Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
happy85

FFP

By happy85, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

Mr Mister

Mr Mister

Posted
Posted

Time to get rid of it. It was designed to ensure that only the big clubs compete for the big prizes and close the door on clubs outside the elite of ever having a chance of competing for the big prizes.

  • Like 2
PAPA LAZAROU

PAPA LAZAROU

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, 21st Century Fox said:

I get the impression Top and the club care. It's almost become part of our identity. We do things 'right'. We were the only dissenters on a couple of unpopular votes with the rest of the league, there was no reason for us to do that but it looked good outwardly.

Oh yes, I forgot about that. You're right.:thumbup:

lcfc sheff

lcfc sheff

Posted
Posted

We’re gonna have to bank on Maddison having a top season for two reasons, help us finish respectfully in the league but also a decent fee (hopefully after signing a new deal) otherwise we are gonna be ****ed. Quite clear we need to be selling a top player each window to somewhat progress. We need to be smart with the money 

  • 4 months later...
coalvillefox

coalvillefox

Posted
Posted

Rodgers has said in an interview with Sky Sports that our net spend in 3 1/2 years is £10m, whereas Villa, Newcastle and West Ham is £250m. Without the owners pumping money into the club, which is not allowed these days, how is that possible? Please someone explain it to me in simple terms so I can understand. How is a well run club likes ours being left behind by the likes of Villa and West Ham??

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
UHDrive

UHDrive

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, coalvillefox said:

Rodgers has said in an interview with Sky Sports that our net spend in 3 1/2 years is £10m, whereas Villa, Newcastle and West Ham is £250m. Without the owners pumping money into the club, which is not allowed these days, how is that possible? Please someone explain it to me in simple terms so I can understand. How is a well run club likes ours being left behind by the likes of Villa and West Ham??

Throw in Everton as well cos I've been wondering the exact same thing. I've seen people explain some of it on here in terms of stadium capacity and other revenues but when thinking on it it still seems ludicrous.

  • Like 1
coalvillefox

coalvillefox

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, UHDrive said:

Throw in Everton as well cos I've been wondering the exact same thing. I've seen people explain some of it on here in terms of stadium capacity and other revenues but when thinking on it it still seems ludicrous.

A couple of thousand more in a stadium for the likes of Everton and West Ham doesn't equate to £250m more net spend though, it makes no sense to me.

 

Are our owners too nice? Does their desire to always act in line with the rules and always be seen to be the nice guys prevent them from taking the financial risks needed to push us up the league?

UHDrive

UHDrive

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, coalvillefox said:

A couple of thousand more in a stadium for the likes of Everton and West Ham doesn't equate to £250m more net spend though, it makes no sense to me.

 

Are our owners too nice? Does their desire to always act in line with the rules and always be seen to be the nice guys prevent them from taking the financial risks needed to push us up the league?

Absolute nail on the head!!! I haven't dared say it on here but the fines for breaking ffp rules seem punitive so why don't we stop playing nice?

  • Like 1
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, coalvillefox said:

A couple of thousand more in a stadium for the likes of Everton and West Ham doesn't equate to £250m more net spend though, it makes no sense to me.

 

Are our owners too nice? Does their desire to always act in line with the rules and always be seen to be the nice guys prevent them from taking the financial risks needed to push us up the league?

They pushed the rules in the championship 

Dahnsouff

Dahnsouff

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, coalvillefox said:

Rodgers has said in an interview with Sky Sports that our net spend in 3 1/2 years is £10m, whereas Villa, Newcastle and West Ham is £250m. Without the owners pumping money into the club, which is not allowed these days, how is that possible? Please someone explain it to me in simple terms so I can understand. How is a well run club likes ours being left behind by the likes of Villa and West Ham??

Would be interesting to know the annual wage outlay of the clubs mentioned, this is more important I think, I know transfer fees (in and out) grab the headlines, but if we are massively overpaying, we are stuffed until we are not

  • Like 1
KFS

KFS

Posted
Posted

Just take 500m for a sponsorship deal that has ‘Sepp Blatter’s Barmy Army’ slapped across the front and we’ll be sweet 

  • Haha 1
Jawdee

Jawdee

Posted
Posted

From a Newcastle perspective, we had a fair bit of leeway after years of next to no net spend under Mike Ashely. 

 

Mike Ashley also left us with a skeleton staff running the club. The new owners are still beefing up the commercial side of things, but we're years behind the better ran clubs in the league. Until that area of the club is grown and our commercial revenue increases, we won't able to sustain massive spending figures.

 

 

CosbehFox

CosbehFox

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, coalvillefox said:

A couple of thousand more in a stadium for the likes of Everton and West Ham doesn't equate to £250m more net spend though, it makes no sense to me.

 

Are our owners too nice? Does their desire to always act in line with the rules and always be seen to be the nice guys prevent them from taking the financial risks needed to push us up the league?

Commercial income is higher too - both will have/will feature in profitable friendly fixtures abroad, more shirt sales, more TV selections 

KFS

KFS

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Jawdee said:

From a Newcastle perspective, we had a fair bit of leeway after years of next to no net spend under Mike Ashely. 

 

Mike Ashley also left us with a skeleton staff running the club. The new owners are still beefing up the commercial side of things, but we're years behind the better ran clubs in the league. Until that area of the club is grown and our commercial revenue increases, we won't able to sustain massive spending figures.

 

 

Maybe this is Top’s new plan. If you’re a potential investor don’t you think you’d want a 100m training ground, ground expansion and development plans that have mostly passed the council and 7 out of contract big earners with a decent net spend for the last 3 windows?

 

He’s preparing to sell. There’s only one explanation. 

  • Like 2
coalvillefox

coalvillefox

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Jawdee said:

From a Newcastle perspective, we had a fair bit of leeway after years of next to no net spend under Mike Ashely. 

 

Mike Ashley also left us with a skeleton staff running the club. The new owners are still beefing up the commercial side of things, but we're years behind the better ran clubs in the league. Until that area of the club is grown and our commercial revenue increases, we won't able to sustain massive spending figures.

 

 

This is an interesting point to start from. According to transfermarkt.co.uk, Newcastle's net spend over the last 5 years is €-349.24m, now clearly they have significant income to net that off against so it's not as bad it it looks, however Leicester's net spend over the same period is only €-39.43m, the lowest in the league by some margin,

Jawdee

Jawdee

Posted
Posted

The Profit and Sustainability rules bite too. It was a belt and braces from the Premier League to make sure no one could sustain a challenge on the "big six".

 

They're now slowly chipping away at how you make your commercial revenue too. 

 

I think you lot winning the Premier League put the shits up them. Then our majority owners have come along with their grotesque wealth which has seen more rule changes. It's massively anti-competitive and it'd be really interesting if it was challenged in court. 

  • Like 2
KFS

KFS

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Jawdee said:

The Profit and Sustainability rules bite too. It was a belt and braces from the Premier League to make sure no one could sustain a challenge on the "big six".

 

They're now slowly chipping away at how you make your commercial revenue too. 

 

I think you lot winning the Premier League put the shits up them. Then our majority owners have come along with their grotesque wealth which has seen more rule changes. It's massively anti-competitive and it'd be really interesting if it was challenged in court. 

But riddle me this, which is the gripe I have with Geordie mates of mine:

 

The ultimate pro competition ruling is a wage and transfer spend cap…

 

Given your ludicrous new wealth you’d no doubt protest about that.

 

The Geordies want the Man City gig, the don’t want a fair league…

KFS

KFS

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, KFS said:

But riddle me this, which is the gripe I have with Geordie mates of mine:

 

The ultimate pro competition ruling is a wage and transfer spend cap…

 

Given your ludicrous new wealth you’d no doubt protest about that.

 

The Geordies want the Man City gig, the don’t want a fair league…

And while we’re on the topic @Jawdee- we’ll have an apology on behalf of that fat lad on YouTube who was making content about Leicester benefiting from owner sponsorship deals when it was actually COSTING us in commercial revenue. Now you can see our predicament it’s obvious while LCFC fans were pissed off about being dragged into that.

 

It is true we made them very scared when we won the league. A European chairman actually said ‘we don’t want too many Leicester Citys’

Jawdee

Jawdee

Posted
Posted
Just now, KFS said:

And while we’re on the topic @Jawdee- we’ll have an apology on behalf of that fat lad on YouTube who was making content about Leicester benefiting from owner sponsorship deals when it was actually COSTING us in commercial revenue. Now you can see our predicament it’s obvious while LCFC fans were pissed off about being dragged into that.

 

It is true we made them very scared when we won the league. A European chairman actually said ‘we don’t want too many Leicester Citys’

No idea what all of that is about, I don't pay any attention to the social media personalities linked to the club. Wrath, the Geordie Dentist, Pearson, etc. They're all absolute weapons.

 

I'm all for a wage and a spend cap, I'd ban state ownership too. It's a real shame that we didn't implement something similar to the Bundesliga's "50+1" before things became too far gone.  

 

The league is the way it is because the relevant authorities view the Premier League as a commodity , our ownership is just a symptom of that. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...