did i say Hudd? i meant sandro of course...ahem...
One things for sure Hazard isnt going to tippy toe around defenders as easy in the Premiership as he did in France, cant wait till the Hudd hits him with the shoulder sending him flying through the hoardings...
Tell that to the Twente player whose face was introduced to his elbow!Out of all the players in the PL you could have named for this scenario, Cattermole... Barton... Sandro... you pick the gentle giant THudd!?
Tell that to the Twente player whose face was introduced to his elbow!
I think he was getting better at the physical stuff before his injury, to be fair to him. But I see your point.Yep Hudd can be prone to the odd cheap shot off the ball, still cant imagine him barging putting his body in during the course of the match and shoving someone into the ad boards!
No FFP doesn't mean that. I haven't pored over the fine print, but wages are included in the expenditure, and it's limited to a percentage of turnover, not all of it. So they can't spend all of their turnover on transfers without falling foul of FFP.
Assuming, of course, that UEFA actually implements it.
Think it is you that has the wrong end of the stick!
Not to sound bitter but he sounds a bit of a cock doesn't he! Quite glad his not near our squad now...undoubtabley a good player but a big cock doesn't always do the best job.
Considering shite nicknames seem to be all the rage on SC atm, I shall christen him Ron.Yah.
Boo.
Weasley little twat.
Mata, Hazard, Marin, Ramires. Oh bollocks.
You both are talking about the original intentions of FFP, as it was interpreted. I have seen reports to the contrary most recently as UEFA tries to mould FFP to fit the big sides. In particular the rule that you can (if you show improving finances) exclude wages from players signed before June 2010 up to the end of 2014-15 (and they want to extend this rule)
But if what you are saying is correct then Chelsea's Revenues of £200m would be offset against wages of £175m, meaning there would be appx £25m to spend on transfer fees and over 3 years that is £75m. Add in the £45m an owner is allowed to contribute over the 3 years and that makes a total of £120m to spend on transfers over 3 years. This doesn't account for UK tax laws being greater than others and so if UEFA adopt a post tax view the wages cost is even lower and that £120m increases.
So each way....FFP is not what you think it is, and even these models are open to loopholes and won't be fully implemented.
UEFA makes so much money from the CL and from the big brans of Barca, Madrid, Man U, Chelsea, Milan, Bayern etc...that it will want to protect those brands to maximise its global appeal so FFP is not in any of its own interests except ensuring these sides are in the CL every year