The Great Big FFP Debate

Sythe79

Sythe79

Sythe79

Associate
Joined
14 Aug 2013
Posts
233
dannyjo22 said:
You want fair, have a flat wage and transfer cap. The big clubs will be rolling in money, their share prices will increase and they could spend the money fixing their leaky roofs. But be honest, fair competition is not what you want, you want to return to the previous era where a club had a player and you said, we will take him. You want to get back to winning everything and pretending it's fair because it's you not them winning.
Click to expand...
Selective fairness then

Maybe we can cap all attendances at the bottom club's ground size to be fair

cap sponsorship at the bottom clubs income

Change the really unfair TV money payout to a flat fee for every club

Implement a draft so the bottom clubs each season can take a player each from the top clubs for free, to be fair

this is the thing competitive sport isn't supposed to be fair, go watch the NFL if you want a "fair league", Fairness is just an excuse for blatant corruption and cheating.
 

dannyjo22

dannyjo22

dannyjo22

Caporegime
Joined
9 May 2005
Posts
31,770
Location
Cambridge
C Kent said:
clubs are essentially free to spend whatever they want on infrastructure, it's not included in FFP calc's
Click to expand...
Absolutely but you still have to borrow the money from somewhere as we saw how long it took Arsenal to recover from that (is it included in Profit and sustainability rules?). Imagine if they could easily have done it through profits from making 200m per year because everyone was limited to a 150m a year spend. It's not like any of us benefitting from spending 400m on wages and transfers while the TV costs go up for less and less football from our favourite team. Money which just goes to footballers and costs keep spiralling because there's no cap.
 

dannyjo22

dannyjo22

dannyjo22

Caporegime
Joined
9 May 2005
Posts
31,770
Location
Cambridge
SimonRigga said:
You'd prefer the massive amounts of money that are in football these days to go to the owners of the clubs? not the actual players / managers?
Click to expand...
Yes, I'd prefer it to go to the clubs rather than the 160m City, United and chelsea spent on agent fees in 12 months. No of us are winning from that, everyones TV subscription goes up regardless of whether you want to watch football or not to pay for the chase to the top for rights. I'd rather clubs were profit making organisations that if required could filter money down the league rather than 2 billion on agents fees. There's no reason at all why every club in the top 2 leagues isn't making a profit or breaking even. That's profit and sustainability, not being allowed to lose 100m per year. That's a broken system.

Are any of the non top 6 traditional sides any closer to winning the league than they were under the old Football league? No they are not, it's not more competitive it's just more expensive to tread water. One team in my lifetime has broken in and won the league. Perhaps if the clubs had actually been properly sustainable we wouldn't need a league run by Oil states and Americans.
 

SimonRigga

SimonRigga

SimonRigga

Associate
Joined
2 Feb 2009
Posts
559
dannyjo22 said:
Yes, I'd prefer it to go to the clubs rather than the 160m City, United and chelsea spent on agent fees in 12 months. No of us are winning from that, everyones TV subscription goes up regardless of whether you want to watch football or not to pay for the chase to the top for rights. I'd rather clubs were profit making organisations that if required could filter money down the league rather than 2 billion on agents fees.
Click to expand...

This just woudn't happen, most owners would take their profits and run, they wouldn't re-invest and certainly not filter the money down the system. Unless they were forced to do so.

Other than the billionaire owner clubs, most owners of clubs are in it to make a profit, the only reason they even pay the wages they do, is because that is the market rate.

There are no philanthropist large club owners, they are in it to make money!!
 

GIBURROWS

GIBURROWS

GIBURROWS

Soldato
Joined
13 Jan 2010
Posts
5,021
Location
The 'Shire'
Sythe79 said:
Selective fairness then

Maybe we can cap all attendances at the bottom club's ground size to be fair

cap sponsorship at the bottom clubs income

Change the really unfair TV money payout to a flat fee for every club

Implement a draft so the bottom clubs each season can take a player each from the top clubs for free, to be fair

this is the thing competitive sport isn't supposed to be fair, go watch the NFL if you want a "fair league", Fairness is just an excuse for blatant corruption and cheating.
Click to expand...
The NFL isn't fair, I'd suggest you go watch it to see how fair it actually is.
 

omnomnom

omnomnom

omnomnom

Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2012
Posts
18,798
Sythe79 said:
Selective fairness then

Maybe we can cap all attendances at the bottom club's ground size to be fair

cap sponsorship at the bottom clubs income

Change the really unfair TV money payout to a flat fee for every club

Implement a draft so the bottom clubs each season can take a player each from the top clubs for free, to be fair

this is the thing competitive sport isn't supposed to be fair, go watch the NFL if you want a "fair league", Fairness is just an excuse for blatant corruption and cheating.
Click to expand...
How is the tv money unfair?
 

Sythe79

Sythe79

Sythe79

Associate
Joined
14 Aug 2013
Posts
233
GIBURROWS said:
The NFL isn't fair, I'd suggest you go watch it to see how fair it actually is.
Click to expand...
It's about as fair as you can get in a sporting sense in that it's a closed system managed to raise all ships... I guess you could go even further, perhaps WWE style sports entertainment is for you.
 

Sythe79

Sythe79

Sythe79

Associate
Joined
14 Aug 2013
Posts
233
omnomnom said:
Utter nonsense. 50% is split equally. 25% is on positions finished in the league and only 25% is based on televised matches.
Click to expand...
Really I didn't know, I thought the sly six along with the "big 5" stole it from the small club's babies milk fund... and that's why FFP should be abolished.
 

Sythe79

Sythe79

Sythe79

Associate
Joined
14 Aug 2013
Posts
233

a1ex2001

a1ex2001

a1ex2001

Soldato
Joined
14 Mar 2005
Posts
16,875
Location
Here and There...
SimonRigga said:
This just woudn't happen, most owners would take their profits and run, they wouldn't re-invest and certainly not filter the money down the system. Unless they were forced to do so.

Other than the billionaire owner clubs, most owners of clubs are in it to make a profit, the only reason they even pay the wages they do, is because that is the market rate.

There are no philanthropist large club owners, they are in it to make money!!
Click to expand...
Who is making money owning a PL club?
 

BaZ87

BaZ87

BaZ87

Don
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
46,552
Reportedly it was set for the 10th June and could take up to 2 weeks. There's not likely to be an official announcement on which way the arbitration went however I'm sure somebody will leak the results once it's concluded.
 

montymint

montymint

montymint

Pet Northerner
Don
Joined
29 Jul 2006
Posts
8,244
Location
Newcastle, UK
Reuben klang said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Have Chelsea, Villa, Everton and Newcastle found a PSR loophole?

With several Premier League clubs trading home-grown academy players between themselves, is this another PSR loophole?
www.bbc.co.uk


another twist if you will. Waste of time.
Click to expand...

I hate how Newcastle have been dragged into this.

If Mason Mount can be sold for 50M then Elliot Anderson for 35 is fair (he's young, high ceiling and actually plays in the PL). Minteh is a highly rated talent and multiple clubs offered the asking price, he turned down a move to France that was higher than Brighton's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom