The Great Big FFP Debate

wesimmo said:
I'd like to see owners be able to invest in a club to try and challenge the established clubs, but there do need to be safeguards.

For me, if an owner wants to come in and sign up a dozen players on long contracts, kind of fine, as long as the financial commitments they signed up to are guaranteed in some way.

So if a player is signed on a 5 year contract at £500k per year and 5 annual payments of £10m to the selling club, then the owner has to cough up the full £52.5m up front and put it into an account that is solely used to service that commitment.

If the owner walks away, the damage to the club is limited, but it does give people the chance to 'give it a go'.
Click to expand...
They can, the Villa owner could build a new 150k stadium and give away 100k tickets every other week so in 20 years time every Midlander is a Villa fan, they can build world-class training facilities and academies around the world to find the next generations of talent. They can be the great businessmen they claim to be and employ the best of the best backroom staff to organically grow the club better than their rivals.

Nobody wants that, they want lots of new players yesterday.
 
Sythe79 said:
Nobody wants that, they want lots of new players yesterday.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's particularly fair. The idea of a new stadium has been kicked around for a while but where on earth are we meant to build it? Even if we did find somewhere there's not a hope in hell it would be in Aston.
Redevelopment takes time and it takes even longer if you've been relegated in the past 10 years. You have to do well to prove that the investments will be worthwhile. Hell, it's only the last 18 months where we've proved we're not just relegation fodder every season.
The plans to build out the stadium have been put on hold until transport links improve and that could take years. We sell out every game and the wait for a season ticket is 30,000 deep.
If we can't get more people through the gates then how are we meant to build revenue each year WITHOUT investing in a top squad that does well and gets sales up outside of ticket prices country/world wide? We're not a global brand like Liverpool or Man united. We can't lean on that sort of revenue for growth at the moment.

We're in between a rock and a hard place. As @BaZ87 says, no fan should have to watch as the club relies on rich owners for support ever single season. But what else are we supposed to do? Except that we're essentially required to be a mid table side until more favorable FFP/PSR rules are put in place, if they ever are?

Damned if we do and damned if we don't. What happens with Forest and Chelsea will be extremely interesting. If they're not punished hard enough then more secure clubs like Villa will just over invest and damn the consequences. A 10-15 point deduction is nothing compared to spending big on a strong squad that could see you climb hard in the league over 3-5 years.
 
Last edited:
ArcticHeron said:
Damned if we do and damned if we don't. What happens with Forest and Chelsea will be extremely interesting. If they're not punished hard enough then more secure clubs like Villa will just over invest and damn the consequences. A 10-15 point deduction is nothing compared to spending big on a strong squad that could see you climb hard in the league over 3-5 years.
Click to expand...
And then you would be banned from UEFA competition, so the what's the point of finishing top 4 ?

You missed the point on the stadium, it's there are ways to financially dope even now except they are long term so even according to you pointless, kind of proves my point.

Who exactly is it that has such an unfair advantage over you that you MUST spend way above your means ?

Man united, who didn't win a title for 26 years and are currently trying to break that record ? Liverpool who didn't win one for 30 years ? Arsenal 20 years and counting and spurs whose last win you had to listen to on the wireless.

So it's just Chelsea and Man city, who everyone agrees pretty much are dirty cheats funded by racist/stolen blood money, and that sort of thing probably shouldn't happen again.
 
Sythe79 said:
And then you would be banned from UEFA competition, so the what's the point of finishing top 4 ?
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating for that sort of behavior, my point was merely that a club could decide to accept the consequences, sack one season off and over invest for the future. Juventus only lost out on one years worth of European Football which will loose them a bit of revenue but when you're owners worth 13.5 billion, why should they care? They'll just qualify again next year like they have the last what, 11+ years?

Sythe79 said:
You missed the point on the stadium, it's there are ways to financially dope even now except they are long term so even according to you pointless, kind of proves my point.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by this.

Sythe79 said:
Who exactly is it that has such an unfair advantage over you that you MUST spend way above your means ?

Man united, who didn't win a title for 26 years and are currently trying to break that record ? Liverpool who didn't win one for 30 years ? Arsenal 20 years and counting and spurs whose last win you had to listen to on the wireless.
Click to expand...

You're talking about a different era where FFP/PSR wasn't a thing. A lot of the big teams used financial clout to establish themselves as the top dogs before FFP was even being discussed back in 09. FFP limits 'smaller' teams doing this now. If you can't expand then you can't spend, and spending almost always guarantees a certain level of success some point down the line (with caveats, obviously).

The chances of there being another rags to riches club like Chelsea is next to impossible now. Rightly so in some respects, but tragic in others.

I'm totally for owners having to play more of a part in club ownership in having to front cash for investment at any level to stop clubs going bust. I'm in no way against that and it's absolutely something I want to see implemented for the safety of clubs throughout the English leagues. But if you're asking me whether I want to see my team limit there goals because we don't generate as much wealth as City? No. What's the point in being a fan if the dreams and aspirations of your club are limited from day dot?

Do I want to see us cheat the system to win big? Absolutely not. I'd be disgusted and ashamed if that ever came to light. Do I think the the current rules nail teams outside of the top 6 to certain league positions? Absolutely.
 
Last edited:
ArcticHeron said:
I'm not advocating for that sort of behavior, my point was merely that a club could decide to accept the consequences, sack one season off and over invest for the future. Juventus only lost out on one years worth of European Football which will loose them a bit of revenue but when you're owners worth 13.5 billion, why should they care? They'll just qualify again next year like they have the last what, 11+ years?



Not sure what you mean by this.



You're talking about a different era where FFP/PSR wasn't a thing. A lot of the big teams used financial clout to establish themselves as the top dogs before FFP was even being discussed back in 09. FFP limits 'smaller' teams doing this now. If you can't expand then you can't spend, and spending almost always guarantees a certain level of success some point down the line (with caveats, obviously).

The chances of there being another rags to riches club like Chelsea is next to impossible now. Rightly so in some respects, but tragic in others.

I'm totally for owners having to play more of a part in club ownership in having to front cash for investment at any level to stop clubs going bust. I'm in no way against that and it's absolutely something I want to see implemented for the safety of clubs throughout the English leagues. But if you're asking me whether I want to see my team limit there goals because we don't generate as much wealth as City? No. What's the point in being a fan if the dreams and aspirations of your club are limited from day dot?

Do I want to see us cheat the system to win big? Absolutely not. I'd be disgusted and ashamed if that ever came to light. Do I think the the current rules nail teams outside of the top 6 to certain league positions? Absolutely.
Click to expand...
I meant what I said, there are no rules to stop a billionaire building a massive stadium now, even with the rules currently in place it would be legal financial doping, the real problem is it wouldn't generate results right now and having to wait 10–15 years for the results is unfair obviously ;)

Aston Villa were pretty much as big a team as Liverpool, Utd, Spurs and Arsenal when the Premier League started, what unfair advantage have they had since, that means it would only be fair for Aston Villa to now have an unfair advantage over say a Southampton or Burnley, or the 80 teams below you that don't have a sugar daddy by being allowed to break FFP ?
 
Sythe79 said:
I meant what I said, there are no rules to stop a billionaire building a massive stadium now, even with the rules currently in place it would be legal financial doping, the real problem is it wouldn't generate results right now and having to wait 10–15 years for the results is unfair obviously ;)
Click to expand...

Ahhh I see what youre saying. I'd refer you back you to my original response in that we simply have nowhere to build it. It's a crap answer and I'm not sympathy baiting, my point in thst regard was that if we can't rely on gate revenue then we have to look elsewhere.

Sythe79 said:
Aston Villa were pretty much as big a team as Liverpool, Utd, Spurs and Arsenal when the Premier League started, what unfair advantage have they had since, that means it would only be fair for Aston Villa to now have an unfair advantage over say a Southampton or Burnley, or the 80 teams below you that don't have a sugar daddy by being allowed to break FFP ?
Click to expand...

Were not breaking FFP, or PSR to be exact. For the time being at least...

I'm not venting at the big 6 for being better or richer then anyone else, nor am I ignoring the incredibly privelaged financial position villa have landed themselves in. The point I'm making is what's the point in being in that position if you can't exploit it.
 
Bigpig said:
@BaZ87 Can Newcastle sign mbapppeeee now?
www.skysports.com

Premier League's profitability and sustainability rules set to be replaced as early as this summer

Premier Leagues profitability and sustainability rules are to be replaced as early as this summer; the new system will be aligned with UEFAs squad cost ratio rules; new regulations will not affect the ongoing cases regarding Everton, Nottingham Forest and Manchester City
www.skysports.com www.skysports.com
Click to expand...
Shane Long is more likely. The new rules will be more restrictive than the current ones.
 
BaZ87 said:
Shane Long is more likely. The new rules will be more restrictive than the current ones.
Click to expand...
Any chance you can explain why the new FFP rules are more restrictive? I thought they would fall in line with uefa ie starting at 90% of turnover dropping down to 70% over 3 years, is it not better than the £105m loss over 3 years? i understand that if there is a % of turnover for a club in Europe and a different (higher) % of turnover for a club not playing in Europe, that would be a killer.
 
Last edited:
Apparently it went through 19 to 1, I wonder if it was Chelsea that voted against it, as if they follow UEFA’s rules they could be up **** creek without a paddle, as the stupid 7 and 8 year deals to get round amortisation would mean nothing, if anything they would be a hindrance as they would be on the books for longer.
 
Bigpig said:
@BaZ87 Can Newcastle sign mbapppeeee now?
www.skysports.com

Premier League's profitability and sustainability rules set to be replaced as early as this summer

Premier Leagues profitability and sustainability rules are to be replaced as early as this summer; the new system will be aligned with UEFAs squad cost ratio rules; new regulations will not affect the ongoing cases regarding Everton, Nottingham Forest and Manchester City
www.skysports.com www.skysports.com
Click to expand...
“…a sliding scale of penalties in place where clubs exceed that ratio.”

They’d have to get rid of that part otherwise the oil funded clubs will just breach the rules and pay the penalties.
 
woppy101 said:
Any chance you can explain why the new FFP rules are more restrictive? I thought they would fall in line with uefa ie starting at 90% of turnover dropping down to 70% over 3 years, is it not better than the £105m loss over 3 years? i understand that if there is a % of turnover for a club in Europe and a different (higher) % of turnover for a club not playing in Europe, that would be a killer.
Click to expand...
They will fall in line with UEFA's rules but you only have to use Newcastle accounts for last season to see how these rules are stricter. We know you didn't breach PSR last season however you would have been over the 85% (reportedly its likely to be 85% of revenue plus player sales for sides out of Europe and 70% for those in Europe) limit. Iinm Newcastle would have been over 90% and there will be a number of clubs spending over 100% of revenue + player sales on wages and amortisation.
 
BaZ87 said:
(reportedly its likely to be 85% of revenue plus player sales for sides out of Europe and 70% for those in Europe)
Click to expand...
that will in essence kill competition for anyone but the established 6, as any club that qualify’s for European competition through league position or a cup win, will immediately have to cut their wages and transfer spend from 85% to 70% (unless there is a 2-3 season grace period) a club with a £200m turnover would have to shed £30m immediately, in a time when you would have to add players, not lose them
 
Last edited:
woppy101 said:
that will in essence kill competition for anyone but the established 6, as any club that qualify’s for European competition through league position or a cup win, will immediately have to cut their wages and transfer spend from 85% to 70% (unless there is a 2-3 season grace period) a club with a £200m turnover would have to shed £30m immediately, in a time when you would have to add players, not lose them
Click to expand...
Nobody knows the finer details yet so who knows but the extra revenue from being in Europe will cancel out the drop in 15% and there has to be that drop because you will (from 25/26 anyway) have to hit that limit anyway because that's UEFA's rule.

As I said the other day in relation to the mess Everton are in, it's impossible to have a set of rules that solves every problem and satisfies everyone. You just have to decide on what the priorities are and then find the best compromise.
 
BaZ87 said:
Nobody knows the finer details yet so who knows but the extra revenue from being in Europe will cancel out the drop in 15% and there has to be that drop because you will (from 25/26 anyway) have to hit that limit anyway because that's UEFA's rule.

As I said the other day in relation to the mess Everton are in, it's impossible to have a set of rules that solves every problem and satisfies everyone. You just have to decide on what the priorities are and then find the best compromise.
Click to expand...
Champions League qualification would likely cancel out the drop, but the conference league would be nowhere near, if Villa go on to win it, they would make a total of about €15m from the whole tournament, it would probably be better if it was 70% across the board.

I think teams should be allowed to spend say 70% of the club with the highest turnover from the previous season, so they can have a chance to catch up and give it a go, but if a club chooses to spend more than it’s turnover(Forest/Villa/Newcastle), all transfer fees must be paid upfront and not in instalments and the never never and add ons set aside and accounted for, so if the owner decides he no longer wants to play, clubs aren’t on the hook for £100’s Millions of unpaid transfer fees, which is what generally gets them into trouble.
 
Last edited:
You're only looking at prize money, they'll also get increased commercial revenue (more likely to attract new deals + bonuses on existing ones) and match day revenue. For the likes of Newcastle & Villa they're likely to earn around £1.5m per game. All said and done even the conference league would earn you upwards of £20m and much more in the Europa and of course considerably more in the CL.

As for your suggestion, no owners would do it (as I've pointed out re Villa and Newcastle) and transfer fees are only a small part of the problem, wages are a greater issue. There's numerous ways you can make things fair but they won't all be sustainable and there's numerous ways you can make things sustainable but they won't be fair. There's only a couple of ways you can make things both sustainable and fair but the clubs/owners (on both sides of the fence) don't want them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom