WHO Poll

paulon 11:42 Tue Jul 25
Sullivan on Talksport
Coming up now

What could possibly go wrong?

Replies - Newest Posts First (Show In Chronological Order)

Sven Roeder 1:51 Sat Jul 29
Re: Sullivan on Talksport
Financial Fair Play would be saying every club can have a maximum wage bill of £100m pa and a maximum of 30 professionals over 18 under contract at any point.
Plus any player out on loan has their total wages included in the lending and borrowing clubs totals.

What they have now as said is just a scam to pull the ladder up by the current big clubs.

cornish 1:42 Sat Jul 29
Re: Sullivan on Talksport
FFP helps the big clubs end of.who ever came up with this rule is an idiot.

Infidel 12:45 Sat Jul 29
Re: Sullivan on Talksport

FFP is a sham.

First, it entrenches the advantages of big clubs against smaller clubs, which can't be right.

Second, owners can get around it by artificially inflating their club's revenues, as the fascist dictator - sorry "Sheikh" - of Abu Dhabi did with the naming rights of the Man City stadium. He used his own airline to sponsor his football club's stadium.

FFP should be scrapped. There's no need to cap wage bills. Let them rip - if owners want to pay a fortune for the services of star players then so be it.

In fact the market for football players is very close to a perfect market - there is abundant information about players (you can watch them pay every week) and healthy competition on both the supply side and the demand side. A few egregious exceptions aside, the wages the players earn is a true reflection of the value they create.

Mike Oxsaw 12:42 Sat Jul 29
Re: Sullivan on Talksport
It'll all stop when companies decide the advertising spends don't produce an adequate return on investment and start pulling out of the most "lucrative" slots in and around a given game - there may, however, be some "churn" with a short-list of others ready to "step up to the premium (spit!) line".

Once the decline starts, it will be the buyers and not the sellers that more and more often dictate the advertising slot price, and any company has an obligation to it's shareholders to drive the best bargain, and the natural price drift will be downwards.

That will generally happen when (UK &) European football no longer holds the (rest of the) world in enthral, and may well take 10 or 20 years, as we all know how strong "Brand UK" or "Brand Europe" is across many world markets and how easy it is to sucker Johnnie Foreigner in with a bit of slick advertising and glitter.

moorethanjustananon 12:18 Sat Jul 29
Re: Sullivan on Talksport
Interesting times ahead across the whole game.

I'm not an accountant so I'd struggle to truely bottom out whether the clubs finances are being well managed or if we're over / under spending.

But the way the game is going, clubs spending big big money on players (we'll likely have 3 players on at least £100k by the end of the window - Hernandez, Arnautovic & Lanzini) its all got to go pop at some point?

Unless FFP really is keeping clubs in check? I sense most fans till their eyes when that gets trotted out as if it's some sort of excuse but in reality if there is an upper limit to what we can spend on wages then so be it.

Infidel 11:59 Sat Jul 29
Re: Sullivan on Talksport
Gavros that's a bit misleading.

It is true that the capacity to borrow is in theory greater today because of the SKY TV revenues. But as I said before football is an almost unique industry in which the income generated by the companies in it goes almost entirely to the labour force (the players, and increasingly, their agents).

Note that it's only the wages and agents fees that are relevant here. The transfer fees are both a cost and a source of revenue for clubs because they are buying and selling, so let's assume that evens out over time.

There is every reason to suppose that the tidal wave of cash sweeping over the premier league will end up in the pockets of the players and agents and therefore not be available for new stadiums, training grounds etc.

I would argue that we are already seeing that inflation now.

To take one example, Zlatan Ibrahimovic was reportedly on £350,000 a week at Man Utd. That's £18m a year, a significant proportion of Man Utd's SKY revenues given to just one player.

Even outside the 20 or so elite players - those able to change a game on their own - salaries of £100,000 a week (£5 m a year) are absolutely commonplace. In fact it's one of the most common beefs of the ordinary fan. If you have 25 players on that kind of salary your SKY TV money is gone.

And that's Tottenham's problem. They have an aspiration to win the Premier League and be a top European club long term. They can't do that with their current squad, excellent though it is - they will need to buy some star names to get to the next level, but the cost of the stadium is a major barrier to that. They can't splash £10-20m on the wages of a single player.

They have borrowed £750m to build that stadium which means one way or another not far off a billion pounds has to be set aside from operating cash flow over the next 10 years to meet the interest and periodic capital repayments. That is money that can't be used for players wages.

I don't know what Tottenham's plans and beyond lighting a candle in church every Sunday for their immediate relegation to the conference and bankruptcy I don't much care. But I do know that the maths are such that Tottenham will struggle to stay among the elite over the next few years as they meet the commitments they have made with their lenders..

Saul Bollox 10:55 Sat Jul 29
Re: Sullivan on Talksport
I have written to Haringey council to suggest that the safety certificate should restrict the attendance at spurs to 50,000 for the first couple of years as this will give the authorities time to iron out the teething problems like crowd control, segregation and traffic issues.

Why the fuck they allowed them to build such a big stadium in the middle of a residential area already suffering from traffic problems is beyond me. They should have made them move to somewhere outside the M25

Gavros 6:00 Fri Jul 28
Re: Sullivan on Talksport
borrowing against a stadium is yesterdays news given income streams. We could borrow far more against income.

Also we pay rent but it only covers maintenance and then a bit.

The only poor part of the deal for me is the naming rights, which could be very valuable. Mind you if you have a Citeh type relationship owners can do all sorts of things to launder money into the club and avoid the rules.

Trevor B 5:50 Fri Jul 28
Re: Sullivan on Talksport
How has Sugar failed??

oioi 5:43 Fri Jul 28
Re: Sullivan on Talksport
Look at the bigger picture. Bully boy businessmen need others to fail. It's an ego thing. They got an amazing deal. That's not meant to happen in his world.

Trevor B 5:38 Fri Jul 28
Re: Sullivan on Talksport
Yeah you're right oioi, our owners are laughing at Sugar over a cost which has nothing to do with him....

oioi 5:35 Fri Jul 28
Re: Sullivan on Talksport
Johnson 5:27 Fri Jul 28

Proves how much they wanted the location. White Hart Lane is a shit hole area. I hate to say it but the stadium is looking good.

Northern Sold 5:28 Fri Jul 28

None of the businessmen give a shit what you think. Money rules. Upton Park has gone, enjoy your memories. Sad but true.

Northern Sold 5:30 Fri Jul 28
Re: Sullivan on Talksport
Keep believing that dream oioi

oioi 5:28 Fri Jul 28
Re: Sullivan on Talksport
No, I think he is 100% Spurs, which he is....

Northern Sold 5:28 Fri Jul 28
Re: Sullivan on Talksport

Reply oioi 5:01 Fri Jul 28
Re: Sullivan on Talksport
£800 million to build a new stadium. We got ours free. Gold & Sullivan are laughing at Levy & Sugar.

... and what the fuck is that to do with they have a fantastic purpose built football stadium... and we don't.... do you honestly think there is one fan of ours that gives a fuck that we got that shit hole for virtually free???

Infidel... yeah that maybe... but the daft thing is that their 1st XI shits all over our 1st XI man for man so maybe they don't need to dig into their pockets... If we had their squad who would we buy ??? Unfortunately for all of us that mob are pretty well settled ...

Johnson 5:27 Fri Jul 28
Re: Sullivan on Talksport
oioi 4:21 Fri Jul 28

Spurs said they would knock it down and start again so NOTHING like the deal our three shysters were after.

It would have cost them MORE than what they are doing now I expect.

Trevor B 5:22 Fri Jul 28
Re: Sullivan on Talksport
Yeah, you thought he was still an owner.

Joe Lewis is though.

oioi 5:18 Fri Jul 28
Re: Sullivan on Talksport
Be patient, all issues will get sorted.

Of course they laugh at Sugar, it's personal. Sugar is 100% Spurs.

Trevor B 5:11 Fri Jul 28
Re: Sullivan on Talksport
We didn't 'get' a stadium for free, we rent it, we do not own the land, we do not own the stadium, we get nothing from matchday apart from ticket sales, we cannot borrow against it, we cannot improve it, it is not built for football, our 'branding' has to be removed for other uses again which we do not profit from, many seats are miles away from the pitch, in all it's fucking shit really.

spurs fans will be laughing when their state of the art purpose built stadium is completed.

also, why would they be laughing at alan sugar? he hasn't had a stake in spurs for over a decade.

oioi 5:10 Fri Jul 28
Re: Sullivan on Talksport
Seating will be sorted. Safe standing might not happen. Celtic are doing their best to screw that up too.

Infidel 5:09 Fri Jul 28
Re: Sullivan on Talksport

Tottenham are saying they don't need to spend this Summer because they have such a fantastic young team.


But maybe it's also because the stadium has put a squeeze on spending.

Arsenal famously spent 10 years paying off the Emirates and not buying big name players.

So yes, they are very upset that they didn't get the OS for free. Building that new stadium is going to constrain their ambitions on the pitch for quite a few years.

Page 1 - Next

Copyright 2006 WHO.NET | Powered by: