The Great Big FFP Debate

BaZ87 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Fair one, there is no real fair way of doing it but if transfer fees are paid up front, You can always sell a player to get rid of the wages if you get into trouble especially if you don’t have the transfer fee’s owed hanging round your neck, yes you lose a good player and may have to bring through a youth team player, and it may put you at risk of relegation, but it’s not going to put your club’s existence at risk.
With regards to owners not wanting to do it, don’t give them the choice, I never thought I would ever say the next words I’m going to say but, give Mike Ashley his due when he was the owner of Newcastle, apart from his last season (he knew it wasn’t going to be his problem) all transfer fees were paid up front and in full for a transfer and apparently quite a large chunk of the contract cost was also set aside when a player was signed.
Right I’m now off to wash my mouth out with soap.
 
Last edited:
Selling players is easier said than done, especially in a world where a buying club now have to pay 100% of the fee up front and even more so the higher you go up the ladder with players on big contracts not wanting to leave.

You either have a fixed cap on what you can spend (linked to x's revenue) with financial guarantees in place for any losses a club make or you have a form of revenue sharing (similar to some US leagues) + a spending cap. No owner is going to support the idea of them having to guarantee losses and the only hope of revenue sharing (in any sort of form) would depend on scrapping relegations, which will never happen.
 
adam cool dude said:
What is stopping Newcastle/Villa from generating fake revenue like City do or has that stopped now?
Click to expand...
FMV and related party transactions, the “established 6” of the Premier league will be pretty much locked in with the new changes, no other club will be allowed to grow to the levels of arsenal or Spurs, never mind Manchester United or Liverpool. You won’t even be able to have a new owner come in and inject funds.
 
C Kent said:
They already are? you just have to look at the adidas and the new shirt sponsor deal
Click to expand...
Not really sure that's the case, the Adidas deal apparently still put them outside of the traditional Big-6 shirt supplier deals, and the SELA deal apparently again only just puts them ahead of West Ham and Villa in main sponsor revenue, while still been behind the traditional Big-6, I think the next closest above them is double the SELA yearly value.
 
C Kent said:
They already are? you just have to look at the adidas and the new shirt sponsor deal
Click to expand...
Talking ***** again I see, How is the adidas deal inflated? Adidas are nothing to do with PIF, they have provided the shirt deal at what they feel is fair value to a historical long term partner. They would still be our shirt supplier now if it wasn’t for Ashley.
 
PhigBill said:
Not really sure that's the case, the Adidas deal apparently still put them outside of the traditional Big-6 shirt supplier deals, and the SELA deal apparently again only just puts them ahead of West Ham and Villa in main sponsor revenue, while still been behind the traditional Big-6, I think the next closest above them is double the SELA yearly value.
Click to expand...

So what have City done to have higher revenue than Man United and Liverpool who are magnitudes bigger clubs and they have done it in the space of ten years?

Why can't Newcastle and Villa do the same as them?
 
Last edited:
adam cool dude said:
So what have City done to have higher revenue than Man United and Liverpool who are magnitudes bigger clubs and they have done it in the space of ten years?

Why can't Newcastle and Villa do the same as them?
Click to expand...
Blocks have been put in place to stop that now, any related party deal over £1m is now assessed for FMV and reduced or increased accordingly
 
BaZ87 said:
As I said in the Everton thread just the other day, you might not believe it or want to think about it until it happens but it can happen, just ask Everton fans, ask Derby fans, ask Reading fans.
Click to expand...

How much of the Everton scenario is because the real person putting the money in was blocked? The sneaky ****ing russians?

As for the rest of it, they have let players wages and transfers get out of control to the real value of the businesses and money coming in. Have a wage cap thats comfortable for a top 10 premier league side and if you want to sign someone you have to pay it all up front. It will drive the money down to a sustainable sport. The players and agents can stop getting stupidly rich for playing football. All that's done is push up the sky subscriptions to stupid levels to watch a handful of games of your team per year.

I want a game where you have to build and coach a team around a budget that's competitive for all. If you sign Haaland for £900k per week you would have to balance that across your team. The really wealthy teams like United could then improve their franchise without borrowing or whoring themselves out to the middle east. Have a kid that comes through your youth system for a minimum of 5 years and have him count to less of your wage cap.

I support the Montreal Canadiens and have hope they can re-build from the worst to best within the next 5 years because of the wage cap. Theres no hope if you support even a T8-20 premier league side. You have a good run, you get picked apart. I started watching the top league around 1980ish. I doubt there has been 3 teams that have won the league outside of the top 3 spending teams in that year or run up to that year. You want to break into that closed shop, you have to cheat. It's such a broken game financially I struggle to care anymore outside of watching the highest level games.

Elon Musk buys Watford as a life long fan, what could he realistically do without cheating? You cannot build a fan base these days without winning and they need that to be able to build revenue to be able to spend. It would never happen.
 
PhigBill said:
Not really sure that's the case, the Adidas deal apparently still put them outside of the traditional Big-6 shirt supplier deals,
Click to expand...
its more than spurs as far as I'm aware, around 30 million a year.
PhigBill said:
and the SELA deal apparently again only just puts them ahead of West Ham and Villa in main sponsor revenue, while still been behind the traditional Big-6, I think the next closest above them is double the SELA yearly value.
Click to expand...
Quick Google suggest the likes of West Ham and Villa are around 10 million p.a.

Besides, It's more the links between sela and pif. Neither are really fair market value tbh.
 
Last edited:
adam cool dude said:
So what have City done to have higher revenue than Man United and Liverpool who are magnitudes bigger clubs and they have done it in the space of ten years?
Click to expand...

Win. Same as the 80's when all my mates become Liverpool fans, in the 90's all the kids because United fans and now I see ****ing City shirts where ever I go in the world. It wouldn't be possible now legit without cheating to spend enough to become a regular winner to grow a fan base of kids. City will have built a base of kids now to last the next generation. If they don't get busted down.

Newcastle could have done the same if they started at the same time as city did. Now it's too late and they will yoyo about spending the budget each year getting nowhere without finding loopholes.
 
adam cool dude said:
So what have City done to have higher revenue than Man United and Liverpool who are magnitudes bigger clubs and they have done it in the space of ten years?

Why can't Newcastle and Villa do the same as them?
Click to expand...
As someone has said above, the Prem brought in new rules not long after the NUFC Takeover to limit sponsorships from companies who have a relationship or link with the owners, if there is a link then it has to be approved by a Premier League panel and seen as "fair value", so in other words, NUFC can't do a City, they can't go from a shirt sponsor paying 10m a season to suddenly getting 80m, it can only be a progressive step forward and not an artificial over inflation to navigate around PSR/FFP, this rule unfortunately only effects new sponsorship deals and has no retrospective view on deals previously agreed, hence City can just continue to flaunt it.
 
PhigBill said:
As someone has said above, the Prem brought in new rules not long after the NUFC Takeover to limit sponsorships from companies who have a relationship or link with the owners, if there is a link then it has to be approved by a Premier League panel and seen as "fair value", so in other words, NUFC can't do a City, they can't go from a shirt sponsor paying 10m a season to suddenly getting 80m, it can only be a progressive step forward and not an artificial over inflation to navigate around PSR/FFP, this rule unfortunately only effects new sponsorship deals and has no retrospective view on deals previously agreed, hence City can just continue to flaunt it.
Click to expand...

Surely when City comes to renew then it will be an issue?
 
adam cool dude said:
Surely when City comes to renew then it will be an issue?
Click to expand...
As long as it continues to be Etihad then no, they can continue that partnership as it's a previous agreement and just an extension, again, loopholes, not to mention they locked it in / extended for another 10-years in 2020 (before these new rules existed) to also include performance based bonuses, City are set for life with the Etihad deal, and as long as they keep winning things, the deal will be seen as "fair value" relative to their success, put it this way, just on sheer sponsorship value (not including bonuses etc) the Etihad deal on paper still falls behind that of Manchester United's current deal, and what success have United had recently?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom