The Great Big FFP Debate

dannyjo22 said:
Funny how there's been so little out rage on here for Leicester cheating. The utter hypocrisy of them phoning in on talksport yesterday with the defence of 'you would do the same if you could get away with it' totally forgetting how they said they would sue Everton for their lost PL place.

For all the fans faux outrage against the biggest teams I bet they are all at it one way or another. The only sane fan I heard yesterday was a Leicester fan saying if they could win the PL and an FA cup, sell off huge value assets and still have to fudge the books because they couldn't make PSR then something is clearly broken with football finances.
Click to expand...
Lets just remember that way back it was Leicester who originally started all this. When they went bankrupt, whilst building a new stadium and had all their debts written off. Started afresh with the new owner, a new stadium, etc. So, how they can claim to feel hard done by is beyond me.
 
woppy101 said:
Click to expand...
See, this is what I keep waffling on about. The rules are there (we are told) to help make teams more sustainable and to protect the football club from bankruptcy and from at worst case going out of business should it all go south. Thats fair enough as football clubs are viewed as community assets and there should be some form of protection or prevention.
We don't want a situation where clubs are reliant on a benefactor to prop them up financially only for them to pull the rug away and see the whole thing come crashing down. The highly paid players who the club can no longer afford can be offloaded and liquidated for cash. You can't get rid of the debts as easily!
 
Vandle said:
See, this is what I keep waffling on about. The rules are there (we are told) to help make teams more sustainable and to protect the football club from bankruptcy and from at worst case going out of business should it all go south. Thats fair enough as football clubs are viewed as community assets and there should be some form of protection or prevention.
We don't want a situation where clubs are reliant on a benefactor to prop them up financially only for them to pull the rug away and see the whole thing come crashing down. The highly paid players who the club can no longer afford can be offloaded and liquidated for cash. You can't get rid of the debts as easily!
Click to expand...
I agree. The debts should definitely be part of the assessment. Well managed structured debts are common, but you can’t ignore rising debts as if they don’t matter.

The difficult is that football assets are not always that valuable. If Tottenham are insolvent, who would buy the stadium? There are only a few clubs who could afford it and they aren’t playing the build cost price. Equally the players for relegated clubs do not have the same value.
 
PikeyPriest said:
I agree. The debts should definitely be part of the assessment. Well managed structured debts are common, but you can’t ignore rising debts as if they don’t matter.

The difficult is that football assets are not always that valuable. If Tottenham are insolvent, who would buy the stadium? There are only a few clubs who could afford it and they aren’t playing the build cost price. Equally the players for relegated clubs do not have the same value.
Click to expand...
Debts should be fine and uncounted to FFP if the are reduced yearly and the interest is reduced on a yearly basis, but if you’re paying more this year than last year and so on, it should reduce the amount of losses a team is allowed to make in P&S, ie if you paid £6.8m more in interest this year than last year, your 3 year rolling cycle should be reduced to £98.2m
 
Last edited:
Even the PL know their P&S rules aren’t fit for purpose
www.chroniclelive.co.uk

Newcastle takeover lawyer Nick De Marco exposes 'strange' PSR rules

Newcastle United takeover lawyer Nick De Marco has spoken out
www.chroniclelive.co.uk www.chroniclelive.co.uk
“The Premier League were left 'shocked and disappointed' by the outcome but Jane Mulcahy KC, who represented the top-flight, previously admitted that it was 'not easy to construe these rules' and that they were 'not perfectly drafted'. The appeal board commented that the rules are, in relevant parts, 'far from well drafted', which follows on from an independent commission accepting that the regulations were put together in a manner that was 'unsatisfactory, anomalous or exposed a gap'.”

The fall out will be hilarious if city get off on a technicality
 
Last edited:
I never understood how the government could force Abramovich to sell Chelsea and that wasn't even challenged. Man city getting off can't be allowed to happen when they've punished other clubs for similar things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom