In case you missed Ben Mansford's interview

Will do, matey.

I agree, by the way, that he's a really good spokesman for the club.
Knocks the socks off of Gord & The Don.

However - he reports to Maurice and I'm not 100% sure that they can represent both the interests of BFC & Mo's firm at the same time.
Just my opinion, spadger.

 

Maurice isn't representing anyone by the sounds, it's the law firm he works for.

The changes relate to the transfer embargo part, which will ultimately hurt clubs like Barnsley. He has a point.

 

"I always thought FFP was there to prevent clubs from building huge squads and paying astronomical wages rather than subdue the transfer market. It tends to be wages rather than transfer fees that get clubs in such debt, so I'm not sure that point made by Ben is very important. A side issue rather than the crux of the problem"

Nail. Head.

THIS is why FFP is so important for clubs "like us".
If Maurice doesn't agree ... I'd like him to leave.

 

I thought pretty much the same before listening to it, but I'm not sure I do now. That's not to say I'm in total agreement with what Ben has said, it takes me a while to work out what it all might mean 'cos I'm a bit slow, but I'm less inclined to think that Maurice Watkins is doing anything that could be considered a conflict of interests. It seems everyone at the club has the same vision for the future, which involves FFP, but not necessarily in the version in which it exists at the moment.

 

Wrong, mate:

"Other clubs believed to be involved in instructing Brabners are Queens Park Rangers, who lost £23m in 2011-2012".

Have a good read of it all.
If Maurice was a "White Knight" and was just fighting for parachute payments to be reduces etc ... I'd be happy.
He's not. Have a read.

 

He did explain the club's position very well.

But his main point (I think) was that you embargo clubs if they breach FFP. If they're embargoed then they can't spend millions upon millions on our brilliant football players. The problem is, like you said, that it's wages and stockpiling which is the biggest problem. If we don't embargo clubs then what do we do?

Barnsley FC need FFP to try and level the playing field.

 

Smoke & mirrors.
Look at the clubs who have instructed Mo's firm.

My personal opinion is that our club are hiding behind the "FFP needs to change" whilst banging on about embago & parachute.
In the real world Mo's firm are representing the clubs who have the most to lose ... QPR etc etc etc.

Very clever.

 

Dunno. I've got no answers at the minute. Not entirely sure where I stand. I want FFP, I want a reduction in parachute payments so they merely stop relegated clubs from going in to massive debt rather than provide them a war chest to take in to the transfer market, and I'd like to see a wage cap, not on individual players, but a percentage of turnover. But I really want to make sure what I'm arguing for is right for our club and I haven't worked it all out yet.

 

I have one challenge for you:

(a) Listen to Ben & what he says about FFP
(b) Compare this to the fact that Brabners are representing Leicester, QPR, Blackburn & Wolves

Now work out that if it was all about parachute payments & transfer embargo's ... why would it be these clubs challenging FFP?

Conflict. Of. Interest.

 

To be fair you'd of thought Shea would have lots to prove, he's on the fringes of making the USA squad for the World Cup.

It's hard to understand someone in his position seemingly not interested in giving his all in a World Cup year.

Once in a lifetime chance & all that

 

Agreed. I think ready for next season with regards to loans we will stick more to those who have done little so far and want to improve like McLaughlin, rather than bringing in big time charlies like Ping Pong and Brek Sweat who think they have already made it and don't seem to give two hoots.

 

man talks a lot of sense. One of most comprehensive and detailed interviews i have ever heard. he talks the talk and appears to walk the walk

 

I read the ffp part as the principals ok but there's got to be scope for clubs like us who may get investment from Hazeldenes and Becketts for example.So in effect not cutting our nose off to spite our face.

 

Well yeah, I'm sure all these talented footballers start out with the best intentions and dream of lifting trophies and going to World Cups but a lot of them must be affected by the money and the sort of lifestyle it can open up for them. Suddenly the football becomes secondary and they are happy just to go through the motions in training and games.

 

Never understood why clubs needed parachute payments in the first place. Properly written contracts *should* have included paycuts for players in the even of relegation thus keeping them from having financial trouble or sell-on clauses so the players could leave. The only reason I can see for them is to keep the Premier League occupied by the teams that are in the Premier League.

 

I think you're missing the point here. The clubs that are challenging it are the ones who want to carry on trying to buy their way into the Premiership, nobody's doubting that. What BM said was that the two negative points of the FFP for clubs like us are that we don't have the fanbase to increase our turnover, so the only way that our money would go up is if we sell players for big fees or get investment from local businesses. The FFP would limit the latter, whereas clubs falling foul of the FFP would have transfer embargoes placed on them which would limit the amount of clubs available to sell to, which increase would lower transfer fees. So whilst he agrees in the principle of it, as it stands there are downfalls of it for us too.

I think you're getting too caught up in your conspiracy theory. Not everything is black or white.

 

Don't think I've missed the point one little bit, so I'll clarify:

(1) Ben said one thing
(2) Maurice is doing something else

Is that okay for you?

 

**** FFP, it's not your forte, you ******* Tard.