filbertway Posted 17 June 2014 Posted 17 June 2014 In his last 4 seasons he's bagged 28, 5, 18, 2. So by that logic he will be looking at around the 3/4 goal mark this season.
Harry - LCFC Posted 17 June 2014 Posted 17 June 2014 Why do you hope that? Because it'd mean a club who has been given an unfair advantage hasn't benefited from it, thus making the competition fairer.
Miquel The Work Geordie Posted 17 June 2014 Posted 17 June 2014 Football is broken, well done Cardiff.
Guest Col city fan Posted 17 June 2014 Posted 17 June 2014 Because it'd mean a club who has been given an unfair advantage hasn't benefited from it, thus making the competition fairer. That's not the fault of Cardiff City, nor its fans or players. That's the fault of the system. I wonder whether people will be making the same comments and expressing the same opinions if City (horror of horrors) were to get relegated next season and then benefitted from parachute payments thereafter? I guess we'll see how that pans out. In the meantime, we still have players at our club like Paul Gallagher on what? 16/17k per week? It's not like City have been holier than thou is it? I agree, Pearson has changed that and done a bloody good job of doing so. But people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones IMO. It wasn't so long ago that Peter Taylor was paying 6mill for Akinbiyi.
Harry - LCFC Posted 17 June 2014 Posted 17 June 2014 That's not the fault of Cardiff City, nor its fans or players. That's the fault of the system. I wonder whether people will be making the same comments and expressing the same opinions if City (horror of horrors) were to get relegated next season and then benefitted from parachute payments thereafter? I guess we'll see how that pans out. In the meantime, we still have players at our club like Paul Gallagher on what? 16/17k per week? It's not like City have been holier than thou is it? I agree, Pearson has changed that and done a bloody good job of doing so. But people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones IMO. It wasn't so long ago that Peter Taylor was paying 6mill for Akinbiyi. Regardless, they're still being given unfair advantages that they don't deserve. Bit like referee's decisions, it wasn't the team's fault as such but no-one would accept that they were worthy winners. And I don't see how we could be said to be in a glass house right now. In what way are we benefiting for wasting cash on Akinbiyi or Gallagher? Those two held us back rather than pushed us forward.
Guest Col city fan Posted 17 June 2014 Posted 17 June 2014 Regardless, they're still being given unfair advantages that they don't deserve. Bit like referee's decisions, it wasn't the team's fault as such but no-one would accept that they were worthy winners. And I don't see how we could be said to be in a glass house right now. In what way are we benefiting for wasting cash on Akinbiyi or Gallagher? Those two held us back rather than pushed us forward. Harry.. The gist of this argument is that Cardiff are being 'unfair' in some way and therefore certain people hope they fail because of it. Football is FULL of unfair situations, non-level playing fields and exploitation of situations. Pearson has controlled matters at Leicester City, but we still got promoted having paid millions of pounds for the likes of Drinkwater, Wood and Vardy. Nugent was our top goal-scorer, but we were paying him how much in terms of weekly wages? How did that make the likes of Barnsley, Yeovil, Bournemouth feel, do you imagine? Do you genuinely believe that we were promoted on the back of some 'level playing field' in the Championship? Of course we werent. Cardiff can exploit an unfair system. Slate the system, not the club who exploit it. THAT would make sense.
surrifox Posted 17 June 2014 Posted 17 June 2014 perhaps if parachute payments could not be all treated as income for the purposes of drawing up the accounts for FFP but could only be used to create some sort of a reserve against future losses and then the FFP rules were really enforced it might deter the less financially prudent from piling on like QPR and Cardiff have. the revenue streams in the championship are so derisory compared to the prem that clubs are going to struggle to remain within the requirement to operate with only minimal losses
MooseBreath Posted 17 June 2014 Posted 17 June 2014 Parachute payments are masseeeev now and last a few years. Cardiff have a wealthy owner. They can afford it, they aren't breaking any rules. Good luck to them. I think they'll struggle, though, like most big spending champ clubs seem to do
Harry - LCFC Posted 17 June 2014 Posted 17 June 2014 Harry.. The gist of this argument is that Cardiff are being 'unfair' in some way and therefore certain people hope they fail because of it. Football is FULL of unfair situations, non-level playing fields and exploitation of situations. Pearson has controlled matters at Leicester City, but we still got promoted having paid millions of pounds for the likes of Drinkwater, Wood and Vardy. Nugent was our top goal-scorer, but we were paying him how much in terms of weekly wages? How did that make the likes of Barnsley, Yeovil, Bournemouth feel, do you imagine? Do you genuinely believe that we were promoted on the back of some 'level playing field' in the Championship? Of course we werent. Cardiff can exploit an unfair system. Slate the system, not the club who exploit it. THAT would make sense. I think you have the wrong idea of what a level playing field is. It isn't about everyone being equal, it's about competing on the same terms i.e. spending within your means. There has to be some inequality of there'd be no competition. How do Yeovil feel? Doesn't matter. We're able to spend more because of our size and success - we've earnt that right. Seeing as we appear to have spent within our FFP limits I'd have to say that yes we were get promoted on the back of a level playing field in the Championship.
Guest Col city fan Posted 17 June 2014 Posted 17 June 2014 I think you have the wrong idea of what a level playing field is. It isn't about everyone being equal, it's about competing on the same terms i.e. spending within your means. There has to be some inequality of there'd be no competition. How do Yeovil feel? Doesn't matter. We're able to spend more because of our size and success - we've earnt that right. Seeing as we appear to have spent within our FFP limits I'd have to say that yes we were get promoted on the back of a level playing field in the Championship. That's shite I'm afraid. We've been able to spend more because we have rich owners. 15 million in the Sven era. Nothing to do with 'success'. Like Cardiff are doing.
Aus Fox Posted 17 June 2014 Posted 17 June 2014 Harry.. The gist of this argument is that Cardiff are being 'unfair' in some way and therefore certain people hope they fail because of it. Football is FULL of unfair situations, non-level playing fields and exploitation of situations. Pearson has controlled matters at Leicester City, but we still got promoted having paid millions of pounds for the likes of Drinkwater, Wood and Vardy. Nugent was our top goal-scorer, but we were paying him how much in terms of weekly wages? How did that make the likes of Barnsley, Yeovil, Bournemouth feel, do you imagine? Do you genuinely believe that we were promoted on the back of some 'level playing field' in the Championship? Of course we werent. Cardiff can exploit an unfair system. Slate the system, not the club who exploit it. THAT would make sense. Because everyone is doing it does that make it fair? For the record I don't blame Cardiff, it's the system that is broken and withy the money and power premier league clubs have it's only going to get worse. Unless genuine football fans have the voices heard. If something is wrong we need to make it clear that it needs changing. Parachute payments were introduced to reduce the financial burden on clubs relegated to the championship, ensuring they could still compete while having to pay ridiculous premier league wages. When a club pays 9 million for one player, whilst receiving these payments it has to be looked at as not working. Clubs now should be putting relegation clauses into every contract and not being stupid with the millions they get when they are up in the first place, not crying poor when thy have agreed long contracts on high wages. We have been as guilty as anyone in the past, however when we paid big money for the likes of Akinbadbuy, wise etc on big contracts we were an established premier league team and thought those investments would take us to the next level, the gamble failed and we ended in administration. To take that gamble after relegation is reckless to say the least. The Sven era was reckless on out part also, am although we all enjoyed the ride we could all see where it was leading if he had stayed any longer.
Mark_w Posted 17 June 2014 Posted 17 June 2014 I think you have the wrong idea of what a level playing field is. It isn't about everyone being equal, it's about competing on the same terms i.e. spending within your means. There has to be some inequality of there'd be no competition. How do Yeovil feel? Doesn't matter. We're able to spend more because of our size and success - we've earnt that right. Seeing as we appear to have spent within our FFP limits I'd have to say that yes we were get promoted on the back of a level playing field in the Championship. I can't quite believe I'm on Col's side in argument with you, but that's absolute horseshit. Why should Manchester United and Liverpool continue to dominate English football, with no chance of anyone being able to compete with them, just because they've done well historically? How is that in any way fair? How dull would football be if that was the case? Financial 'Fair Play' rules should not be focused on keeping the historically dominant sides at the top of the pyramid, or us above Yeovil. There absolutely needs to be something in place to stop clubs spending in a way that risks their future, but if a Man City type scenario happens at another club and they can show they're investing their money sensibly without risking the future of the football club, then they shouldn't be shackled just because the club isn't historically a powerhouse. Or because other clubs didn't get the same investment. I support Leicester City, and I'm not going to accept that I'll always be watching a Premier League/Championship yo-yo team just because that's what we traditionally are. I'm going to dream about seeing us win the Premier League, your idea of a level playing field basically ensures that can never happen because we'll never have the fan base and revenue to do what Man City have done. Edit: And if you think we were promoted on the back of a level playing field or that there is or ever will be one at this level in English football then you're absolutely kidding yourself.
Harry - LCFC Posted 18 June 2014 Posted 18 June 2014 That's shite I'm afraid. We've been able to spend more because we have rich owners. 15 million in the Sven era. Nothing to do with 'success'. Like Cardiff are doing. The reason you think it's shite is because we're talking about different things. I agree, you're right to say that the amount we spent under Sven was not the result of our size. But I wasn't talking about that. Right now we're operating within our FFP limits (apparently, at least) and IMO that means we can't be accused of misbehaving in this season. I can't quite believe I'm on Col's side in argument with you, but that's absolute horseshit. Why should Manchester United and Liverpool continue to dominate English football, with no chance of anyone being able to compete with them, just because they've done well historically? How is that in any way fair? How dull would football be if that was the case? Financial 'Fair Play' rules should not be focused on keeping the historically dominant sides at the top of the pyramid, or us above Yeovil. There absolutely needs to be something in place to stop clubs spending in a way that risks their future, but if a Man City type scenario happens at another club and they can show they're investing their money sensibly without risking the future of the football club, then they shouldn't be shackled just because the club isn't historically a powerhouse. Or because other clubs didn't get the same investment. I support Leicester City, and I'm not going to accept that I'll always be watching a Premier League/Championship yo-yo team just because that's what we traditionally are. I'm going to dream about seeing us win the Premier League, your idea of a level playing field basically ensures that can never happen because we'll never have the fan base and revenue to do what Man City have done. Edit: And if you think we were promoted on the back of a level playing field or that there is or ever will be one at this level in English football then you're absolutely kidding yourself. As far as I can tell what City are doing isn't what I'd call sensible investment. They're relying permanently on cash that isn't theirs to artificially elevate themselves upwards. Real investment in the form of improving infrastructure, making the club run better or giving the manager a temporary boost in funds is fine but I think using debt-spending as a permanent fix is wrong. I do agree though that having a rigid hierarchy in our league system would be a bad thing. But I think that could be avoided by reducing the financial rewards at the top level. That's how it used to be before the PL when we didn't have the cemented top seven that we do now.
MPH Posted 18 June 2014 Posted 18 June 2014 i'd be surprised if its 9 million all up front. Probably 3-4 up front and the rest based on appearances, goals and promotion. still too much, though
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 19 June 2014 Posted 19 June 2014 ****ing parachute payments are an absolute disgrace. I agree, but I wont be saying that if we get relegated.
Guest Col city fan Posted 19 June 2014 Posted 19 June 2014 I agree, but I wont be saying that if we get relegated. Nor, I imagine, would 99.9% of people on here. The payments would be accepted happily if it meant we went straight back up.
Aj1927 Posted 25 June 2014 Posted 25 June 2014 This was a media generated report. Cardiff bid £5m in January and looked like they would get him but the Crazy Italian blocked the move. It's just lazy Jurnos in finest form. Why would Cardiff Bid £9m after purchasing Guerra,Macheda & Le Fondre? Aswell as already having Maynard,Campbell,Kenwyne and Mason? Granted many of the current will go to other clubs,Fraizer Campbell will join you for a bargain under a million..
ScouseFox Posted 25 June 2014 Posted 25 June 2014 Why would Cardiff Bid £9m after purchasing Guerra,Macheda & Le Fondre? because everyone involved in your club is fúcking stupid
Grandad. Posted 25 June 2014 Posted 25 June 2014 Why would Cardiff Bid £9m after purchasing Guerra,Macheda & Le Fondre? Because you have signed a Spanish journey man and someone who scored an important goal for Man United 5 years ago. Le Fondre is a meh signing. Take him or leave him.
Aj1927 Posted 25 June 2014 Posted 25 June 2014 Guerra will be a surprise package this season. Out of the three it's Macheda that's most "Meh" for me. But he is still young and didn't do to bad at a Shit Brum last year. Who knows he could flourish in an attacking successful side,or not. Coming from a side that just signed Upson... Think the Journeyman comment is a bit rich... Know a top centre half available for the correct price... Contact Steven at Cardiff City ... 👌
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.