PLYMOUTH'S stupendously all singing dancing transfer thread!

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I'd give you one of my exquisitely talented feet, if the domestic FFP rules are fully enforced. They don't even know what the rules actually are, nor what the punishment will be. They're making it up as they go along, with no idea what will happen if a club says, "you know what? feck yourself, as long as we're not in administration, we'll do what we want"

.... fully agreed.

We see Wet Spam this week threatening Court action. That will be a drop in the ocean compared with FFP.

I'm unsure of the legalities of wafting generalities about rules and punishments, about matters which are largely retrospective, without any real knowledge of what the outcomes will be, let alone any real ability to alter the current position in these timescales.

You could take a £25,000pa Barrister and they'd still be able to drive a coach and horses through these ideas. Oh, they may fine Peterborough, or Bolton, or Hartlepool, but let them set their crosshairs on Citeh, or Chelsea and we'll see them run for cover.

Premier League clubs aren't having to comply with FFP. Apart from those competing in the Champions League and Europa League (and City for example are complying with them).

Only through exceedingly weird sponsorship deals that bear no resemblance to reality.

[bobo the clown]

I'd give you one of my exquisitely talented feet, if the domestic FFP rules are fully enforced. They don't even know what the rules actually are, nor what the punishment will be. They're making it up as they go along, with no idea what will happen if a club says, "you know what? feck yourself, as long as we're not in administration, we'll do what we want"

.... fully agreed.

We see Wet Spam this week threatening Court action. That will be a drop in the ocean compared with FFP.

I'm unsure of the legalities of wafting generalities about rules and punishments, about matters which are largely retrospective, without any real knowledge of what the outcomes will be, let alone any real ability to alter the current position in these timescales.

You could take a £25,000pa Barrister and they'd still be able to drive a coach and horses through these ideas. Oh, they may fine Peterborough, or Bolton, or Hartlepool, but let them set their crosshairs on Citeh, or Chelsea and we'll see them run for cover.

Premier League clubs aren't having to comply with FFP. Apart from those competing in the Champions League and Europa League (and City for example are complying with them).

How are City complying. Their spend and their footballing income must be light years apart.

.... & while we're on it, if one set of clubs are treated differently than another set of clubs is that not a great opportunity to claim inequity ?

Anyway, I'm very bored with constant semantic arguments this week. I need more frivolity.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'd give you one of my exquisitely talented feet, if the domestic FFP rules are fully enforced. They don't even know what the rules actually are, nor what the punishment will be. They're making it up as they go along, with no idea what will happen if a club says, "you know what? feck yourself, as long as we're not in administration, we'll do what we want"

.... fully agreed.

We see Wet Spam this week threatening Court action. That will be a drop in the ocean compared with FFP.

I'm unsure of the legalities of wafting generalities about rules and punishments, about matters which are largely retrospective, without any real knowledge of what the outcomes will be, let alone any real ability to alter the current position in these timescales.

You could take a £25,000pa Barrister and they'd still be able to drive a coach and horses through these ideas. Oh, they may fine Peterborough, or Bolton, or Hartlepool, but let them set their crosshairs on Citeh, or Chelsea and we'll see them run for cover.

Premier League clubs aren't having to comply with FFP. Apart from those competing in the Champions League and Europa League (and City for example are complying with them).

How are City complying. Their spend and their footballing income must be light years apart.

.... & while we're on it, if one set of clubs are treated differently than another set of clubs is that not a great opportunity to claim inequity ?

Anyway, I'm very bored with constant semantic arguments this week. I need more frivolity.

Huge sponsorship deal with Etihad to get round the rules. But even then they apparently couldn't sign one or two players and stay within the rules, and so didn't.

[Worthy4England]

I didn't realize that Prem Clubs didn't have to comply. I thought they did and that the reason that the European qualified teams saw it as necessity was that they could be disqualified from their European jaunt, if they weren't compliant.

[BWFC_Insane]

I didn't realize that Prem Clubs didn't have to comply. I thought they did and that the reason that the European qualified teams saw it as necessity was that they could be disqualified from their European jaunt, if they weren't compliant.

The premier league didn't sign up to FFP as I understand it, so there aren't penalties directly in that sense. But the European Teams do as UEFA are signed up to FFP.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I'd give you one of my exquisitely talented feet, if the domestic FFP rules are fully enforced. They don't even know what the rules actually are, nor what the punishment will be. They're making it up as they go along, with no idea what will happen if a club says, "you know what? feck yourself, as long as we're not in administration, we'll do what we want"

.... fully agreed.

We see Wet Spam this week threatening Court action. That will be a drop in the ocean compared with FFP.

I'm unsure of the legalities of wafting generalities about rules and punishments, about matters which are largely retrospective, without any real knowledge of what the outcomes will be, let alone any real ability to alter the current position in these timescales.

You could take a £25,000pa Barrister and they'd still be able to drive a coach and horses through these ideas. Oh, they may fine Peterborough, or Bolton, or Hartlepool, but let them set their crosshairs on Citeh, or Chelsea and we'll see them run for cover.

Premier League clubs aren't having to comply with FFP. Apart from those competing in the Champions League and Europa League (and City for example are complying with them).

How are City complying. Their spend and their footballing income must be light years apart.

.... & while we're on it, if one set of clubs are treated differently than another set of clubs is that not a great opportunity to claim inequity ?

Anyway, I'm very bored with constant semantic arguments this week. I need more frivolity.

Huge sponsorship deal with Etihad to get round the rules. But even then they apparently couldn't sign one or two players and stay within the rules, and so didn't.

There have been a few deals way over market rate. As for not signing players, if they stopped paying them 250k a week, they wouldn't need non market rate sponsorship deals.

[boltonboris]

I didn't realize that Prem Clubs didn't have to comply. I thought they did and that the reason that the European qualified teams saw it as necessity was that they could be disqualified from their European jaunt, if they weren't compliant.

The premier league didn't sign up to FFP as I understand it, so there aren't penalties directly in that sense. But the European Teams do as UEFA are signed up to FFP.

In that case, could teams relegated from a division that doesn't have not have an agreed timescale in which to 'fall in line'. How do the football league expect the clubs to do this without putting hundreds of people out of a job and cancelling contracts which massively increases their immediate outgoings?

[TANGODANCER]

What an absolute load of bollocks the game of football has become.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

What an absolute load of bollocks the game of football has become.

Nail. Head.

[Bruno3]

What an absolute load of bollocks the game of football has become.

Especially the way we play it

[BWFC_Insane]

I didn't realize that Prem Clubs didn't have to comply. I thought they did and that the reason that the European qualified teams saw it as necessity was that they could be disqualified from their European jaunt, if they weren't compliant.

The premier league didn't sign up to FFP as I understand it, so there aren't penalties directly in that sense. But the European Teams do as UEFA are signed up to FFP.

In that case, could teams relegated from a division that doesn't have not have an agreed timescale in which to 'fall in line'. How do the football league expect the clubs to do this without putting hundreds of people out of a job and cancelling contracts which massively increases their immediate outgoings?

I suppose the theory is that parachute payments artificially inflate relegated clubs incomes and thus give them a grace period before anyway.....

[boltonboris]

Is 2 seasons enough to do this? I think we're proving that it's not.

[Loyal White]

FFP will fail the moment it's challenged in court.

I can't actually believe that it's been voted in - I guess it shows evidence of the level of incompetence in the boardrooms.

[Bruce Rioja]

Is 2 seasons enough to do this? I think we're proving that it's not.

Well, not if the very players that got you relegated are on long-term contacts with no relegation clauses in them it isn't.

[Prufrock]

People keep saying 'it'll fail in court'. What's that based on? I can see how they might be able to say the consequences weren't sufficiently clear, though BWFCi has challenged that, but beyond that I'm notnaire it's clear at all.

The League's argument is that it's part if the rules they signed up to. I'm not sure I see a coherent counter argument.

My own view was and is that UEFA would never follow up their threats to not let people into the champions league because they need the best players to be in it.

I'm not sure why the football league wouldn't enforce fines and transfer embargoes.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Some reading:

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/footbal ... 04172.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

UEFA will scrutinise City’s deals including the £24.5m sale of player rights to an external company and the £22.45m they effectively paid themselves by selling intellectual property to “related parties”.

A host of clubs are hoping that UEFA will rigorously assess those agreements and expel clubs found in breach. City will rely on a phalanx of experts including Alex Byars and Martyn Hawkins, who helped UEFA set up the FFP legislation. Legal challenges are highly likely. The outcome could shape the future of English football.

The website http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is quite useful.

One of Bosman's lawyers is also challenging it, so we interviewed him. He's suggesting a middle ground wherein owners can spend what they like as long as it's guaranteed and paid up front.

[BWFC_Insane]

Is 2 seasons enough to do this? I think we're proving that it's not.

You get parachute payments for four years. It is just they go down from year two to three.

End of the day I suspect that it is entirely possible to come down and comply if you are either sensible in the first place, or radical upon relegation.

The FFP ideology is a good one, make clubs responsible for the financial positions and try to stop clubs overspending.

The problem for me with them is it shuts off smaller clubs like ourselves into a box. IF FFP sticks and is applied even if Mr Richy mcRich from Richville takes over, we'd be prevented from spending beyond our income by a transfer ban. Sure City have found ways to partially get around it (dress up investment as sponsorship) but even that favours bigger clubs over smaller ones. City's sponsorship was investigated, and cleared, which I'm sure had nothing to do with it being Manchester City.......

[TKIZ!]

If it's been mentioned then apologies but it's like getting a new player: http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/10 ... rs/?ref=la" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Whookam]

If it's been mentioned then apologies but it's like getting a new player: http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/10 ... rs/?ref=la" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Really? I like Holden but there is no way we should be offering him a contract.

[truewhite15]

We've put all this time, effort and patience into getting him fit again. We haven't even been paying his wages for the last year. If he's coming back fit, why shouldn't we offer him a new deal?