutely destroyed themselves but also to recognise that the current financial regulations favour the established elite teams over those breaking in.
Click to expand...
Of course, but I feel more anger at Everton for messing it up.

We have nobody to blame but ourselves.

As I say, if we ever get it right and we go bumping up against that glass ceiling, no doubt my anger will switch.
 
RS in a crisis out of the cup and the knives are out for the Gerrrman again. Be a shame if we missed out on Herr Klipp. On the other hand RS 1 Everton 2 is becoming an attractive prospect.
 

Villa_Fan said:
But it was the PL clubs that voted for it. Is your suggestion that the majority of PL clubs voted to keep the top 6 as the top 6 and prevent them from improving themselves? Also, FFP was never intended to make a more level playing field. Its purpose was to stop clubs from spending beyond their means and thus getting into financial trouble and putting the club's viability at risk
Click to expand...

Spot on. A rule change needs 14/20 clubs to vote for it (incl. PL's FFPS) - hence meaning min. 14 clubs are for how the FFP currently is. The FFP is there to keep the so-called top 6 is bs. Our own club has been voting for it time and time again.
 
Villa_Fan said:
It is sustainable when u have revenues of 500m a year. They are clearly not going to be spending that kind of money every year and they are getting all their transfers in early. The strategy from Chelsea is fairly easy to see. A young progressive manager that likes to play good football and build the correct culture in the club. To add to that they have bought lots of the best young footballers in the world for the manager to work with. And guess what, in the next year or two you will see the older players at leaving the club without being replaced. That is a sustainable, sensible approach. Yes, it has risks and yes it takes a large initial spend and yes they are going to have to write off a lot of money previously spent on players like Lukaku but the strategy looks very sound imo
Click to expand...

But there are two purposes to FFP (broadly).

1) Fairness

2) Financial stability

(And a third of simplicity).

On the first, how is it in any way fair to allow different teams to have different spends? It's just entrenching inequality? Or a system that allows for one team to soend hundreds of millions in 6 months, while we cant spend anymore having spent similar in 7 years.

On the 2nd, it's not helping clubs remain financial stable. Clubs are still in a awful financial situation. It could be argued, that putting sanctions on a team just makes this even worse.

Regarding simplicity, I think I've covered a bit, but above, but nobody could say the system was simple.
 
Villa_Fan said:
But it was the PL clubs that voted for it. Is your suggestion that the majority of PL clubs voted to keep the top 6 as the top 6 and prevent them from improving themselves? Also, FFP was never intended to make a more level playing field. Its purpose was to stop clubs from spending beyond their means and thus getting into financial trouble and putting the club's viability at risk
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct.
But we live in an age of conspiracy theories.
Nobody fails, they’ve been conspired against.
It’s just self pitying bs and stops people dealing with the real reasons for failure, and trying to change the circumstances that allowed them to fail.
 
MikeH72 said:
The top 6 make absolute fortunes through sponsorship and player sales and we don’t, that’s why they can spend more than us. I really don’t know why this has to keep being pointed out. Our commercial performance is absolute diarrhoea, as is our ability to make a profit on players. If we didn’t keep buying players for £30m and releasing them for free then we’d be allowed to spend loads too.
Click to expand...

The point is though, do we need a system to oversee what appears good financial sense.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top