[Football] More possible FFP issues for Chelsea?

[um bongo molongo]

The only slight tweak I've heard that I agree with was from Simon Jordan, who said there she be an extra x amount for a new owner to be able to spend, which seems like a fair rule to put into place

A new owner should be able to make changes.

This feels too easy to game. Saudi puppet A sells a controlling stake to Saudi puppet B and they can spend more. Rinse and repeat.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

This feels too easy to game. Saudi puppet A sells a controlling stake to Saudi puppet B and they can spend more. Rinse and repeat.

I guess you have to have some controls in.

Let's say in Newcastle got sold and wanted to sack Howe, they should be able to without going into FFP breeches

Guess you can ring fence it for club improvements?

 

[drew]

I guess you have to have some controls in.

Let's say in Newcastle got sold and wanted to sack Howe, they should be able to without going into FFP breeches

Guess you can ring fence it for club improvements?

Why should they be allowed to break the rules to sack a manager?

 

[drew]

Yes, that's consistent with what @El Presidente was saying on 5Live early this morning, namely that FFP was preventing anyone challenging the established order and that the EPL were likely to move to the UEFA set of controls which align spending to turnover on a club-by-club basis, thus opening the door to higher spending from the likes of Newcastle. Perhaps a Dullard could helpfully clarify?

The trouble with that is that the gulf between those with a very large turnover and the rest of us will just get bigger exponentially.

 

[um bongo molongo]

The trouble with that is that the gulf between those with a very large turnover and the rest of us will just get bigger exponentially.

I’m confused because i thought FFP rules were associated with losses and so Turnover was already taken into account. Hence all the furore about Man City allegedly inflating their turnover with sponsorship deals from associated parties.

I’d also agree that those talking about it being to prevent bankruptcies and administrations are missing the point. The name even says Fair Play. It’s to avoid clubs bankrolled by petro states or Russian oligarchs from overly distorting the competition.

 

[El Presidente]

Indeed. I've got to be honest, but I was disappointed with what I heard from @El Presidente on Talksport Sunday morning, and the sympathy he expressed with the Geordie journalist who wants his murderous owners to be able to spend away and buy the glory. Without these controls what stops every club being bought up by Middle East and American multi billionaires fueling yet more insane spending and further unsustainable inflation? This is what puts clubs at risk. All I can see from the controls coming in are some sensible restriction coming into transfer fees, and more sensible wage structures as FFP finally looks like it has the potential to take hold. We are the epitome of showing there is another way to compete. There definitely seems to be a media agenda to rip up the rule book and take us back to square one. I much prefer a world where a new Ambromovich cant fund that sort of glory with filthy money again, and all the revenue riches are hardly helping the likes of Man Utd.

Which Geordie journalist is that?

 

[GT49er]

Not just FFP worries, it seems. Interesting article here from The Athletic:

Chelsea and Project Pochettino: How a trying campaign is taking its toll on coach, owners, squad and fans

Chelsea reached a cup final and won three successive league games either side of new year, but last week's heavy defeats darkened the mood

theathletic.com

(Behind a paywall, but there are means ..............................)

 

[Zeus]

Which Geordie journalist is that?

The one that isnt Henry Winter with the Geordie accent!

Edit: It's here at 10:30 where you express sympathy with why some are upset the chickens are coming to roost, anti FFP journos, and why the Saudis should feel aggrieved they cant blow their Gazzilions to Man City status. Very bizarre positioning for an Albion fan imo.

talkSPORT | talkSPORT

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Let's say in Newcastle got sold and wanted to sack Howe, they should be able to without going into FFP breeches

That’s pants.

 

[Dave the OAP]

The ‘source’ is actually a qualified lawyer experienced in financial regulation, speaking on Talksport.

Is it a dullard?

 

[Hamilton]

I guess you have to have some controls in.

Let's say in Newcastle got sold and wanted to sack Howe, they should be able to without going into FFP breeches

Guess you can ring fence it for club improvements?

Every club should be allowed to sack Eddie Howe. It should be written into the FA Articles of Association.

 

[Brian Fantana]

The one that isnt Henry Winter with the Geordie accent!

Edit: It's here at 10:30 where you express sympathy with why some are upset the chickens are coming to roost, anti FFP journos, and why the Saudis should feel aggrieved they cant blow their Gazzilions to Man City status. Very bizarre positioning for an Albion fan imo.

talkSPORT | talkSPORT

But he's not talking as an Albion fan, is he? He's being asked his opinion purely based on his knowledge and experience of the financial running of football clubs, in the context of standard business operating procedures. Simply, if Newcastle have owners who have massively deep pockets, in theory they have the cash and the cashflow to be able to spend at enormous volumes. If that sort of spending was previously allowed, as Chelsea and Man City did, it is possible to objectively see why a club in that same position today might be a bit irritated that they can't do similar, even though they have the cash to do so. I've probably butchered what @El Presidente was actually saying, but that was my interpretation of it anyway!

 

[Gazwag]

Yes they can, but Chelsea were already spending a lot. Very high wages across a huge squad………add the amortisation of so many expensive transfers and paying off failed managers and their cronies, then realising the expected income from the CL isn’t coming in and all of a sudden the books don’t balance. Bear in mind even £50m of CL income - which Boehly effectively thought was ‘guaranteed’ - essentially covers £400m of transfer fees (on 8 year contracts)

Or the cost and subsequent scrappage cost of 1 x Potter

 

[Zeus]

But he's not talking as an Albion fan, is he? He's being asked his opinion purely based on his knowledge and experience of the financial running of football clubs, in the context of standard business operating procedures. Simply, if Newcastle have owners who have massively deep pockets, in theory they have the cash and the cashflow to be able to spend at enormous volumes. If that sort of spending was previously allowed, as Chelsea and Man City did, it is possible to objectively see why a club in that same position today might be a bit irritated that they can't do similar, even though they have the cash to do so. I've probably butchered what @El Presidente was actually saying, but that was my interpretation of it anyway!

I mean an Albion fan should have the perspective that you dont have to spend ridiculous amounts of money to compete. Also whether you are an Albion or not you'd have to be pretty dim to not foresee that without these rules nation state owners would drive overall price inflation to breaking point for the system overall, as they all race for the top to sportwash themselves whilst leading to disaster for everyone else. It's common sense except for those journos that support the clubs moaning or seem to have become state sponsored hacks. Its tough that City and Chelsea got away with it once (and it looks like it may yet still punish them both) but the line had to be drawn somewhere.

 

[FatSuperman]

I mean an Albion fan should have the perspective that you dont have to spend ridiculous amounts of money to compete. Also whether you are an Albion or not you'd have to be pretty dim to not foresee that without these rules nation state owners would drive overall price inflation to breaking point for the system overall, as they all race for the top to sportwash themselves whilst leading to disaster for everyone else. It's common sense except for those journos that support the clubs moaning or seem to have become state sponsored hacks. Its tough that City and Chelsea got away with it once (and it looks like it may yet still punish them both) but the line had to be drawn somewhere.

Of course, but at risk of repeating the previous poster, that isn't the point being addressed. El Pres is simply saying that he can understand why fans and owners might feel aggrieved that clubs that were allowed to spend like crazy then pulled the drawbridge up. He is not advocating this as a sensible model.

And let's be honest, you can count on two fingers the number of clubs that operate in a sustainable* manner such as Brighton

*losing tens of millions every year

 

[lost in london]

I mean an Albion fan should have the perspective that you dont have to spend ridiculous amounts of money to compete. Also whether you are an Albion or not you'd have to be pretty dim to not foresee that without these rules nation state owners would drive overall price inflation to breaking point for the system overall, as they all race for the top to sportwash themselves whilst leading to disaster for everyone else. It's common sense except for those journos that support the clubs moaning or seem to have become state sponsored hacks. Its tough that City and Chelsea got away with it once (and it looks like it may yet still punish them both) but the line had to be drawn somewhere.

Obviously we haven't spent anywhere near what Man City or Chelsea's owners have spent, and our money has been spent in a much more sensible way than almost any other club, but lets not kid ourselves, if Tony Bloom was Saudi we would be lumped in with them and others of their ilk. We are incredibly fortunate to have him and wouldn't be anywhere near where we are without Tony's money. The vast majority of the football league would give their right arm to have someone drop the amount of money on their club that Tony has spent with us.