Other Clubs transfer thread Summer 2016: Page 56 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

Other Clubs transfer thread Summer 2016

Qwiss

Savz wrote:
Leroy Sane to City. £45m is the fee, supposedly.

BILD.

Madness. Gundogan/Sane/Nolito Takes their spending up to £80m.

Probably going to get a CB once Sane is wrapped up properly.

£50m for Stones is the rumour.

flobaba

That FFP helped a whole lot didn't it

flobaba

Savz wrote:
Sane isn't anything to lose your shit over though, he's not one of those special talents that will leave his mark over a generation.

😆 Captain Obvious.

Clrnc

Thought Sane looked special in that match against Madrid which is the first time I saw him.

Can see him being a world class player now developing under Pep.

Klaus

flobaba wrote:
That FFP helped a whole lot didn't it

It did until Platini decided to wreck it, that's the annoying part. City have been spending like never before to catch up the distance they lost when they were restrained.

dreamlord

HomeSteak wrote:
80 is not even that much for 3 top class players this days.

It's why I'm more worried about City than United. They seem to be buying players according to some plan/vision, they're not just splashing cash for the sake of it.

lorddulaarsenal

Sane is a super player

Claudius

They also already have good players in Sane's position. So I'm not so scared.
What's happening with Yaya?

speedy

Klaus wrote:
flobaba wrote:
That FFP helped a whole lot didn't it

It did until Platini decided to wreck it, that's the annoying part. City have been spending like never before to catch up the distance they lost when they were restrained.

How did platinum wreak it??

I thought it just lost support outside England because other clubs felt like they'd never be able to keep up with the English clubs without outside investment.

Savz

I never liked the whole idea of FFP. It's just a way for the already rich clubs to stay rich and alienate the smaller clubs.

Klaus

Sure, that explains why the massive club Leicester City won Premier League a couple of years after the FFP was launched.

speedy wrote:
I thought it just lost support outside England because other clubs felt like they'd never be able to keep up with the English clubs without outside investment.

I think it lost support inside England too so Uefa eased the rules. City were always against it for instance and were mighty pissed off when they received a £49 million fine as well as squad restrictions in Champions League for breaching the FFP. Shortly thereafter it was rewritten to "encourage investment". Since transfer fees are amortised over the length of a contract they have very little impact on what the FFP considers to be "spendings".

Manchester City spent £150 million last summer for instance, but in the eyes of FFP they only spent £20-30 million net. Which meant they fell within the FFP criteria and most of the £49 million fine as well as the CL squad restrictions were cut as a result. They were let off the hook for frivolous spending by spending more. Doesn't that make the mind boggle.

Savz

Klaus wrote:
Sure, that explains why the massive club Leicester City won Premier League a couple of years after the FFP was launched.mind boggle.

A lasting legacy which will transform Leicester City, or a one off? It's a one off mate, clear to see.

And either way, that doesn't go against what I said. FFP IS a way to stop the smaller clubs from gaining power. Sometimes one offs do happen.

Claudius

Klaus wrote:
Sure, that explains why the massive club Leicester City won Premier League a couple of years after the FFP was launched.

speedy wrote:
I thought it just lost support outside England because other clubs felt like they'd never be able to keep up with the English clubs without outside investment.

I think it lost support inside England too so Uefa eased the rules. City were always against it for instance and were mighty pissed off when they received a £49 million fine as well as squad restrictions in Champions League for breaching the FFP. Shortly thereafter it was rewritten to "encourage investment". Since transfer fees are amortised over the length of a contract they have very little impact on what the FFP considers to be "spendings".

Manchester City spent £150 million last summer for instance, but in the eyes of FFP they only spent £20-30 million net. Which meant they fell within the FFP criteria and most of the £49 million fine as well as the CL squad restrictions were cut as a result. They were let off the hook for frivolous spending by spending more. Doesn't that make the mind boggle.

doesn't boggle the mind at all. you expense a capital investment based on the life of the asset. in this instance, the player is the capital and the life of the asset is the life of the contract. that is basic accounting. FFP has always had this set-up, and exceptions for grandfathered contracts (most of which have lapsed by now).
FFP has not failed. the clubs in England especially just have much more money than they did 4 or 5 years ago. sponsorships are fatter. prize money is richer. outgoing transfers are fetching more money. and squads are leaner, particularly at Chelsea. under these conditions, it is easier to meet FFP requirements.

Qwiss

Small clubs having power makes no sense. Building yourself into a big club is how you should attain power.

Savz

Restricting a billionaire from being able to take over Reading and spending endless amounts will stop Reading in changing from a smaller club into a powerhouse overnight, and the big boys are kept happy with that.

The likes of Us/United/Liverpool and to a lesser extent Leeds/Newcastle will do nothing but moan about a sugardaddy.

Clrnc

Savz wrote:
Klaus wrote:
Sure, that explains why the massive club Leicester City won Premier League a couple of years after the FFP was launched.mind boggle.

A lasting legacy which will transform Leicester City, or a one off? It's a one off mate, clear to see.

Even if Leicester finish in the top 7 for the next decade? I would say if they do that it's not a one-off at all.

Klaus

Savz wrote:
And either way, that doesn't go against what I said. FFP IS a way to stop the smaller clubs from gaining power. Sometimes one offs do happen.

You're just plain wrong. It stops no one right now. In the beginning it was set up to stop the kind of external investment that makes it impossible 1) for clubs to sustain their wage bills, and 2) for any club to succeed unless there's a billionaire footing the bill. The "protecting the old money" argument was coined by such clubs, i.e. the likes of Manchester City and PSG, who both got a raw deal.

Ray

Worth noting Leicester are funded by a billionaire.

Savz

For anyone who's not a fan of Arsenal, United or Liverpool, I don't think people see uber richmen buying clubs as that big an issue. Listening to fans of those three clubs moan all day about mega rich owners is like listening to some 18th century aristocrat complaining about the nouveau-riche, expecting the rest of the general public to feel sorry for them despite the fact that they're all members of a little elite club that refuse to allow others to enter.

I'm delighted these new clubs are destroying FFP and threatening to take them to the higher courts because it's illegal.

It's an absolutely disgusting attempt from Europe's historical elite to keep hold of their power, blabbing on about "sound financial management" is all very well when there's a level playing field for all and every club, but these clubs have brands that are so much more developed, making it all but impossible for a team to break into the club (the CL) without a sugardaddy.

Everton Spurs and Leicester are the only teams outside of the aforementioned big group to do so, that's a really stale situation and I don't care if City and Chelsea are wading in and fucking shit up.

If anything, Arsenal PLC should have sold out to Usmanov and joined in on it, not taken some so-called moral high ground.

Savz

Look at that fucking response. I'm a machine.

« Previous Page Next Page »