The Great Big FFP Debate
- Thread starter Reuben klang
- Start date
superleague 6 happened. can't take it back
Soldato
If the shoe fits.
This is a UEFA rule, not the PL or 'sly6'. And for such a rule to be implemented in the PL it will require 14 clubs to approve it and the reports are most clubs want it, they're just can't decide on the exact percentages to use.
As I saw somebody mention on twitter recently, at the very least 14 clubs (including Newcastle by all accounts) already voted for the existing profit and sustainability rules and that's because most clubs don't want continuously inflated spending, leading them to lose 10s if not 100s of millions every season. I appreciate your only interest is Newcastle and not what's best for the game as a whole but clubs continuing to lose huge amounts of money is not sustainable.
Interesting headline. If only some of the 6 aren't happy (even if all of the 6 weren't happy) why hasn't it been voted through? You only need 14 clubs to vote for it and obviously all the small 14 are in favour of giving the EFL more money, right?
edit: scrap the word headline for tweet. The article simply states that the big clubs were unhappy with the value of the PL's tv contract.
Last edited:
Did you read the article or just the snappy headline?
Caporegime
Be careful what you wish for. It's not a certainty that the Saudis will hold on to this sportswashing exercise forever and if you are eventually sold, with losses year on year, you could be up **** creek without a paddle.
As always, some fans want the rules changed because it suits them. But football, and the Premier League in particular, can't really work that way with 20 teams owned by people of very different levels of wealth and different aims.
Out of interest, what would you want the maximum loss to be increased to?
As always, some fans want the rules changed because it suits them. But football, and the Premier League in particular, can't really work that way with 20 teams owned by people of very different levels of wealth and different aims.
Out of interest, what would you want the maximum loss to be increased to?
Last edited:
Soldato
I have no problem with P&S, but shouldn’t it rise yearly or even every 5 years in line with football inflation(it’s been frozen at £35m per season for over 10 years), if it did rise with football inflation it would now be £76m per season, a rise of £4.1m per season. When first brought in, clubs could lose the Value of a Gareth Bale in 3 years and still have room for manoeuvre(considering very few clubs could afford him at the time) that’s quite a lot of room. Now 1 Enzo Fernandez and your ****** as a club
Last edited:
Soldato
See above
Caporegime
So you’re advocating for doubling it in line with football inflation. So it would be around £210 million over 3 years?
That seems awfully convenient after your financial report a few days ago.
Looking forward to the 100,000+ signature petition from Newcastle fans asking for this change
maybe another protest outside parliament.
Last edited:
Soldato
If it had of risen with football inflation, it would have risen by £4.1m per season over the last 10 years, that’s not a lot , remember it’s been stuck at £35m per year for over 10 years. I think even £50-60m per year now would be fair and that wouldn’t even be in line with inflation.
you let your hatred for Newcastle and their fans blind you.
Last edited:
How many clubs can afford an Enzo Fernades? Probably the same amount that could splash thst sort of money on a bale in 2013 (ignoring yourselves), wanting to have the rules changed because you are now state sponsored isn't the way forward
This isn't even specific to Newcastle. When a club is losing huge sums and relying on owners to pump cash in then they're always at risk. Whether it's a Saudi dictator deciding he's no longer interested in sportswashing or Mel Morris at Derby deciding he no longer wants to lose every penny he's earned on a football club, the moment the taps are switched off (for whatever reason) the club is ****ed. It's not something particularly new and we've seen this happen in varying degrees for years. When Markus Liebherr (the Southampton owner at the time) died, his daughter(?) took over but had no interest in football so funding dried up. You had the Icelandic bank situation at West Ham when their owner went bust overnight due to a collapse of a bank.
Why should it? The current rules at the current levels haven't properly protected clubs. We're still seeing clubs racking up huge losses in their attempts to keep up with the Joneses, now relying on continuous loans just to keep the lights on.
UEFA's amended rules is a far better way of controlling spending than a simple profit and loss calculation as it's directly linked to wages and amortisation.
Caporegime
I don’t. What you’re advocating for would just lead to a massive increase in transfer fees and wages for the top players. That £80mil average player you’re on about would now be £100+ mil.
I’m aware of that but it seems awfully convenient timing from a Newcastle fan to raise this topic.
Last edited:
Woppy just read a tweet from Kieran Maguire and copied it, although obviously he cares because it impacts Newcastle.
Soldato
also keeping the top at the top, not allowing anyone else to join,
you currently have at least 4 clubs(excluding Newcastle) with owners that have money to spend and are not capable of spending in the same way that Liverpool, City, arsenal, chelsea or Manu can, I will take Liverpool for example,
Liverpool turn over €700m a year, so with the new rules that would allow Liverpool to spend €490m per year on wages and amortisation
Aston Villa for example turn over €206m which would allow €144m per year on wages and amortisation, we all know what happens to villas best players when one of the other clubs come knocking.
you actually had a good idea when it came to solving the problem of owners that wanted to spend but couldn’t due to FFP, with being able to spend 70% of the highest clubs turnover in the league idea.
Do you know what Liverpool's 'turnover' was in 2011 the year following FSG taking over? 77 million. There's no reason why Newcastle as a club cant follow that trajectory, instead you guys just want to ignore the years its taken to get us to where we are and just have it now.
Last edited:
Soldato
that already happens now, but only a certain few are allowed to play that game and pay that sort of money, rises in the P&S in line with inflation would allow more clubs to pay that money and even keep hold of players when the likes of Liverpool, City or Manu come calling.
Yes ok I’m a Newcastle fan, and up until 2020 none of this ever mattered to us, as our owner was more interested in advertising his tat brand and and finishing 17th in the premier league to keep £150m per year coming into his pockets.
What I think should happen and what owners of PL clubs want to happen are rarely the same thing. I'd have no issue with a fixed spending cap linked to x's revenue but providing anybody that spends over x of their own revenue has to put financial guarantees in place. No clubs want that though and that includes clubs like Newcastle. Newcastle's owners don't want to put financial guarantees in place to protect the club in the future - your recent accounts show that they're not even putting 100% of the cash in to cover the costs of today (you might not be aware but your external debt increased by £50m and your debt to other clubs increased by a further £26m (and there's no FFP issue with the owners putting cash in here)), let alone putting cash in for tomorrow too.
Parking the big sides to one side for a moment, why are so many of the other clubs in favour of these rules? Because their primary interest is not losing money and this is a massive issue in football at all levels. Revenue goes up, spending goes up, losses go up - rinse and repeat. It's not sustainable. What's the bigger issue, it taking longer for Newcastle to be able to compete with Man Utd or the dozens of clubs losing millions year in year out, risking the future of that club?
It was £184m.