The mancityfans.net football forum

Piccsnumberoneblue wrote:Have Keys and Gray been talking about this for long? I can't remember anybody from the main stream media talking like that except for Martin Samuel and David Conn.
I so want FFP ruled illegal so all those whining twats have to eat their words.
I also wonder if the likes of Newcastle and Everton fans are waking up to it yet? It wasn't long ago I was arguing on a break with two Geordies who seemed to seriously believe their opening gambit of "something had to be done to stop City"
Just the reply "why" seemed to confuse them, and they really couldn't get their heads around FFP being bad news for them. Strange really, it seems so obvious.

phips wrote:while i agree that its bullshit as is, shouldn't we have something like this in place? so we avoid stuff like what happened to Portsmouth...

john68 wrote:Phips,

Throughout the history of football, clubs have risen and fallen. what has happened at Leeds, Portsmouth and almost at Chelsea is nothing new. Over the years there is a long list of clubs who have failed, often (possibly usually) because of financial mismanagement. It is worth noting that had the FFP regs in its current format been in place, it would not have stopped those clubs suffering the same fate.

You may well be right that something should be in place but please note that currently, debt is not considered. Many of those leading elite clubs are in huge debt but that is fine. City on the other hand have no debt, can afford to invest and in all other areas (youth, community etc) are streets ahead of other clubs in abiding by UeFA's principles.

Socrates wrote:

john68 wrote:Phips,

Throughout the history of football, clubs have risen and fallen. what has happened at Leeds, Portsmouth and almost at Chelsea is nothing new. Over the years there is a long list of clubs who have failed, often (possibly usually) because of financial mismanagement. It is worth noting that had the FFP regs in its current format been in place, it would not have stopped those clubs suffering the same fate.

You may well be right that something should be in place but please note that currently, debt is not considered. Many of those leading elite clubs are in huge debt but that is fine. City on the other hand have no debt, can afford to invest and in all other areas (youth, community etc) are streets ahead of other clubs in abiding by UeFA's principles.

Absolutely right, sustainability rules could have been introduced but they weren't! Some good rules could still be put in place if their were a mood to do so. Maximum debt:turnover ratio rules and/or a maximum to interest and finance payments as a percentage of debt would be an excellent rule. The rule on investment should be simple: Directors' and Shareholders' loans have to be repaid within a time limit or turned into equity. To limit equity investment is bizarre. Limit debt and you limit the risk of unfunded investment.

Socrates wrote:

john68 wrote:Phips,

Throughout the history of football, clubs have risen and fallen. what has happened at Leeds, Portsmouth and almost at Chelsea is nothing new. Over the years there is a long list of clubs who have failed, often (possibly usually) because of financial mismanagement. It is worth noting that had the FFP regs in its current format been in place, it would not have stopped those clubs suffering the same fate.

You may well be right that something should be in place but please note that currently, debt is not considered. Many of those leading elite clubs are in huge debt but that is fine. City on the other hand have no debt, can afford to invest and in all other areas (youth, community etc) are streets ahead of other clubs in abiding by UeFA's principles.

Absolutely right, sustainability rules could have been introduced but they weren't! Some good rules could still be put in place if their were a mood to do so. Maximum debt:turnover ratio rules and/or a maximum to interest and finance payments as a percentage of debt would be an excellent rule. The rule on investment should be simple: Directors' and Shareholders' loans have to be repaid within a time limit or turned into equity. To limit equity investment is bizarre. Limit debt and you limit the risk of unfunded investment.

DoomMerchant wrote:

Socrates wrote:

john68 wrote:Phips,

Throughout the history of football, clubs have risen and fallen. what has happened at Leeds, Portsmouth and almost at Chelsea is nothing new. Over the years there is a long list of clubs who have failed, often (possibly usually) because of financial mismanagement. It is worth noting that had the FFP regs in its current format been in place, it would not have stopped those clubs suffering the same fate.

You may well be right that something should be in place but please note that currently, debt is not considered. Many of those leading elite clubs are in huge debt but that is fine. City on the other hand have no debt, can afford to invest and in all other areas (youth, community etc) are streets ahead of other clubs in abiding by UeFA's principles.

Absolutely right, sustainability rules could have been introduced but they weren't! Some good rules could still be put in place if their were a mood to do so. Maximum debt:turnover ratio rules and/or a maximum to interest and finance payments as a percentage of debt would be an excellent rule. The rule on investment should be simple: Directors' and Shareholders' loans have to be repaid within a time limit or turned into equity. To limit equity investment is bizarre. Limit debt and you limit the risk of unfunded investment.

so....that's your story, now?

Interesting.

cheers

Socrates wrote:

DoomMerchant wrote:

Socrates wrote:

john68 wrote:Phips,

Throughout the history of football, clubs have risen and fallen. what has happened at Leeds, Portsmouth and almost at Chelsea is nothing new. Over the years there is a long list of clubs who have failed, often (possibly usually) because of financial mismanagement. It is worth noting that had the FFP regs in its current format been in place, it would not have stopped those clubs suffering the same fate.

You may well be right that something should be in place but please note that currently, debt is not considered. Many of those leading elite clubs are in huge debt but that is fine. City on the other hand have no debt, can afford to invest and in all other areas (youth, community etc) are streets ahead of other clubs in abiding by UeFA's principles.

Absolutely right, sustainability rules could have been introduced but they weren't! Some good rules could still be put in place if their were a mood to do so. Maximum debt:turnover ratio rules and/or a maximum to interest and finance payments as a percentage of debt would be an excellent rule. The rule on investment should be simple: Directors' and Shareholders' loans have to be repaid within a time limit or turned into equity. To limit equity investment is bizarre. Limit debt and you limit the risk of unfunded investment.

so....that's your story, now?

Interesting.

cheers

My story? My position has always been that I'm against FFP both with my City hat on and in terms of general fairness too but realistic that it would impact on us and that the club would have to prepare for that. That goes right back to me arguing that the club couldn't afford to "wait and see" with Leslie and needed to go for a proven coach quickly and spend money faster than desirable early on and more carefully later. My position has never changed.
I hope it gets chucked out or at least modified, meantime it HAS impacted on us in many ways and anyone who thinks it hasn't is wearing blinkers.