Has the Bournemouth BUBBLE burst ?

[BBassic]

Oh come on forget Newcastle you had three games to win the Championship surely thats bottling it. Watford did it when we went up as champions.

Taking nothing away from the great achievement of your promotion which was against the odds i agree considering the spend of the Norwichs, Leeds, Derby, Villa etc

We had three chances, didn't take them and thus didn't deserve to go up as champions. Not bottling in my eyes because, as far as I'm concerned, we over-achieved this season. I didn't think we'd make the playoffs to be honest.

 

[golddene]

The funny thing is though that the best players for us the season we went up were already at the club in League one. We didn't spend anymore than anybody else really its just shown to be more due to our very small ground.

Lets give an example:-

If Derby County for instance spent their current wages they pay out in a stadium that holds only 11k do you think they would breach FFP? Of course they would same if every club in the championship who were all paying the same if not more than Bournemouth were at the time.

I can't see where the major signings for millions upon millions were in the Bournemouth team that went up as champions.

You're missing the point, probably deliberately, Bournemouth signed players which in any other season in their history would have never signed for them by offering wages / signing on fees which they could not possibly fund without smashing the rules set out by the authorities. This is cheating the system and all other clubs who adhered to the rules and subsequently were disadvantaged were cheated also. Whichever way you want to explain it it's wrong and had or have my club acted in this way I would / will be calling them out in the same way which I am calling yours.

 

[Inova]

You're missing the point, probably deliberately, Bournemouth signed players which in any other season in their history would have never signed for them by offering wages / signing on fees which they could not possibly fund without smashing the rules set out by the authorities. This is cheating the system and all other clubs who adhered to the rules and subsequently were disadvantaged were cheated also. Whichever way you want to explain it it's wrong and had or have my club acted in this way I would / will be calling them out in the same way which I am calling yours.

Just out of interest do you think parachute payments are fair then?

Do you think that any level of Football is fair nowadays because lets be honest its all about who has the most money?

Do you think Man City and Chelsea became succesful clubs because of anything other than money?

How is that any more justifable than little Bournemouth having a little bit of success finally? After having a very tough recent history something Brighton know all about as well...

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Just out of interest do you think parachute payments are fair then?

Do you think that any level of Football is fair nowadays because lets be honest its all about who has the most money?

Do you think Man City and Chelsea became succesful clubs because of anything other than money?

How it that any more justifable than little Bournemouth having a little bit of success finally? After having a very tough recent history something Brighton know all about as well...

Try all you like to justify it with your 'whatabouting', but there is a big difference between 'unfair' as in inequitable (some clubs have more money than others ) and 'unfair' as in BREAKING the rules of the competition, that YOU agreed to in order to compete.

One is cheating, the other is not.

 

[Inova]

Try all you like to justify it with your 'whatabouting', but there is a big difference between 'unfair' as in inequitable (some clubs have more money than others ) and 'unfair' as in BREAKING the rules of the competition, that YOU agreed to in order to compete.

One is cheating, the other is not.

Ok i don't think i can win on here.

You seriously think that Bournemouth spending a little more than they normally do in their history on wages/Sign on fees for one season. Which added very slighty to a core group of players and that were obtained while in league one is cheating, but what Man City and Chelsea have done is just happening to have more money than others?

Read what you have just written seriously!!!

There is no two ways about it Man City and Chelsea have effectively done the same, but on a much larger scale for the last decade and with added over spending on transfers. The only difference is that the PL doesn't have the same rules as the Football League.

If you think that little Bournemouth are biggers cheats than these clubs then you are more naive than i thought....

 

[GT49er]

Sorry - edit to this, as I see young Jermain also expects a £6m signing-on fee...

TWENTY THREE MILLION POUNDS

#Eddie'sMiracle

In the current climate, would £23M be that unreasonable for a top English PL striker?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

In the current climate, would £23M be that unreasonable for a top English PL striker?

It is for one that turns 35 in a few months, yes.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

There is no two ways about it Man City and Chelsea have effectively done the same, but on a much larger scale for the last decade and with added over spending on transfers. The only difference is that the PL doesn't have the same rules as the Football League.

If you think that little Bournemouth are biggers cheats than these clubs then you are more naive than i thought....

Christ on a ****ing stick. You BROKE the rules of the competition that YOU were playing in, and got promoted at other teams' expense.

That some other teams spent more, and in the process didn't break the rules because their competition was different, is completely irrelevant.

 

[Inova]

Christ on a ****ing stick. You BROKE the rules of the competition that YOU were playing in, and got promoted at other teams' expense.

That some other teams spent more, and in the process didn't break the rules because their competition was different, is completely irrelevant.

I missed the part where paying more wages than we should have gurantees promotion?

What players on these huge wages did we manage to afford that helped us break these brilliant (fair) rules set by the FL then?


I can't honestly believe you think what we did is worse than Man City or Chelsea have done.....

Speechless.

 

[LlcoolJ]

I missed the part where paying more wages than we should have gurantees promotion?

What players on these huge wages did we manage to afford that helped us break these brilliant (fair) rules set by the FL then?


I can't honestly believe you think what we did is worse than Man City or Chelsea have done.....

Speechless.

There's deliberately missing the point, and then there's this.

 

[Nixonator]

Just out of interest do you think parachute payments are fair then?

Do you think that any level of Football is fair nowadays because lets be honest its all about who has the most money?

Do you think Man City and Chelsea became succesful clubs because of anything other than money?

How is that any more justifable than little Bournemouth having a little bit of success finally? After having a very tough recent history something Brighton know all about as well...

Football is ****ed up, that's a different point. Manchester City and Chelsea were permitted to rise before these rules came into place which restricts other clubs from doing the same with rich owners. Therefore if there were no rules then they couldn't have cheated any, and other rich owners could have theoretically done the same at other clubs.

FFP came into place restricting owners from bankrolling clubs to the extent of the examples above (note that I do not and have never agreed with FFP) with rules that some clubs ignored because any action would be retrospective (AFCB etc) and which others adhered to thereby competing at a disadvantage. In essence, you cheated to get promoted and although I agree with elements of what you're saying you cannot escape this very simple fact.

You should at least be thankful that there are other stories with more blatant disregard for creditors and rules than you lot, like Leicester and QPR. I have nothing against Bournemouth by the way, I wish them well except when playing us.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I missed the part where paying more wages than we should have gurantees promotion?

.

It doesn't. Plenty of clubs spend big money on crap players.

What players on these huge wages did we manage to afford that helped us break these brilliant (fair) rules set by the FL then?

1. Callum Wilson? Expensive new deal to retain Ritchie? etc. Even if you signed players who made little or no contribution, how is that relevant in any way? You still had to pay them.

2. Even before that season you were known to be spending plenty. Elphick moved to you from the Albion a doubled his wages, when he couldn't get a game here.

I can't honestly believe you think what we did is worse than Man City or Chelsea have done.....

Speechless.

It is nothing to de with being 'worse'. It is an entirely different argument. Any argument about their spending is on moral or sporting grounds.

You BROKE the rules of the competition. You cheated. It is really not difficult to grasp the difference.

Unless you're a bit slow.

 

[Inova]

Football is ****ed up, that's a different point. Manchester City and Chelsea were permitted to rise before these rules came into place which restricts other clubs from doing the same with rich owners. Therefore if there were no rules then they couldn't have cheated any, and other rich owners could have theoretically done the same at other clubs.

FFP came into place restricting owners from bankrolling clubs to the extent of the examples above (note that I do not and have never agreed with FFP) with rules that some clubs ignored because any action would be retrospective (AFCB etc) and which others adhered to thereby competing at a disadvantage. In essence, you cheated to get promoted and although I agree with elements of what you're saying you cannot escape this very simple fact.

You should at least be thankful that there are other stories with more blatant disregard for creditors and rules than you lot, like Leicester and QPR. I have nothing against Bournemouth by the way, I wish them well except when playing us.

Are the rules for Brighton different then:-

http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/14959884.Albion_facing_a_fight_to_avoid_breaking_financial_rules/

Must have been a close call for you to nearly be cheats.....

 

[Nixonator]

Are the rules for Brighton different then:-

http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/14959884.Albion_facing_a_fight_to_avoid_breaking_financial_rules/

Must have been a close call for you to nearly be cheats.....

That's not a statement of fact, just an outside opinion. The club's official line was that we are within the permitted rolling 13M losses.

Speculate more if you like by quoting 30M (the figure seems to keep going up) losses and what must be a couple billion debt now it's been through the social media circus.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Are the rules for Brighton different then:-

http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/14959884.Albion_facing_a_fight_to_avoid_breaking_financial_rules/

Must have been a close call for you to nearly be cheats.....

At those levels of spending (over the THREE YEAR period of measurement) we couldn't have stayed within the rules. Had we not gone up we'd have had to sell a couple of prized assets to comply. Which would have been inevitable because they'd have left anyway. The sale of Dunk alone would have halved that yearly loss, and we'd be good to go.

Next.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Are the rules for Brighton different then:-

http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/14959884.Albion_facing_a_fight_to_avoid_breaking_financial_rules/

Must have been a close call for you to nearly be cheats.....

One is either a cheat or not. We​ aren't, Bournemouth are. Simple.

 

[afcb]

Ah, you see - you're being a bit of a knob now.

First, you've clearly not seen our academy facilities, and (understandably) have no clue as to the enormous scope of the club's community work. Those numbers are all above board, all fully signed off, and (once again) utterly irrelevant to FFP calculations.

Knob?...do you have tourettes ?

Investment in a clubs community scheme and youth development is exempt from FFP so is not utterly irrelevant.....SR quite rightly states that its unlikely you spent £8 million on running the academy and community - you point out the 'enormous scope of the clubs community work' which of course you would as its fits.

Now remind us all why we are cheats when you saddle yourselves with £170 million debt and cover losses with bullshit community and stadium depreciation figures. How much is our debt again ?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

It doesn't. Plenty of clubs spend big money on crap players.


1. Callum Wilson? Expensive new deal to retain Ritchie? etc. Even if you signed players who made little or no contribution, how is that relevant in any way? You still had to pay them.

2. Even before that season you were known to be spending plenty. Elphick moved to you from the Albion a doubled his wages, when he couldn't get a game here.



It is nothing to de with being 'worse'. It is an entirely different argument. Any argument about their spending is on moral or sporting grounds.

You BROKE the rules of the competition. You cheated. It is really not difficult to grasp the difference.

Unless you're a bit slow.

Quite. When Elphick signed for Bournemouth (then in League One), he was being paid more than our captain, Gordon Greer, was in the Championship. Matt Ritchie was one of the best players in League One for Swindon. Bournemouth paid about £800k for him, a sum pretty much unheard of at that level even now.

I've always been slightly intrigued about what a rich Russian thought he'd get out of AFCB, given their lowly level at the time he arrived, and the lack of potential for expansion. What would a man like him need/want an English football club for? <strokes chin>

 

[whitelion]

Quite. When Elphick signed for Bournemouth (then in League One), he was being paid more than our captain, Gordon Greer, was in the Championship. Matt Ritchie was one of the best players in League One for Swindon. Bournemouth paid about £800k for him, a sum pretty much unheard of at that level even now.

I've always been slightly intrigued about what a rich Russian thought he'd get out of AFCB, given their lowly level at the time he arrived, and the lack of potential for expansion. What would a man like him need/want an English football club for? <strokes chin>

How do you know this?

 

[Nixonator]

Knob?...do you have tourettes ?

Investment in a clubs community scheme and youth development is exempt from FFP so is not utterly irrelevant.....SR quite rightly states that its unlikely you spent £8 million on running the academy and community - you point out the 'enormous scope of the clubs community work' which of course you would as its fits.

Now remind us all why we are cheats when you saddle yourselves with £170 million debt and cover losses with bullshit community and stadium depreciation figures. How much is our debt again ?

We don't 'cover' losses, they are part of the losses

You are cheats because you broke the rules laid out that (most) other clubs adhered to. Rules that we have not broken and will not break. Are you a bit dim?

For instance, there are no rules that state a rich local owner cannot fund a stadium build (almost the entirety of the 'debt' to which you refer and which is constantly being converted) for his local club who had their ground sold from under them some 15 years prior. If there was a rule for that, we would have broken it. Funnily enough there wasn't/isn't.