chicken_badge
Gudni Bergsson
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
Bullet - great post on previous page mate. =D> Point well made!
Bullet - great post on previous page mate. =D> Point well made!
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Financial Fair Play
- Thread starter NewmarketYid
- Start date
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
I tend to look at these things from a very Tottenham-centric perspective. I recognize the arguments about this kind of regulation stifling investment, and preventing smaller clubs having a shot at the top, and cede that they're quite valid.
However, not enough thought is given to clubs like us; clubs that have tried to live within their means, and been effectively punished for it by having a super-injected petro-club blast past them without a second glance towards such things as 'financial stability' and 'prudence', among others. Everton, Arsenal, us. In our case, we've been fudged over not once, but twice, by this happening. With Chelsea in 2001 and City in 2008. We could, and arguably should, have been where Chelsea are now, had that investment not blown us out of the water. To compete with these super-charged clubs, we're having to painstakingly build a 56,000 seater stadium that is siphoning away a disproportionate amount of our finances and leaving us to hunt for bargains like Dempsey and Holtby.
all the good decisions Levy's made, all the wise strategies and careful investment, have only served to keep us on the fringes of the elite. Why is that the case? Well, in United and Arsenal's case, their commercial and matchday revenue dwarfs ours, but those are things that can be remedied by careful management and considered investment, two things we're very good at. But knowing that there is no way on Earth we can compete with the Sheikh and the oligarch,that every move we make, they can make with a tenth of the effort, thought and concern, that every good decision we have ever made can't compete with their endless petro-dollars.....that is more depressing than any thought of United or Arsenal using their earned revenues to generate success.
The Sheikh and Abramovich can fund new stadiums almost without thought. We have taken ten years to get around to even the preliminary work. The Sheikh and Abramovich can spend 30 million on transfer fees and 25 million on wages for just one player without blinking. We negotiated for weeks just to get Holtby in for 1.5 million quid, and refused to spend anything on just one striker on deadline day.
That is galling. So much more so than this scare-mongering about a La-Liga situation or United becoming Bayern. Clubs shouldn't have to dream of shady oil money, shouldn't have to rely on gargantuan investments by foreign owners to guarantee success, shouldn't effectively say 'fudge the rest of you' and spend their way to the very top.
Clubs should play by the same fudging rules. And if that means a duopoly at the very top, so be it, it'll make things more interesting below that and might bring some sanity back into a game that sorely needs it.
This isn't about City or Chelsea. Those two clubs have already established themselves at the top, for better or worse. For all my optimism, the Etihad deal probably has enough legal weight behind it to stand it court, if it comes to that. And the investments the Sheikh is making will pretty much guarantee City's revenues, for the medium term at least. So it's not about them. It's about giving prudent management a chance to gain success, and to prevent any more massive splurges that blast spending teams into contention and drop conservative clubs into oblivion.
Perhaps that's being naive, or perhaps the Liverpools, Uniteds and Arsenals of this world will then rule in perpetuity. But again, would fans rather see their team compete within their limits (but stand an even chance compared to the teams other than the ones above), or hope for an oligarch or Shiekh, but accept the inherent risk of another club winning the lottery and zooming cheerily into the distance while they wave their increasingly pathetic little flag, hoping for an angel investor to come save them?
I tend to look at these things from a very Tottenham-centric perspective. I recognize the arguments about this kind of regulation stifling investment, and preventing smaller clubs having a shot at the top, and cede that they're quite valid.
However, not enough thought is given to clubs like us; clubs that have tried to live within their means, and been effectively punished for it by having a super-injected petro-club blast past them without a second glance towards such things as 'financial stability' and 'prudence', among others. Everton, Arsenal, us. In our case, we've been fudged over not once, but twice, by this happening. With Chelsea in 2001 and City in 2008. We could, and arguably should, have been where Chelsea are now, had that investment not blown us out of the water. To compete with these super-charged clubs, we're having to painstakingly build a 56,000 seater stadium that is siphoning away a disproportionate amount of our finances and leaving us to hunt for bargains like Dempsey and Holtby.
all the good decisions Levy's made, all the wise strategies and careful investment, have only served to keep us on the fringes of the elite. Why is that the case? Well, in United and Arsenal's case, their commercial and matchday revenue dwarfs ours, but those are things that can be remedied by careful management and considered investment, two things we're very good at. But knowing that there is no way on Earth we can compete with the Sheikh and the oligarch,that every move we make, they can make with a tenth of the effort, thought and concern, that every good decision we have ever made can't compete with their endless petro-dollars.....that is more depressing than any thought of United or Arsenal using their earned revenues to generate success.
The Sheikh and Abramovich can fund new stadiums almost without thought. We have taken ten years to get around to even the preliminary work. The Sheikh and Abramovich can spend 30 million on transfer fees and 25 million on wages for just one player without blinking. We negotiated for weeks just to get Holtby in for 1.5 million quid, and refused to spend anything on just one striker on deadline day.
That is galling. So much more so than this scare-mongering about a La-Liga situation or United becoming Bayern. Clubs shouldn't have to dream of shady oil money, shouldn't have to rely on gargantuan investments by foreign owners to guarantee success, shouldn't effectively say 'fudge the rest of you' and spend their way to the very top.
Clubs should play by the same fudging rules. And if that means a duopoly at the very top, so be it, it'll make things more interesting below that and might bring some sanity back into a game that sorely needs it.
This isn't about City or Chelsea. Those two clubs have already established themselves at the top, for better or worse. For all my optimism, the Etihad deal probably has enough legal weight behind it to stand it court, if it comes to that. And the investments the Sheikh is making will pretty much guarantee City's revenues, for the medium term at least. So it's not about them. It's about giving prudent management a chance to gain success, and to prevent any more massive splurges that blast spending teams into contention and drop conservative clubs into oblivion.
Perhaps that's being naive, or perhaps the Liverpools, Uniteds and Arsenals of this world will then rule in perpetuity. But again, would fans rather see their team compete within their limits (but stand an even chance compared to the teams other than the ones above), or hope for an oligarch or Shiekh, but accept the inherent risk of another club winning the lottery and zooming cheerily into the distance while they wave their increasingly pathetic little flag, hoping for an angel investor to come save them?
Spur of the moment
Jimmy Neighbour
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
Capitalism. Deal with it.
Capitalism. Deal with it.
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play
Most of that £120m from ENIC was to buy the club, AFAIK.
My reading of the situation is that Al Fayed and the QPR owners have both pumped more money into their clubs than ENIC have.
For sure Chelsea and City have, hence they have overtaken us, whereas once we were a bigger and more scuccessful club than both of them.
If we allow that ENIC have pumped say £40m in on top of the £80m purchase in return for mre equity, as you say that's nowhere near what the club is worth.
Now some credit for the increase in the club's value has to go to ENIC so fair play to them if they sell up and make a profit. Of course if they want to triple their money or more that could impact on who would buy us, and how much they'd then spend on us.
In the end though it's very difficult about talking about finances when we don't have the facts as fans.
What I do know is we've had the worst trophy haul under ENIC for over 60 years. Further, that some extra investment from them might have reversed that por showing. It might not have as well, of course.
Most of that £120m from ENIC was to buy the club, AFAIK.
My reading of the situation is that Al Fayed and the QPR owners have both pumped more money into their clubs than ENIC have.
For sure Chelsea and City have, hence they have overtaken us, whereas once we were a bigger and more scuccessful club than both of them.
If we allow that ENIC have pumped say £40m in on top of the £80m purchase in return for mre equity, as you say that's nowhere near what the club is worth.
Now some credit for the increase in the club's value has to go to ENIC so fair play to them if they sell up and make a profit. Of course if they want to triple their money or more that could impact on who would buy us, and how much they'd then spend on us.
In the end though it's very difficult about talking about finances when we don't have the facts as fans.
What I do know is we've had the worst trophy haul under ENIC for over 60 years. Further, that some extra investment from them might have reversed that por showing. It might not have as well, of course.
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
I thought capitalism was about making money, not throwing it away?
I thought capitalism was about making money, not throwing it away?
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
In sport. Capitalism in sport. Isn't sport something we used to do or watch when we wanted to get away from capitalism?
And if it really is true capitalism, I suggest you, and everyone else on this forum, buy a United, Madrid, Barca or Bayern jersey, and get to learning the words to 'Glory Glory Man United', because they are indubitably much, much more successful than us and thus deserve our patronage far more than relatively uncompetitive Tottenham do. Same thing applies (perhaps even more so) to the fans of clubs like Notts County, Wrexham and Dagenham and Redbridge; let them all go buy the 'product' offered by United.
Sports cannot be measured in purely capitalist terms, because it is neither rational, logical or possessed of the profit motive.
In sport. Capitalism in sport. Isn't sport something we used to do or watch when we wanted to get away from capitalism?
And if it really is true capitalism, I suggest you, and everyone else on this forum, buy a United, Madrid, Barca or Bayern jersey, and get to learning the words to 'Glory Glory Man United', because they are indubitably much, much more successful than us and thus deserve our patronage far more than relatively uncompetitive Tottenham do. Same thing applies (perhaps even more so) to the fans of clubs like Notts County, Wrexham and Dagenham and Redbridge; let them all go buy the 'product' offered by United.
Sports cannot be measured in purely capitalist terms, because it is neither rational, logical or possessed of the profit motive.
Last edited:
Steed Train
Clive Wilson
BOOM!
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
Funnily enough, the biggest free-marketers in the world - my very own U. S. of A. - seem to be much more socialist in ideals than other countries when it comes to sport. I don't doubt that our franchises are ridiculously packaged and consumerist and you have plenty of wealthy owners running around, but our obsession with fairness and giving the underdog a chance really comes through in sport.
Funnily enough, the biggest free-marketers in the world - my very own U. S. of A. - seem to be much more socialist in ideals than other countries when it comes to sport. I don't doubt that our franchises are ridiculously packaged and consumerist and you have plenty of wealthy owners running around, but our obsession with fairness and giving the underdog a chance really comes through in sport.
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
Premier League clubs will face a points deduction if they breach new spending controls, chief executive Richard Scudamore has confirmed.
The 20 club chairmen agreed to two significant controls on Thursday - to limit players' wage bills from next season and to longer-term measures that will restrict the amount of losses clubs can make to £105million over three years.
Clubs whose total wage bill is more than £52m will only be allowed to increase their wages by £4m per season for the next three years, but the cap does not cover extra money coming in from increases in commercial or matchday income.
Scudamore said: "As all things in our rulebook you will subject to a disciplinary commission.
"The clubs understand that if people break the £105m we will look for the top-end ultimate sanction range - a points deduction.
"Normally we stay silent on sanctions as the commission has a free range but clearly if there is a material breach of that rule we will be asking the commission to consider top-end sanctions."
Scudamore said there would be an "absolute prohibition" on clubs reporting losses of more than £105m over the next three years with the first sanctions possible in 2016.
Of the 20 clubs in the top flight, only Emirates Marketing Project, Chelsea and Liverpool have reported losses of more than £105m over the last three years, according to the most up-to-date published accounts.
Scudamore said that the measures would mean it will take longer for benefactor owners to achieve success, but that it would still be possible.
He said: "The balance we have tried to strike is that a new owner can still invest a decent amount of money to improve their club but they are not going to be throwing hundreds and hundreds of millions in a very short period of time.
"While it has worked for a couple of clubs in the last 10 years, and I am not critical of that, if that's going to be done in the future it's going to have to be over a slightly longer term without the huge losses being made.
"I think at £105m you can still build a very decent club with substantial owner funding but you have to do it over time, you can't do it in a season."
Chelsea won the Premier League two years after Roman Abramovich's takeover, and Emirates Marketing Project's title success came three years after Sheikh Mansour's takeover.
Any club making any loss of over £5m a year will have guarantee those losses against the owner's assets.
"In some ways that's the most significant part; this is a three-year rolling system of secure funding - it's one year at the moment," added Scudamore.
The ceiling when the wage increase restrictions kick in will be £52m next season, £56m the following year and £60m in 2015-16. Only seven of the current top-flight clubs would be under that ceiling at the moment.
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11670/8478278/Premier-League-clubs-facing-points-deduction-if-they-breach-new-spending-controls
Premier League clubs will face a points deduction if they breach new spending controls, chief executive Richard Scudamore has confirmed.
The 20 club chairmen agreed to two significant controls on Thursday - to limit players' wage bills from next season and to longer-term measures that will restrict the amount of losses clubs can make to £105million over three years.
Clubs whose total wage bill is more than £52m will only be allowed to increase their wages by £4m per season for the next three years, but the cap does not cover extra money coming in from increases in commercial or matchday income.
Scudamore said: "As all things in our rulebook you will subject to a disciplinary commission.
"The clubs understand that if people break the £105m we will look for the top-end ultimate sanction range - a points deduction.
"Normally we stay silent on sanctions as the commission has a free range but clearly if there is a material breach of that rule we will be asking the commission to consider top-end sanctions."
Scudamore said there would be an "absolute prohibition" on clubs reporting losses of more than £105m over the next three years with the first sanctions possible in 2016.
Of the 20 clubs in the top flight, only Emirates Marketing Project, Chelsea and Liverpool have reported losses of more than £105m over the last three years, according to the most up-to-date published accounts.
Scudamore said that the measures would mean it will take longer for benefactor owners to achieve success, but that it would still be possible.
He said: "The balance we have tried to strike is that a new owner can still invest a decent amount of money to improve their club but they are not going to be throwing hundreds and hundreds of millions in a very short period of time.
"While it has worked for a couple of clubs in the last 10 years, and I am not critical of that, if that's going to be done in the future it's going to have to be over a slightly longer term without the huge losses being made.
"I think at £105m you can still build a very decent club with substantial owner funding but you have to do it over time, you can't do it in a season."
Chelsea won the Premier League two years after Roman Abramovich's takeover, and Emirates Marketing Project's title success came three years after Sheikh Mansour's takeover.
Any club making any loss of over £5m a year will have guarantee those losses against the owner's assets.
"In some ways that's the most significant part; this is a three-year rolling system of secure funding - it's one year at the moment," added Scudamore.
The ceiling when the wage increase restrictions kick in will be £52m next season, £56m the following year and £60m in 2015-16. Only seven of the current top-flight clubs would be under that ceiling at the moment.
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11670/8478278/Premier-League-clubs-facing-points-deduction-if-they-breach-new-spending-controls
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
It's more a product than a sport over there though. Leagues are closed shops and they need to stay competitive to draw and maintain fans' interest. There have been several attempts to launch leagues to compete with the NFL for instance. Then you have two businesses competing for the same market. The way football is structured across the globe that's not a possibility. Instead it's the clubs that compete for market shares. To make it comparable you'd have to let every city in the US that wants to have their own team. Then there would be 100+ franchises competing against each other in a tiered league system.
It's more a product than a sport over there though. Leagues are closed shops and they need to stay competitive to draw and maintain fans' interest. There have been several attempts to launch leagues to compete with the NFL for instance. Then you have two businesses competing for the same market. The way football is structured across the globe that's not a possibility. Instead it's the clubs that compete for market shares. To make it comparable you'd have to let every city in the US that wants to have their own team. Then there would be 100+ franchises competing against each other in a tiered league system.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
Canada and their bloody socialists. Sapped the entrepreneurial spirit right outta me.
Appreciated.
Canada and their bloody socialists. Sapped the entrepreneurial spirit right outta me.
Appreciated.
Modric THFC
Jimmy McCormick
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/...ier-league-new-financial-rules-explained.html
The Premier League clubs on Thursday agreed in principle to a system of enhanced financial regulations, which are designed to further improve the sustainability of clubs.
Here is more information to the agreed regulations:
Long-Term Sustainability Regulation
From the 2013/14 season Premier League clubs cannot make a loss in excess of £105m aggregated across seasons 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16.
Any club that makes a loss up to that limit will be subject to a tighter regulatory regime that includes:
- Secure owner funding for three years ahead
- Increased future financial information over the next three seasons.
Short-Term Cost Control Measure
Premier League clubs are restricted in terms the amount of increased PL Central Funds that can be used to increase current player wage costs to the tune of:
2013/14: £4m
2014/14: £8m
2015/16: £12m
The Short Term Cost Control measure applies only to clubs with a player wage bill in excess of £52m in 2013/14, £56m in 2014/15 and £60m in 2015/16.
http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/...ier-league-new-financial-rules-explained.html
The Premier League clubs on Thursday agreed in principle to a system of enhanced financial regulations, which are designed to further improve the sustainability of clubs.
Here is more information to the agreed regulations:
Long-Term Sustainability Regulation
From the 2013/14 season Premier League clubs cannot make a loss in excess of £105m aggregated across seasons 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16.
Any club that makes a loss up to that limit will be subject to a tighter regulatory regime that includes:
- Secure owner funding for three years ahead
- Increased future financial information over the next three seasons.
Short-Term Cost Control Measure
Premier League clubs are restricted in terms the amount of increased PL Central Funds that can be used to increase current player wage costs to the tune of:
2013/14: £4m
2014/14: £8m
2015/16: £12m
The Short Term Cost Control measure applies only to clubs with a player wage bill in excess of £52m in 2013/14, £56m in 2014/15 and £60m in 2015/16.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
Football is global, American sports are local. that much is true. and indeed, the draft system is only workable in a league without relegation and promotion. However, there is absolutely no reason why a limited lifting of American ideas can't benefit the English league system. Instead of searching for an American solution or a European solution, why no one in the higher circles at least considers the possibility of coming up with a new system that combines the best elements of the two is baffling.
The PL is fundamentally flawed, because it witholds the majority of money in English football from the lower leagues. That cannot be redressed; we helped create that genie, and now it won't go back into its bottle. But what we can do is make the system fairer, so clubs don't need to pray for some mythical 'white knight' to ride in and rescue them with tons of cash. We can make the system fairer ,so fans of clubs like City or Chelsea aren't constantly pilloried by every other fanbase for having won the lottery. Fairer.
In the end, acquiescence to any system is based on the legitimacy of that system, the consent of the governed, if you will. A system that promotes recklessness, blind luck, and the marginalizing and destruction of cautious or unfortunate clubs will never gain the legitimacy that it needs to stay afloat.
A more even system of distribution of PL TV money to the lower leagues would be a start. Increased parachute payments would be another step. One of the proposals put forward by the European Commission study yesterday, namely 'The establishment of a "fair play levy" on transfer fees beyond a certain amount to fund redistribution from rich to less wealthy clubs to restore some competitive balance', would be a good step to implement. A revoking of the ridiculous abolition of youth compensation tribunals would also help. An adoption of the '50 + 1' system the German clubs employ as a model of ownership would also be splendid. Financial fair play, wage caps, transfer caps...there are so many things English football needs to bring it back from this dark present where the only hope for clubs like Forest is to get a white knight owner (extremely rare), who then runs the club in a way that doesn't immediately relegate/mismanage/damage them (even rarer; see Tony Fernandes as an example of this), and manages to get them up to the top (almost impossible; how many newly promoted clubs have gone on to even finish in the top four, never mind win the title as Clough's Forest did?). The 'white knight' is an illusion, an almost impossible dream, fed to the smaller, unluckier clubs to keep them from challenging the system, and the disenfranchisement they and their fans face. It's like the lottery; a vast number (in fact, a majority, according to HRW) of the poorest folks in the UK buy a ticket every week, hoping to strike it rich. Only one in a million actually wins anything. But that hope of one day striking it big, and mixing with the aristocracy of the wealthy, is all that keeps them from doing something damaging to society in general, from resorting to crime as a way out of their predicament, a predicament caused by that very same economic system and society that now sells them lottery tickets.
Feed them a lie, keep them going.
Football is global, American sports are local. that much is true. and indeed, the draft system is only workable in a league without relegation and promotion. However, there is absolutely no reason why a limited lifting of American ideas can't benefit the English league system. Instead of searching for an American solution or a European solution, why no one in the higher circles at least considers the possibility of coming up with a new system that combines the best elements of the two is baffling.
The PL is fundamentally flawed, because it witholds the majority of money in English football from the lower leagues. That cannot be redressed; we helped create that genie, and now it won't go back into its bottle. But what we can do is make the system fairer, so clubs don't need to pray for some mythical 'white knight' to ride in and rescue them with tons of cash. We can make the system fairer ,so fans of clubs like City or Chelsea aren't constantly pilloried by every other fanbase for having won the lottery. Fairer.
In the end, acquiescence to any system is based on the legitimacy of that system, the consent of the governed, if you will. A system that promotes recklessness, blind luck, and the marginalizing and destruction of cautious or unfortunate clubs will never gain the legitimacy that it needs to stay afloat.
A more even system of distribution of PL TV money to the lower leagues would be a start. Increased parachute payments would be another step. One of the proposals put forward by the European Commission study yesterday, namely 'The establishment of a "fair play levy" on transfer fees beyond a certain amount to fund redistribution from rich to less wealthy clubs to restore some competitive balance', would be a good step to implement. A revoking of the ridiculous abolition of youth compensation tribunals would also help. An adoption of the '50 + 1' system the German clubs employ as a model of ownership would also be splendid. Financial fair play, wage caps, transfer caps...there are so many things English football needs to bring it back from this dark present where the only hope for clubs like Forest is to get a white knight owner (extremely rare), who then runs the club in a way that doesn't immediately relegate/mismanage/damage them (even rarer; see Tony Fernandes as an example of this), and manages to get them up to the top (almost impossible; how many newly promoted clubs have gone on to even finish in the top four, never mind win the title as Clough's Forest did?). The 'white knight' is an illusion, an almost impossible dream, fed to the smaller, unluckier clubs to keep them from challenging the system, and the disenfranchisement they and their fans face. It's like the lottery; a vast number (in fact, a majority, according to HRW) of the poorest folks in the UK buy a ticket every week, hoping to strike it rich. Only one in a million actually wins anything. But that hope of one day striking it big, and mixing with the aristocracy of the wealthy, is all that keeps them from doing something damaging to society in general, from resorting to crime as a way out of their predicament, a predicament caused by that very same economic system and society that now sells them lottery tickets.
Feed them a lie, keep them going.
Last edited:
Modric THFC
Jimmy McCormick
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
The six clubs that voted against it: Fulham, West Brom, Aston Villa, Emirates Marketing Project, Swansea, Southampton
The six clubs that voted against it: Fulham, West Brom, Aston Villa, Emirates Marketing Project, Swansea, Southampton
markysimmo
Johnny nice-tits
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
So CFC must have found some way to get around it as they have voted for it
So CFC must have found some way to get around it as they have voted for it
Spursalot
Jimmy McCormick
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
They'll just send players on loan until they get under the wage issue.
They'll just send players on loan until they get under the wage issue.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
Fulham - Mohammed Al Fayed, rich owner, has been funding the club for years
City - Sheikh Mansour, no more needs to be said
Villa - Randy Lerner, funded massive splurges under O'Neill that put them so far in the red that they're now struggling to stay afloat.
Southampton - Nicola Cortese, rich owner, funded the purchases of Ramirez et al.
Why West Brom and Swansea voted against it, though, is baffling. Both are well run, sensibly managed clubs.
Fulham - Mohammed Al Fayed, rich owner, has been funding the club for years
City - Sheikh Mansour, no more needs to be said
Villa - Randy Lerner, funded massive splurges under O'Neill that put them so far in the red that they're now struggling to stay afloat.
Southampton - Nicola Cortese, rich owner, funded the purchases of Ramirez et al.
Why West Brom and Swansea voted against it, though, is baffling. Both are well run, sensibly managed clubs.
Spur of the moment
Jimmy Neighbour
Re: O/T Financial Fair Play - Now Voted In By The Premier League
Ha! Pass me the violin.
Ha! Pass me the violin.