The Great Big FFP Debate

Reuben klang

Reuben klang

Reuben klang

Soldato
Joined
21 Sep 2020
Posts
4,093
MissChief said:
And given the spending by City before the takeover they were given it, not generated it. I hope they're found guilty of every charge levied by the Premier League, have all 6 titles rescinded, are relegated to the National League North and are fined £100 trillion pounds. Cheats never prosper they say. If City are allowed to then the whole premise of financial fair play and a semi even playing field is not just out of the window, it's been launched through the window via trebuchet.
Click to expand...

I get where you’re coming from but the FFP rules are a load of ********, they should be to stop clubs going bust not stopping wealthy owners putting money in to keep the old money on top.

Like Newcastle, they clearly have the money and are willing to spend it. They should be allowed to spend what ever they want as long as the money isn’t laden on the club like what the glazers are doing.

City are just ran supremely well right across the club from top to bottom. Look at PSG, you can make an arse of spending money.

Same with Man Utd they’ve wasted all their money over this last decade from over paying right at the start for Fellini when he had a buy out clause to paying huge wages on loan players like Falcao or players who just aren’t cut out for the league like AdM. Even under ETH they spent £70m on Anthony and left themself no more room left on the company credit card to get a CF.

Terrible management/ownership is Uniteds issue.
 
MissChief said:
And given the spending by City before the takeover they were given it, not generated it. I hope they're found guilty of every charge levied by the Premier League, have all 6 titles rescinded, are relegated to the National League North and are fined £100 trillion pounds. Cheats never prosper they say. If City are allowed to then the whole premise of financial fair play and a semi even playing field is not just out of the window, it's been launched through the window via trebuchet.
Click to expand...

The charges are up to 2018. You can’t take titles off them after that date.Effectively they have been then working well within FFP.
 
Reuben klang said:
I get where you’re coming from but the FFP rules are a load of ********, they should be to stop clubs going bust not stopping wealthy owners putting money in to keep the old money on top.

Like Newcastle, they clearly have the money and are willing to spend it. They should be allowed to spend what ever they want as long as the money isn’t laden on the club like what the glazers are doing.

City are just ran supremely well right across the club from top to bottom. Look at PSG, you can make an arse of spending money.

Same with Man Utd they’ve wasted all their money over this last decade from over paying right at the start for Fellini when he had a buy out clause to paying huge wages on loan players like Falcao or players who just aren’t cut out for the league like AdM. Even under ETH they spent £70m on Anthony and left themself no more room left on the company credit card to get a CF.

Terrible management/ownership is Uniteds issue.
Click to expand...

Lets see what happens with the 115 FFP breaches they have been charged with before declaring they are an incredibly well run club.
 
Last edited:
dannyjo22 said:
The charges are up to 2018. You can’t take titles off them after that date.Effectively they have been then working well within FFP.
Click to expand...

It’s easy to work well within FFP after spending 10 years breaking every rule to set the foundations for finances that now look legit.

There’s not a chance they could afford to be paying Haaland what they are now if they didn’t spend those years cheating the system.
 
Last edited:
I've never understood why the source of funds matters to fans. Yes, City have cheated however the rules were brought about to make it as hard as possible for them to legitimately compete.

What City have done is no different to what numerous clubs have done over decades of football, the numbers are just bigger. Abramovich pumped money into Chelsea, Jack Walker pumped money into Blackburn and Liverpool, Arsenal & Utd all sold off stakes to raise money to fund their growth. There is fundamentally no difference in what they done to what City's are doing, except we suddenly decided we don't like it anymore. Is it fair that City can spend more than everybody else? Maybe not but since when has football been fair? It wasn't fair when Chelsea, Blackburn or Utd were spending more than everybody either.

The only debate people should be having is about sustainability, both on a club by club basis but also a collective League and continent basis. FFP doesn't stop clubs getting into debt. Over the last few years Spurs have racked up huge debts (and not simply from their stadium) despite being FFP compliant - Spurs have a net transfer debt of well over £200m, likewise Utd and Arsenal not far behind. These are all clubs pro FFP. Allowing your City's of this world free reign to spend what they like shouldn't be allowed either. Just like Abramovich & Chelsea, what happens when the UK decide it's no longer happy with Saudi and the UAE bombing the **** out of Yemen? Overnight the taps get turned off and City can't pay their wages anymore.

I suggested something a few months ago regarding a different way FFP could be applied. Rather than a club by club limit related to their income, it should be a fixed percentage of the highest (legitimate) revenue in the League. Allow Newcastle/City and everybody to spend 75% of Liverpool or Utd's revenue but make them put in financial guarantees in place for every penny over 75% of their own revenue, so if and when the money does dry up, there's funds in place to stop the club going bust. It would create a fair system that allows clubs who want to invest to do so without forcing other clubs into spending money they don't have to compete with sport washing regimes.
 
Reuben klang said:
I get where you’re coming from but the FFP rules are a load of ********, they should be to stop clubs going bust not stopping wealthy owners putting money in to keep the old money on top.

Like Newcastle, they clearly have the money and are willing to spend it. They should be allowed to spend what ever they want as long as the money isn’t laden on the club like what the glazers are doing.

City are just ran supremely well right across the club from top to bottom. Look at PSG, you can make an arse of spending money.

Same with Man Utd they’ve wasted all their money over this last decade from over paying right at the start for Fellini when he had a buy out clause to paying huge wages on loan players like Falcao or players who just aren’t cut out for the league like AdM. Even under ETH they spent £70m on Anthony and left themself no more room left on the company credit card to get a CF.

Terrible management/ownership is Uniteds issue.
Click to expand...

You say Look at PSG but PSG haven't won a Champions League and neither have City. Both have been in a final. In the past ten years City have won 6 out of the last 10 PSG have won 9 out of the last 10. Regardless of the quality of the league PSG have been no less successful than City domestically and in Europe.

The problem with PSG is they don't have the skills to fiddle revenue like City but I guess they do not need to when they have their fingers in Uefa.
 
Last edited:
You follow the rules set regardless of the fairness of them. Italian clubs and French clubs have had to sell off quality talent to comply with such rules in the past. As well as accept the fines handed down to them or face disqualification from the CL etc.

And I also agree ffp is a joke of a system, it shouldn't exist but while it does you play by the parameters set. The funny thing is because the PL is the golden goose you can't be seen to confirming that one of your clubs has essentially cheated their way to success.

As you've seen with Serie A and Juventus about to face a 2nd punishment in less than 20 years. It ruins the commercial value of the league, if its perception is damaged.

They'll likely get a slap on the wrist or docked a set number of points like Juventus face the prospect of at the conclusion of this season.

FFP was in reality designed to keep the status quo as it was, but now you have 3 Middle Eastern countries with full ownership of what will become the 3 biggest clubs in the world eventually, unless another Country wants to get involved with their financial resources.

I think the PL now is only worth the investment for an owner content with the consistent revenue streams provided rather than with ambitions of competing on all fronts as there's more risk of missing out each season now. As close to the NBA/NFL model as you can get in Europe given the possibility of relegation.

Which may open up the possibility of Italian or Spanish clubs ending up with a similar ownership model so they can dominate said league as well.
 
Last edited:
Quick question.

Wolves, Everton and Leicester are they in financial trouble or FFP trouble? I know the Leicester owners travel companies had a lot of problems because of the plague but did it affect the club?
 
Last edited:
no idea about the others.. but this was taken from another site..

"The Premier League’s FFP rules allow clubs to lose up to £105m over a three-year period. Wolves posted a loss of £46.1m in the last financial year, and had a net spend of around £100m on transfers this season. Another substantive loss is on the cards"

So if they lose a simliar amount again, their hands will be a bit tied without serious player sales.
 
I've not checked to see whether those losses are accurate but what a lot of people forget is within a clubs accounts there's a load of allowable expenses that don't count towards FFP. So Wolves' £46m loss is probably closer to £30m once you remove allowable expenses such as youth investment, infrastructure costs etc.
 
BaZ87 said:
I suggested something a few months ago regarding a different way FFP could be applied. Rather than a club by club limit related to their income, it should be a fixed percentage of the highest (legitimate) revenue in the League. Allow Newcastle/City and everybody to spend 75% of Liverpool or Utd's revenue but make them put in financial guarantees in place for every penny over 75% of their own revenue, so if and when the money does dry up, there's funds in place to stop the club going bust. It would create a fair system that allows clubs who want to invest to do so without forcing other clubs into spending money they don't have to compete with sport washing regimes.
Click to expand...

The more I read this the more I wish it were the case.
 
SimonRigga said:
no idea about the others.. but this was taken from another site..

"The Premier League’s FFP rules allow clubs to lose up to £105m over a three-year period. Wolves posted a loss of £46.1m in the last financial year, and had a net spend of around £100m on transfers this season. Another substantive loss is on the cards"

So if they lose a simliar amount again, their hands will be a bit tied without serious player sales.
Click to expand...

I imagine they'll get around it through player sales, but it may end up weakening the strength of the lower end of the table.

You can sell a player for £30m and immediately count that full figure in the financial year, whilst at the same time you can buy a player for £30m on a 5 year contract and it'll only count as a £6m cost in the accounts for that same year. One or two big sales and those clubs could get out of FFP danger, but it does mean that investing in new players who'll improve the side will be tricky.

Man City did well this year as far as transfers go - not only did the get top dollar for Jesus, Sterling, etc. but they also took almost £40m selling a bunch of youngsters to Southampton.
 
Last edited:
Toekiller said:
www.youtube.com

BRITAIN'S BIGGEST FOOTBALL SCANDAL?

Head of ProductionKirstie McClureReconstruction DirectorIan A Hunt CameraJonathan Callery Reconstruction cameraRob Goldie Archive Producer James R M Hunt Arc...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
Click to expand...

You'll find that almost every "body" that is supposed to police a particular industry is almost as corrupt as the industry themselves. Whats worse is that these organisations give people an excuse to turn a blind eye to it. "An impartial third party says they are OK so it must be true".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom