Usmanov

[catcherintherye]

Dont get it at all.
As you say if you want to put your money in your business , thats your business not anyone else's.
If you over spend & mismanage you suffer the consequences as Leeds found out.

FFP is actively punishing clubs for their owners investing in it.
Surely in any commercial venture that is badly wrong.

FFP alongside VAR are two of the biggest travesty's in modern football. Appalling answers to probably the right questions.

At some point it's hard to see FFP lasting. A body, that is supposed to represent a bunch of football clubs making value judgements about what is or isn't a "market price" is ridiculous. It's any oxymoron, the market dictates the market price, not some unelected bureaucrat working on behalf of a football club. If somebody in the market is prepared to pay something, and they view it as the value to their business, who is Richard Scudamore, or whoever his replacement is to tell them otherwise. It's anti-competitive and like many things in football would not stand up to legal scrutiny.

I fully understand (and would support) a move to legislate football to make it fairer, but FFP doesn't do that. It entrenches inequality, and the behaviour of (often) Kopites to complain as if breaking an unjust law is some sort of morally haphazard behaviour is absolutely pathetic. Unjust rules are made to be broken.

If they want to regulate it properly, have a salary cap, and pitch it at the median average of the clubs (so around £120m per annum). If we want competitiveness, and fairness, do something thats actually fair. And watch the top 4-5 monied clubs scramble over themselves trying to avoid breaking it. Insist that TV revenues will only be paid to teams who comply with the rules, and anyone breaking them is punished properly. This would stop the obscene wages and make it more affordable.

What we are left with, is a bunch of idiots who have absolutely no credentials to do so making value judgements on what they think the market price ought to be. Which is fine at one level, we are all entitled to our opinion, but thats all it is. There's no scientific fact that a sponsorship for one club is worth more than another. The market decides that. If companies such as USM believe we are worth x amount, thats their choice. It's up to their managers to justify their decisions to their shareholders. Quite why the PL want to go sticking their nose in, as some d rate regulatory body, when they can't even get their own house in order I'll never know.

At the risk of repeating myself, if they want regulation, fairness, sustainability, competitiveness, then lets have a salary where everyone can spend the same money. If we want to allow the market to dictate, let the market dictate. However allowing market forces for some, but regulations for others is grossly unfair.

 

[catcherintherye]

Because it is supposed to be a sporting contest with rules. The richest clubs could afford to field a team of 30 or 40 players. So why not let them do so.

The other point is there is nothing at all stopping any owner from investing as much money as he wants in his Club. As long as his investment is in infrastructure and the Academy.

But FFP doesn't tackle this. It's the wrong answer to the right problem.

If you want a fair competition, have a salary cap and have it pitched at the median team. If you feel this is too onerous then allow for free trade and the market to dictate what people are worth.

Whats not acceptable is to allow some clubs to raise whatever they like from sponsorships, but to tell others that doing so is breaking rules, based on the opinions of a group of unelected bureaucrats.

Some teams may not think Everton are worth 30 million p/a sponsorship, but nobody is forcing them to pay it. USM may think they are, which is their right. Why do the PL think they can dictate the value of sponsorship they believe Everton are worth? If we can successfully negotiate a good sponsorship deal that should be allowed to stand. Anything other than that is anti-competitiveness.

 

[blulouie]

Because it is supposed to be a sporting contest with rules. The richest clubs could afford to field a team of 30 or 40 players. So why not let them do so.

The other point is there is nothing at all stopping any owner from investing as much money as he wants in his Club. As long as his investment is in infrastructure and the Academy.

So much wrong with this.
I wouldnt know where to begin , its plain and simple a restriction of trade.
Designed to not upset the darlings of the league , its certainly would not be allowed to happen in any other business.

Btw ....in case it has escaped your attention our academy has a severe restriction on it already.

 

[catcherintherye]

FFP is a scourge on football. All this punishment would do is ruin a perfectly good club.

It’s time everyone fought against it. If they really wanted to help clubs from falling into financial ruin, they would cap player wages but they’d never do that. If they did, clubs wouldn’t have to find creative ways to raise more revenue.

The sensible move was always to cap wages, and incentivise TV payments for values you wanted to see. They should have been on the basis of payments linked to the number of home grown talents given game time who were at your club at 14, 16, 18 & 21. Lots of money should have been spent stopping clubs poaching other young players, with massive penalties for breaches.

This would have ensured a much fairer game. Instead we've got a monstrosity. You are right, it needs to be brought down. It's a cartel.

 

[mahermi1]

Because it is supposed to be a sporting contest with rules. The richest clubs could afford to field a team of 30 or 40 players. So why not let them do so.

The other point is there is nothing at all stopping any owner from investing as much money as he wants in his Club. As long as his investment is in infrastructure and the Academy.

Funny that really for over a decade we struggled along on the bones of our backside, barely having a squad. And your Cities, United's, Chelsea's, Liverpool's etc bought these massive squads and everything was fine. Now we have the money new rules have been Introduced, thanks to the white going of these elitist clubs.

 

[gwladysnight]

We’re guna buy our way to win the lot just as city mate

Except City are infinitely more wealthy than we are. They are also far better run.

Which is why the blinkered longing for Usmanov and the abolition of FFP is so short sighted. We should be focussing on how the Club is being run. It is inexcusable for commercial revenue to be falling when USM are pumping money in. It is inexcusable to be stagnating despite spending £450m on players since Moshiri arrived.

That is being completely ignored with the Uncle Uzi nonsense. We are acting like a lottery winner who just splashes the cash with no thought to how it is going to effect us.

 

[catcherintherye]

So much wrong with this.
I wouldnt know where to begin , its plain and simple a restriction of trade.
Designed to not upset the darlings of the league , its certainly would not be allowed to happen in any other business.

Btw ....in case it has escaped your attention our academy has a severe restriction on it already.

I mentioned this to him last night, that if they start trying to restrict what is perfectly reasonable sponsorship agreements then it would end in litigation and the PL would be on flimsy ground legally.

He couldn't really understand the point and made a hole host of ridiculous assertions such as PL clubs or businesses couldn't seek legal action (shock horror Derby are, Sheffield United contemplated it).

The EU supreme court would take a very dim view or an unelected bureaucrat at the PL (such as Scudamore) thinking he can dictate what the market value of each club should be (especially as it would seem to differ). And the idea, that when Manchester City, a much smaller club than Everton can secure sponsorship for £80m per/a over 5 years ago (prior to a massive inflation of money into football) would mean a £30 million per/a payment for Everton would fail a market test is utterly preposterous. It would stand up in no court.

 

[blulouie]

FFP alongside VAR are two of the biggest travesty's in modern football. Appalling answers to probably the right questions.

At some point it's hard to see FFP lasting. A body, that is supposed to represent a bunch of football clubs making value judgements about what is or isn't a "market price" is ridiculous. It's any oxymoron, the market dictates the market price, not some unelected bureaucrat working on behalf of a football club. If somebody in the market is prepared to pay something, and they view it as the value to their business, who is Richard Scudamore, or whoever his replacement is to tell them otherwise. It's anti-competitive and like many things in football would not stand up to legal scrutiny.

I fully understand (and would support) a move to legislate football to make it fairer, but FFP doesn't do that. It entrenches inequality, and the behaviour of (often) Kopites to complain as if breaking an unjust law is some sort of morally haphazard behaviour is absolutely pathetic. Unjust rules are made to be broken.

If they want to regulate it properly, have a salary cap, and pitch it at the median average of the clubs (so around £120m per annum). If we want competitiveness, and fairness, do something thats actually fair. And watch the top 4-5 monied clubs scramble over themselves trying to avoid breaking it. Insist that TV revenues will only be paid to teams who comply with the rules, and anyone breaking them is punished properly. This would stop the obscene wages and make it more affordable.

What we are left with, is a bunch of idiots who have absolutely no credentials to do so making value judgements on what they think the market price ought to be. Which is fine at one level, we are all entitled to our opinion, but thats all it is. There's no scientific fact that a sponsorship for one club is worth more than another. The market decides that. If companies such as USM believe we are worth x amount, thats their choice. It's up to their managers to justify their decisions to their shareholders. Quite why the PL want to go sticking their nose in, as some d rate regulatory body, when they can't even get their own house in order I'll never know.

At the risk of repeating myself, if they want regulation, fairness, sustainability, competitiveness, then lets have a salary where everyone can spend the same money. If we want to allow the market to dictate, let the market dictate. However allowing market forces for some, but regulations for others is grossly unfair.

Pretty much all of this.

And dont get me started on VAR . We couldnt get a bloody decision before it not much chance getting one now.

How many pen's we had this season ?

 

[catcherintherye]

Except City are infinitely more wealthy than we are. They are also far better run.

Which is why the blinkered longing for Usmanov and the abolition of FFP is so short sighted. We should be focussing on how the Club is being run. It is inexcusable for commercial revenue to be falling when USM are pumping money in. It is inexcusable to be stagnating despite spending £450m on players since Moshiri arrived.

That is being completely ignored with the Uncle Uzi nonsense. We are acting like a lottery winner who just splashes the cash with no thought to how it is going to effect us.

Well whats your definition of well run? They have spent more money than most teams in Europe and never got to a European final. They have spent a lot more money thats for sure. Yet when we try to spend a fraction of the money they have, we seem to run into some bizarre moral panic.

 

[gwladysnight]

The sensible move was always to cap wages, and incentivise TV payments for values you wanted to see. They should have been on the basis of payments linked to the number of home grown talents given game time who were at your club at 14, 16, 18 & 21. Lots of money should have been spent stopping clubs poaching other young players, with massive penalties for breaches.

This would have ensured a much fairer game. Instead we've got a monstrosity. You are right, it needs to be brought down. It's a cartel.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

You want everyone to follow your set of rules without question but then laud Usmanov for his ingenuity in getting around the current rules. The best bit is you trying to claim the moral highground a year after we got a two year ban for poaching academy players.

 

[blue1948]

Except City are infinitely more wealthy than we are. They are also far better run.

Which is why the blinkered longing for Usmanov and the abolition of FFP is so short sighted. We should be focussing on how the Club is being run. It is inexcusable for commercial revenue to be falling when USM are pumping money in. It is inexcusable to be stagnating despite spending £450m on players since Moshiri arrived.

That is being completely ignored with the Uncle Uzi nonsense. We are acting like a lottery winner who just splashes the cash with no thought to how it is going to effect us.

The USM money was 5mill per annum .The stagnation has nothing at all to do with the post .

 

[blue1948]

Funny that really for over a decade we struggled along on the bones of our backside, barely having a squad. And your Cities, United's, Chelsea's, Liverpool's etc bought these massive squads and everything was fine. Now we have the money new rules have been Introduced, thanks to the white going of these elitist clubs.

The FFP wasn't introduced for our sake as you suggest and not when Moshiri came either ,it has been in longer than that .

 

[catcherintherye]

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

You want everyone to follow your set of rules without question but then laud Usmanov for his ingenuity in getting around the current rules. The best bit is you trying to claim the moral highground a year after we got a two year ban for poaching academy players.

I'm struggling to see the hypocrisy. The rules as they exist (currently for both FFP and regarding youth development as it happens) are deeply flawed, unequal and suited to favour the wealthiest and most powerful. I don't want those rules, I would want rules that help to mediate against the worst excesses of the unequal, neo-liberalised game we now watch.

However, in so far as the rules remain in place, I want Everton to do the best they can under them. Usmanov has proven very adept at doing this so far.

I am struggling to see the contradiction?

 

[Tipp blue]

How do they determine fair market value, if USM wanted to sponsor the p1ss pots in goodison for 100 million a season, how can market value be determined as there is nothing to compare it to. Is it a case that the first to do it will be the only ones to do it as rules will be changed to stop sponsorship of nonsense items around stadiums.

 

[gwladysnight]

I mentioned this to him last night, that if they start trying to restrict what is perfectly reasonable sponsorship agreements then it would end in litigation and the PL would be on flimsy ground legally.

They won't restrict perfectly reasonable sponsorship agreements, that is clear.

He couldn't really understand the point and made a hole host of ridiculous assertions such as PL clubs or businesses couldn't seek legal action (shock horror Derby are, Sheffield United contemplated it).

The EU supreme court would take a very dim view or an unelected bureaucrat at the PL (such as Scudamore) thinking he can dictate what the market value of each club should be (especially as it would seem to differ). And the idea, that when Manchester City, a much smaller club than Everton can secure sponsorship for £80m per/a over 5 years ago (prior to a massive inflation of money into football) would mean a £30 million per/a payment for Everton would fail a market test is utterly preposterous. It would stand up in no court.

If you want to play in a competition then you abide by the rules or face sanctions. If you don't like the rules then you don't have to take part in the competition. If you think a decision is incorrect then you have a clear way of remedying it. You can appeal any decision right up to the Court of Arbitration for Sport which is a completely independent body.

As for your claptrap regarding the EU supreme court. Again you show how dangerous a little knowledge is. There is no such thing. The UK has a Supreme court the EU has the Court of Justice of the European Union.