They have to do something otherwise it'll render ffp pointless. The government shouldnt be getting involved though and i doubt Fifa like it.And people still think any thing is going to happen to Man City regarding the 115 odd charges against them
The Great Big FFP Debate
- Thread starter Reuben klang
- Start date
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2020
- Posts
- 4,496
It is pointless though, City will just pay for lawyers to find loopholes.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,404
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
I see City have posted "record" revenues of 712 million quid.
It is almost like they are laughing in everyone's face but everyone is powerless to do anything about it.
I know people are going to say bitter United fan but it doesn't really effect me as United have been terrible for a decade now. Liverpool have lost out on 2 titles because of them.
It is almost like they are laughing in everyone's face but everyone is powerless to do anything about it.
I know people are going to say bitter United fan but it doesn't really effect me as United have been terrible for a decade now. Liverpool have lost out on 2 titles because of them.
we have local Turkish Barbers that turnoved 20 grand a month even though they only get about 8 customers
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,402
- Location
- newcastle
I sure I read somewhere that the HMRC know that 90% of the Turkish Barbers, Vape shops and phone repair shops are fronts for Money laundering but they just don’t have the ability/resources to go after themwe have local Turkish Barbers that turnoved 20 grand a month even though they only get about 8 customers
Part of me says we should just bin off FFP and have a free for all, if you are rich you spend loads of money so be it, that's what happens in the real world. If Newcastle spend a billion pounds and win the league good luck to them. Blackburn bought the Premiership, Chelsea bought the Premiership, Man City bought the Premiership etc. To some extent MU / Arsenal / Liverpool did the same, but they get let off based on them sort of organically funding their spending by having decent revenue rather than a sugar daddy. The only club that didn't buy the Prem title was Leicester who's squad cost about £70m and the first XI half that.
Last edited:
If we made it unlimited surely the gaps between teams would just continue and gather exponentially until City were so far ahead and dominant, that they would pretty much win everything, always. Football would fall off a cliff with fans not bothering. The only reason we don't have that in Formula 1, is that they change the regs every 4 or so years, to do a reset and bring things back to a more level playing field. At least that's the aim. There's not a really a way to do that in football as it's not a technology sport so the only way is FFP regs to try to control it a little.
I think the gaps between the haves and the have nots would increase, but it would also increase the number of haves. By which I mean if there was unlimited spending potential then more teams could become superpowers and compete with established clubs like MC. You could end up with a super-competitive top of the table and then a bunch of alsorans.
The thing that doesn't sit well with me is if you already spent billions you have a headstart and then the ladder gets pulled up behind them. So like if you have a hugely valuable squad already then you can balance the books by selling players plus you've obviously reaped the rewards in terms of buillding up your revenue base, commercial potential etc. In other words by spending a truckload in the 00s, before FFP, MC are now worth a helluva lot more as a club and have new revenue streams so it's easier for them to balance the books with an expensive squad compared to 15+ years ago. Plus all those sunk costs like having a new stadium and related complexes, they overspent in the past which is out of scope for FFP, yet it helps them earn more income under FFP, and hence they can spend more.
The fact they have revenues over £700m is what I'm getting at, the reason they have such high turnover is because of the groundwork laid by big overspending in the past, which is no longer permitted, so others can't catchup.
The thing that doesn't sit well with me is if you already spent billions you have a headstart and then the ladder gets pulled up behind them. So like if you have a hugely valuable squad already then you can balance the books by selling players plus you've obviously reaped the rewards in terms of buillding up your revenue base, commercial potential etc. In other words by spending a truckload in the 00s, before FFP, MC are now worth a helluva lot more as a club and have new revenue streams so it's easier for them to balance the books with an expensive squad compared to 15+ years ago. Plus all those sunk costs like having a new stadium and related complexes, they overspent in the past which is out of scope for FFP, yet it helps them earn more income under FFP, and hence they can spend more.
The fact they have revenues over £700m is what I'm getting at, the reason they have such high turnover is because of the groundwork laid by big overspending in the past, which is no longer permitted, so others can't catchup.
Last edited:
Any club should be able to spend as much as the next if they have the ability to do so.
There was a nice article doing the rounds that the biggest factor for success was wage bill more so than transfer fees.
FFP in its current form it’s purely set up to keep those clubs at the top at the top.
There was a nice article doing the rounds that the biggest factor for success was wage bill more so than transfer fees.
FFP in its current form it’s purely set up to keep those clubs at the top at the top.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,086
- Location
- Surrey
Just forget the football, lets just compare bank accounts and hand out trophies based on that
This is an older study. Have seen more recent onesThat is true which is why United are so good
Stefan Szymanski on the business of football
When it comes to the business of football, you get what you pay for. Stefan Szymanski provides an insight into the professional side of the sport.
That shouldn't really be a surprise because wages should be much more aligned to player ability than transfers fees. The transfer fee is impacted by factors like contract expiry date (the extreme being you can sign some players for free), buy out clauses (e.g. Haaland going for under market value) and generally how badly the selling club need money. Youth players typically have zero or very low transfer fees so e.g. someone like Giggs played over 20 years for MU off the back of £0 transfer fee and probably earnt a few bob in wages during that time. Then of course the best players will choose clubs paying good wages not based on whether their previous club gets a big fee or not.
That's not to say clubs don't sometimes appraise a player's worth badly and pay them too much money, but on average over an extended period I'd expect the best teams to have big wage bills.
Going by others reports I have checked wage bill is the biggest correlation with an accuracy of around 80% to 90% depending on what study and league over a period of time.
Edit just posted a new wage table :Manu a shambles but they still finish pretty high in the league and gained 3rd last year. The study above shows Manu over a decade with the highest wage bill and being the most successful club. That probably flipped by Mancity now.
People who romanticise about football need to wake up. It’s been turned into a business mostly by the yanks over the past couple of decades.
What you do off the field is more important than what you do on it? How is that Romantic? how is that sport?
1 or 2 good years of sporting success won’t be enough to maintain an assault on the fatcats. Nowhere near enough. As Leicester has found out.
They get richer and their wages bill get higher and FFP in its current form helps maintain their power. Other clubs just feeding off their scraps and happy to be at the table.
Oo and guess what FFP rules have been tightened??? Wage expenditure suiting the fat cats even more. (Not on the PL yet)
I’m not against rules or caps but don’t try and tell me FFP is fair in its current guise.
Edit just posted a new wage table :Manu a shambles but they still finish pretty high in the league and gained 3rd last year. The study above shows Manu over a decade with the highest wage bill and being the most successful club. That probably flipped by Mancity now.
People who romanticise about football need to wake up. It’s been turned into a business mostly by the yanks over the past couple of decades.
What you do off the field is more important than what you do on it? How is that Romantic? how is that sport?
1 or 2 good years of sporting success won’t be enough to maintain an assault on the fatcats. Nowhere near enough. As Leicester has found out.
They get richer and their wages bill get higher and FFP in its current form helps maintain their power. Other clubs just feeding off their scraps and happy to be at the table.
Oo and guess what FFP rules have been tightened??? Wage expenditure suiting the fat cats even more. (Not on the PL yet)
I’m not against rules or caps but don’t try and tell me FFP is fair in its current guise.
| 1 | Manchester United F.C. | £203,931,000 |
| 2 | Manchester City F.C. | £201,188,000 |
| 3 | Arsenal F.C. | £166,106,000 |
| 4 | Chelsea F.C. | £150,384,000 |
| 5 | Liverpool F.C. | £134,992,000 |
| 6 | Tottenham Hotspur F.C. | £115,630,000 |
| 7 | Aston Villa F.C. | £114,666,000 |
| 8 | West Ham United F.C. | £97,656,000 |
| 9 | Newcastle United F.C. | £89,604,000 |
| 10 | Everton F.C. | £78,033,000 |
| 11 | Crystal Palace | £69,180,000 |
| 12 | Nottingham Forest F.C. | £66,930,000 |
| 13 | Brighton & Hove Albion | £61,940,000 |
| 14 | Fulham F.C. | £49,220,000 |
| 15 | AFC Bournemouth | £44,574,000 |
| 16 | Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C. | £44,026,000 |
| 17 | Brentford F.C. | £36,296,000 |
| 18 | Burnley F.C. | £35,256,000 |
| 19 | Sheffield United F.C. | £26,936,000 |
| 20 | Luton Town F.C. | £22,750,000 |
Last edited:
Where on earth do you get your figures from? I tried to source a couple of your claims regarding Newcastle's Adidas deal recently and could only find the most ridiculous of sources and the figures in this table are so wrong it's unbelievable. Man City's wagebill for last season was over £422m - they published their accounts just 10 days ago.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,086
- Location
- Surrey
Yes I thought those numbers were utter nonsense
Playing roster? Not total club?
Those figures are nonsense I'm afraid. Swiss Ramble, who analyses club finances every day, states that the first team wages typically account for anywhere between 80% and 90% of a clubs total wagebill - clubs like Liverpool and Utd with 1000+ staff will be closer to 80% and smaller clubs (and also City as they pay their suits via City Football Group) will be closer to the 90% mark. City's first team squad + Pep and a few senior coaches will account for the vast majority of City's £420m+ wagebill.Playing roster? Not total club?