The Great Big FFP Debate

I'd have loved to seen the reaction of other clubs to Villa's proposal, particularly those that have already been hit with points deductions for breaching PSR. They sat back and watched others get penalised for breaching the rules and as soon as the rules start to bite them, they want to change them :D

With the new cost control rules replacing PSR soon, it was hard to see how Villa were going to force it through. It would have been a farce to alter the PSR limits for such a short period of time, just to suit a couple of clubs, when everybody else has had to play by (or be punished for breaching) the old rules for the last x years.

edit: Palace's suggestion regarding allowing some extra leeway to clubs like Villa & Newcastle who are qualifying for Europe without big UEFA coefficient payments is fine in principle but I fail to see how it will help given those clubs will have to comply with UEFA's rules anyway.
 
Last edited:
Shamikebab said:
It's pretty hilarious for Villa to even suggest it. They've got CL income and they want a bigger loss allowed :confused:
Click to expand...
They're realistic. They know that it's very likely that they won't qualify again for the following season and if they invest heavily in their squad now (remembering that they're already at risk of breaching PSR for the 3 years to the end of this season just gone) then they'll face big losses in the 25/26 season.
 
GIBURROWS said:
Should never of allowed foreign or state ownership, if FFP is being flaunted I wonder if tax is being manipulated....
Click to expand...


It wouldn't have mattered who owns them if they had a proper salary and wage cap. A fair one that was competitive for all rather than the better supported and funded clubs.


a1ex2001 said:
Hopefully it will eventually eat itself, football is such a mess and the sums of money they manage to extract from people are mind boggling. Tickets are extortionate, merchandise a laughable rip off and the cost of the crazy number of subscriptions you need to watch the game on TV ludicrous surely one day it will crumble?

Football seems to have just become all consuming I don’t remember it being like this in my child hood it seems like the pro game barely stops for a summer break these days and at grass roots/kids level it is continuous now.
Click to expand...

Tickets are not extortionate at all. Considering it's the biggest league with the most fans it's a giveaway. American owners must know this. A Liverpool season ticket would be the same price as going to one or two NHL games which is nothing like the size or fan base as the smallest PL side. Here's the pricing for the upcoming Oilers vs Florida. Look at those prices and tell me the PL is expensive. Game one of a 7 game series...


The cheapest seat is $1200 for a poor seat, for one person for one game!

I went to two end of season games in Montreal, meaningless games and it cost me £1200 for my son and I to sit in the 100 area's. I looked around me and can't believe people pay what they do for 42 homes games in the NHL. The locals didn't believe how cheap PL tickets are, in fact after one conversation I got them to google it to prove I wasn't lying!

People here also moan about shirt costs, just putting a name on a Adidas hockey shirt cost more than the current England kit everyone has been complaining about!

The problem isn't the cost, the problem is all the moaning goes to the wrong people, the players and agents. Rather than having a franchise that makes money to be fed back into the franchise.

It's frankly laughable that any PL club can lose money, let alone 100's of millions!

adam cool dude said:
I think it is only a matter of time before a breakaway happens at some point. Way too much money involved now.
Click to expand...

I think City will be the breakaway with Italian and Spanish clubs and everyone else will soon fall in line.

adam cool dude said:
Obviously because his club has an unlimited money cheat. You will always argue your best interests. Newcastle could have quite easily been the United of the 90's but they ended up being the United post Fergie. Spent lots of money with absolutely zilch to show for it.
Click to expand...

They are only playing with the same financial advantage United had. They have to spend those amounts to win, winning is needed to build a new generation of fans to grow that revenue. What choice did they have? Again Rio in todays money is almost £200m. City still haven't spent near the money United where spending relative and it's not City that have pushed the transfers up like United did to mop up players.

You are deluded if you think Newcastle could have been Man United. The fan bases and nothing like comparable and they couldn't afford to sustain it. Neither could Blackburn.
 
dannyjo22 said:
You are deluded if you think Newcastle could have been Man United. The fan bases and nothing like comparable and they couldn't afford to sustain it. Neither could Blackburn.
Click to expand...


It's not deluded, Manchester United weren't orders of magnitude larger than a dozen other clubs when the Premier League money train kicked off, they won the league the first time with an average attendance of 35k.

Like it or not, they achieved their financial position of power by being good on and off the pitch, not by having a Whale kiddie decide he was going to turn the national sport into some gacha game.
 
It was the worldwide and national support Manu had, they were magnitudes bigger even when they weren't winning everything in sight. In my lifetime they have always been the biggest and best supported team in the league. They did play a gacha game, they spent far more than anyone else putting up the money and mopping up the talent. They still do, but they are badly run and buy terribly. Apart from one batch of kids in one small window have produced not one player worthy of being a Man United player.

Until they bought Grealish for stupid money they still weren't spending more than other teams. They bought well in the 30-60m range.

What other option did they have? I'm by no means saying they shouldn't be punished, they should be but there was no other way. The only clubs that have managed to consistently hang around and challenge United have been the ones that tried to match their spending. You can't grow income without winning, you can't grow the fan base without winning. You cannot keep your players without matching wages.

Everton could start next season with 11 of the best young players to ever lace football boots and finish second in the league and all that would happen is they get picked apart for better wages and huge transfer deals. The only way that would ever stop is if an owner could fudge the figures to pay the wages and bonuses until they won enough to grow a new bunch of kids to grow the fanbase who latch onto the team winning.

It's utterly broken and the only way to fix it is a wage and transfer cap but that will never happen because the top 6 might not be the big clubs with the worldwide fanbases.

It's a farmers league.
 
dannyjo22 said:
It was the worldwide and national support Manu had, they were magnitudes bigger even when they weren't winning everything in sight. In my lifetime they have always been the biggest and best supported team in the league. They did play a gacha game, they spent far more than anyone else putting up the money and mopping up the talent. They still do, but they are badly run and buy terribly. Apart from one batch of kids in one small window have produced not one player worthy of being a Man United player.

Until they bought Grealish for stupid money they still weren't spending more than other teams. They bought well in the 30-60m range.

What other option did they have? I'm by no means saying they shouldn't be punished, they should be but there was no other way. The only clubs that have managed to consistently hang around and challenge United have been the ones that tried to match their spending. You can't grow income without winning, you can't grow the fan base without winning. You cannot keep your players without matching wages.

Everton could start next season with 11 of the best young players to ever lace football boots and finish second in the league and all that would happen is they get picked apart for better wages and huge transfer deals. The only way that would ever stop is if an owner could fudge the figures to pay the wages and bonuses until they won enough to grow a new bunch of kids to grow the fanbase who latch onto the team winning.

It's utterly broken and the only way to fix it is a wage and transfer cap but that will never happen because the top 6 might not be the big clubs with the worldwide fanbases.

It's a farmers league.
Click to expand...
If you want to believe the excuse people come up for why it's fine to cheat, OK, it still doesn't make it true.

Manchester United got their spending power by becoming an actual business while everyone else was still acting like it was the 1950s with stuffy public school boys and local boy done goods in the boardroom, Spurs tried too but had Alan Sugar in charge so that explains why being a business failed for them.

There's a difference between spending the money you make on cheap tat and day trippers and being the plaything for blood money, thieves, racists and murderers.
 
I'm not sure if you read the article but it seems pretty likely that this amendment will eventually pass. The article claims that 11 clubs voted in favour however some clubs voted against as they believed the wording of the proposal could also prevent clubs from generating legit revenues, not just accounting tricks to get around PSR. It goes on to say that the PL will almost certainly reword the proposal and bring it back to the table. The exact same thing happened with the associated party transactions vote (which City are now challenging) - when it was first brought to the table it didn't pass but the wording was tweaked to satisfy some clubs' concerns and was later voted through.
 
Even had they voted through the rule change yesterday, it wouldn’t have changed the Chelsea situation as they can’t back date rule changes.

FWIW there still hasn’t been any confirmation that Chelsea’s sale of the two hotels, at the value they declared, have been approved yet though. The issue has only ever been the value of the sales for Chelsea.
 
why don't they just get the players to draw some pictures..

Art can sell for whatever the buyer (someone random who is no way connected to the club ownership honest guv!! ) is prepared to pay, and no one can subjectively say (not even the premier league) that the art is NOT worth the amount of money..

Money money money for the club.. :)

10 million for a foden original .. sounds legit to me :)
 
Last edited:
C Kent said:
You guys need to sell apparently, he's got a release clause. I would guess he's most 'at risk' to appease the ffp gods.
Click to expand...
If someone hits the release clause then that’s another matter, but we won’t be selling him for a penny below that(saw the Liverpool reports that we “might” have to sell for £68m :cry: :cry: :cry:) , reports up here are that say were between £10-15m short and we have others that we will move on first, we’re more likely to take the 3point deduction than move on Bruno or Isak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom