Hey, blame FFP not McCabe!

[Micalijo]

Come on you lot, 65% of our turnover is basically the same as 65% of all the other teams in the pub league aint it? Someone help me with the math please. we should be walking this league not struggling to muster a shot on target.

PS - does his gob really wobble when he tells his porkies?

 

[mattbianco1]

It's only the same as other ways of life.

Engineers that earn say £22k working for Joe Bloggs Service Engineers where there are only ten people in the company will work harder and put in a better shift than the ones employed by Balfour Beatty earning £30k+ that decide to work on weekends because it pays more, when really the job could've been completed during the week

 

[Linz]

Sorry Mic, unless you're Steve Faulkner's long-lost son (hiding behind all the vowels his daughter can't seem to manage to use) then you can't compete today.

 

[GAZBLADE]

Come on you lot, 65% of our turnover is basically the same as 65% of all the other teams in the pub league aint it? Someone help me with the math please. we should be walking this league not struggling to muster a shot on target.

PS - does his gob really wobble when he tells his porkies?

Why should we be walking this league???
Is it because we have a ground that holds 32k???
Or, is it because we have a world class squad littered with Internationals??

 

[super_pig]

umm not really Gaz.. we get around 18000 per game .. the others get 5000.. do the maths
notice i didnt' put 'math' this time.. just for the pedants

 

[B.Lade]

The moose who sniffs the longest shall walk amongst the seven statutes of the moon. Indeed so shall they be in soup.

 

[GAZBLADE]

umm not really Gaz.. we get around 18000 per game .. the others get 5000.. do the maths
notice i didnt' put 'math' this time.. just for the pedants

It's a good point.
I retract my previous statement m'lud!!
I was a little bit drunk at time of posting!!!!!!!!
UTB
COYRWW

 

[shorehamview]

If it's not the front end of an ass, and it's not the back end of an ass either, then surely it must be no end of an ass?

Just a thought.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Overall the introduction of FFP provides an advantage to the smaller clubs not the bigger ones.
For example if you had 3 clubs in the same division with annual turnover of £20, £10 and £5m respectively, who over the course of a season spend all 100% of turnover on player wages. When FFP is introduced, the clubs can only pay 65% of turnover, so the clubs now have wage bills of 13, 6.5 and 3.25m per season. The biggest club is now paying only 9.75m more than the smallest club whereas the previous season it paid £10m more than the mid-sized team.

Additionally supposing the 3 clubs were the top 3 clubs in the division at Christmas and felt that promotion could be achieved by spending another 2 .5 million. The biggest club would have been the one most likely to take the gamble, as this money would represent the least increase in debt compared to turnover. Now under FFP rules, Team HMS piss the league would be prevented from doing this because they are already spending their allowed budget.

So let's scrap FFP for now and reintroduce it in the Premier League when we finally get there.

 

[Micalijo]

Decent stuff Barney but for me it means we should finish 9 points clear rather than 10.

 

[alcoblade]

Decent stuff Barney but for me it means we should finish 9 points clear rather than 10.

In other words, no level of common sense will persuade you to stop blaming, hating, and basic trolling.

I'm shocked.



UTB

 

[Micalijo]

In other words, no level of common sense will persuade you to stop blaming, hating, and basic trolling.

I'm shocked.



UTB

Calm down dear. Have a beer and say after me, 'Love United, hate McCabe'.

On a serious note, you really think the FFP rules put us at a disadvantage to other L1 clubs? Do me a favour pal.

 

[alcoblade]

Calm down dear. Have a beer and say after me, 'Love United, hate McCabe'.

On a serious note, you really think the FFP rules put us at a disadvantage to other L1 clubs? Do me a favour pal.

I think Barney nailed it, and I think you know it. Short term not good for us, long term good for us. Not that it makes any difference to your opinion;

United are Wank. That's better eh?



UTB

 

[Micalijo]

I think Barney nailed it, and I think you know it. Short term not good for us, long term good for us. Not that it makes any difference to your opinion;

United are Wank. That's better eh?



UTB

Not at all - we can spend 65% of turnover, Stevenage can spend 65% of turnover. Guess what side will pass it around better on Saturday and display more talent? OK we are above em in league but so what - we should be.

I totally understand that in relative terms we are worse off but would you taher have a 9.75m higher wage bill per Barney's example - I would.

Come on Alco - expand please - why no good in short term?

 

[alcoblade]

Not at all - we can spend 65% of turnover, Stevenage can spend 65% of turnover. Guess what side will pass it around better on Saturday and display more talent? OK we are above em in league but so what - we should be.

I totally understand that in relative terms we are worse off but would you taher have a 9.75m higher wage bill per Barney's example - I would.

Come on Alco - expand please - why no good in short term?

If I thought it woud make an iota of difference I'd expand. But let's not insult each others intellegence eh?

United are Wank. Give me a like now.



UTB

 

[beightonblade]

FFP=Patsy

 

[stannyblade]

FFP should be the same in all divisions and implemented at the same time. That way any team going down or even up for that matter plays by the same rules.

 

[Micalijo]

If I thought it woud make an iota of difference I'd expand. But let's not insult each others intellegence eh?

United are Wank. Give me a like now.



UTB

Very refreshing to see you say that I must admit.

Seriously Alco - I know exactly what Barney is getting at and gave him due praise for an interesting post. But in very simple terms you cannot say that FFP is better for Stevenage than us. We can spend more on wages can't we than them?

 

[Micalijo]

FFP should be the same in all divisions and implemented at the same time. That way any team going down or even up for that matter plays by the same rules.

Agreed - all contracts should say if relegated the terms change to match FFP. Will take a while but if players don't like it tough.

 

[Darren]

Very refreshing to see you say that I must admit.

Seriously Alco - I know exactly what Barney is getting at and gave him due praise for an interesting post. But in very simple terms you cannot say that FFP is better for Stevenage than us. We can spend more on wages can't we than them?

Astonishingly, I agree with you on this. FFP levels the playing field slightly in Stevanage's favour, but it still leaves us with resoruces hugely greater than theirs.

 

[alcoblade]

Astonishingly, I agree with you on this. FFP levels the playing field slightly in Stevanage's favour, but it still leaves us with resoruces hugely greater than theirs.

So how is being "in Stevenage's favour" good for us then? The question was never "Are Sheffield United at an advantage to Stevenage", because, of course, we are.

UTB

 

[alcoblade]

Agreed - all contracts should say if relegated the terms change to match FFP. Will take a while but if players don't like it tough.

That's true. But you forgot to mention how that's McCabe's fault

UTB

 

[Darren]

So how is being "in Stevenage's favour" good for us then? The question was never "Are Sheffield United at an advantage to Stevenage", because, of course, we are.

UTB

His original post was

Come on you lot, 65% of our turnover is basically the same as 65% of all the other teams in the pub league aint it? Someone help me with the math please. we should be walking this league not struggling to muster a shot on target

Which I would intepret as meaning that, even with the FFP, our resourcesa are still vastly greater than everyone else in the league. Which I think is correct.

I think you are falling into a knnejerk "if Mic says it it is must be a load of bollocks" mode.

 

[Isiah]

His original post was

Come on you lot, 65% of our turnover is basically the same as 65% of all the other teams in the pub league aint it? Someone help me with the math please. we should be walking this league not struggling to muster a shot on target

Which I would intepret as meaning that, even with the FFP, our resourcesa are still vastly greater than everyone else in the league. Which I think is correct.

I think you are falling into a knnejerk "if Mic says it it is must be a load of bollocks" mode.

As a general principle , clearly Mic and Darren are correct, but I'm still struggling to fully understand both the full requirements of FFP and precisely where United currently are in this respect.

At the recent fans forum it was stated that we are currently running at about 60% of turnover and therefore have some leeway for emergencies/January but it was also stated that Mr Mc is still subbing the club on a monthly basis. Is this then non player shortfall?

Also, and on a more general note, I read that Swindon are able to start bringing players in again because their chairman has provided more equity funding to the club but had thought that player costs were strictly tied to turnover?

Anybody help?

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

65% of our income is a bigger amount than 65% of Stevenage income. Advantage us
Previous rules; as much of our bigger income as we wanted on salaries. Bigger advantage to us

Therefore FFP has been of benefit to smaller clubs, but there is still an advantage to bigger clubs.

However.....moving onto the debts of each club........

 

[alcoblade]

His original post was

Come on you lot, 65% of our turnover is basically the same as 65% of all the other teams in the pub league aint it? Someone help me with the math please. we should be walking this league not struggling to muster a shot on target

Which I would intepret as meaning that, even with the FFP, our resourcesa are still vastly greater than everyone else in the league. Which I think is correct.

I think you are falling into a knnejerk "if Mic says it it is must be a load of bollocks" mode.

No, I think you've just got that in your head so you haven't analysed what I've said. Anyway, I just don't understand what you've said, if FFP "is in Stevenages' favour", then how is that in our favour? That doesn't make sense.

If the thread was "Stevenage should not be able to compete with Sheffield United because of resources", then I'd be in complete agreement. It seems to me that you're agreeing with an imaginary point.

Barney has nailed it - that short term it mkes life hard for those overbudget. That longer term, it tilts the balance in the bigger clubs favour. Seems perfectly reasonable and obvious to anyone who's being objective (ie not Mic).

That being said, I don't want to have a pedantic debate with you. let's not pretend that's what Mic wants.

UTB

 

[Micalijo]

No, I think you've just got that in your head so you haven't analysed what I've said. Anyway, I just don't understand what you've said, if FFP "is in Stevenages' favour", then how is that in our favour? That doesn't make sense.

If the thread was "Stevenage should not be able to compete with Sheffield United because of resources", then I'd be in complete agreement. It seems to me that you're agreeing with an imaginary point.

Barney has nailed it - that short term it mkes life hard for those overbudget. That longer term, it tilts the balance in the bigger clubs favour. Seems perfectly reasonable and obvious to anyone who's being objective (ie not Mic).

That being said, I don't want to have a pedantic debate with you. let's not pretend that's what Mic wants.

UTB

65% of our income should be able to build a far better team than 65% of Stevenage's income. Surely we all agree that.

I know there are short term problems and we had issues in that a big proportion of our budget was and still is in my opinion spent on 3 or 4 very limited players.

A bigger point I want to stress is that all these sides seem to play better football than we manage to, more entertaining, they move the ball better and try and play. Not all successfully but that is more important to you than I guess me - I want SUFC to build in L1 a pass ad move game, possession football. Youth, ability and pace. It is possible. We aint trying anything of the like and the disturbing thing is that almost certainly we won't go up playing this way yet we have a mega budget in relative terms to vast majority. Stevenage being my example because they struggle to get 4k and I believe will look the better side tomorrow.

 

[alcoblade]

65% of our income should be able to build a far better team than 65% of Stevenage's income. Surely we all agree that.

I know there are short term problems and we had issues in that a big proportion of our budget was and still is in my opinion spent on 3 or 4 very limited players.

A bigger point I want to stress is that all these sides seem to play better football than we manage to, more entertaining, they move the ball better and try and play. Not all successfully but that is more important to you than I guess me - I want SUFC to build in L1 a pass ad move game, possession football. Youth, ability and pace. It is possible. We aint trying anything of the like and the disturbing thing is that almost certainly we won't go up playing this way yet we have a mega budget in relative terms to vast majority. Stevenage being my example because they struggle to get 4k and I believe will look the better side tomorrow.

I agree with all that, other than " almost certainly we won't go up playing this way" because playing this way has us 2nd in the league. It can't possibly be "almost certainly" as somethings working. But it is boring as fuck and I'd like us to go for it more.

UTB

 

[beightonblade]

Its dead fo 0kin easy .....some off balance sheet trading !