FFP

[Lsvilla]

Must be true as it’s on x……

“Barcelona have secured a €210M loan to help fund the club's day-to-day operations over the coming months.

Club officials expect Barça to breach Financial Fair Play regulations once again.

If their financial problems persist, the club could need additional support to register new players.”

[eamonn]

Yet they can still spaff £100m in commitments to buying and keeping our Anthony for the next 4 years.

[Dogtanian]

Yet they can still spaff £100m in commitments to buying and keeping our Anthony for the next 4 years.

Plus €19.99 for a pair of clippers.

[Sexual Ealing]

Yet they can still spaff £100m in commitments to buying and keeping our Anthony for the next 4 years.

There's a thread somewhere in Off Topic about watches. I'm going to dig it up and reply to every post asking each poster how come they get to spend so much on watches when I have a watch budget of £0 (because I don't want a watch). When they reply to tell me their budget is nothing to do with me, I'll ask them how come Spurs and Barcelona are allowed to buy players.

[Monty]

Yes, but your watch budget isn't what it is compared to that of others because spending rules are rigged to allow the already-wealthy to borrow with impunity while the hard-up have to 'live within their means' because at a certain level it's decided Debt Doesn't Count ok ok ok fine it's exactly like that, STILL -

...my point is there are definitely unfair rules in football as in watches. Complaining about Spurs' revenues is dumbfuck stuff, blubber-thick, but the way the higher-ups decide both what counts as revenue and also exclude debts from the equations is really rather obviously corrupt I think.

[Sexual Ealing]

Yes, but your watch budget isn't what it is compared to that of others because spending rules are rigged to allow the already-wealthy to borrow with impunity while the hard-up have to 'live within their means' because at a certain level it's decided Debt Doesn't Count ok ok ok fine it's exactly like that, STILL -

...my point is there are definitely unfair rules in football as in watches. Complaining about Spurs' revenues is dumbfuck stuff, blubber-thick, but the way the higher-ups decide both what counts as revenue and also exclude debts from the equations is really rather obviously corrupt I think.

The rules are indeed shit, but we know what the rules are. We are in a unique position, having transgressed the rules and been placed on a naughty plan, which will continue until morale improves. The rules have fucked us. The rules have not fucked Spurs, which is why they can spend money. We don't need to ask why Spurs can spend money because we know why they can spend money, so why is every third post a question about why Spurs can spend money?! We also know that the rules don't take debt into account, so why do people ask why Manchester United (Manchester United! - it's like asking how it's fair that the King is so wealthy) can still buy players when they're in debt. It's because they're allowed to.

[tony scott]

I wonder if our supporters made a banner highlighting the inconsistency of the financial rules it would get some traction in the media.

[Drummond]

No

[Percy McCarthy]

Yes, but your watch budget isn't what it is compared to that of others because spending rules are rigged to allow the already-wealthy to borrow with impunity while the hard-up have to 'live within their means' because at a certain level it's decided Debt Doesn't Count ok ok ok fine it's exactly like that, STILL -

...my point is there are definitely unfair rules in football as in watches. Complaining about Spurs' revenues is dumbfuck stuff, blubber-thick, but the way the higher-ups decide both what counts as revenue and also exclude debts from the equations is really rather obviously corrupt I think.

The rules are indeed shit, but we know what the rules are. We are in a unique position, having transgressed the rules and been placed on a naughty plan, which will continue until morale improves. The rules have fucked us. The rules have not fucked Spurs, which is why they can spend money. We don't need to ask why Spurs can spend money because we know why they can spend money, so why is every third post a question about why Spurs can spend money?! We also know that the rules don't take debt into account, so why do people ask why Manchester United (Manchester United! - it's like asking how it's fair that the King is so wealthy) can still buy players when they're in debt. It's because they're allowed to.

Exactly.

[cdbearsfan]

I'm assuming people, quite reasonably, think that it is unfair that Man United are allowed to get billions into debt with no penalty, when the rules are supposedly about sustainability. The fact no rule prevents such a scenario shows quite clearly that the rules don't do what we are told they are supposed to but, instead, restrict the possibility of competition.

[LeeB]

I'm assuming people, quite reasonably, think that it is unfair that Man United are allowed to get billions into debt with no penalty, when the rules are supposedly about sustainability. The fact no rule prevents such a scenario shows quite clearly that the rules don't do what we are told they are supposed to but, instead, restrict the possibility of competition.

They do exactly what they're supposed to, and they're there because the shit housers threaten to run off if real competition is allowed.

[Toronto Villa]

I'm assuming people, quite reasonably, think that it is unfair that Man United are allowed to get billions into debt with no penalty, when the rules are supposedly about sustainability. The fact no rule prevents such a scenario shows quite clearly that the rules don't do what we are told they are supposed to but, instead, restrict the possibility of competition.

They do exactly what they're supposed to, and they're there because the shit housers threaten to run off if real competition is allowed.

That’s precisely it. They want the established to remain within the fold and not fuck off to their own breakaway league.

[AV82EC]

I'm assuming people, quite reasonably, think that it is unfair that Man United are allowed to get billions into debt with no penalty, when the rules are supposedly about sustainability. The fact no rule prevents such a scenario shows quite clearly that the rules don't do what we are told they are supposed to but, instead, restrict the possibility of competition.

Playing devils advocate a bit here but why shouldn’t Man Yoo be allowed to get into debt? They are a business like any other why shouldn’t they be allowed to leverage debt against their enormous revenues if that’s sustainable? It’s not a business model I’d choose but I don’t see why you’re not allowed to?