FFP hits hard in the real world, and … maybe we should rethink?

[KingsX]

“FFP is bad … FFP is a plot against us.”  This is a new catechism for fans.  I used to recite it myself.

 

Then I looked at what FFP (new UEFA rules, and the PL showing teeth in enforcing its own) has actually brought about in the current transfer window.

 

There are lots of sellers and few buyers, and “name” players on obscene contracts are suddenly seen as radioactive.  Clubs are finally trimming their sails to do something other than bid up fees and wages in a never-ending spiral. Sky Sports’ deadline day spectacular may be a damp squib.  Hmm … this may not be all bad?

 

Sick of spiraling salaries, insane transfer fees, agents making millions fomenting constant player moves, and oil states taking over competitions?  FFP is proving to be the only effective restraint.

 

In principle, FFP is good.  The only thing it prevents is owners outspending their clubs’ income on playing/coaching staff and operations.  Which usually has an awful outcome:

 

- clueless/desperate owners attach ruinous debts to a club, or

- oligarch/state owned clubs ruin competitions through unlimited spending.

 

Stop being ostriches, people, and look at how easily LIV destroyed the PGA tour.  That is absolute proof of how things work when the Saudis get involved.  Absent FFP, Newcastle would already have spent a billion on players.  Instead they are fairly quiet in this window.

 

In practice, the rules are too inflexible.  UEFA’s in particular are designed as a straitjacket.  And yes, it’s on the record that part of the motivation for that design, was cementing the existing upper class’s advantage.  But even as they are, they’ve done more good than harm.  FFP needs tweaked, not eliminated.

 

How is it bad that Everton, Forest, and hopefully Man City are facing the music?  They didn’t make a few small mistakes.  They massively outspent their true income buying multiple squads’ worth of expensive players.  How is it bad that NUFC are not allowed to follow the LIV script?

 

“Categorically” against FFP?  Then you do not believe clubs should be self-sustaining.  You can’t have it both ways.

 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Thing is, FFP / PSR doesn’t curtail investment into making your own players. 

[gurru991]

The Academy has to be the most important  part of any club. Growing your own is the only way clubs can compete against the mega money big kids !!

[coolhandfox]

12 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

Thing is, FFP / PSR doesn’t curtail investment into making your own players. 

Which why we need to make use of our brilliant faculties and hire the best development coaches and scouts we can get. 

[gurru991]

4 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

Which why we need to make use of our brilliant faculties and hire the best development coaches and scouts we can get. 

Absolutely agree !!!   Get the best people available & utilize our top class facilities !!

Edited 18 January 2024 by gurru991

[Lambert09]

21 minutes ago, gurru991 said:

The Academy has to be the most important  part of any club. Growing your own is the only way clubs can compete against the mega money big kids !!

problem is, it’s just far too easy to poach. More and more you see it happening. 
 

Becomes a frustrating affair when the big clubs have very little to stop them swooping in for someone you’ve spent years developing 

[Jobyfox]

I agree with the OP. 
 

FFP isn’t necessarily a bad thing if it is implemented in fair, timely and consistent way. It was frustrating last year, when we were pulling our belts in, to see a newly promoted club throw money around like confetti in a manner that was obviously breaking the rules. We all want things to be fair, but it’s a delicate balance sometimes between appropriate ambition  and sustainable spending. 
 

I’m always a bit conflicted, however, when I think about it. It should be possible for any team to progress to the very top based on a meritocracy, but that’s not the case in any league. The creation of the PL was driven by the top clubs wanting to ring fence the revenues for themselves just as the attempts to create a super league are. They want to lock out competition for good. 
 

Machester United (and in particular Martin Edwards) were one of the driving forces of the EPL. Edward’s made no secret of the fact that he wanted to put smaller clubs “to sleep”. What was probably never envisaged, at the time, was the billionaire owners pumping money into clubs like Chelsea and Man City to shake up the status quo. 
 

We could have been in a situation where Manchester United continued with a succession of titles with only the occasional challenge from the likes of Liverpool et al. This was totally disrupted and I can’t help think that wasn’t a bad thing. It may never be possible again with FFP 

Edited 18 January 2024 by Jobyfox

[gurru991]

3 minutes ago, Lambert09 said:

problem is, it’s just far too easy to poach. More and more you see it happening. 
 

Becomes a frustrating affair when the big clubs have very little to stop them swooping in for someone you’ve spent years developing 

The youngsters need know that the chance of first team football is much better at the smaller club. Man C & Chelsea are famous for buying youngsters but very few break into the first team. I think Maresca is the type of manager who will give the kids a chance going forward.

The bright lights of the massive clubs are hard to resist though.

[davieG]

33 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

Which why we need to make use of our brilliant faculties and hire the best development coaches and scouts we can get. 

The best coaches are generally cheaper than players and are easier/cheaper to remove if not up to scratch

[KingsX]

12 minutes ago, Lambert09 said:

problem is, it’s just far too easy to poach. More and more you see it happening. 
 

Becomes a frustrating affair when the big clubs have very little to stop them swooping in for someone you’ve spent years developing 

 

Doesn't the tribunal system usually just compensate for the cost of the player's development?  Maybe a minimum should be set at a given percentage (33% or 50%?) of the total value of the player's first contract at the acquiring club.

[Greg2607]

the other "benefit" that FFP should have, is that it will force owners into developing all of the infrastructure around the club to provide additional revenue streams. 

 

That's why KP are looking to develop the area around the ground, it's why they have things like the turf academy in place, it's all to generate additional revenue to the club, to enable us to continue to compete. 

 

in theory, that benefits the community as a whole and places football clubs back towards the centre of the community. 

 

now, I know I'll get jumped on for suggesting that, but that's the way I see it. 

[coolhandfox]

FFP is unfair because it links to income and gives established big teams an unfair advantage.

 

As much as some people hate American sports, an NFL-style salary cap would be fairer. 

 

Edited 18 January 2024 by coolhandfox

[Lionator]

Surely if you develop your own academy players, once they demand bigger salaries you'd eventually have to sell them to clubs who get more revenue? Which means it's not fair. 

 

While FFP is protection against going bust long term, it's also very much a stay in your lane.

[urban fox]

If the club really need to bring in a big lump of cash quickly, surely could they not move the womens team training facilities to Seagrave and sell off Belvoir drive to a developer. Got be worth a few million. You could build a fair few houses on the site.

[urban fox]

4 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Surely if you develop your own academy players, once they demand bigger salaries you'd eventually have to sell them to clubs who get more revenue? Which means it's not fair. 

 

While FFP is protection against going bust long term, it's also very much a stay in your lane.

Yes you could and any fees are pure profit so you have a bigger kitty to keep you within ffp when buying in. This is what chelsea have been doing for years, snapping up all the best talent and then loaning out and ultimately selling for decent money

[KingsX]

5 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Surely if you develop your own academy players, once they demand bigger salaries you'd eventually have to sell them to clubs who get more revenue? Which means it's not fair.

 

I'd argue this was every bit as much the case before FFP.

 

Your budding star player is a year or two from the end of his contract ... club with a few times your turnover fancies him and will offer a packet far bigger than you can match  ... you are effectively forced to sell.

[Lambert09]

53 minutes ago, gurru991 said:

The youngsters need know that the chance of first team football is much better at the smaller club. Man C & Chelsea are famous for buying youngsters but very few break into the first team. I think Maresca is the type of manager who will give the kids a chance going forward.

The bright lights of the massive clubs are hard to resist though.

you’re right but what an agent would tell you, is that 1% make the first team at a team like leicester but you will likely land higher up the pyramid dropping from chelsea than leicester.  Which is true. Some absolutely honking players end up with championship/ league 1 gigs just because they were on the books at chelsea… ours end up in the conference north 

[Jobyfox]

1 hour ago, coolhandfox said:

FFP is unfair because it links to income and gives established big teams an unfair advantage.

 

As much as some people hate American sports, an NFL-style salary cap would be fairer. 

 

One of the reasons that the EPL is (considered in many circles to be) the best league in the world is that it can attract the very best players. 
 

The problem I see with a salary cap is that the best players will start going elsewhere, the PL won’t be such an attractive commodity without them and, subsequently, won’t generate the revenues that it does currently. Reducing the quality of the product in a vicious spiral. 
 

But I guess it’s a trade off and no system is perfect. What we have now certainly isn’t 

 

[gurru991]

41 minutes ago, Lambert09 said:

you’re right but what an agent would tell you, is that 1% make the first team at a team like leicester but you will likely land higher up the pyramid dropping from chelsea than leicester.  Which is true. Some absolutely honking players end up with championship/ league 1 gigs just because they were on the books at chelsea… ours end up in the conference north 

That is a very good point & one that the big clubs probably  use to convince youngsters to join them.

[pmcla26]

1 hour ago, coolhandfox said:

FFP is unfair because it links to income and gives established big teams an unfair advantage.

 

As much as some people hate American sports, an NFL-style salary cap would be fairer. 

 

Also think that drafting and college football would be better in this country than current academies. Do it by areas, rather than big clubs hoovering up all the talent. 
 

Also protects kids from thinking they’ve made it as a teenager when they’re on the books of one of the big clubs. 

[Jobyfox]

44 minutes ago, Lambert09 said:

you’re right but what an agent would tell you, is that 1% make the first team at a team like leicester but you will likely land higher up the pyramid dropping from chelsea than leicester.  Which is true. Some absolutely honking players end up with championship/ league 1 gigs just because they were on the books at chelsea… ours end up in the conference north 

Yeah, not just Chelsea. I remember Liverpool went through a cycle of selling very average players for massive fees - just because they’d had some first team experience at Liverpool: Rhian Brewster comes to mind and ….. er …… Danny Ward! 

 

 

[gurru991]

8 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

Also think that drafting and college football would be better in this country than current academies. Do it by areas, rather than big clubs hoovering up all the talent. 
 

Also protects kids from thinking they’ve made it as a teenager when they’re on the books of one of the big clubs. 

College football and its recruiting process is incredibly corrupt !!  It is not a system that you would want to follow !!

[foxes1988]

The biggest problem with FFP is that it doesn't work. If you really wanted sustainability in the English game you could do it very easily. But there's too much money in English football and the largest teams are often seen as more important/'powerful'. Leicester are no more important than Bury were. Liverpool no more then Notts County. 

 

Clubs are struggling just as much as ever and FFP will not solve it one iota.  Either go full capitalism or go the American 'socialised way.  This middle ground is just a protection racket anyone pretending it's about sustainability is niave

[Guest David Oldfields Gate]

All I want to see is eleven lads from the county wearing blue.

Finding everything else just tiresome and grotesque these days.

 

[urban fox]

It seems to me that, with all the noise around Everton, forest, and Man City even, many clubs are finding themselves in the same boat. Suddenly scared of falling foul of ffp so cannot afford to sell players at a loss, whilst at the same time cannot spend unless they do sell someone who nobody is prepared to buy at their current valuation. It’s all a bit of a catch 22 brought on by clubs themselves paying inflated prices and wages over the past few cycles. In the shorter term this may well push transfer fees down in the case of all but the most elite players, but In the longer term when agents realise that their cut of any transfer starts to get eroded, the entire transfer system could well implode and we will see players signing shorter contracts, simply running them down and moving on frees at the end of said term to the highest bidders wages wise. (And we all know who they are!). This would put even more power into the players and agents hands and super rich clubs will happily encourage this unless some form of salary cap (including all signing on fees and bonuses) is introduced.