Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
FFP 12:52 - Feb 26 with 2597 viewssully49

Fifa's Financial Fair Play rules could be scrapped if a football agent wins a landmark Brussels court case. (Independent)
Does this open up the net value of our squad and allow all teams to buy addition players with impunity? This won't make any difference to the top teams in the PL as they play by a different rules to everyone else. This could open up a whole new transfer possibility, either to buy or on loan. This is like taking blinkers off a racehorse and will widen our view once the transfer reopens.
We now have to hope that the rumors that HJ and other board members are cashing in their shares and walking away, this will probably be disastrous for us with record tv money be the highest ever becoming available.

Poll: Is there any way for Lee Trundle to play in this squad?

0
FFP on 06:39 - Feb 27 with 648 viewsItchySphincter

FFP on 04:47 - Feb 27 by dgt73

Lol. No footballing governing body can override the law of the land.


......and what law do you refer to?
[Post edited 27 Feb 2015 13:04]

‘……. like a moth to Itchy’s flame ……’
Poll: Planet Swans or Planet Swans? Which one's you favourite.

0
FFP on 13:00 - Feb 27 with 613 viewsNookiejack

FFP on 06:26 - Feb 27 by jack247

The potential advantages of us not having it though are surely vastly outweighed by the fact that it is basically a safety net for established premier league clubs vs the likes of the clubs I mentioned above.

I can see why not having it is good for football in general and I can see what it is good for individual shareholders who may be looking to sell. I can't see why it is good for the Swans while we are a well run premier league team though.


How about (and a bit of an extreme scenario) say 10 Championship clubs make the gamble to achieve PL status - without FFP. It comes off for 3 of them (which then might lead to our relegation if they end up being better than us) - whereas other 7 go bust.

With FFP none of the 10 can actually make the gamble in the first place
- so we maintain our current competitive advantage.
0
FFP on 13:13 - Feb 27 with 607 viewsNookiejack

FFP on 13:00 - Feb 27 by Nookiejack

How about (and a bit of an extreme scenario) say 10 Championship clubs make the gamble to achieve PL status - without FFP. It comes off for 3 of them (which then might lead to our relegation if they end up being better than us) - whereas other 7 go bust.

With FFP none of the 10 can actually make the gamble in the first place
- so we maintain our current competitive advantage.


......the 10 Champiojnship clubs could do this over a few seasons - 3 of the 10 eventually getting ahead of us. It doesn't have to be done in 1 season.
0
FFP on 13:33 - Feb 27 with 599 viewsNookiejack

You would think it would be silly for our Board to oppose FFP - as the rules currently stand and given our current Financial strength (which is a credit to them).

Any opposition to it likely to be due to fact FFP limits the pool of potential buyers.

Still think FFP doesn't stop leveraged finance buyers - so current pool is quite deep and think a leveraged finance buy-out would create a lot of risk with regards to the club 's long term future and holding on to Trust's 21.1% stake.
0
FFP on 16:13 - Feb 27 with 584 viewsjack247

FFP on 13:00 - Feb 27 by Nookiejack

How about (and a bit of an extreme scenario) say 10 Championship clubs make the gamble to achieve PL status - without FFP. It comes off for 3 of them (which then might lead to our relegation if they end up being better than us) - whereas other 7 go bust.

With FFP none of the 10 can actually make the gamble in the first place
- so we maintain our current competitive advantage.


That's my point exactly
0
FFP on 20:36 - Feb 27 with 565 viewsdgt73

FFP on 06:39 - Feb 27 by ItchySphincter

......and what law do you refer to?
[Post edited 27 Feb 2015 13:04]


There are a few.....articles 56-60 :- free movement of capital is one possibility I'm told. The one that is being challenged tho is 101.2 of the EU treaty.
[Post edited 27 Feb 2015 20:43]

Poll: Have Swansea got some of the most negative w@nkers following them

0
FFP on 21:33 - Feb 27 with 541 viewsDJack

What I'd love to see is the European Court say that footballers are just people engaging in a pastime (with fees provided) and "normal" trade rules don't apply . Then I'd like them to add "Agents go feck yerselves", before sticking a microscope up FIFA's arris.

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan

0
FFP on 11:43 - Feb 28 with 509 viewsmorningstar

FFP on 22:28 - Feb 26 by Tom1912

It's all of them.

You may think they don't apply to us, but the club don't want options removed on how they can operate.


The reason the club voted against it was because they felt it didn't go far enough.

Only winner of Planetswans Petulant Diva award.
Poll: Southampton home next. How many points

0
Login to get fewer ads

FFP on 11:58 - Feb 28 with 505 viewsjack247

FFP on 11:43 - Feb 28 by morningstar

The reason the club voted against it was because they felt it didn't go far enough.


That makes sense and I'm glad. The only other reason I could think of was shareholders putting personal interests first. Restores a bit of faith.
0
FFP on 12:03 - Feb 28 with 503 viewsItchySphincter

FFP on 11:43 - Feb 28 by morningstar

The reason the club voted against it was because they felt it didn't go far enough.


Simply not true. I remember Huw being interviewed on Talksport on the day of the vote. They felt with thee FPP their hands were tied and it also gave an advantage to bigger clubs.

‘……. like a moth to Itchy’s flame ……’
Poll: Planet Swans or Planet Swans? Which one's you favourite.

0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2024