Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Tiresias]

That is a fair point, but I don't see how ditching ffp does anything but flood more money into the market, upping player prices even more, yes we can outspend but still will just be spending wars between us and city and the league gets even worse, i dont get the need for that

[Dokko]

3 minutes ago, Tiresias said:

That is a fair point, but I don't see how ditching ffp does anything but flood more money into the market, upping player prices even more, yes we can outspend but still will just be spending wars between us and city and the league gets even worse, i dont get the need for that

 

Because it'll make Liverpool & manure cry. 

[Tiresias]

ok i'm in

[Dokko]

Just now, Tiresias said:

ok i'm in

 

[TRon]

9 minutes ago, Tiresias said:

That is a fair point, but I don't see how ditching ffp does anything but flood more money into the market, upping player prices even more, yes we can outspend but still will just be spending wars between us and city and the league gets even worse, i dont get the need for that

 

It just allows other clubs to spend their way to greatness the same way Chelsea and Man City did. Liverpool and Man U you could at least argue were already mega clubs.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

It just allows other clubs to spend their way to greatness the same way Chelsea and Man City did. Liverpool and Man U you could at least argue were already mega clubs.

 

And they would have continued to be almost untested but for Arsenal and the odd rare challenge for the last 20 years if they had their way.

[FloydianMag]

15 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

It just allows other clubs to spend their way to greatness the same way Chelsea and Man City did. Liverpool and Man U you could at least argue were already mega clubs.

Weren’t Liverpool bankrolled by the Moores family in the 70’s and 80’s?

[Scoot]

33 minutes ago, Tiresias said:

That is a fair point, but I don't see how ditching ffp does anything but flood more money into the market, upping player prices even more, yes we can outspend but still will just be spending wars between us and city and the league gets even worse, i dont get the need for that

 

Because it'll benefit us more than anyone and as we've seen many many times, everyone is in this game for themselves. Fuck everyone else, they've spent long enough trying to hold us back with all these rule changes directed at us to benefit themselves, if FFP ever gets overturned, that's good for us. 

[madras]

5 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Weren’t Liverpool bankrolled by the Moores family in the 70’s and 80’s?

Started in the 60s when the Littlewoods finance director joined their board. They were a poxy little 2nd tier club going backwards who then suddenly found the money to buy Ian St John and Ron Yeats, outbidding the biggest clubs in the country.

[TRon]

12 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Weren’t Liverpool bankrolled by the Moores family in the 70’s and 80’s?

 

Yes, and Man U became a legendary club on the back of the Busby Babes tragedy, although that was hardly their fault. The point is, FFP is effectively protecting a cartel in the same way a proposed ESL was trying to do. No promotion or relegation. It's not that different to not allowing any up and coming club to spend as much as the established big boys.

[The College Dropout]

To their credit Arsenal have won league titles in 7 different decades. And several different managers.

[mouldy_uk]

7 minutes ago, Scoot said:

 

Because it'll benefit us more than anyone and as we've seen many many times, everyone is in this game for themselves. Fuck everyone else, they've spent long enough trying to hold us back with all these rule changes directed at us to benefit themselves, if FFP ever gets overturned, that's good for us. 

If FFP goes then there will be some ridiculous money changing hands for some complete dross. Though it would be interesting to see how much the Saudi’s are really prepared to pump into us

[The College Dropout]

8 minutes ago, mouldy_uk said:

If FFP goes then there will be some ridiculous money changing hands for some complete dross. Though it would be interesting to see how much the Saudi’s are really prepared to pump into us

We would probably go backwards for awhile as we throw money at mercenaries. I think if you have a lot of money and you can spend it - you have to go through that pain and realise it doesn't work. Or don't realise like PSG.

[bealios]

Wage caps or transfer fee caps will get equally mired in legal challenges - with the added difficulty that none of the actual players/agents would support it. 

 

The only way to have a decent stab at real sustainability rules without being completely anti-competitive is to keep the current rules (certain percentage of income) but supplement them with an exclusion of any transfer fees paid up front (it won't harm future sustainability if transfer fees are paid in cash up front without the instalment basis when current (rich) owners are long gone, and with a similar bond/security for contracted wages. It's really not that difficult to implement. You just keep the current model but with a forward looking basis - a club can only operate if their current revenue matches a certain percentage of the next (5) years cost amortised cost. If a transfer fee has been paid in full up front, it doesn't count. If the future wages have been secured by way of bond/security, it is excluded from the calculation. If any club for cash flow purposes decided that they just want to work with the current model, with deferred transfer fees and wages coming down the line for the next 3 - 8 years, it needs to be a certain percentage of revenue. 

 

 

[FloydianMag]

Just now, The College Dropout said:

We would probably go backwards for awhile as we throw money at mercenaries. I think if you have a lot of money and you can spend it - you have to go through that pain and realise it doesn't work. Or don't realise like PSG.

I don’t think we will…….but we will be able to compete for young hungry elite players and pay good wages without fear.

[LFEE]

I think FFP is doing the club a slight favour and making progress steady and sensible. Always think it’s the impatient fans with silly expectations that get their knickers in a twist about FFP.

 

Enjoy the ride. Will take 5-10yrs but it will be worth it.

[Shak]

2 minutes ago, bealios said:

Wage caps or transfer fee caps will get equally mired in legal challenges - with the added difficulty that none of the actual players/agents would support it. 

 

The only way to have a decent stab at real sustainability rules without being completely anti-competitive is to keep the current rules (certain percentage of income) but supplement them with an exclusion of any transfer fees paid up front (it won't harm future sustainability if transfer fees are paid in cash up front without the instalment basis when current (rich) owners are long gone, and with a similar bond/security for contracted wages. It's really not that difficult to implement. You just keep the current model but with a forward looking basis - a club can only operate if their current revenue matches a certain percentage of the next (5) years cost amortised cost. If a transfer fee has been paid in full up front, it doesn't count. If the future wages have been secured by way of bond/security, it is excluded from the calculation. If any club for cash flow purposes decided that they just want to work with the current model, with deferred transfer fees and wages coming down the line for the next 3 - 8 years, it needs to be a certain percentage of revenue. 

 

 

 

Aye, this is it basically

 

Would be fine with wages having to be part of FFP rules but there's no good reason that clubs who have the resources to do so shouldn't have the option to put future wages in escrow if they choose to do so.

[FloydianMag]

1 minute ago, bealios said:

Wage caps or transfer fee caps will get equally mired in legal challenges - with the added difficulty that none of the actual players/agents would support it. 

 

The only way to have a decent stab at real sustainability rules without being completely anti-competitive is to keep the current rules (certain percentage of income) but supplement them with an exclusion of any transfer fees paid up front (it won't harm future sustainability if transfer fees are paid in cash up front without the instalment basis when current (rich) owners are long gone, and with a similar bond/security for contracted wages. It's really not that difficult to implement. You just keep the current model but with a forward looking basis - a club can only operate if their current revenue matches a certain percentage of the next (5) years cost amortised cost. If a transfer fee has been paid in full up front, it doesn't count. If the future wages have been secured by way of bond/security, it is excluded from the calculation. If any club for cash flow purposes decided that they just want to work with the current model, with deferred transfer fees and wages coming down the line for the next 3 - 8 years, it needs to be a certain percentage of revenue. 

 

 

Bollocks………FFP and FMV are anti competitive and infringe Competition Law and need to go. Revenues streams are well established by the current cartel and what do the twats do? Bring in FMV to prevent our revenue streams growing. Fuck them FFP and FMV should be challenged in a Court of Law.

[TheBrownBottle]

17 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Bollocks………FFP and FMV are anti competitive and infringe Competition Law and need to go. Revenues streams are well established by the current cartel and what do the twats do? Bring in FMV to prevent our revenue streams growing. Fuck them FFP and FMV should be challenged in a Court of Law.

Football rules re transfer fees would have a good chance of running aground vs employment law.  There’s lots of elements which run contrary to likely adjudication, but are left in place because to remove them would likely cause chaos.

 

I don’t want unfettered capitalism to ruin the game.  I also don’t think most NUFC fans are arguing for this other than their own self-interest.

 

Chelsea and Man City escalated fees and wages with their OTT spending sprees.  FFP is a good thing - but it needs reform and needs to be independent of the PL.  Out of control spending damages the game all the way down - it pulls up drawbridges and causes clubs to go ‘pop’ if they dare to try and compete - which is the entire purpose of a sport. 

[FloydianMag]

4 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Football rules re transfer fees would have a good chance of running aground vs employment law.  There’s lots of elements which run contrary to likely adjudication, but are left in place because to remove them would likely cause chaos.

 

I don’t want unfettered capitalism to ruin the game.  I also don’t think most NUFC fans are arguing for this other than their own self-interest.

 

Chelsea and Man City escalated fees and wages with their OTT spending sprees.  FFP is a good thing - but it needs reform and needs to be independent of the PL.  Out of control spending damages the game all the way down - it pulls up drawbridges and causes clubs to go ‘pop’ if they dare to try and compete - which is the entire purpose of a sport. 

I’m afraid the noise for legal challenges to FFP and FMV are growing and not just from Newcastle fans……….it’ll happen, you can’t have wealthy clubs like Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal and Spurs dictating to the rest what they can and can’t spend.

[toon25]

The problem with FFP is that the horse had already bolted by the time it came in.

 

Absolutely no way would City have been in a position to win the amount of titles they have done otherwise.  

[Scoot]

2 minutes ago, toon25 said:

The problem with FFP is that the horse had already bolted by the time it came in.

 

Absolutely no way would City have been in a position to win the amount of titles they have done otherwise.  

 

And Chelsea!

[TheBrownBottle]

6 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

I’m afraid the noise for legal challenges to FFP and FMV are growing and not just from Newcastle fans……….it’ll happen, you can’t have wealthy clubs like Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal and Spurs dictating to the rest what they can and can’t spend.

FMV being decided by other clubs is the dodgiest part of all of it for me. 

[FloydianMag]

Just now, Scoot said:

 

And Chelsea!

And if FFP had been around then you’d have Liverpool, Man U and Arsenal cleaning up every season…..so no sporting competition really is there.

[FloydianMag]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

FMV being decided by other clubs is the dodgiest part of all of it for me. 

I agree 100% market value should be decided by the company who is willing to pay for sponsorship, should have nothing to do with related party stuff.