Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[madras]

7 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

There should be strict measures to ensure owners can sustain losses.  We don’t need FFP for that.   
 

Things like heavy leveraged takeovers should be banned. That risks clubs existence.   
 

 

It's not FFP but that and some other measures would be like an FFP.

[Cronky]

18 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

There should be strict measures to ensure owners can sustain losses.  We don’t need FFP for that.   
 
 

 

 

The problem there is that a club in our position could outspend everyone at will and create a monopoly, which is even worse than a cartel. And it's pretty much what Man City have done, it seems through ignoring FFP.

 

The other problem with money coming in from outside the game is that it creates an unreal economic market for the clubs without wealthy owners. They then come under pressure to take risks in order to keep up.

[1964]

I doubt there's many clubs at the top of any league that didn't get where they are without outspending their competitors.  That's always been the case, the Moore's bankrolled liverpool in the 70s prior to that their trophy cabinet was less full than ours.  Abramovich at Chelsea the same.

 

The intention of FFP may have been to stop the above but in practice it's just maintaining the status quo

[healthyaddiction]

50 minutes ago, Cronky said:

 

The problem there is that a club in our position could outspend everyone at will and create a monopoly, which is even worse than a cartel. And it's pretty much what Man City have done, it seems through ignoring FFP.

 

The other problem with money coming in from outside the game is that it creates an unreal economic market for the clubs without wealthy owners. They then come under pressure to take risks in order to keep up.

If you have a spending cap for fairness, it would surely be better to anchor is against the revenues of the top clubs. That way those outside the big six can speculate, if they have the funds from elsewhere, to try and disrupt the top. That way your still stopping a ridiculous overspend by a nation state, but also making it possible to compete with the big clubs.

[Abacus]

Everton tried to break into the top 5, and gambled that their spending would get them there. 

 

Yes, they spent badly and the gamble didn't work, but the point of FFP was surely originally to stop a situation like Portsmouth - a club going bust and unable to compete, not just wrecking them but also the league itself.

 

It's now been twisted to stop another Chelsea / Man City problem, which is a different issue altogether and should have been stopped at the time. But now the horse has bolted and they're cemented as top clubs based on it.

 

Ironically, those two were also the two least keen on wrecking football in a different way with the ESL, so I don't really hold as much of a grudge against them as I should.

 

It's a right muddle. At least we're trying to do things the right way. But the PL definitely can't be trusted to make the right decisions as they're too in thrall to a few clubs who want to pull up the drawbridge to anyone that wants to compete.

 

It's Villa and Brighton, along with us, that I really want to see smash things up. Big 6 my arse.

[PauloGeordio]

7 minutes ago, Abacus said:

Everton tried to break into the top 5, and gambled that their spending would get them there. 

 

Yes, they spent badly and the gamble didn't work, but the point of FFP was surely originally to stop a situation like Portsmouth - a club going bust and unable to compete, not just wrecking them but also the league itself.

 

It's now been twisted to stop another Chelsea / Man City problem, which is a different issue altogether and should have been stopped at the time. But now the horse has bolted and they're cemented as top clubs based on it.

 

Ironically, those two were also the two least keen on wrecking football in a different way with the ESL, so I don't really hold as much of a grudge against them as I should.

 

It's a right muddle. At least we're trying to do things the right way. But the PL definitely can't be trusted to make the right decisions as they're too in thrall to a few clubs who want to pull up the drawbridge to anyone that wants to compete.

 

It's Villa and Brighton, along with us, that I really want to see smash things up. Big 6 my arse.

Soon to be the big 9!! 

 

 

[Geordie Ahmed]

3 hours ago, Cronky said:

 

I think the problem is that there are so many ways of falling foul of FFP, and so many different circumstances, that a consistent formula for working out punishments is impossible. As an example, Everton tried to reduce their stated overspend by saying that they could have sued a player for £10m but decided not to because of issues with the player's mental health. That's not a situation that's going to arise very often.

 

Whatever its flaws, I'd rather live in a football world with FFP than without. We get focused on the way that it makes it difficult for new owners to break into the big six, but its main purpose is to protect clubs from owners who take undue risks and then leave the club high and dry.

 

I'm not sure there would be quite as much hostility to FFP on here if we hadn't been taken over by wealthy owners. Let's face it, there's a tendency for football supporters to define what's 'fair' in terms of what happens to be in their own club's interests.

 

Is it though, what steps are in place for FFP to stop that?

 

There was nothing to stop leveraged buy outs and for smaller clubs a rolling 3 year of losses of £90m could still leave them high and dry

 

FFP is there to pull the ladder up, the suggestion that it's some noble policy to protect clubs is just naive

 

If it was truly about that then there would be measures in place to do that, such as ensuring owners foot the bill if they make losses etc

[The Prophet]

Meanwhile. It's all about fairness and equity lads.

[madras]

9 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Meanwhile. It's all about fairness and equity lads.

I'm sure I mentioned something similar to this in the PIF thread.

[Scoot]

23 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Meanwhile. It's all about fairness and equity lads.

 

Hopefully we're part of that elite soon enough. I would have normally been against this but the way every club has tried to stop us with rule changes etc, fuck them. If this benefits us in the long term then great!

[Stifler]

16 minutes ago, Scoot said:

 

Hopefully we're part of that elite soon enough. I would have normally been against this but the way every club has tried to stop us with rule changes etc, fuck them. If this benefits us in the long term then great!

In all fairness it’s only been 5 of the top 6 who have tried to stop us, as well as Everton, Villa, and I think West Ham, who all think they are on the fringes of breaking in.

Every other club gets bullied to fuck by the same teams.

[Dr.Spaceman]

Don't forget Crystal Palace. Parrish has been whinging like fuck for what seems like forever now.

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

5 hours ago, Cronky said:

 

I think the problem is that there are so many ways of falling foul of FFP, and so many different circumstances, that a consistent formula for working out punishments is impossible. As an example, Everton tried to reduce their stated overspend by saying that they could have sued a player for £10m but decided not to because of issues with the player's mental health. That's not a situation that's going to arise very often.

 

Whatever its flaws, I'd rather live in a football world with FFP than without. We get focused on the way that it makes it difficult for new owners to break into the big six, but its main purpose is to protect clubs from owners who take undue risks and then leave the club high and dry.

 

I'm not sure there would be quite as much hostility to FFP on here if we hadn't been taken over by wealthy owners. Let's face it, there's a tendency for football supporters to define what's 'fair' in terms of what happens to be in their own club's interests.

But that surely is where FFP and its aims are fundamentally wrong. Why is it the clubs and fans who end up dealing with the consequences, whilst the owners who cause the issues walk off into the sunset. Surely a rule change to make the Owners legally responsible for any issues, would make the actual claimed rationale for FFP far more effective?

[Cronky]

2 hours ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

 

Is it though, what steps are in place for FFP to stop that?

 

There was nothing to stop leveraged buy outs and for smaller clubs a rolling 3 year of losses of £90m could still leave them high and dry

 

FFP is there to pull the ladder up, the suggestion that it's some noble policy to protect clubs is just naive

 

If it was truly about that then there would be measures in place to do that, such as ensuring owners foot the bill if they make losses etc

 

20 minutes ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

But that surely is where FFP and its aims are fundamentally wrong. Why is it the clubs and fans who end up dealing with the consequences, whilst the owners who cause the issues walk off into the sunset. Surely a rule change to make the Owners legally responsible for any issues, would make the actual claimed rationale for FFP far more effective?

 

I'm not a financial expert, so anyone better versed please leap in, but I think the issue here is that ownership of most clubs is through a PLC status, so that the company is liable for any debts, rather than the owner in terms of their  personal wealth. So there's a bit of a legal safety net for owners, although they'd lose whatever they'd invested or a large part of it if the company went bust.

 

They don't exactly walk off into the sunset, but whilst their private wealth is protected, the supporters, and indeed a community, can suffer the loss of their entire club, or end up in a sort of death spiral, as happened with Leeds.

 

That's one of the main reasons behind FFP. It pressures owners to use some financial discipline. as well as promoting fairer competition.

 

The Premiership isn't the only sporting competition that regulates the expenditure of its participants. Whilst it's true that a knock-on effect is that an elite is protected in our particular case, there are other aspects to it.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

Don't forget Crystal Palace. Parrish has been whinging like fuck for what seems like forever now.

 

Palace are the club that the PL and the elite clubs wish everyone else could be. Happy with their lot scrapping in mid-table every year, making up the numbers, never threatening the top 6. Perfect fodder. 

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

3 hours ago, The Prophet said:

Meanwhile. It's all about fairness and equity lads.

How does that ever get voted though?

[Hudson]

Wonder how this affects the sale ? Surely it’s Gotta knock a few quid off the value.

[Joe1984]

1 hour ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

How does that ever get voted though?

Who says there was a vote? #itsallourmoneysosuckit!

[The Prophet]

9 hours ago, Cronky said:

 

I think the problem is that there are so many ways of falling foul of FFP, and so many different circumstances, that a consistent formula for working out punishments is impossible. As an example, Everton tried to reduce their stated overspend by saying that they could have sued a player for £10m but decided not to because of issues with the player's mental health. That's not a situation that's going to arise very often.

 

Whatever its flaws, I'd rather live in a football world with FFP than without. We get focused on the way that it makes it difficult for new owners to break into the big six, but its main purpose is to protect clubs from owners who take undue risks and then leave the club high and dry.

 

I'm not sure there would be quite as much hostility to FFP on here if we hadn't been taken over by wealthy owners. Let's face it, there's a tendency for football supporters to define what's 'fair' in terms of what happens to be in their own club's interests.

 

An independent regulator almost certainly will. If it is based on other approaches, they will most likely have a code of conduct and any sanctions will be based on breaches of that.

[Mattoon]

[Gawalls]

10 hours ago, Cronky said:

 

I think the problem is that there are so many ways of falling foul of FFP, and so many different circumstances, that a consistent formula for working out punishments is impossible. As an example, Everton tried to reduce their stated overspend by saying that they could have sued a player for £10m but decided not to because of issues with the player's mental health. That's not a situation that's going to arise very often.

 

Whatever its flaws, I'd rather live in a football world with FFP than without. We get focused on the way that it makes it difficult for new owners to break into the big six, but its main purpose is to protect clubs from owners who take undue risks and then leave the club high and dry.

 

I'm not sure there would be quite as much hostility to FFP on here if we hadn't been taken over by wealthy owners. Let's face it, there's a tendency for football supporters to define what's 'fair' in terms of what happens to be in their own club's interests.

Been thinking that for days now but wasn’t going to say it, however now you have then I’ll step up to say absolutely.  

[Tsunami]

Everton will stay up, in fact they’ll stay up more comfortably than recent seasons. They should have gone but I think that ship has sailed.

 

They should consider themselves fortunate and unfortunate in almost the same measure. It’s quite a feat to spend so much money so badly.

[madras]

2 hours ago, Gawalls said:

Been thinking that for days now but wasn’t going to say it, however now you have then I’ll step up to say absolutely.  

Dunno like. Even before our takeover many were saying the whole system, not just FFP, was set up to, not just preserve,  but to help build the gap between the 'big 6' over here, about 4 European clubs and their respective competitors.

 

I also think what we are facing would have happened to Villa, West Ham etc had PIF took them over.

 

The question remaining is how much energy and possibly money do they expend on trying you stop us or do they accept the inevitable ?

 

 

Edited November 19, 2023 by madras

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

[Dr.Spaceman]

Sorry, what are we looking at? It's exactly what it says on the tin, right?