Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability - New APT Rules Approved by Premier League

[SUPERTOON]

Just now, PauloGeordio said:

 Pep is City’s Ferguson. Without him they loose something money cannot buy. Manure have had gazillions thrown at it after Ferguson  left to no avail. Money is key,  the manager more so. That’s why we’ve struck gold. We have the man and in time the purse strings will open further to support him as our brand grows and grows 

Man City have a fantastic structure underneath Pep, they may not be as dominant but they will challenge at the top for years to come (assuming they aren’t done with FFP).

[Dokko]

Imagine putting an offer in for Wilko, saving countless jobs, ready to pump money into its infra, rebranding as a global chain, investing in marketing, new stock, more range, then being told Mike Ashley is concerned Sports Direct will suffer as a consequence, so you've got a limit on how much you can spend, and only in a certain way. Or buying a house and having to run changing the door colour beyond your neighbours and whether you're allowed a new car on your drive.

 

How FFP meets any fair trade criteria is beyond me and why no one has challenged this in the highest courts is again baffling. 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2023 by Dokko

[The College Dropout]

Man City don’t get to where they are without being able to spend crazy amounts of money.  
 

They currently have a top 5 academy in the world because of the wealth of their owners.  Same with Chelsea.  They have a production line of talent they can sell and make their net spend look promising. They have a multi club model where City sign players, loan them To Giroma the other club Abu Dhabi own and then pocket the increase in sell on.  None of this is possible without insane wealth.  
 

We’ll end up the same.  It will just take 7+ years to come to fruition. 
 

City aren’t curtailed by FFP currently.  

[Abacus]

It was all much simpler when Jack Walker bought the league title for Blackburn.

 

Point being, that money has always influenced the league.

 

But for every Blackburn, there's a Leeds or Portsmouth. So, I agree that sustainability has to be something that should be a factor in what a club spends and I also agree that I wouldn't want us to just buy the league either.

 

The main thing that's missing is a way to counterbalance the historic advantages of a few big clubs who built their advantages before FFP was a thing. Can't really think what that would be though - salary caps, spending limits etc all have flaws.

 

I'm a bit sick of thinking about it all to be honest. I'm just going to enjoy the football and let our owners and their lawyers worry about it as I'm just enjoying us being competitive and ruffling a few feathers.

[The College Dropout]

3 minutes ago, Dokko said:

Imagine putting an offer in for Wilko, saving countless jobs, ready to pump money into its infra, rebranding as a global chain, investing in marketing, new stock, more range, then being told Mike Ashley is concerned Sports Direct will suffer as a consequence, so you've got a limit on how much you can spend, and only in a certain way. Or buying a house and having to run changing the door colour beyond your neighbours and whether you're allowed a new car on your drive.

 

How FFP meets any fair trade criteria is beyond me and why no one has challenged this in the highest courts is again baffling. 

 

 

 

I think they will increase the limits. £30m loss per year is too small. 
 

Most owners won’t want to drastically spend like that anyway.   It probably best something curtails Forest’s spending as well. Can their owners sustain more losses?

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, Abacus said:

It was all much simpler when Jack Walker bought the league title for Blackburn.

 

Point being, that money has always influenced the league.

 

But for every Blackburn, there's a Leeds or Portsmouth. So, I agree that sustainability has to be something that should be a factor in what a club spends and I also agree that I wouldn't want us to just buy the league either.

 

The main thing that's missing is a way to counterbalance the historic advantages of a few big clubs who built their advantages before FFP was a thing. Can't really think what that would be though - salary caps, spending limits etc all have flaws.

 

I'm a bit sick of thinking about it all to be honest. I'm just going to enjoy the football and let our owners and their lawyers worry about it as I'm just enjoying us being competitive and ruffling a few feathers.

Easy.  Either the owner has it and can prove it and is legally binded to use it. Or they don’t.  
 

Or is that too simple?

[Dokko]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

I think they will increase the limits. £30m loss per year is too small. 
 

Most owners won’t want to drastically spend like that anyway.   It probably best something curtails Forest’s spending as well. Can their owners sustain more losses?

 

If they increase the losses after Everton get the penalty then its more salt in the wounds. For that along, I'm in. 

[Tiresias]

The only reason counter intuitively city's spend is lower is how long they have been spending big for all reasons listed above, and also of late they have been spending sensibly. Yes big wages but most the players do come good. The price of incompetence in the transfer market is large, an incompetently run club like Man U or Chelsea probably have to spend 3x what City do because they keep getting utterly rinsed for idiots in the transfer market

[Abacus]

Just now, The College Dropout said:

Easy.  Either the owner has it and can prove it and is legally binded to use it. Or they don’t.  
 

Or is that too simple?

The only trouble with that is, we could do that and then we could buy the league in perpetuity.

 

I'm not sure I'd like that either.

 

Even though I do think we're being overly restricted right now and are only just making up for the damage Ashley caused.

[The College Dropout]

3 minutes ago, Tiresias said:

The only reason counter intuitively city's spend is lower is how long they have been spending big for all reasons listed above, and also of late they have been spending sensibly. Yes big wages but most the players do come good. The price of incompetence in the transfer market is large, an incompetently run club like Man U or Chelsea probably have to spend 3x what City do because they keep getting utterly rinsed for idiots in the transfer market

Without City Man U win 2 PL titles post Fergie mind. 

[Abacus]

NB @The College Dropout, I do agree that maybe the £30m per year limit on losses may need to be raised.

 

The inflation in player transfer fees over the last couple of years is insane and I wonder where that arbitrary limit comes from, but it starts to look like chicken-feed in that context.

 

But what should it be? Wouldn't know where to start.

[Dokko]

2 minutes ago, Abacus said:

NB @The College Dropout, I do agree that maybe the £30m per year limit on losses may need to be raised.

 

The inflation in player transfer fees over the last couple of years is insane and I wonder where that arbitrary limit comes from, but it starts to look like chicken-feed in that context.

 

But what should it be? Wouldn't know where to start.

 

Whatever Levy wants it to be.

[Charlies]

First half of this goes in-depth somewhat into the Everton, Man City & Chelsea stuff.

 

 

[madras]

3 hours ago, Tiresias said:

The only reason counter intuitively city's spend is lower is how long they have been spending big for all reasons listed above, and also of late they have been spending sensibly. Yes big wages but most the players do come good. The price of incompetence in the transfer market is large, an incompetently run club like Man U or Chelsea probably have to spend 3x what City do because they keep getting utterly rinsed for idiots in the transfer market

The price of incompetence before FFP (when the City foundations and morst of their growth occurred) wasn't great, they could sign players who turned out to be crap and get rid with impunity....and they did.

 

Question yourself, would Palace as they are financially dominate with Pep in charge are would City as they financially are, have more chance if dominating with a Tuchel or Pochetino ? 

 

The money trumps all, it improves the chances massively while not absolutely guaranteeing it.

 

 

Edited November 20, 2023 by madras

[BullyDogs]

2 hours ago, PauloGeordio said:

 Pep is City’s Ferguson. Without him they loose something money cannot buy. Manure have had gazillions thrown at it after Ferguson  left to no avail. Money is key,  the manager more so. That’s why we’ve struck gold. We have the man and in time the purse strings will open further to support him as our brand grows and grows 

 

City won titles and doubles with Mancini and Pellegrini, as good as Pep is its all about the infrastructure for me the thats available to the manager. Klopp, Ancelotti, Tuchel would all win titles at City too

[BonesJones]

Why does Bruce not make that list?

[Dancing Brave]

 

Everton's 10-point deduction by the Premier League will be discussed in Parliament after a Liverpool MP called the punishment "grossly unfair".

[Jaqen]

4 hours ago, madras said:

Wage spend ? How did they get into the position to have such a healthy net spend ? Look at the cost of the squad?

 

Oh the naivety of the young.

 

Pep is a very good manager but the financial dominance he's had practically everywhere will always leave questions.

 

Chelsea have spent 1b recently and finished midtable. If it was purely down to money spent why aren't Chelsea and Man United winning everything? 

 

PSG and Bayern are examples of one side having a massive financial advantage over the rest of the pack. I don't see how City is comparable to that at all. Less spent on wages, less net spent, less total spent than Man United in Peps whole time there. 

 

Of course he's spent a lot, nobody is denying that but he's the main reason they've won so many titles in recent years. Klopp would have a few more titles im sure in any other period of the PL, they finished 2nd on 97 points ffs 

[madras]

1 minute ago, Jaqen said:

 

Chelsea have spent 1b recently and finished midtable. If it was purely down to money spent why aren't Chelsea and Man United winning everything? 

 

PSG and Bayern are examples of one side having a massive financial advantage over the rest of the pack. I don't see how City is comparable to that at all. Less spent on wages, less net spent, less total spent than Man United in Peps whole time there. 

 

Of course he's spent a lot, nobody is denying that but he's the main reason they've won so many titles in recent years. Klopp would have a few more titles im sure in any other period of the PL, they finished 2nd on 97 points ffs 

So is he the main reason or is it the money ? Also look at what he took over ? The main reason Man City are where they are is that they could bully the market before FFP and that put them in a bloody good position when it came in. No denying he's very good, possibly currently the best...... but don't try and make it outbits all down to him and not what was there before and what they've spent since.

[Tiresias]

3 hours ago, madras said:

The price of incompetence before FFP (when the City foundations and morst of their growth occurred) wasn't great, they could sign players who turned out to be crap and get rid with impunity....and they did.

 

Question yourself, would Palace as they are financially dominate with Pep in charge are would City as they financially are, have more chance if dominating with a Tuchel or Pochetino ? 

 

The money trumps all, it improves the chances massively while not absolutely guaranteeing it.

 

 

 

 

Oh I'm not saying peps done it cheap or from nothing lol I'm firmly on the they're there cos of financial dominance side, just they have been more effective with it than man u in particular. Peps very good but the infrastructure and the player budget there is as much the reason and they'd probably still be winning everything with someone else just maybe with fewer weird formations which does add to the entertainment

[Colos Short and Curlies]

5 hours ago, Abacus said:

NB @The College Dropout, I do agree that maybe the £30m per year limit on losses may need to be raised.

 

The inflation in player transfer fees over the last couple of years is insane and I wonder where that arbitrary limit comes from, but it starts to look like chicken-feed in that context.

 

But what should it be? Wouldn't know where to start.

but if you increase the allowable losses it just feeds onto higher fees and wages.

 

for all the money pumped into football there is a disgracefully low level of

profits being made. It all leaks out to players and agents in the end and if you allow clubs more spending room that is exactly where it will go

[Deuce]

I’m sure there is a healthy, reasoned debate happening over the first 9 pages, but my most earnest reaction to Everton being docked 10 points is 

 

[Abacus]

2 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

but if you increase the allowable losses it just feeds onto higher fees and wages.

 

for all the money pumped into football there is a disgracefully low level of

profits being made. It all leaks out to players and agents in the end and if you allow clubs more spending room that is exactly where it will go

Yeah, I was sort of thinking that when I typed it but pressed send anyway.

 

Allowable losses surey need to be linked with a club's ability to stay afloat, so the figure will obviously differ depending on the club's circumstances / wealth of your owner.

 

Then we come round in a circle again as to what the whole point of it is.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

24 minutes ago, Abacus said:

Yeah, I was sort of thinking that when I typed it but pressed send anyway.

 

Allowable losses surey need to be linked with a club's ability to stay afloat, so the figure will obviously differ depending on the club's circumstances / wealth of your owner.

 

Then we come round in a circle again as to what the whole point of it is.

I think that I kinda come down on the side of getting rid, but then if we get rid of the protection against financial doping and let the biggest wallet win then why wouldn’t you scrap all anti drug use policy and let the best drigs win?

[The College Dropout]

40 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

but if you increase the allowable losses it just feeds onto higher fees and wages.

 

for all the money pumped into football there is a disgracefully low level of

profits being made. It all leaks out to players and agents in the end and if you allow clubs more spending room that is exactly where it will go

Oh no - not enough profit for the billionaire owners. Too much going to… the people that actually play.  
 

What a shit state of affairs.