FFP Only applies if you make a kiss if £105 million over 3 years?


Status
Not open for further replies.
To be honest if I was Short I wouldn't put anymore money in either like, throwing his money down the drain, he must feel gutted to lose it all. On the other hand from a fans point of view we want him to spend it and get quality in, I suppose it's ok for us to spend the money when it's not ours. He has to hold his hands up though and accept the mistakes he has made, he has paid the price by losing the money, We will have to come to terms that no money is available and we are stuck with this current squad until next year when hopefully we will spend abit more on quality, if we stay up that is and that's a big IF.
Aye, Short:"but Lee are you really, really, really sure that this player is definitely the one we need to solve all of our problems, because you said the last 10 were definitely 'the one'?"

Lee:"He definitely could be the one and they only want 12 million and 80k for 5 years and he's only 31".

Short:"Get fucked!"
 
can't possibly happen then. :rolleyes:

There absolutely won't be restrospective punishment for this season.

After that. Due to the new wad load of money it will not exist at current wage cap levels.... if it exists at all.

Aye and they had about 160k to play with.m

You know that they don't receive money from advertising, beer sales or anything else connected to the Olympic Stadium when they move next year. If there ever is FFP enforced in the future the have some severely curtailed revenue streams.
 
Last edited:
There absolutely won't be restrospective punishment for this season.

After that. Due to the new wad load of money it will not exist at current wage cap levels.... if it exists at all.



You know that they don't receive money from advertising, beer sales or anything else connected to the Olympic Stadium when they move next year. If there ever is FFP enforced in the future the have some severely curtailed revenue streams.
Youre in cloud cuckoo land if you think west ham moving there will see revenue do anything but go up substantially.............

For a start a lot of matchday costs will disappear................
And their matchday hospitality revenue will go through the roof.......

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/aug/06/bbc-claims-west-ham-olympic-stadium
 
What we need is for Short to rename the stadium "Equity Arena", and for all of us to get together and protest against our historic stadium name so that some company will come in and throw money at Short to change it back to "Stadium of Light". Maybe throw in shirt sponsorship for a few extra quid too. Worked up the road. Ashley seems like some mastermind Bond villain getting a company to sponsor the stadium name without having the company's name in the stadium name.
 
Youre in cloud cuckoo land if you think west ham moving there will see revenue do anything but go up substantially.............

For a start a lot of matchday costs will disappear................
And their matchday hospitality revenue will go through the roof.......

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/aug/06/bbc-claims-west-ham-olympic-stadium


Well I know the crowds will go up. I have no idea how much advertising or food and booze sales brings in to an average club over a season?

I was simply observing that any uplift in attendance will offset this loss initially. I was wondering in terms of this commercial revenue stream how much they'd be losing on other clubs... Say us?

I was not suggesting they might earn less money, but rather that there are aspects of the deal (that many think is hugely favourable to them) that are not so favourable.
 
There absolutely won't be restrospective punishment for this season.
I agree with this part

After that. Due to the new wad load of money it will not exist at current wage cap levels.... if it exists at all.
But not this. You have to ask why did the small clubs agree to FFP? By limiting the amount that can be spent on wages from any TV deal , it means that any big increases like next year's will predominantly go into their pocket rather than player's wages. At the end of the day clubs want more than just to stay in the EPL. They want to be legitimate money making enterprises, and this was the only way that could happen. Why would they change the rules which are the only thing they have to guarantee they get to keep some of that TV cash?

Read this quote from Peter Stokes:
“In previous years every time the money came in, before you could blink it had all gone in players’ wages,” he said. “We couldn’t have that happen this time. “It is a difficult balancing act and we will now be criticised for making too much money and not investing it, but I didn’t believe we could continue being the world’s richest league while all losing money.”
 
Well I know the crowds will go up. I have no idea how much advertising or food and booze sales brings in to an average club over a season?

I was simply observing that any uplift in attendance will offset this loss initially. I was wondering in terms of this commercial revenue stream how much they'd be losing on other clubs... Say us?

I was not suggesting they might earn less money, but rather that there are aspects of the deal (that many think is hugely favourable to them) that are not so favourable.

The entirety of the deal is massively in their favour..................
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top