FFP

[Rigadon]

Fined for having a really good go at competing without any financial doping?  Oh do fuck off with this shit.

We are doping.

But how are supposed to compete, except for like we have all this time?

Exactly.

Not nearly in the same league of financial doping as was allowed a few years ago.  We’ve been competing despite being restricted in comparison with the other clubs.  We’ve done that by bringing in amazing players (SJM, Kamara, Tielemans, Rogers) for next to no money.  If you’re confident we can and will continue doing that I salute you! I just think money will eventually eat less money and I’d like to see us be able to really compete without jumping through the many hoops.  Maybe it’s more fun this way though.

[PeterWithesShin]

We did try it when the rules allowed it, we just weren't very good at it.

[cdbearsfan]

Man U penalty for being over a billion in debit due any second I'm sure.

Is there a rule against having debt?

We were told, repeatedly, that the rules were designed to prevent clubs getting into debt. If a club is allowed to continue spending freely when well over a billion in debt then they clearly aren't fit for purpose.

[cdbearsfan]

We have incurred sporting sanctions, they are restricting our Champions League squad (the useless article doesn't say to which extent).

I think it’s the same restriction as last season just carrying on?

Thanks. What was that, a smaller squad by one or two players, something like that?

[Sexual Ealing]

Man U penalty for being over a billion in debit due any second I'm sure.

Is there a rule against having debt?

We were told, repeatedly, that the rules were designed to prevent clubs getting into debt. If a club is allowed to continue spending freely when well over a billion in debt then they clearly aren't fit for purpose.

But they're not going to be fined if they're not breaking any rules, are they?

[Dogtanian]

We have incurred sporting sanctions, they are restricting our Champions League squad (the useless article doesn't say to which extent).

I think it’s the same restriction as last season just carrying on?

Thanks. What was that, a smaller squad by one or two players, something like that?

We have to have a positive balance with regards to changes to our European squad list, effectively showing savings.

[cdbearsfan]

Man U penalty for being over a billion in debit due any second I'm sure.

Is there a rule against having debt?

We were told, repeatedly, that the rules were designed to prevent clubs getting into debt. If a club is allowed to continue spending freely when well over a billion in debt then they clearly aren't fit for purpose.

But they're not going to be fined if they're not breaking any rules, are they?

No. Hence the rules aren't fit for purpose, as I said. They do not prevent what they are pretending they are there to prevent. In reality they are, obviously, designed to prevent competition.

[cdbearsfan]

We have incurred sporting sanctions, they are restricting our Champions League squad (the useless article doesn't say to which extent).

I think it’s the same restriction as last season just carrying on?

Thanks. What was that, a smaller squad by one or two players, something like that?

We have to have a positive balance with regards to changes to our European squad list, effectively showing savings.

Ah yes, I remember. Ta.

[kippaxvilla2]

So what are these restrictions then?

[PeterWithesShin]

If the owners really were serious they'd give me a billion quid, i'd buy Charlton Athletic and then sign Bailey for 40m, Dobbin for 30m and so on. Problem solved very easily. But they aren't serious so here we are being fined.

[Percy McCarthy]

We have incurred sporting sanctions, they are restricting our Champions League squad (the useless article doesn't say to which extent).

I suppose they are restricting in a way, via the positive transfer balance again I presume? Not the actual number of players though right?

[Chris Harte]

Maybe it’s more fun this way though.

Oh, it is when we pick up silverware, rather than having a cheat code.

[Beard82]

So spurs can spend more cos they they have all these concerts at there stadium. 

Why cant we just make one of the many businesses our owners own "operate" from Villa Park?  Is that any less valid than the fact the stadium is used for gigs?

I dont really understand how the fact they host a beyonce gig means they can spend more on players. 

[cdbearsfan]

We have incurred sporting sanctions, they are restricting our Champions League squad (the useless article doesn't say to which extent).

I suppose they are restricting in a way, via the positive transfer balance again I presume? Not the actual number of players though right?

Yep, seems I have misunderstood. Well, hopefully. Sure they'll probably announce a new rule that fines teams for preparing bacon sandwiches properly or having sexy accents, just to fuck us.

[andyh]

Second highest fine ever dished out.
We really are the bad boys of football aren’t we ?