Man City ban overturned.

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

So decrepit 80 plus year old uncle Joe, four billion in the bank and counting, could write a bankers draft for £200 million and make us proper players again. Oh and for those worried about him on 2.5% bond the bloke would have it back in compound intrest in four years without lifting finger. FFP is dead over to you Daniel.
 
Screen_Shot_2018-10-25_at_11.02.15_AM.png
 
Here’s an idea, let’s walk away from the Premier league for a season and start filling lower league stadiums.....wouldn’t it be great if every “football” fan not “cult” fan abandoned their club for 2020/21 and jamb packed stadiums of league one sides and below ie; follow your local team and ram it down the throats of the “Media” controlled “Elite” leagues....

Empty Premier league grounds would send a message that football is still exists because of fans and not Sky fucking Sports and corrupt governing bodies from our own FA to UFEA.......

Who’s going down Orient next season then🤷‍♂️
 
FFP is wrong in the first place. Its about not letting anyone in the big boys club.

The rules do have problems FFP should have been stricter in the first place.

The problem is that at some point big spending has to stop because a club can't sustain the costs naturally, this is why people were so annoyed about Real Madrid doing deals with the government to wash debt away.

What is wrong is someone coming in to a club and putting in hundreds of millions of pounds that a club could never raise as a business or could continue to afford. Because if an owner decides to leave the project, that club faces bankruptcy in the absence of a white Knight.

Now this is not common at the top tier but if you know your local non league or lower league clubs you can find several examples of chairmen putting in good money then withdrawing 5 years later, 2 years afterwards the club has gone bankrupt. FFP is not just about the top of the game, it's trying to prepare football clubs for the real world.

Man City and Chelsea have played the system and won, it's not right and though the law might be an ass, the bigger message is that if you do what you want and get questions afterwards, just take it to Cas with a good lawyer. Meanwhile everyone spends more than they should to keep up with the chasing pack. Sometimes nearly the entire club revenue, which is where things get problematic, what's more problematic? When clubs disguise sponsorship to lower the ratio, so the data is questionable and the club is not as secure as it seems.

This is not just about Spurs, it's the wellbeing of every club in the league, in most cases spending more on players and wages than they can justify. I am not saying that Levy has an excuse not to spend, more that the trend of overspending could create a league where a lot of clubs end up in dire straits. Also I don't want a competition which is prefaced on which club had the best spending power, that makes the whole exercise fairly pointless.
 
The rules do have problems FFP should have been stricter in the first place.

The problem is that at some point big spending has to stop because a club can't sustain the costs naturally, this is why people were so annoyed about Real Madrid doing deals with the government to wash debt away.

What is wrong is someone coming in to a club and putting in hundreds of millions of pounds that a club could never raise as a business or could continue to afford. Because if an owner decides to leave the project, that club faces bankruptcy in the absence of a white Knight.

Now this is not common at the top tier but if you know your local non league or lower league clubs you can find several examples of chairmen putting in good money then withdrawing 5 years later, 2 years afterwards the club has gone bankrupt. FFP is not just about the top of the game, it's trying to prepare football clubs for the real world.

Man City and Chelsea have played the system and won, it's not right and though the law might be an ass, the bigger message is that if you do what you want and get questions afterwards, just take it to Cas with a good lawyer. Meanwhile everyone spends more than they should to keep up with the chasing pack. Sometimes nearly the entire club revenue, which is where things get problematic, what's more problematic? When clubs disguise sponsorship to lower the ratio, so the data is questionable and the club is not as secure as it seems.

This is not just about Spurs, it's the wellbeing of every club in the league, in most cases spending more on players and wages than they can justify. I am not saying that Levy has an excuse not to spend, more that the trend of overspending could create a league where a lot of clubs end up in dire straits. Also I don't want a competition which is prefaced on which club had the best spending power, that makes the whole exercise fairly pointless.

Top post.....

:adesalute:

Those using this as an avenue to bemoan what Spurs do or don't spend are completely missing the point.....

Felt quite chipper after the scum result, but yesterday was a sad sad day for football.
 
The rules do have problems FFP should have been stricter in the first place.

The problem is that at some point big spending has to stop because a club can't sustain the costs naturally, this is why people were so annoyed about Real Madrid doing deals with the government to wash debt away.

What is wrong is someone coming in to a club and putting in hundreds of millions of pounds that a club could never raise as a business or could continue to afford. Because if an owner decides to leave the project, that club faces bankruptcy in the absence of a white Knight.

Now this is not common at the top tier but if you know your local non league or lower league clubs you can find several examples of chairmen putting in good money then withdrawing 5 years later, 2 years afterwards the club has gone bankrupt. FFP is not just about the top of the game, it's trying to prepare football clubs for the real world.

Man City and Chelsea have played the system and won, it's not right and though the law might be an ass, the bigger message is that if you do what you want and get questions afterwards, just take it to Cas with a good lawyer. Meanwhile everyone spends more than they should to keep up with the chasing pack. Sometimes nearly the entire club revenue, which is where things get problematic, what's more problematic? When clubs disguise sponsorship to lower the ratio, so the data is questionable and the club is not as secure as it seems.

This is not just about Spurs, it's the wellbeing of every club in the league, in most cases spending more on players and wages than they can justify. I am not saying that Levy has an excuse not to spend, more that the trend of overspending could create a league where a lot of clubs end up in dire straits. Also I don't want a competition which is prefaced on which club had the best spending power, that makes the whole exercise fairly pointless.
In what world would a club like Mancity have ever achieved anything again in its history with Manutd right next door? Never. That doesnt mean it shouldnt have a chance to acheive anything. I think what really should happen is that all the season ticket holders should have a say if they want the new owner, if they dont, then an owner like Mancity's doesnt get to take over. But if they did then the fans are accepting the risk and the rewards.

Clubs like United, Liverpool etc, more fans = more money = more spending power = more success = more fans = more money...and so on. They would want FFP so that clubs with fewer fans will always remain below them = less success = less fans = less money = less success and so on.

You many not want a competition where a club with higher spending power equates to winning more. But that has always been the case for a long time now before Mancity got richer.
 
In what world would a club like Mancity have ever achieved anything again in its history with Manutd right next door? Never. That doesnt mean it shouldnt have a chance to acheive anything. I think what really should happen is that all the season ticket holders should have a say if they want the new owner, if they dont, then an owner like Mancity's doesnt get to take over. But if they did then the fans are accepting the risk and the rewards.

Clubs like United, Liverpool etc, more fans = more money = more spending power = more success = more fans = more money...and so on. They would want FFP so that clubs with fewer fans will always remain below them = less success = less fans = less money = less success and so on.

You many not want a competition where a club with higher spending power equates to winning more. But that has always been the case for a long time now before Mancity got richer.

Man City should not have had their success, they have literally been state funded, for them to become successful they should have invested sustainably and used their own developed talent, selling players to gradually improve. Like every other club.

If football is always dictated by doping, then it's a busted flush. That means, if your focus is glory, there is no point in supporting any club until they're bought by a billionaire or a state.

I don't hate City fans who've been through the very tough times they've been through, they've been down to league one and been in the shadow of United. But now they face a situation where winning is less meaningless and losing even a point or 2 means severe disappointment.

Consider the logic of your argument, basically it is that if you don't have enough fans, the only way you can be successful is by doping.

My point is that if clubs can cut their cloth, buy intelligently and develop talent then they can level the playing field and do so without putting the whole club at risk. Dortmund and Ajax have followed these paths and suceeded, these clubs are less likely to crash and burn because they are ran intelligently.

The problem is intelligence is not rewarded and doping and sports washing is, that is the big problem.
 
"[I'm] incredibly happy for the decision which shows what all the people said about the club was not true and to defend on the pitch what we won on the pitch," said the Spaniard.

"Like I said many times, if we did something wrong we would accept the decision of Uefa and Cas because we did something wrong. We can defend ourselves. We have the right to defend ourselves when we believe what we have done is correct."

"We have made a step forward in 10 years. We invested a lot of money, like a lot of clubs. We did it the right way. We have not been banned because we followed the FFP rules. If we hadn't we would have been banned," Guardiola added.

"We showed it was not true. That's why people have to be happy or should at least accept it.

What an absolute dickhead.

 
Back
Top Bottom