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

[Dan]

FFP needed introducing years before clubs became 'established' because now it will only serve to protect their positions.

[CloudFox]

I agree @KingsX. The main problem with FFP for me is what is happening with Man City's charges. They've been charged...but still no hearing. Meanwhile, Everton have been charged and punished, then charged again, along with Forest.

 

Man City have powerful lawyers, fed with their deep pockets. So they can just delay, or hire the most expensive, brilliant lawyers to fight their corner. If the lawyers won the case, then suddenly they're renowned for being able to do it. And if you've got enough money...you can worm out of it too.

 

I think if FFP factored in legal costs for the club to fight these kind of cases, it would make the playing field far more level than it is right now. And if they win, perhaps the costs get disregarded so it doesn't effect FFP for the club? Poorly articulated idea, but you hopefully follow my train of thought.

[st albans fox]

The PL either shot themselves in the foot by bringing so many charges against Man City or they perhaps did it deliberately, knowing that the more complex it was, the longer it would take to get to a hearing and ‘stuff’ might intervene. 

I heard an interview today with a financial football guy who said that Man City would be relegated several divisions if found guilty but he was pretty sure that the PL wouldn’t be able to meet the threshold on evidence for an independent commission to do that. 

 

[Nalis]

6 hours ago, Jobyfox said:

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 

Martin Edwards was the driving force then Peter Kenyon was the devil himself, moving from Man Utd to Chelsea then proposing England reduce the professional leagues to 40 clubs.

[Voll Blau]

4 hours ago, David Oldfields Gate said:

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

Finding everything else just tiresome and grotesque these days.

 

Don't think that's ever happened in our entire history, which in itself is quite surprising.

[Fear Of The Fox]

12 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

The PL either shot themselves in the foot by bringing so many charges against Man City or they perhaps did it deliberately, knowing that the more complex it was, the longer it would take to get to a hearing and ‘stuff’ might intervene. 

I heard an interview today with a financial football guy who said that Man City would be relegated several divisions if found guilty but he was pretty sure that the PL wouldn’t be able to meet the threshold on evidence for an independent commission to do that. 

 

I still believe there'll be severe sanctions/punishment against Man City and Chelsea. Does it matter though? The damage is done. Football had always a political side to it but right now its state is absolutely shocking. Who is it to blame? The football associations, politicians and footballers primarily. It's all about lobbying and money. They were all taking money from the Russians and suddenly they're now their enemies. The same will happen with the Saudis. 

Football will die if the same practices continue the next couple of years and the customers (fans) will abandon the product. 

Maybe an unpopular opinion but it's a scandal earning thousands an hour because you're very good at kicking a ball. The bubble will eventually burst. 

[Sly]

FFP is its current model is anti restrictive in my opinion. I do wonder if a Manchester City might challenge it legally if pushed, as it’s a restriction of trade. They clearly have the money, so not allowing them to put it in and develop if crazy.

 

Can you imagine if you won the lottery and purchased a restaurant for £10k.
 

You want to make it Michelin star.  So want to spend £100k on renovations, getting the best staff etc for it, however you’re not allowed to grow, as some rules state you can only spend £50k on staff wages. You can afford the world’s best chef but the rules don’t allow it.  
 

Bonkers. 

[Golden Fox]

The big thing for me remains the split of Champions League money. Our league system as a whole generates 4 clubs to represent the league on the European stage. And those 4 clubs hoover up all that money which entrenches their position.

 

Changing that so more goes to every league club would help even up FFP. 

 

Not going to happen, but that is the biggest cause of unevenness in revenues. 

 

(its the opposite of the draft system, where doing well one year gives you a competitive advantage the next) 

Edited 18 January 2024 by Golden Fox
Thought of a good point after posting!

[Poznan34]

Developing academy players should be our focus as a club. Compared to clubs of our size, we have the best facilities and a huge catchment area. 

[Wortho]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

The PL either shot themselves in the foot by bringing so many charges against Man City or they perhaps did it deliberately, knowing that the more complex it was, the longer it would take to get to a hearing and ‘stuff’ might intervene. 

I heard an interview today with a financial football guy who said that Man City would be relegated several divisions if found guilty but he was pretty sure that the PL wouldn’t be able to meet the threshold on evidence for an independent commission to do that. 

 

The so called case against Man City is really complex. The PL are accusing them  of fraud, false accounting. Basically, they’re saying lawyers, accountants and the owners and nearly everyone at the club of fraud since 2007!!!

Good luck with trying to prove that. The PL have bitten off more than they can chew. 

 

[coolhandfox]

7 hours ago, Jobyfox said:

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 

 

Only way is to bring it in world wide.

 

[fuchsntf]

13 hours ago, KingsX said:

“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.

 

This is what I also said in the Rudkin topic... People in his position and recruitment manager Glover...

Effect of Covid plus FFP, will put constraints on our reinvestment of players then obviously other clubs

 

Promotion and the awaited transfer window doesn't any more automatically  mean we will see any great or large movement, 

In our, or other clubs reinvestment of believed high quality players. NOT Even being able to close out any deals on the middle level... 

 

Academy, or finds like Mahrez, or a Justin tzpe of deal, are maybe our only

Markets, with an odd forage into Fatawu or Cannon levels.. 

Whch isn't a too bad a thing.... 

Edited 19 January 2024 by fuchsntf

[Claudio Fannieri]

What will be interesting is how long Newcastle’s owners hang around, they have been here for 2 years and have already hit a ceiling in terms of FFP and will have to sell before they can invest further in improving the squad. They have had a taste of Champions League, however they are now back in mid-table and fairly restricted on what they can do in the transfer market, how long before they get bored and move on?

 

You have to ask the question does this stop or restrict poor owners or does it lead to initial investment, but once the FFP restrictions kick in,  owners become bored, frustrated at being restricted which then leads to them withdrawing funding and looking for the exit door. 
 

Not sure if this is possible but if they left the £105m threshold in place, but any overspend could be allowed for in the event the owner(s) funded it out of their own pocket, therefore not saddling or crippling the club with debt, but also allowing ambitious owners to retain some opportunity to take calculated risks to be competitive, whilst also safeguarding the clubs, the current model effectively strangles that and therefore we are likely to see lots more Readings etc where owners just lose interest. 
 

 

[foxinsocks]

let's think about  Bury (- and for that matter most premier rugby union clubs).    You see clubs can come under the control of owners who want glory (or bust) - they spend spend spend spo that the wage bill is beyond what can be afforded byt he club... and if thery don't win then the club is tipped in to administration and the owners can walk away (usually after assets stripping).

I believe  that this could be solved by the league - who should only allow owners who put down a bond (security) that they will forfeit if the club goes into administration - eg £1million in league 2, $2million in league 1, 10million in the championship and maybe £50million in the premiership.  

[Les-TA-Jon]

11 hours ago, Sly said:

FFP is its current model is anti restrictive in my opinion. I do wonder if a Manchester City might challenge it legally if pushed, as it’s a restriction of trade. They clearly have the money, so not allowing them to put it in and develop if crazy.

 

Can you imagine if you won the lottery and purchased a restaurant for £10k.
 

You want to make it Michelin star.  So want to spend £100k on renovations, getting the best staff etc for it, however you’re not allowed to grow, as some rules state you can only spend £50k on staff wages. You can afford the world’s best chef but the rules don’t allow it.  
 

Bonkers. 

Yes but let's not pretend that's an Apples and Apples comparison. Restaurants are 'just' businesses; they come and go and outside of a few globally they have no cultural heritage or importance to the local community. 

 

Sport is always a tricky arena because clubs are both businesses and community assets and importance parts of cultural and local heritage. They're also both in direct competition with each other, both in business terms and sporting, but also completely rely on working together to establish and maintain competitions. 

 

FFP has a lot of problems but the overall principle of trying to prevent clubs from folding is good and totally different to your restaurant example. 

[Foxin_Mad]

They need to find a better way of doing it as it doesnt work. The rich clubs can spend more because they have bigger turnovers, it takes years to increase turnover. Perhaps the bigger clubs should also be limited to perhaps average turnover of the division or something to make it more equal. The dificulty is whatever they do has to be done on a widescale as otherwise the best players move away. It stupid that Chelsea can spend nearly 1 billion and still comply with FFP. 

 

Clubs like Leicester have to be very good at scouting and very good at bringing through young players. There needs to be mechanisms to protect bigger clubs poaching youngsters brought through an academy.