I'm aware of that and I didn't claim it's going to make all 20 clubs competitive. Congratulations on putting words in my mouth. Do you even understand what a monopoly is? The European market is most certainly not monopolised.David Moyes works under conditions that are not his choice or the chairmans choice he works under them because no one has put a meaningful offer which would benefit the club long term not from choice. They are the most 'competitive' team in the league thats for sure. If you honestly think that FFP will make the small clubs bigger and the big clubs smaller so to speak then that my friend IS naive, it is not just clubs like Manchester United have large debt teams lower in the division have unsustainable debt.
Spirit of football is a different point, again you go on your crusade of sentimentalism about how the little clubs make the league what it is the spirit of the Premier League is that every team competes and plays at a high tempo with the ultimate level of commitment from each player. The problem you have is in the past 19 years as the Premier League worldwide brand has increased the stature of clubs like United, Arsenal, Liverpool and even Chelsea in recent years has monopolised the Asian African and European markets with merchandising and promotion. So the situation that this will help Everton, Spurs etc is wrong they will have to sell players to break even and comply to offload from the wage bill/and or help clear the debt creating an era of clubs suddenly becoming 'selling clubs'.
So, lets see what you've achieved in your argument. You've put words in my mouth to criticise me by, criticised FFP and then offered no alternatives to "help Spurs and Everton". I never said FFP was a perfect policy, that it'll help Everton and Spurs. I said that your argument of letting billionaires do what they like in the sport is retarded, which it is. Also, how on Earth can you criticise FFP for not offering support to the smaller clubs and then be perfectly fine with billionaires running clubs, spending what they like. 'selling clubs' you're against that philosophy, but are fine with billionaires just buying their players instead? Kudos.
They will be under no such need to sell players to break even. Most of their best players are usually homegrown, or brought up as a star for a small fee. This means that the overall spend on the player is low, the return in the form of playing performance and eventual profit from the sale is huge. Look at Rodwell at Everton, if they sell him for £20m, they can buy 3-4 players to improve the squad. To argue FFP is going to constrain clubs like Everton into selling everyone to break even is silly. Firstly, they most likely won't be affected by the European cup sanctions. Secondly, they can already afford their playing staff, why are they suddenly having to sell up to break even.
So, it's worse under FFP, but then you're fine with billionaires absolutely annihilating the gap between the top and the bottom? These rules have been brought into sort out the horrid state of club finances in Europe's top competition. Smaller clubs are far more likely to be benefited, even though it's not aimed at helping them. You realise that large clubs have such a big gap between the smaller clubs because they can finance so much through huge debts and being bankrolled by a sugar daddy? And you SUPPORT the sugar daddy, and then you go off criticising FFP for bridging the gap? Come on now, please. FFP will have downwards pressure on wages and transfer fees, enabling smaller clubs to become more financially able to sanction transfers. Smaller teams are also far less burdened by debt, but large teams will have to cut back massively. Chelsea can no longer splash £70m in one go, if they're not spending, teams aren't selling, simple economics. Yet you suggest that they'll carry on spending bridging the gap, and teams will become 'selling clubs. Those two ideas are plain false, and the complete opposite to what the rules are doing.The Premier League has long past the time of English spirit, we have the most diverse league in the world and it is easily Englands most famous worldwide export with millions of viewers tuning in every weekend no matter who plays. It will be worst with FFP the gap between bottom and top, teams like Blackburn who are building HUGE wage bills and yet have extremely little revenue will be forced into the red. It is common sense that Spurs worldwide merchandising and sales for their turnover will be so inferior to United/Arsenal that it will be near on impossible for them to break the top four again without having the strength to buy freely without selling stars.
You CAN'T have short term success and long term stability at the same time. As I said, they're not substitutes. Manchester City's growth is accelerating far faster than its productive capacity for revenue can. Think of it in terms of economics, you could go on a huge spending spree and get 10% growth, but in a few years you'll be bitten in the *** by massive inflation and such. United, Liverpool, Arsenal etc. have all grown at a steady rate, stadiums and merchandising have expanded as they got larger. City can't suddenly become large, it takes years to build a viable market, qualifying for the CL once isn't going to do that. And what happens if the Sheikh gets bored with them in 10 years, they're left with massive wages without the revenue to support it. But I'm sure that's worth a few glory years, right?True long term effects? Like Manchester City reaching their first final in 40 years+? Like Manchester City/Tottenham breaking the top four? You ask any average Joe fan if he wants mediocrity at his football club or success with stability and without the threat of debt then you would say yes it absolutely is a good thing.
It's the fundamental principle of sport that the best win. If you're not the best and can't handle it, then why are you a fan of sport in the first place. Should we allow drugs at the olympics so they can do "whatever it takes to win"? Should a rich tennis player be allowed to finance a new racquet material that gives him the advantage? No. You don't buy success, you earn it. I think you'll find most fans bar Chelsea/City aren't happy at their purchasing of success. And there's one MAJOR flaw with your whole hypothesis. If you want billionaires to run everyone, then demand for players will outstrip the supply, everyone will be then at the same point they were originally at where success gives the competitive advantage, allowing differences to appear between clubs once again. Why don't you actually try thinking about your idea past the first three years? The flaws are so huge it's completely ridiculous for you to suggest it as viable, especially combined with the massive hypocrisy in your posts.So your statement is the rich stay rich and powerful whilst City and Spurs suffer the consequences of needing to pay big wages to attract big stars because they have not won 19 trophies+ in the past twenty years? It is too late to do what Wenger has done and be as successful, his marketing and promotion in Africa has practically monopolised that market along with the other big clubs so if City/Spurs are to make a big turnover they surely need a market to exploit?...Oh wait United/Arsenal/Chelsea got their first so they can never be as big in terms of self sustainable money power it is practically impossible. You can not punish owners/clubs/fans for wanting to be top and doing it by all means necessary so long as the owner is committed and it does not put the clubs future in jeopardy.