Soldato
It's not just new money though. It's states with unlimited resources. At least Liverpool, United Arsenal have got there organically.
The Great Big FFP Debate
- Thread starter Reuben klang
- Start date
Pointing to that quoted part doesn't really help as it makes no sense
As for the last paragraph, yes it does sound ridiculous and will never happen. A club with a £350m wage bill (assuming an average contract length of 3 years) would require over £1bn to be sat in an account, not to mention the funds to cover all future installments on transfer fees etc.
didn’t you have a lovely post about being able to spend up to like 70% of the rich teams. Since FFP isn’t very fair. As long as the club was safe.
Last edited:
Yes, I suggested a league wide spending cap but there were numerous strings attached including banning related party transactions and owners needing to put financial guarantees in place for ever £ they spend over 75% of their revenue.
That's a long way from allowing owners to spend what they want (see what happened to Derby when Mel Morris decided he wasn't going to keep losing money) and at least somewhat realistic compared to requiring clubs to have anywhere between £500m and £1.5bn sat in a bank account somewhere.
Soldato
I’ve come to the conclusion that I am opposed to FFP rules.
I agree with the idea in principle but it is never going to stop the oil states. I can’t see Man City getting anything more than a slap on the wrist. The reason is that although they might be investigated for all these breaches I can’t see them having broken any of the rules.
Wealthy individual owners are one thing, when actual states get involved it is another thing. I’d love to see these oil states banned from ownership but I can’t see how that could even be possible.
Unfortunately all FFP does is tie one hand behind the backs of the other clubs.
I agree with the idea in principle but it is never going to stop the oil states. I can’t see Man City getting anything more than a slap on the wrist. The reason is that although they might be investigated for all these breaches I can’t see them having broken any of the rules.
Wealthy individual owners are one thing, when actual states get involved it is another thing. I’d love to see these oil states banned from ownership but I can’t see how that could even be possible.
Unfortunately all FFP does is tie one hand behind the backs of the other clubs.
Caporegime
Clubs shouldn't be allowed to have 100% ownership. Germany's rule of 50+1 is by far the best. Clubs are more than a play thing. They are whole communities to some people.
Sponsorship needs to be looked at too as it is far too shady for some clubs.
New rules were brought in last season. All owner related sponsorships have to be passed by an independent board as fair market value. It’s not retrospective hence City or Kingpower haven’t been looked at. All future deals will have to be passed.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2020
- Posts
- 4,269
In too deep though, you can’t force someone to sell a company if they don’t want too.
Similarly lets say it is past, how would united fans find this 51% of the market value which would have to be at the same price Sir Jim is paying for 25%.
For those that don't have an Athletic sub, Ornstein's tweet is worded wrong. They're not limiting contracts to 5 years so Chelsea can still hand out 8 year deals but they'll only be allowed to spread the fee over a maximum of 5 years for the initial contract. If and when a player signs a new deal their book value can then be spread over a maximum of 5 years again.
Caporegime
That makes more sense, I'm sure there would be employment law issues if they tried to actually limit contract length. It's just the book value implications that are important really.
I don't know, have you read some of the examples of what they've done? They are deliberately getting around rules using under-hand and 'hidden' payments.
The issue with no FFP is it'll just open the floodgate, people just need to play by the rules...the rules are there for people to follow not to try and get around.
That's a very nieve way of looking at rules, any competitive club or sport or company etc. will look at ways in getting around rules, f1 for instance is built on getting around rules and grey areas, football clubs are no different. If they can gain an advantage through a loop hole they will. The rules need to be made water tight and constantly updated but it will always be a game of cat and mouse.
I agree for certain we need ffp but it needs to be handled better, right now it's not living up to its name at all. Man City and Chelsea are perfect examples of how its failing obviously.
Last edited:
They haven't got away with it yet...and there's a difference between bending rules and openly breaking them (or cheating them by making 'back door' payments).
Last edited:
Soldato
Surely it’s time to adjust the 3 year £105m P&S maximum loss, in 2013(when it was introduced) the highest transfer paid was for Gareth Bale @£78m( one of the top 10 best players in the world at the time) now we’re paying over £80m for proper bang average players.
Last edited:
Football Inflation.
There's already talks that the PL are going to change the rules to something similar to UEFA's new stricter FFP rules. These new rules are being phased in (starting at 90%) but will end with clubs only being able to spend 70% of their turnover + profit on player sales on wages and amortisation. To put that into perspective, Newcastle spent 109% of turnover + profit on player sales.
Soldato
Chelsea and manu currently inflate the market, transfer wise, but there is no inflation adjustment for the available losses, it’s a massive oversight TBH
Soldato
More protection of the current established sly6
Problem with this is, you'd get the clubs with the money already still being able to go out and spend on the £60-80m players, everyone else would organically be in the £20m market
Last edited:
of course. levy crying his lamps out having to spend to try and maintain spurs in the super-league 6 status