Benguin Posted 25 April 2015 Posted 25 April 2015 Don't really know how FFP works. If we stay up, ignoring whether the owners will let us or not, how much cash will we actually be allowed to spend on transfers?
cc_star Posted 25 April 2015 Posted 25 April 2015 Don't really know how FFP works. If we stay up, ignoring whether the owners will let us or not, how much cash will we actually be allowed to spend on transfers?Not sure in the PL,I know you would face UEFA sanctions if you're in EuropeLoad of bollocks,just a protectionist racket that keeps the clubs around the top,near the top If it was designed to protect clubs from doing a Portsmouth,it wouldn't prevent investment, only debt And as for how much? More than last summer, that's for sure
davieG Posted 25 April 2015 Posted 25 April 2015 Financial Fair Play Explained There are currently Financial Fair Play rules in place in: UEFA competitons (for all clubs wishing to take part in the Champions League and Europa League) The Premier League (from 2013/14) The Championship (with punishments from 2013/14) Leagues 1 and 2 The 2013/14 season is a watershed for financial constraint in football. For the first time, all English professional divisions have rules in place that restrict their spending. The restrictions are summarised in the attached table. This table and an accompanying article appeared in the August 2013 edition of When Saturday Comes magazine: Not sure if it's changed
Benguin Posted 25 April 2015 Author Posted 25 April 2015 So if the owners want to go mad we could spend 50+Mill in the summer and be fine?
Bryn Posted 25 April 2015 Posted 25 April 2015 If we stay up we should make significant investment in the playing staff, we need to push on and break into midtable if we survive and that requires money. I don't think any single players position is safe if the right players are found to be available.
NeilLCFC Posted 26 April 2015 Posted 26 April 2015 We should surely spend at least £40m on one player. A real marquee signing to show our ambition. Doubt it will happen though, Pearson can't attract big names. Pearson out.
ImBlue Posted 26 April 2015 Posted 26 April 2015 Sack Pearson, bring in Benitez, spend £200m. We don't have this worry again.
shade Posted 26 April 2015 Posted 26 April 2015 We should surely spend at least £40m on one player. A real marquee signing to show our ambition. Doubt it will happen though, Pearson can't attract big names. Pearson out. or 40 £1m players, a whole squad full of vardys.
8starstriker8 Posted 26 April 2015 Posted 26 April 2015 or 40 £1m players, a whole squad full of vardys. This reminds me of a song. No.1 Jamie vardy No.2 Jamie vardy No.3 Jamie vardy No.4 Jamie vardy Tune of yellow submarine! :-)
cc_star Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 Anything under 100m will be disappointing Maximum loss allowed over THREE (not one) seasons is £105m. Spending that kind of money on transfers, would mean it would be the type of player to command ridiculous wages... would mean MASSIVE losses for a club of our meagre level of revenue generation possiblities
gurru991 Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 It's amazing that clubs like Man U have a transfer budget of 150 million for next season alone. To break into that elite top six is almost impossible for clubs like Leicester. Hopefully we will see some of our younger players come through the system this year. I don't think we want to go down the path of trying to buy a team.
cc_star Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 It's amazing that clubs like Man U have a transfer budget of 150 million for next season alone. To break into that elite top six is almost impossible for clubs like Leicester. Hopefully we will see some of our younger players come through the system this year. I don't think we want to go down the path of trying to buy a team. that's the point of FFP It's a protectionist racket designed to protect those that have already made it & prevent anyone else investing to take a slice of that pie. If it was purely designed to prevent Portsmouth like situations then it would only control debt & not prevent investment as equity
gurru991 Posted 27 April 2015 Posted 27 April 2015 that's the point of FFP It's a protectionist racket designed to protect those that have already made it & prevent anyone else investing to take a slice of that pie. If it was purely designed to prevent Portsmouth like situations then it would only control debt & not prevent investment as equity I agree .. It keeps the rich rich. A lot of professional sports have gone to a salary cap system, meaning each team gets to spend up to the cap ceiling but not over. Epl is now basically an six team league with the rest being fillers only. The European leagues are the same with the haves & have nots
19ninety9 Posted 28 April 2015 Posted 28 April 2015 I agree .. It keeps the rich rich. A lot of professional sports have gone to a salary cap system, meaning each team gets to spend up to the cap ceiling but not over. Epl is now basically an six team league with the rest being fillers only. The European leagues are the same with the haves & have nots Speaking of experience of NRL in Australia, the salary cap is balls, besides the salary cap only covers wages not transfers, United could still spend a bomb.
iancognito Posted 28 April 2015 Posted 28 April 2015 We should surely spend at least £40m on one player. A real marquee signing to show our ambition. Doubt it will happen though, Pearson can't attract big names. Pearson out. No player WORTH £40M would come here, Pearson or not and if you pay out £40M the wages are astronomical too. Blowing that amount of money on one player is ridiculous. Probably £20-25M, if we're building things slowly. £3-5M each on 4 maybe 5 players IF we stay up But we'd need a serious clear out of the dead wood - Upson, GTF, Gallagher, Lawrence (sorry, he's not going to make it here) Hammond (I like him but he's either not fit or not getting a chance) and Konchesky to make way for them.
tom27111 Posted 28 April 2015 Posted 28 April 2015 I wouldn't worry about it. With the ongoing legal challenge, FFP might never be able to be implemented. The same lawyer who revolutionised the transfer system and represented Jean Marc Bosman is challenging UEFA, saying that FFP contravenes European law.
ozleicester Posted 28 April 2015 Posted 28 April 2015 I agree .. It keeps the rich rich. A lot of professional sports have gone to a salary cap system, meaning each team gets to spend up to the cap ceiling but not over. Epl is now basically an six team league with the rest being fillers only. The European leagues are the same with the haves & have nots Speaking of experience of NRL in Australia, the salary cap is balls, besides the salary cap only covers wages not transfers, United could still spend a bomb. IMO the move toward salary caps is the final straw in sport and it turns the "competition" into entertainment. What it effectively means is that you must also institute a draft system, for example in Ozzie rules (and the A league), they have a draft and salary cap. but IMPORTANTLY they do not have a relegation/promotion system, once you are in the "premier" league you are there for good. also there is no "international players coming into the equation. So thats problem one - if your not premier league when they introduce it you will never even have the chance to win the league. Problem two - the aim of the cap is to spread the talent across all of the teams, this means that you end up with an evenly matched group of teams.. but no out and out super teams, now i prefer to see the best, i like to watch Barca, or Chelsea or Borrusia and their players in full flight at the very highest level. Problem 3 To make a salary cap work, you need a draft system, which means the bottom side from the previous season gets the first choice of players for the next etc. so what happens is every team gets their chance to be the best for a period of a few years, as their best choices pay off.......then they slip to the bottom and start again. It stops being about the best, its merely structured entertainment to ensure everyone has their time to shine.
Xen Posted 28 April 2015 Posted 28 April 2015 IMO the move toward salary caps is the final straw in sport and it turns the "competition" into entertainment. What it effectively means is that you must also institute a draft system, for example in Ozzie rules (and the A league), they have a draft and salary cap. but IMPORTANTLY they do not have a relegation/promotion system, once you are in the "premier" league you are there for good. also there is no "international players coming into the equation. So thats problem one - if your not premier league when they introduce it you will never even have the chance to win the league. Problem two - the aim of the cap is to spread the talent across all of the teams, this means that you end up with an evenly matched group of teams.. but no out and out super teams, now i prefer to see the best, i like to watch Barca, or Chelsea or Borrusia and their players in full flight at the very highest level. Problem 3 To make a salary cap work, you need a draft system, which means the bottom side from the previous season gets the first choice of players for the next etc. so what happens is every team gets their chance to be the best for a period of a few years, as their best choices pay off.......then they slip to the bottom and start again. It stops being about the best, its merely structured entertainment to ensure everyone has their time to shine. Rugby union has had a salary cap for years, still has promotion /relegation, still attracts international players, doesn't have a draft system, and teams are still competitive at a high level both nationally and internationally...
ozleicester Posted 28 April 2015 Posted 28 April 2015 Rugby union has had a salary cap for years, still has promotion /relegation, still attracts international players, doesn't have a draft system, and teams are still competitive at a high level both nationally and internationally... Fair enough, i gues im mostly referring to Aussie rules footy (and american football). The AFL here is just a revolveing door, there are 17 teams and they all rotate round to the top. A few years at the bottom, they pick up the best of the young players and build a solid side, after about 10 years, they have their 3-5 year chance to win the league. Just seems to me a very managed and equalised "competition". Having said that, if Union have got it right.. good on them, the money paid to EPL players is insane
lgfualol Posted 28 April 2015 Posted 28 April 2015 Maximum loss allowed over THREE (not one) seasons is £105m. Spending that kind of money on transfers, would mean it would be the type of player to command ridiculous wages... would mean MASSIVE losses for a club of our meagre level of revenue generation possiblities Tehe, I was only joking. I wouldn't want us to spend over 25m.
Oxfordfox83 Posted 28 April 2015 Posted 28 April 2015 Rugby union has had a salary cap for years, still has promotion /relegation, still attracts international players, doesn't have a draft system, and teams are still competitive at a high level both nationally and internationally... RU hasn't completely broken yet, but the English league is massively affected by the uncapped French system, and really the only thing holding other leagues together is that big international teams (England and NZ and others) only pick from their own leagues. In football, the international game isn't big enough to keep players here-we bring a salary cap in and our players will clear off to Spain, TV revenue will drop and, sadly, the game is so dependent on TV that the game in England would implode.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.