The Kraken

This one does look (and is) particularly idiotic, and is often played off as a misspelling. It isn't, its just an extremely poorly thought out design. The "E" at the very left is actually an amalgamation of EFC.

I hope not too much like the NHL, they're on strike all the time!

I don't see it matters, really. So long as clubs have the money, I think they should be able to spend it (within legal parameters of course). And as long as any money coming into the club to cover "debt" cannot be taken back out of the club, leaving it in debt. The purpose of FPP should be to ensure clubs only spend what money they have, and not to regulate how they get that money if it is coming from legal sources. IMO anyway.

Under investigation is not stamped out. Its a really, really dangerous game that UEFA could get themselves into if they start vetoing sponsorship deals. And if they do clubs will simply find another way around it; as I quoted earlier and Platini himself said "clubs will have to get more creative". Also i think you'll find that Michel Platini's son as taken up a role at PSG, so we'll see how far that investigation goes. UEFA? Corruption? Never.

Incorrect. You've sidestepped half of this thread which is devoted to ways in which FFP can be circum-navigated, whether by extensive sponsorship deals, increase in share equity or various other creative measures. FFP may well stop clubs spending money they don't have; I certainly hope so. I can't see a realistic way it will stop clubs spending money they do have.

I was talking about West Ham supposedly offering him £55K a week to stay, which he turned down to go to Newcastle. I doubt he took a drop in pay as he saw Newcastle as a nicer place to live and a career progression.

They can, but they'll be massively at pains not to. Trying to sell a Champions League TV package is much more attractive (and expensive) with the huge teams in it; there's no financial interest in UEFA banning such clubs from their own tournament, let alone the precedent it might accelerate in them forging their own breakaway league.

He failed a medical at Stoke before West Ham signed him so its possible. West Ham had him on a deal related to appearances. That said, they were also reported to be offering him in excess of £55K per week to stay (in whatever guise), so if the £15K basic is true his bonusses must have been astronomical.

I'm guessing Newcastle were put over a barrel when they signed Ba from West Ham (the Hammers didn't really want to let him go); and perhaps the inclusion of a release clause like that was the only way he'd agree to put pen to paper. Shows the difficulty there can be in attracting top 4 players to a non-top 4 club.

One would hope that if he does it is for significantly more than the ludicrous £7M figure that Newcastle received for Ba.

That was actually retracted somewhat shortly after it was announced. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/dec/05/uefa-europa-league-boost-not-scrap

How unlikely what will be?

You don't even have to pigeon-hole it to academy prospects. If Ramirez develops as we hope he will then we have the exact same problem that Newcastle face having just lost Demba Ba. That's Newcastle, who were in the Champions League spots at times last year, have played in the Champions League a few times before, and who are in the last 32 of the Europa League.

There seems to be a fairly healthy debate going on here, Wes. There's certainly some good points from both sides going on; tajjuk makes some reasonable suggestions though I disagree with a fair amount of his point. You seem to have simply sniped from the sides and added nothing. Anyway, I'll let you have the last word about how pointless it all is, and just carry on.

Tell me; I don't know the rules in this regard. Say Abramovic decides he wants to plough another £200M into Chelsea, but he's maxed out on sponsorship options. Could he "donate" £200M into the club and take it out as share equity (i.e. a redistribution of the shares)?? Its a fairly simplistic method, granted; but it also seems to stop the whole notion of clubs spending money they don't have, which is the entire purpose of FPP. I guess the only stipulation would have to be that those shares could not be converted back into debt to provide a financial return.

Phil Jones from Blackburn; Chris Smalling from Fulham; Jordan Henderson from Sunderland; Jack Rodwell from Everton. The list goes on and on. And its ridiculous to say those transfers were different to Saints in any way; huge sums of money were offered for players that for the most part were integral to the team/squad , and the club accepted the money. It has happened plenty before, it will continue to happen aplenty.

Is there any point to this post? I think you probably need to understand what a duplicate thread is before you start down that path. This is a repeated thread of one that has since dropped into the archives; and is not unlike the various attendance threads that change over time. its not a duplicate one though; that's something entirely different, wherever you're keeping your pots and kettles. The simple rule still applies; if you don't have any constructive to add to a thread, don't add to it. Can't believe I wasted my time pointing that out; that's the mods' job.

And clubs are continually finding ways round them, hence PSG's super deal with the Qataris that is due to rise to 200M euros a year over its course. UEFA have tried to implement rules to stamp this out, but with such sums at stake its almost impossible to arbitrarily stamp it out. And look at this quote from PSG's chairman about their deal: I don't think UEFA have any true intention to stamp out such investment in the game; although I commend their initiative to only allow clubs to spend whatever they earn. They just are a bit toothless when it comes to determining how a club earns that money.

Don't be silly, of course not. They've got the lowest wage bill in League 1. He only wants to stay to play in front of the bestest fans in the land. Fans that racially abuse their own players, fans that boo their own players when they're about to take a penalty, fans that are the most loyal in world (except for when 50% of them desert the team in their hour of need). Fans that sing songs lamenting how poor their team is, and do the conga dressed as smurfs. Those super fans.

That's the point though, isn't it? People are making a massive deal about whether we can keep the players we develop; as if that's the be all and end all. Blimey, you could probably take our current squad and add to it all of the academy graduates we've created in the last 10 years; Bale, Walcott, Dyer, Oxo, Baird etc. Put them all in our squad and we'd still not have a squad capable of Cl qualification, possibly not even to get into the Europa spots. So hanging on to the youngsters is not the final solution; if anything, generating funds from potential stars and spending it elsewhere is what is serving Everton well, and has served us well in the past. If we're going to progress then I think the academy is key; just not perhaps in the way that the club entirely hope it to be. A conveyor belt of young talent that plays for the first team for 2 or 3 years then moves on for a hefty fee is a much more realistic platform for Saints success than a first team made up of 50% academy grads.

I'm sure they did feel they got a good deal; £12M is a lot of money and allowed them to reinvest elsewhere in the team. Just as £15M was a lot of money for us for Chamberlain, which also allowed us to reinvest elsewhere in the team and make the squad stronger than without him. But then I guess the rules are different for us than to other teams that lose their academy prospects.

Who are Everton's best prospects from the academy if England international Jack Rodwell is not one of them? There must be a few of them if Rodwell is not one of them. Interested to know.

As valuable a contribution as ever. *points out forum rule of "if you haven't got any contribution to make to the thread other than sarcastic drivel, probably best not to make one at all"*

Its a nonsense from the fans to do that, of course. But to be fair I don't think anyone was doing it before Boruc smeared butter all over his gloves for the first two "catches" and then got his toblerone boots on to shank one out of play. So we can hardly blame the fans for that. If just one of Boruc's drops had fallen to an Arsenal striker and they'd knocked it in, this would be an entirely different discussion. Maybe it was the luck Boruc needs and he'll improve from here by cutting out the errors; personally I don't see it. I think he's a catastrophe waiting to happen, and he does very little to inspire my confidence.

Yep, those guys in banking are always to be trusted and could never trigger a global financial collapse