Redknapp Leaves Spurs

borrowing has nothing to do with Financial fair play

izzy wrote:I just find it funny that you guys are sitting here slating these clubs for some of the purchases they make.

Yet, bigger, more established clubs have been doing far worse for twice as long.

It tickles me inside.

We are not slating any club, I was just saying I would like to see Redknapp in Liverpool because he will give them proper strategy and structure since I would like to to see them back in their days of glory.


No one is slating any club or whatsoever.

halamadrid2 wrote:borrowing has nothing to do with Financial fair play

Well, I suppose City owner or Abrahmovic can as well Borrow their clubs money if borrowing doesn't have anything to do with financial fair play.

As long as those tv deals around in Spain, I think Madrid are more than safe from FPP. Once we get a stadium too it will be all gravy, in due course.

The Messiah wrote:Well, I suppose City owner or Abrahmovic can as well Borrow their clubs money if borrowing doesn't have anything to do with financial fair play.

Real Madrid are allowed to borrow money from the banks(if we need it) because it is guaranteed to get back to them, we operate on profit and don't spend more than we earn hence we fit nicely into the FFP rule

Having an owner means you spend his money and don't earn much which is why all these owned clubs are always mentioned as clubs who won't survive FFP, aka you might screen losses but can still spend because you have a rich owner

did i make it clear enough

halamadrid2 wrote:

The Messiah wrote:Well, I suppose City owner or Abrahmovic can as well Borrow their clubs money if borrowing doesn't have anything to do with financial fair play.

Real Madrid are allowed to borrow money from the banks(if we need it) because it is guaranteed to get back to them, we operate on profit and don't spend more than we earn hence we fit nicely into the FFP rule

Having an owner means you spend his money and don't earn much which is why all these owned clubs are always mentioned as clubs who won't survive FFP, aka you might screen losses but can still spend because you have a rich owner

did i make it clear enough

I don't count borrowing money up to 250million to sign players in one season as money earned.

The Messiah wrote:I don't count borrowing money up to 250million to sign players in one season as money earned.

I don't know how old you are or whether you have a bank account, but people borrow money for the short-term to buy something expensive which they then pay back.... bank generate THEIR money/profit this way

And the season we borrowed the cash to buy Cris/Kaka our net debt decreased by 25.1%

net profit increased by 11.5% from the previous years

Our profit is so good that Platini has said its a model to follow, forget struggle its a model to fcking follow

http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/en/1330014560397/noticia/Noticia/Real_Madrid%E2%80%99s_gross_revenue_increases_8.6%25_to_reach_442.3_million_euros.htm

halamadrid2 wrote:

The Messiah wrote:I don't count borrowing money up to 250million to sign players in one season as money earned.

I don't know how old you are or whether you have a bank account, but people borrow money for the short-term to buy something expensive which they then pay back.... bank generate THEIR money/profit this way

And the season we borrowed the cash to buy Cris/Kaka our net debt decreased by 25.1%

net profit increased by 11.5% from the previous years

Our profit is so good that Platini has said its a model to follow, forget struggle its a model to fcking follow

http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/en/1330014560397/noticia/Noticia/Real_Madrid%E2%80%99s_gross_revenue_increases_8.6%25_to_reach_442.3_million_euros.htm

This hasn't got anything to do with age, why don't you spend what you earn instead of borrowing, of what use is financial fair play if it allows clubs like Madrid borrow money to sign players, where is the fairness...?


Chelsea, City and PSG owner might as well pump money into their clubs, because they sort of deserve it, simply because they have rich owners.

PSG ain't taking FFP seriously anyways, there is no way in hell they will meet the criteria. So I doubt it will work, besides Platinis brother or something works for PSG no?

The Messiah wrote:This hasn't got anything to do with age, why don't you spend what you earn instead of borrowing, of what use is financial fair play if it allows clubs like Madrid borrow.


Chelsea, City and PSG owner might as well pump money into their clubs, because they sort of deserve it, simply because they have rich owners.

We can borrow money but we still make substantial PROFIT, you can borrow money to assist with a bunch of things like building a new stadium etc which requires more money than you currently have therefore you borrow and over the years you pay it back while making profit out of your products

Rich owners don't friggin care about generating money, because they have a rich owner they spend the money they have from previous/current businesses in City's case oil

Real Madrid were/are constantly at the top of the money revenue/profit chart despite not even making it past the last 16 and not winning the league for 3 whole seasons

Madrid is a people's owned business, and its the fans around the world which help generate Madrid's cash, so we have every right in the world to spend that

If this world was so perfect as you make it out when you say we shouldn't borrow money then why do bank exist in the first place?? as our safe or something and plus how would the money circulate anyways and lastly no more recession :thumbsup:

You should offer yourself as the prime minister of our country the economy would be so much better with you don't you think :rolls:

Well atleast City and Chelsea are from the PL so they would a substantial chunk of their revenue from the TV deals.They might probably somehow pass it through various sponsorship deals etc.

But the problem is for clubs like PSG..Lesser TV revenue in comparison to some other cash rich clubs in bigger leagues,Matchday revenue is hardly booming for them either especially since its not really a large capacity stadium even though ticket prices would've probably gone up.They are still in the process of commercializing the brand that is PSG but it would take a few more years before they reap the benefits.

PSG are placed in a poor position in regards to FFP.If they somehow pass it,this whole 'financial fairplay' thing would be considered an absolute farce.

So how did a thread about the c*ntish Redknapp turn into a retarded debate about FFP?

I think i read somewhere that City's revenue is increasing, so i think they are on the right track, don't know about Chelsea tho

PSG are just doing a mild City, i think they have everybody they needed and will start making profit from now on

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:So how did a thread about the c*ntish Redknapp turn into a retarded debate about FFP?

One thing leads to another my boy.

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:So how did a thread about the c*ntish Redknapp turn into a retarded debate about FFP?

Hala & Messiah, need I say more

Abramovich wrote:

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:So how did a thread about the c*ntish Redknapp turn into a retarded debate about FFP?

Hala & Messiah, need I say more

Nope that explains everything, i will leave you to talk about meaningless crap now.

Spoiler:

Bit of an ass, isn't he. So not cool towards Benjani and Sven as well, who was tiers above him as a manager and is a legend.

Classic Redknapp the gossip queen. Mf sits in his SUV during transfers windows in parking lots just so reporters can come and question him for his nonsensical opinions.

Rubbish manager too.

He's also apparently lying as well.

"Only Sven would pay 9.5 million pounds for Benjani"

Internet say 5 million euros, not pounds, at best? With clauses that Benjani never even triggered. And Redknapp paid more than 6 million for Benjani to Auxerre