Smudge Posted 11 July 2013 Share Posted 11 July 2013 There is no doubt that theory is sound but the consequences of parachute payments were not thoroughly thought out. There will be injustices in the short term but hopefully over the next few seasons those will be ironed out, which is better than the upward spriralling of wages and the ultimate demise of professional football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylofox Posted 11 July 2013 Share Posted 11 July 2013 The terrible thing is this. We can't spend any money due to the restrictions, but clubs relegated from the Premiership (Wigan as an example) have so many parachute payments that they can spend spend spend. How are teams like us who have been in the Championship for a long time supposed to compete with that now? We cant spend due to our owners gambling with our club the last two seasons. FFP is designed to stop another Portsmouth happening wich is the model our club is following. Rich owners lending money the club can't afford. If our owners wanted to give us money we could spend but they don't they want it back plus 8%. They may have money and seem great but knowing this was coming they have miss managed our club. They gambled with our club and going up and got it badly wrong not just Sven but the whole boardroom. If they pull out now we will be portsmouth and Lineaker and Heskey won't be able to save us this time. The only thing wrong with FFP is our owners and the fact it came in 5 years to late. As for the prem clubs they will always if run half right have money to spend when they hit the championship. It's called a parachute payment. Thats nothing to do with FFP they have always had it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Fox Posted 11 July 2013 Share Posted 11 July 2013 I reckon the owners do have the money to buy players however they won't do so till the deadwood have left and the wage bill is reduced significantly so it complies with FFP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Flair Posted 11 July 2013 Share Posted 11 July 2013 It's the pits! This league will end up like the SPL. They'll probably do away with the play-offs soon as well and go straight for the top 3 to be promoted, which will be the three relegated teams each season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankieWorthoYaggedMyWife Posted 11 July 2013 Share Posted 11 July 2013 It's the pits! This league will end up like the SPL. They'll probably do away with the play-offs soon as well and go straight for the top 3 to be promoted, which will be the three relegated teams each season. Surely its only a matter of time before someone discovers a loop hole in the system though? For me it borders on restriction of trade and simply makes it more of a closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Flair Posted 11 July 2013 Share Posted 11 July 2013 Surely its only a matter of time before someone discovers a loop hole in the system though? For me it borders on restriction of trade and simply makes it more of a closed. Well the bloke who won the Bosman case is going through the European courts with FFP so hopefully it gets thrown out as you're right it is a restriction of trade. Something needs to be done to curb the debt culture in football but not sure this is it given what's happening in the PL. There will be loopholes, I hope the Thai's have got the Triads doing some gigginz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrankieWorthoYaggedMyWife Posted 11 July 2013 Share Posted 11 July 2013 Well the bloke who won the Bosman case is going through the European courts with FFP so hopefully it gets thrown out as you're right it is a restriction of trade. Something needs to be done to curb the debt culture in football but not sure this is it given what's happening in the PL. There will be loopholes, I hope the Thai's have got the Triads doing some gigginz Toploader and his old man are cute little fookers, they will have something in the pipe line.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5waller5 Posted 11 July 2013 Share Posted 11 July 2013 Personally i think any attempted regulation of a market just interferes with the natural market forces and is a bad thing. Effectively it will just become a big rock in a stream ..... once one bright spark finds a way round it then the water will flow again around a different course and the rock will have served no purpose other than disrupt the natural market for a short time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBreath Posted 11 July 2013 Share Posted 11 July 2013 We cant spend due to our owners gambling with our club the last two seasons. FFP is designed to stop another Portsmouth happening wich is the model our club is following. Rich owners lending money the club can't afford. If our owners wanted to give us money we could spend but they don't they want it back plus 8%. They may have money and seem great but knowing this was coming they have miss managed our club. They gambled with our club and going up and got it badly wrong not just Sven but the whole boardroom. If they pull out now we will be portsmouth and Lineaker and Heskey won't be able to save us this time. The only thing wrong with FFP is our owners and the fact it came in 5 years to late. As for the prem clubs they will always if run half right have money to spend when they hit the championship. It's called a parachute payment. Thats nothing to do with FFP they have always had it. Wrong on every point, good effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack Posted 11 July 2013 Share Posted 11 July 2013 FFP works on a mechanism that only allows big clubs to spend big. It takes all the basic principles of business away, as anyone who runs a business knows you have to invest in order to grow. It's utter shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 11 July 2013 Share Posted 11 July 2013 But if you aren't big and are spending more money than you can afford/have got, then isn't that very risky? Something needs doing about it although you're probably right in saying this shouldn't be the answer. I'd like to see it encourage more long-term planning, use of youth players and stop this ridiculous debt that so many clubs are topping up, but in doing it, it's done nothing but protected the biggest clubs and introducing the disgraceful EPPP as well, there literally is no hope for the lower leagues. Literally no hope. League One will be the same standard as the Blue Square North in 5/10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swalker Posted 11 July 2013 Share Posted 11 July 2013 Look at what it does. It stops clubs spending money so what's the point now for rich buisnessmen to buy a club because they can't pump the money THEY HAVE into the club to get better players into the club. Also the sides relegated from the PL don't have the same restrictions so they're at an advantage to go back up because they can afford better players. Overall all it'll do is of the 3 relegated teams from the PL atleast 2 will go straight back up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack Posted 11 July 2013 Share Posted 11 July 2013 But if you aren't big and are spending more money than you can afford/have got, then isn't that very risky? Something needs doing about it although you're probably right in saying this shouldn't be the answer. I'd like to see it encourage more long-term planning, use of youth players and stop this ridiculous debt that so many clubs are topping up, but in doing it, it's done nothing but protected the biggest clubs and introducing the disgraceful EPPP as well, there literally is no hope for the lower leagues. Literally no hope. League One will be the same standard as the Blue Square North in 5/10 years. Regulation to ensure people who don't have the money from spending it I agree with. I also agree with stopping people taking over clubs and stripping them bare. But what other private industry would stop wealthy people from investing money into it? Utter lunacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shade Posted 11 July 2013 Share Posted 11 July 2013 anything, and I literally mean ANYTHING, is better than the current system. it's toxic and disgusting. modern football has no right to call itself a business and little right to call itself a sport. when you have a group of very average clowns (not necessarily us) taking 100% of a clubs turnover (not profit), then you know the whole system stinks of turd. £200,000 a week in the PL like it's nothing for some very questionable 'idols', what a classy sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 11 July 2013 Share Posted 11 July 2013 anything, and I literally mean ANYTHING, is better than the current system. it's toxic and disgusting. modern football has no right to call itself a business and little right to call itself a sport. when you have a group of very average clowns (not necessarily us) taking 100% of a clubs turnover (not profit), then you know the whole system stinks of turd. £200,000 a week in the PL like it's nothing for some very questionable 'idols', what a classy sport. Certainly agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADK Posted 11 July 2013 Share Posted 11 July 2013 Wouldn't a european-wide wage cap have made more sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackneyfox Posted 11 July 2013 Share Posted 11 July 2013 It would be illegal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 11 July 2013 Share Posted 11 July 2013 The theory is very good. Some clubs, those relegated last season for instance, wont be badly effected, but we at Leicester will be one of the major sufferers. This was why it was extra important to gain promotion last season. All future relegated clubs from the Premiership will be far better off than the rest, what with the parachute payments, plus monies from selling of their top players' It looks like we are well and truly stuffed now, folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatness_Since_1884 Posted 11 July 2013 Share Posted 11 July 2013 Capping the levels of debt would have been a better system as that deals specifically with irresponsibility but by linking it to turnover they've created a hierarchy that'll never be broken whilst FFP is still in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 11 July 2013 Share Posted 11 July 2013 Capping the levels of debt would have been a better system as that deals specifically with irresponsibility but by linking it to turnover they've created a hierarchy that'll never be broken whilst FFP is still in place. That's a great shout that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 11 July 2013 Share Posted 11 July 2013 Capping the levels of debt would have been a better system as that deals specifically with irresponsibility but by linking it to turnover they've created a hierarchy that'll never be broken whilst FFP is still in place. Great idea in theory but how can you cap levels of debt though? Clubs just wont be able to release players from contracts for nothing when they come to close to whatever the ceiling is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatness_Since_1884 Posted 11 July 2013 Share Posted 11 July 2013 Great idea in theory but how can you cap levels of debt though? Clubs just wont be able to release players from contracts for nothing when they come to close to whatever the ceiling is. I'm no expert but wasn't what tipped Pompy, Rangers etc. over the edge high 3rd party debt to banks etc? That's the real problem whereby owners borrow shed loads of money against the clubs name from banks then bugger off. That I am totally against. But if a philanthropist wants to buy a local club and invest his own hard earned cash into them to build them up I don't see what the problem is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 11 July 2013 Share Posted 11 July 2013 I'm no expert but wasn't what tipped Pompy, Rangers etc. over the edge high 3rd party debt to banks etc? That's the real problem whereby owners borrow shed loads of money against the clubs name from banks then bugger off. That I am totally against. But if a philanthropist wants to buy a local club and invest his own hard earned cash into them to build them up I don't see what the problem is there. That's the problem though. You can't forsee the future so a debt ceiling couldn't work. A local businessman could get involved, an external event like a market crash could happen and he's got no money left, the club would still go tits up. Having spend to club turnover does make more sense. I mean what would have happened to us? Let's say the debt level was 50million? We couldnt just release Beckford etc after we had hit that mark, they are under contract. The whole thing has spiralled so far out of control I don't know what we can do to stop it, FFP was a good idea as it works to perfection in the states (Not uncommon for them to have 15 diff winners in 20 years of a sport) but we just seem to have took the worst of it. In the US if a New York Yankees hat is sold in Cleveland that money is distributed amongst the whole league as they don't allow clubs to profit from 'stealing' other towns communities, imagine the top sides here putting up with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 11 July 2013 Share Posted 11 July 2013 I've said it for a while but football's beyond repair now. I literally think the only way of sorting everything would be for the Premier League for example to go bust and it all starts over again, a bit like the Bundesliga did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bayfox Posted 11 July 2013 Share Posted 11 July 2013 Capping the levels of debt would have been a better system as that deals specifically with irresponsibility but by linking it to turnover they've created a hierarchy that'll never be broken whilst FFP is still in place. yes that would work. i think our owners should be able to run up debts similar to the glazers!!! nope maybe not against our carp assets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.