Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[midds]

14 minutes ago, madras said:

I'd like the club to come out in public with something along the lines of "We want to invest without loading debt on the club but we aren't allowed to, we cant use sponsors like others have used to achieve their positions, a rule that was strengthened mid season seemingly just for us.  We've seen how the coefficient system with UEFA has clubs awarded prize money not in accordance with their achievements......how is this fair ?"

And every neutral fan in the sport will piss themselves and give the old boo-fucking-hoo. 

 

The statement would be 100% correct but thinking anyone would feel any sympathy for us is fanciful. We're universally hated, largely because of our ownership, and a classic example of 'money can't buy you everything'. No one would give a shit, it's an acceptance that the whole sportswashing project is a futile venture. It can never succeed and most neutrals would applaud it 

[Wolfcastle]

Its already succeeded. Were the only example where it hasn't.

[madras]

15 minutes ago, midds said:

And every neutral fan in the sport will piss themselves and give the old boo-fucking-hoo. 

 

The statement would be 100% correct but thinking anyone would feel any sympathy for us is fanciful. We're universally hated, largely because of our ownership, and a classic example of 'money can't buy you everything'. No one would give a shit, it's an acceptance that the whole sportswashing project is a futile venture. It can never succeed and most neutrals would applaud it 

I'm not so sure, other clubs fans picked up on it when the "need to sell to buy" bit was mentioned the other week........even from Everton fans !!!. 

 

Don't want sympathy but need to win the argument, especially with a possible "independent watchdog" coming in.

[midds]

1 minute ago, madras said:

I'm not so sure, other clubs fans picked up on it when the "need to sell to buy" bit was mentioned the other week........even from Everton fans !!!. 

 

Don't want sympathy but need to win the argument, especially with a possible "independent watchdog" coming in.

Claiming it's the actual state of things is 100% true and a lot would agree. But them agreeing is very different to them supporting any action to reverse it, I'm sure a lot would just say 'Yeah, you're right. Tough shit, get on with it'

[madras]

1 minute ago, midds said:

Claiming it's the actual state of things is 100% true and a lot would agree. But them agreeing is very different to them supporting any action to reverse it, I'm sure a lot would just say 'Yeah, you're right. Tough shit, get on with it'

Providing it didn't affect them adversely, which it could actually benefit them, I wonder what the reaction would be then?

[midds]

3 minutes ago, madras said:

Providing it didn't affect them adversely, which it could actually benefit them, I wonder what the reaction would be then?

But then 19/20 clubs voted for the new rules? I'm sure loads of them don't give a shit because they know they'll never be in a position to genuinely challenge the top teams. Losing £105m+ over 3 years seems preposterous to a large amount of owners, especially when just staying in the PL is worth £130m+ every single year

[madras]

7 minutes ago, midds said:

But then 19/20 clubs voted for the new rules? I'm sure loads of them don't give a shit because they know they'll never be in a position to genuinely challenge the top teams. Losing £105m+ over 3 years seems preposterous to a large amount of owners, especially when just staying in the PL is worth £130m+ every single year

I wonder if there's been some arm twisting. "Go along with this or we fuck off to the ESL and leave you like the Eredivise" type thing.

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, madras said:

I wonder if there's been some arm twisting. "Go along with this or we fuck off to the ESL and leave you like the Eredivise" type thing.

This is all that's happened since the late '80s (and we've been more than party to it on a few occasions).  It is what created the PL breakaway, the failure to reduce the top division to 18 clubs as planned, the change from the European Cup to the 'Champions League', from there to 2nd / 3rd / 4th places qualifying, to payments based upon club co-efficients, to 'FFP / FMV' etc.  The game has been slowly rigged for years (and again, NUFC were a player in the original breakaway plans in '88; John Hall was one of the biggest gobshites for a 'European Super League' in the mid-90s, etc)

[midds]

3 minutes ago, madras said:

I wonder if there's been some arm twisting. "Go along with this or we fuck off to the ESL and leave you like the Eredivise" type thing.

I think a lot of them would actually like that tbh

 

Remove the top 6/7 and the challenge is to be the best of the rest, at least the likes of Palace, Wolves, Everton, West Ham would have a realistic chance of topping that lot. The whole thing is just utterly fucked though, it's a rigged game, the sme teams are winning year after year in all of the top leagues almost without exception. The same teams are making it through to the last 8 of the CL every year and it's just a huge game of pass the parcel between the same teams and that's exactly the way they want it. And they've got it.  

[brummie]

The concept of FFP is noble, nobody should be able to do what Man City have done again, it's hugely detrimental to the Premier League. State ownership of football clubs has totally changed the conversation, it has made the numbers insanely bigger but it has also made football an instrument of diplomacy (UK govt raising international relations with the UAE re Man City, for example).

 

There has got to be some sort of lever of control over finances in the game, it's hard to avoid that. The problem is that the current implementation does not work, because it is based on numbers which are years out of date, and because there is already a clutch of clubs which have profited from it already while they could and are now trying to pull up the ladder. All the momentum suggests, though, that financial control is not going to go away.

 

What does need to happen, though, is some sort of system whereby sensible investment to grow clubs remains possible. We now genuinely have a situation where you and us, as two clubs which are well funded, have benevolent owners who would put more in if they could, are genuinely being discussed as needing to sell some of their best players to the very same cabal of clubs at the top end of the ladder if they are to survive under current financial rules.

 

It is absolutely crazy, but it's the implementation of it which is wrong, not the general concept.

 

A bit like VAR.

[andyc35i]

23 minutes ago, brummie said:

The concept of FFP is noble, nobody should be able to do what Man City have done again, it's hugely detrimental to the Premier League. State ownership of football clubs has totally changed the conversation, it has made the numbers insanely bigger but it has also made football an instrument of diplomacy (UK govt raising international relations with the UAE re Man City, for example).

 

There has got to be some sort of lever of control over finances in the game, it's hard to avoid that. The problem is that the current implementation does not work, because it is based on numbers which are years out of date, and because there is already a clutch of clubs which have profited from it already while they could and are now trying to pull up the ladder. All the momentum suggests, though, that financial control is not going to go away.

 

What does need to happen, though, is some sort of system whereby sensible investment to grow clubs remains possible. We now genuinely have a situation where you and us, as two clubs which are well funded, have benevolent owners who would put more in if they could, are genuinely being discussed as needing to sell some of their best players to the very same cabal of clubs at the top end of the ladder if they are to survive under current financial rules.

 

It is absolutely crazy, but it's the implementation of it which is wrong, not the general concept.

 

A bit like VAR.

Agreed. I don’t want us to be able to sign someone like Haaland’s level right now purely because we could pay him millions every month. What I want, is to be able to take a punt on someone like Solanke without having to worry about sell on values 

 

 

Edited March 17 by andyc35i

[r0cafella]

33 minutes ago, brummie said:

The concept of FFP is noble, nobody should be able to do what Man City have done again, it's hugely detrimental to the Premier League. State ownership of football clubs has totally changed the conversation, it has made the numbers insanely bigger but it has also made football an instrument of diplomacy (UK govt raising international relations with the UAE re Man City, for example).

 

There has got to be some sort of lever of control over finances in the game, it's hard to avoid that. The problem is that the current implementation does not work, because it is based on numbers which are years out of date, and because there is already a clutch of clubs which have profited from it already while they could and are now trying to pull up the ladder. All the momentum suggests, though, that financial control is not going to go away.

 

What does need to happen, though, is some sort of system whereby sensible investment to grow clubs remains possible. We now genuinely have a situation where you and us, as two clubs which are well funded, have benevolent owners who would put more in if they could, are genuinely being discussed as needing to sell some of their best players to the very same cabal of clubs at the top end of the ladder if they are to survive under current financial rules.

 

It is absolutely crazy, but it's the implementation of it which is wrong, not the general concept.

 

A bit like VAR.

So basically city get the free pass and everyone else has to suck it up?

 

I think what needs to happen is everyone is given a historic limit of whatever the top spender has spent adjusted for football inflation. - this would be a free hit for everyone. 
 

Then moving forward annual spending caps are put in place which are the same for all clubs and not tied to revenue. Go over your annual cap and your relegated no ifs but’s or maybes. Infrastructure womens team not included. 
 

Basically level the playing field, those who want to compete can, those who want to ride the gravy train can go explain it to the fans. 

[Numbers]

FFP could only be fair if everyone was starting from an equal footing, bringing it in after clubs have spent billions is fucking mental.

[TheBrownBottle]

2 hours ago, brummie said:

The concept of FFP is noble, nobody should be able to do what Man City have done again, it's hugely detrimental to the Premier League. State ownership of football clubs has totally changed the conversation, it has made the numbers insanely bigger but it has also made football an instrument of diplomacy (UK govt raising international relations with the UAE re Man City, for example).

 

There has got to be some sort of lever of control over finances in the game, it's hard to avoid that. The problem is that the current implementation does not work, because it is based on numbers which are years out of date, and because there is already a clutch of clubs which have profited from it already while they could and are now trying to pull up the ladder. All the momentum suggests, though, that financial control is not going to go away.

 

What does need to happen, though, is some sort of system whereby sensible investment to grow clubs remains possible. We now genuinely have a situation where you and us, as two clubs which are well funded, have benevolent owners who would put more in if they could, are genuinely being discussed as needing to sell some of their best players to the very same cabal of clubs at the top end of the ladder if they are to survive under current financial rules.

 

It is absolutely crazy, but it's the implementation of it which is wrong, not the general concept.

 

A bit like VAR.

VAR is far worse for the game than FFP for me.  I’m supportive of financial regulation in football - my issue is that the current version of the rules are simply baking in the existing hierarchy.  VAR has created a two-tier game, and has destroyed football’s greatest pleasure - the immediacy of a goal

[r0cafella]

1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

VAR is far worse for the game than FFP for me.  I’m supportive of financial regulation in football - my issue is that the current version of the rules are simply baking in the existing hierarchy.  VAR has created a two-tier game, and has destroyed football’s greatest pleasure - the immediacy of a goal

This is an absolutely mental take

[TheBrownBottle]

54 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

This is an absolutely mental take

Fair enough - I just hate VAR mate.  I always love the democratic feel of football as a sport - that the laws are the same whether you’re playing amateur level on a Sunday or in the cup final.  It’s no longer the case.  
 

I’m perfectly ok with FFP as a concept.  I don’t like how it currently works 

[r0cafella]

17 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Fair enough - I just hate VAR mate.  I always love the democratic feel of football as a sport - that the laws are the same whether you’re playing amateur level on a Sunday or in the cup final.  It’s no longer the case.  
 

I’m perfectly ok with FFP as a concept.  I don’t like how it currently works 

What is the concept of FFP?

 

not a var fan either and it’s clearly poorly implemented, the rules of the game should also have been clarified prior to it’s implementation as well. 

[TheBrownBottle]

13 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

What is the concept of FFP?

 

not a var fan either and it’s clearly poorly implemented, the rules of the game should also have been clarified prior to it’s implementation as well. 

That huge sums being poured into a single club destabilises football in a way which has negative consequences all the way down the pyramid; that Chelsea and Man City basically caused hyperinflation in football, and that this should not be allowed to happen again.  No problem with that.  Where I have a real problem is that the current rules and regs basically lock in the status quo.  They’re not the only two possible outcomes.

 

I understand that there are plenty who want unfettered rampant capitalism applied to football - that’s up to them.  I’d rather see sensible controls applied which allow growth at sensible rates and allow stimulus, but not to replicate the ridiculous initial approaches of PSG, Chelsea or Man City. 

[r0cafella]

2 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

That huge sums being poured into a single club destabilises football in a way which has negative consequences all the way down the pyramid; that Chelsea and Man City basically caused hyperinflation in football, and that this should not be allowed to happen again.  No problem with that.  Where I have a real problem is that the current rules and regs basically lock in the status quo.  They’re not the only two possible outcomes.

 

I understand that there are plenty who want unfettered rampant capitalism applied to football - that’s up to them.  I’d rather see sensible controls applied which allow growth at sensible rates and allow stimulus, but not to replicate the ridiculous initial approaches of PSG, Chelsea or Man City. 

With all respect I don’t think that was the stated aim of FFP, it was sold as protecting clubs from going bust. A function which it actually doesn’t perform given no limits are placed on the amount of debt a club can carry. 
 

I also find the concept of “hyperinflation” in football to be wide of the mark but I take your point. 
 

Ultimately what people need to understand about FFP is quite simple.

 

1, The larger your revenue the more you can spend. 
2, in order to increase revenue succes is required.

3, in order to become successful investment is required. 
4, investment is severely limited (and if I understand the new rules correctly it’s actually against the rules). 
 

In conclusion, FFP doesn’t do what it was supposed to do and it severely hampers competition. It’s not a system fit for any purpose other then removing the ladder. 

[Keegans Export]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

With all respect I don’t think that was the stated aim of FFP, it was sold as protecting clubs from going bust. A function which it actually doesn’t perform given no limits are placed on the amount of debt a club can carry. 
 

In conclusion, FFP doesn’t do what it was supposed to do and it severely hampers competition. It’s not a system fit for any purpose other then removing the ladder. 

I think it's doing exactly what it was supposed to do and that is certainly not the same as what it was originally sold as...

[Ikon]

Just give every single club a maximum limit of say 200m/season to spend. As long as they can prove that they aren’t running the club to the ground or siimilar. 

 

 

Edited March 17 by Ikon

[The Prophet]

 

[The College Dropout]

7 hours ago, andyc35i said:

Agreed. I don’t want us to be able to sign someone like Haaland’s level right now purely because we could pay him millions every month. What I want, is to be able to take a punt on someone like Solanke without having to worry about sell on values 

 

 

 

This is a nonsense view imo.

 

Solanke would cost £50m+.

 

You want to be able to splash cash without being accused of buying the league. But unfortunately, you still end up buying success.

[madras]

3 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

This is a nonsense view imo.

 

Solanke would cost £50m+.

 

You want to be able to splash cash without being accused of buying the league. But unfortunately, you still end up buying success.

I think by buying success he means blowing everyone else out the water like Chelsea and Man City did.

[The College Dropout]

2 minutes ago, madras said:

I think by buying success he means blowing everyone else out the water like Chelsea and Man City did.

Fair enough. We'll still need to outspend 3/4 of the league and be close enough to the others to challenge.

 

I fundamentally think if ownrs can prove they can pay for it - any cap in spend should be in line with the highest spending team in a league or competition,.