by Sanguine »
18 May 2014 23:45
Nameless Sanguine Nameless Hard to see why City have been punished at all. Unfair shouldn't be interfering in clubs who operate within their financial capability. They should be looking at clubs who spend more than they can afford. City have no debt - what is the problem ?
What sort of wind up is it you are going for here?
I simply find the whole concept of FFP deeply flawed. If a rich guy wants to spend money on a club, and does it in a way that can be sustained, then why not ? Why put in rules that mean only money from one stream counts ? And why have rules which are skewed heavily in favour of the already rich and successful.
Because that's football. If you want to grow as a club, why should you not have to invest in youth facilities, the local community and develop great young players, find 'rough diamonds' and build a team greater an the sum of their parts? And so on and so on.
Hell of a lot more satisfying being Reading's 106ers and our subsequent nearly making Europe with a £65k striker than simply dumping squillions of a sugar daddy's money on the best talent from Europe.
You are arguing for the absolute, 100% sale of football to the highest bidder. Sucking the soul out of the game. No matter if the club runs losses that would be unsustainable in most industries, so long as the owner is happy to keep losing his money. It turns football clubs into playthings.
How do you fix a 'skew in favour of the rich and successful' by creating another equally strong 'skew' the other way?
