Don't know what possessed Barcelona to do that and cruel of Figo really. He had a clause in his contract but they should have insisted that it couldn't include R Madrid. The animosity towards Barcelona and R Madrid with its historical foundations goes way beyond a football grudge or locality. Can't see Liverpool or City ever selling a prized asset to United. Or the other way round for that matter.
-
NEXT GAME: Sheffield Wednesday FC
Sunday April 21st 2024
Kick off 12.30 pm
Ewood Park
Championship
Financial Unfair Play (FUP)
- Thread starter Vinjay
- Start date
Do you think such a clause would have been upheld in the EU Courts? I don't.
Fully agree with you Gord., which is why I considered than Lenihan and Mulgrew should be told that they had to fulfil their contracts when there was talk of them demanding a transfer.
Not so sure. Mulgrew is too old to sit and sulk out the rest of his career and I don't believe that Lenihan would want to sacrifice the next two years of his career on the bench. No international selection from there. They would have to buckle down and get on with it. Contracts should be enforced and made to work both ways.
La Liga seem to be taking fairness tips from UEFA.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/09/20/celta-vigo-fined-la-liga-low-attendances/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/09/20/celta-vigo-fined-la-liga-low-attendances/
Getting back on the specific subject...
http://www.thestar.com.my/sport/foo...pean-politicians-to-help-cut-richpoor-divide/
Some qotes here from the UEFA "congress" mainly from President Aleksander Ceferin who is a known FUP supporter. Platini may have been crucified from a legal standpoint but his disciples are still out in force.
http://www.thestar.com.my/sport/foo...pean-politicians-to-help-cut-richpoor-divide/
Some qotes here from the UEFA "congress" mainly from President Aleksander Ceferin who is a known FUP supporter. Platini may have been crucified from a legal standpoint but his disciples are still out in force.
Ridiculous and quite possibly illegal. Anyway we'd be in bother venkys or no venkys. Even if the couple of hundred boycotters returned and we were still in the prem we'd likely be up before the beak.
Quite right to. No idea how it could be reversed but football is massively imbalanced and skewed in favour of the big clubs. Every piece of legislation in the past 50 years has been introduced to favour the big clubs and reduce real competition.
A
ABBEY
Guest
And not ONE media outlet is saying they are buying the league
Because there's nothing corrupt about that rule to legally fight against. Absolutely idiotic comparison.
Pleased to add that Milan overturned their FUP European ban. Hopefully the first of many losses for UEFA if more clubs stand up to them. It always seems on Rovers forums there's more sneering at "inconsistent" punishments than the rule just being plain corrupt altogether. If Rovers had won more titles in the 90's you can guarantee United and others would have pushed for such rules then.What would we do without FUP?
Last edited:
Thats cos they wont win the league.
imo City have already done that whilst MU have spewed a fortune and Abromovic is obviously losing interest and reining in Chelsea's spending. Meanwhile the best businessman/manager was hounded out by disgruntled fans whose sole intention it seems is for Arsenal to financially blow their brains out too. It's all a farce and a hell of a long way away from sport.
Last edited:
They knew the rules and they broke them. My only gripe is that the rule doesn't appear to be applied in all cases and in all countries.
It's all fine and dandy having a sugar daddy..... until the sugar daddy leaves. Nobody should know this better than ourselves. No one can deny that we took a massive downturn when Jack died, then when the Trust sold out and the venkys trapped up and we'll take an even bigger one should they upsticks and leave.
You tried to undermine Jack from day 1. What the Walker family influenced trust did is on them. Jack wasn't an idiot nobody is saying that in 2003 (hypothetically if he was still alive) he would have spent 300 million in one go to keep up with Abramovich, etc. Most likely he would have done what he always did and pursued the best interests of the club. If that meant selling to someone of considerably greater wealth that's what I believe he would have done. There wouldn't have been any need to "demand he sell" and considering he wouldn't have neglected the club (though if he had cut off funding at some point at least it would have been his decision). Jack never put the club in any danger and had no issue subsidising the losses (which isn't to say he wanted managers wasting his money on likes of Ashley Ward) during his entire time here. You could say "well why don't you blame the choice of trustees" or "why didn't he disinherit his entire ingrate family".
Perhaps he had a bit of a blind spot with some of his family members. Judging by the fact he didn't completely disown Howard (drowning at birth might not be too strong where he's concerned) it's fair to say that. You have to remember he was separated from Howard's Mother (same as Lynda's) and perhaps he felt like he constantly had to make up for that. He lived in Jersey in the 70's after all but it seems like Howard's Mother stayed in Lancashire and certainly did by time of her death. He was also married to a woman named Barbara and finally Carole. The former continued living on Jersey after their divorce and I think she was the Mother of Ross and his Sister (amazingly forgotten her damn name though it will come back to me without looking it up especially since I know it begins with M)
One thing is for sure that family were never left to starve. Their sheer greed and influence of the trustees is beyond betrayal. As for the trustees he probably expected them to do their damn jobs. He couldn't have forseen his family harassing them (that's what happened you're naive if you think otherwise what other motive could the trustees possibly have had to withold funds to such an extent?) and certainly wouldn't have expected the fans to be so damn blind and passive to just accept it. Same with the club's day to day administrators who have to be asked the same question.
Trustees owning a club was a unique situation in itself and one that probably won't be repeated at a club of this stature. There's no crystal ball but the reason it was set up in first place was "incase something happened to him suddenly". That does show that he didn't entirely trust his family to do the right thing. Or more likely he just didn't consider them competent enough hence the trustee setup. Or to be truly definitive he knew they wouldn't want day to day responsibilities as it would require them having to do some actual work.
The Lancashire United argument in particular is exactly what Jack felt the equivalent here could be. As you might know (though I could remind but can't be bothered as trying to keep the post short) I blame the family/trustees (and the mentality of the club) following his death, Once again the one quote I will quickly use is "we must see ourselves as being Lancashire" in 1998 from Williams. Tell me why that changed...actually don't it's a rhetorical question and you know what my answer is. The fans ARE to blame for their part in this especially ones like yourself who insist it's a "small town" when it's applied for city status! Don't give me stupid examples like Ripon and Wells to counter that.
Yes I know it's long but when you criticise Jack (why do you come across as having a greater liking for those you consider beyond criticism like Allardyce?) and use "sugar daddy" in a sneering way what do you expect? How can you support FUP which basically says Jack was a cheat yet attack anyone (including those like me who at the very least considered him a competent but heavily overrated manager) who tired of Allardyce and his arrogance? Yes I rant about the Walker Family but I can't help it...and can you blame me given my feelings towards them? You also seem to prefer people like Alan Sugar over Jack (the former had no right to question Jack on anything football related) and is that because he's a bit of a "cold fish" by his own admission? You seem to sneer at good hearted people like Jack but embrace less desirable traits in certain people.
Perhaps he had a bit of a blind spot with some of his family members. Judging by the fact he didn't completely disown Howard (drowning at birth might not be too strong where he's concerned) it's fair to say that. You have to remember he was separated from Howard's Mother (same as Lynda's) and perhaps he felt like he constantly had to make up for that. He lived in Jersey in the 70's after all but it seems like Howard's Mother stayed in Lancashire and certainly did by time of her death. He was also married to a woman named Barbara and finally Carole. The former continued living on Jersey after their divorce and I think she was the Mother of Ross and his Sister (amazingly forgotten her damn name though it will come back to me without looking it up especially since I know it begins with M)
One thing is for sure that family were never left to starve. Their sheer greed and influence of the trustees is beyond betrayal. As for the trustees he probably expected them to do their damn jobs. He couldn't have forseen his family harassing them (that's what happened you're naive if you think otherwise what other motive could the trustees possibly have had to withold funds to such an extent?) and certainly wouldn't have expected the fans to be so damn blind and passive to just accept it. Same with the club's day to day administrators who have to be asked the same question.
Trustees owning a club was a unique situation in itself and one that probably won't be repeated at a club of this stature. There's no crystal ball but the reason it was set up in first place was "incase something happened to him suddenly". That does show that he didn't entirely trust his family to do the right thing. Or more likely he just didn't consider them competent enough hence the trustee setup. Or to be truly definitive he knew they wouldn't want day to day responsibilities as it would require them having to do some actual work.
The Lancashire United argument in particular is exactly what Jack felt the equivalent here could be. As you might know (though I could remind but can't be bothered as trying to keep the post short) I blame the family/trustees (and the mentality of the club) following his death, Once again the one quote I will quickly use is "we must see ourselves as being Lancashire" in 1998 from Williams. Tell me why that changed...actually don't it's a rhetorical question and you know what my answer is. The fans ARE to blame for their part in this especially ones like yourself who insist it's a "small town" when it's applied for city status! Don't give me stupid examples like Ripon and Wells to counter that.
Yes I know it's long but when you criticise Jack (why do you come across as having a greater liking for those you consider beyond criticism like Allardyce?) and use "sugar daddy" in a sneering way what do you expect? How can you support FUP which basically says Jack was a cheat yet attack anyone (including those like me who at the very least considered him a competent but heavily overrated manager) who tired of Allardyce and his arrogance? Yes I rant about the Walker Family but I can't help it...and can you blame me given my feelings towards them? You also seem to prefer people like Alan Sugar over Jack (the former had no right to question Jack on anything football related) and is that because he's a bit of a "cold fish" by his own admission? You seem to sneer at good hearted people like Jack but embrace less desirable traits in certain people.
Last edited:
A
ABBEY
Guest
DISGUSTING POST.....
YES WE ARE MORE TOLERENT THAN OTHER PLACES BUT THIS IS BANG OUT OF ORDER.
Oh come on Abbey I don't call you out on your signature (or have a problem with it regardless) so don't decide what's morally right or wrong in my remarks towards someone like Howard. Especially when I dislike him more than anyone else in that family for previously stated reasons.
Even if you're gonna be so obtuse (referring to Theno can't be bothered editing quotes in) about what constitutes "rules" by UEFA's standards what the hell gives them the right to label Jack (and others) as unfair? That's what they are doing and contradicting their own previous "rules" in the first place! Maybe you should start asking why clubs from the same country get numerous entrants for the so called "Champions League" if they are from a higher ranked (and wealthier though goodness knows the virtuous UEFA wouldn't be motivated by their own financial benefits!) European League? Is that "fair" as well? UEFA are damn hypocrites. Yeah maybe there's a case for why the Champions of the Faroe Islands shouldn't qualify automatically but FOUR clubs from Spain, Italy, Germany and England? I don't think any of the English clubs even have to play a qualifier now do they? How's that right?
To put it in a context you will definitely understand UEFA's fairness exists on a same level with religious beliefs. There's no such damn thing and it's made up by their own interpretation. That's what FUP is their own biased interpretation and people have every right to challenge it. Milan have proved that by getting this ban overturned.
To put it in a context you will definitely understand UEFA's fairness exists on a same level with religious beliefs. There's no such damn thing and it's made up by their own interpretation. That's what FUP is their own biased interpretation and people have every right to challenge it. Milan have proved that by getting this ban overturned.
Last edited: