by From Despair To Where? » 16 May 2019 10:47
by 6ft Kerplunk » 16 May 2019 11:08
by Franchise FC » 16 May 2019 11:17
6ft Kerplunktidus_mi2 That's how I see it too, I need find out if Villa have blown FFP out the water and it will be brushed under the carpet if they go up, I'm having arguments on Twitter with Villa fans, which is a foolish thing to do anyway but they seem to be obsessed with showing how "little" they've spent without acknowledging how high their wage bill probably is or how high the loan fees for their loan signings could be. One even bragged about being the 3rd richest club in England which is ridiculous, since, even if their owners are wealthy, it doesn't bypass FFP.
May all be sour grapes/made up bollocks from Leeds fans but I saw on twitter that Derby's owner managed to sell their ground for £40M to one of his other companies which magically meant they had loads of cash to splash around. The idea of FFP is great, just seems really badly implemented.
by Winston Biscuit » 16 May 2019 11:18
by 6ft Kerplunk » 16 May 2019 12:20
Franchise FC The problem I have with FFP is that is, whether by design or otherwise, set up to ensure that the current 'popular' clubs remain in that position and give the 'lesser' clubs little to no chance of challenging them.
I absolutely accept that burdening a club with massive debt to achieve anything is wrong on so many levels, as a failure (a la Bolton) leaves them exceptionally vulnerable.
However, I see no reason why an owner can't put as much as they like into a club on two conditions :
1. The money invested is non-refundable in any circumstances (i.e. it's not a loan, it's more than likely share capital)
2. The owner must underwrite the cost of any contracts put in place under their ownership (meaning they can't sign 20 players on £100k per week on extended contracts then, when that fails after one season, jack it in and leave the club to pick up the remaining tab)
I'm pretty sure that any owner would be somewhat more cautious with their investment if they knew there was no way of recouping the money unless and until the club made sufficient profit to distribute a dividend. And just to be clear, dividends cannot be distributed unless the entire historic losses have been cleared (that's not my idea, that's a legal requirement).
by Silver Fox » 16 May 2019 12:21
by exileinleeds » 16 May 2019 14:24
Silver Fox The only reason I could possibly want Leeds to go up would be that it would mean there would be more variety on Sky (relegation might also achieve this, although that's not 100%) Maybe it would also be nice to LOL at them having a mare in the prem but hopefully we'll get that from FLDC
by Hendo » 16 May 2019 14:31
exileinleedsSilver Fox The only reason I could possibly want Leeds to go up would be that it would mean there would be more variety on Sky (relegation might also achieve this, although that's not 100%) Maybe it would also be nice to LOL at them having a mare in the prem but hopefully we'll get that from FLDC
Can you imagine the sky oxf*rd if Derby play Chelsea?
For that reason alone I prefer Villa to go up.
by Stranded » 16 May 2019 15:09
bcubedWinston BiscuitURZZZZ
Completely agree here, I think the playoff system needs a total revamp so finishing 3rd and to a lesser extent 4th is actually a positive
Italian play off system:
If the team finishing 3rd is 10 points or more ahead of 4th place then they are automatically promoted and there are no play offs. If there are less than 10 points between 3rd and 4th then the play offs go ahead including the teams who finish within 14 points of 3rd place (down to 8th place in the league) meaning anywhere between 2 and 6 teams take part
If 6 teams take part then 3rd and 4th get a bye while 5th plays at home to 8th and 6th plays at home to 7th in a one off game. If it is a draw at the end then the team who finished higher in the league progresses through.
the winners of 6th vs 7th plays 3rd and the winner of 5th Vs 8th plays 4th in a 2 legged match. Away goals do not count, if it's a draw after both legs then the team who finished higher in the league progresses
final 2 teams play each other over 2 legs with the team finishing higher in the league getting the home leg 2nd and a draw means the team finishing higher in the league wins. If the teams draw and they are on the same points in the league then they go to extra time and penalties
I like it.
I've often thought when 3 teams are well clear they should all go up.
But no play off final? Can't see that ever being adopted. There's too much money at stake. Even though this would clearly be a fairer system.
by 6ft Kerplunk » 16 May 2019 15:38
HendoexileinleedsSilver Fox The only reason I could possibly want Leeds to go up would be that it would mean there would be more variety on Sky (relegation might also achieve this, although that's not 100%) Maybe it would also be nice to LOL at them having a mare in the prem but hopefully we'll get that from FLDC
Can you imagine the sky oxf*rd if Derby play Chelsea?
For that reason alone I prefer Villa to go up.
Yeah, I mean, there is no one linked to Chelsea on the Villa staff...
by Hendo » 16 May 2019 15:41
6ft KerplunkHendoexileinleeds
Can you imagine the sky oxf*rd if Derby play Chelsea?
For that reason alone I prefer Villa to go up.
Yeah, I mean, there is no one linked to Chelsea on the Villa staff...
It'll be fine. JT will refuse to coach against Chelsea as a sign of respect.
by genome » 16 May 2019 16:27
6ft KerplunkHendoexileinleeds
Can you imagine the sky oxf*rd if Derby play Chelsea?
For that reason alone I prefer Villa to go up.
Yeah, I mean, there is no one linked to Chelsea on the Villa staff...
It'll be fine. JT will refuse to coach against Chelsea as a sign of respect.
by Hendo » 16 May 2019 16:39
by sandman » 16 May 2019 16:55
Franchise FC The problem I have with FFP is that is, whether by design or otherwise, set up to ensure that the current 'popular' clubs remain in that position and give the 'lesser' clubs little to no chance of challenging them.
I absolutely accept that burdening a club with massive debt to achieve anything is wrong on so many levels, as a failure (a la Bolton) leaves them exceptionally vulnerable.
However, I see no reason why an owner can't put as much as they like into a club on two conditions :
1. The money invested is non-refundable in any circumstances (i.e. it's not a loan, it's more than likely share capital)
2. The owner must underwrite the cost of any contracts put in place under their ownership (meaning they can't sign 20 players on £100k per week on extended contracts then, when that fails after one season, jack it in and leave the club to pick up the remaining tab)
I'm pretty sure that any owner would be somewhat more cautious with their investment if they knew there was no way of recouping the money unless and until the club made sufficient profit to distribute a dividend. And just to be clear, dividends cannot be distributed unless the entire historic losses have been cleared (that's not my idea, that's a legal requirement).
by Snowflake Royal » 16 May 2019 20:50
Franchise FC6ft Kerplunktidus_mi2 That's how I see it too, I need find out if Villa have blown FFP out the water and it will be brushed under the carpet if they go up, I'm having arguments on Twitter with Villa fans, which is a foolish thing to do anyway but they seem to be obsessed with showing how "little" they've spent without acknowledging how high their wage bill probably is or how high the loan fees for their loan signings could be. One even bragged about being the 3rd richest club in England which is ridiculous, since, even if their owners are wealthy, it doesn't bypass FFP.
May all be sour grapes/made up bollocks from Leeds fans but I saw on twitter that Derby's owner managed to sell their ground for £40M to one of his other companies which magically meant they had loads of cash to splash around. The idea of FFP is great, just seems really badly implemented.
The problem I have with FFP is that is, whether by design or otherwise, set up to ensure that the current 'popular' clubs remain in that position and give the 'lesser' clubs little to no chance of challenging them.
I absolutely accept that burdening a club with massive debt to achieve anything is wrong on so many levels, as a failure (a la Bolton) leaves them exceptionally vulnerable.
However, I see no reason why an owner can't put as much as they like into a club on two conditions :
1. The money invested is non-refundable in any circumstances (i.e. it's not a loan, it's more than likely share capital)
2. The owner must underwrite the cost of any contracts put in place under their ownership (meaning they can't sign 20 players on £100k per week on extended contracts then, when that fails after one season, jack it in and leave the club to pick up the remaining tab)
I'm pretty sure that any owner would be somewhat more cautious with their investment if they knew there was no way of recouping the money unless and until the club made sufficient profit to distribute a dividend. And just to be clear, dividends cannot be distributed unless the entire historic losses have been cleared (that's not my idea, that's a legal requirement).
by Sutekh » 16 May 2019 21:21
by Sutekh » 16 May 2019 21:45
by bcubed » 16 May 2019 23:35
Sutekh And Sunderland get to go to Wembley again
That means 5 of the 6 playoff games played so far have been won by the club that finished lower in the table
Has there ever been that many before?
Can’t see Doncaster making it 6 out of 6 though - but then many would have said that about Derby.
by stealthpapes » 17 May 2019 08:50
Sutekh And Sunderland get to go to Wembley again
That means 5 of the 6 playoff games played so far have been won by the club that finished lower in the table
Has there ever been that many before?
Can’t see Doncaster making it 6 out of 6 though - but then many would have said that about Derby.
by Hendo » 17 May 2019 11:00
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 149 guests