The new premier league rules!

I seen on tv today that west ham will not be able to afford Carroll if these rules come into play! Regarding you can only spend what you have coming into the club! Or something around those lines,
If we get into the pl is this what tan as been working towards regarding the rebrand and showing games in Malaysia? Could the extra income if any, enable us more flexibility in the transfer market than most pl teams?

I have been against financial fair play from the very beginning. It is designed to protect the status quo and has been triggered because of Manchester city breaking down the norm. Liverpool and Arsenal crowing that it isn't fair to spend vast sums of money to oust them from there standard top four place. It ruins dreams and it won't be in force in a decade.

It's funny because United are likely to spunk in the face of FFP by signgin 48m whereas if the FA get tough on City's sponsorship deal they are going to struggle big time. If someone wants to buy Port Vale and spend millions of THEIR money on it then why not?

I have been against financial fair play from the very beginning. It is designed to protect the status quo and has been triggered because of Manchester city breaking down the norm. Liverpool and Arsenal crowing that it isn't fair to spend vast sums of money to oust them from there standard top four place. It ruins dreams and it won't be in force in a decade.

It's funny because United are likely to spunk in the face of FFP by signgin 48m whereas if the FA get tough on City's sponsorship deal they are going to struggle big time. If someone wants to buy Port Vale and spend millions of THEIR money on it then why not?

It's because the person who comes in and spends 'millions of their money' isn't actually spending his money. They loan their money to the club and charge interest. Such as Sam Hammam at us, Pompey etc.

Its to stop clubs spending out of their means and there to protect clubs from this sort of exploitation from owners.

The explanation of ruining dreams is ridiculous. Swansea got promoted without spending ridiculously and so did Norwich. Its not all about money - although it does help.

Andy Carroll move to West Ham 'threatened by fair play rules'

New financial fair play rules could scupper West Ham's hopes of signing striker Andy Carroll, manager Sam Allardyce says.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22160271

It will cause uproar. ESP if it is spread throughout Europe

Try telling heads at UTD Real Barca Citeh and co you can't buy him because you don't earn enough.

I'm intrigued as to how it will all affect Cardiff City FC

Someone correct me if I am wrong but I read this as the perfect time for Vincent Tan to 'make good' on his promise to convert debt into equity by the purchase of shares

Additionally, promotion also means that it is 'pay up' time with regard to Sam under the agreements in place, so there would be additional reasons for fans to celebrate a rosey picture for our first season in the big league

Is this correct?

I seen on tv today that west ham will not be able to afford Carroll if these rules come into play! Regarding you can only spend what you have coming into the club! Or something around those lines,
If we get into the pl is this what tan as been working towards regarding the rebrand and showing games in Malaysia? Could the extra income if any, enable us more flexibility in the transfer market than most pl teams?

He better play us every day on malaysian tv then to pay the 80 mill debt off.

Maybe we could afford to get fortune west back if this happens then we are fucked unless Tan turns the debt to equity.

I have been against financial fair play from the very beginning. It is designed to protect the status quo and has been triggered because of Manchester city breaking down the norm. Liverpool and Arsenal crowing that it isn't fair to spend vast sums of money to oust them from there standard top four place. It ruins dreams and it won't be in force in a decade.

It's funny because United are likely to spunk in the face of FFP by signgin 48m whereas if the FA get tough on City's sponsorship deal they are going to struggle big time. If someone wants to buy Port Vale and spend millions of THEIR money on it then why not?

It's because the person who comes in and spends 'millions of their money' isn't actually spending his money. They loan their money to the club and charge interest. Such as Sam Hammam at us, Pompey etc.

Its to stop clubs spending out of their means and there to protect clubs from this sort of exploitation from owners.

The explanation of ruining dreams is ridiculous. Swansea got promoted without spending ridiculously and so did Norwich. Its not all about money - although it does help.

But how far can Swansea and Norwich go? When was the last time a team without a bit of money won the league? They can ban owners from doing that, no need to put stringent rules in place that protect the status quo.

I have been against financial fair play from the very beginning. It is designed to protect the status quo and has been triggered because of Manchester city breaking down the norm. Liverpool and Arsenal crowing that it isn't fair to spend vast sums of money to oust them from there standard top four place. It ruins dreams and it won't be in force in a decade.

It's funny because United are likely to spunk in the face of FFP by signgin 48m whereas if the FA get tough on City's sponsorship deal they are going to struggle big time. If someone wants to buy Port Vale and spend millions of THEIR money on it then why not?

It's because the person who comes in and spends 'millions of their money' isn't actually spending his money. They loan their money to the club and charge interest. Such as Sam Hammam at us, Pompey etc.

Its to stop clubs spending out of their means and there to protect clubs from this sort of exploitation from owners.

The explanation of ruining dreams is ridiculous. Swansea got promoted without spending ridiculously and so did Norwich. Its not all about money - although it does help.

But how far can Swansea and Norwich go? When was the last time a team without a bit of money won the league? They can ban owners from doing that, no need to put stringent rules in place that protect the status quo.

Exactly the only ones it will affect are the smaller clubs and will make the leagues more disproportionate