QPR in the Conference - Great Idea

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Why is it ok for UEFA to share the fines round the clubs but not for the Championship clubs ?

UEFA have only announced this. This could give the Football League some leverage on getting the Premier League to change their mind on 100% of the fines going to charity.

 

[El Presidente]

The players wage potential is not being compromised at all though. There is nothing capping player wages at all, a player can be paid whatever the club want to pay them. Also, there are many leagues all over Europe which do not have FFP like ours, he can go there as well if he wants.

The legal claim is being made against UEFA, so it would impact upon all leagues governed by UEFA.

I still don't understand why anyone thinks FFP is a good thing though.

 

[El Presidente]

Why is it ok for UEFA to share the fines round the clubs but not for the Championship clubs ?

The Championship have no control over PL clubs and vice versa as they are different bodies. UEFA can do what they want with their TV revenues, the Championship can't dictate to the PL.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I still don't understand why anyone thinks FFP is a good thing though.

Because however badly its written, and noting your stance that it is a curb on newly rich clubs progressing, the fundamental spirit of the thing is to encourage clubs to live within their means. Which in the opinion of many, can only be a good thing.

I note your egrument - why shouldn't Mr X be allowed to bankroll club Y to the tune of millions? Free market ethos suggests he should, but the spirit of FFP should be that if Mr X gets bored and walks away 5 years later, that the club is not massively tied in to wages and running costs it can't service.

The repsonse to your suggestion that it bars any new club from growing, is that the regulations DO allow for Mr X to invest new facilities - a whole new ground if he wishes, to help build the fan base, and youth and training facilities, to hopefully add value long term to the playing staff. These things could in theory result in a healthy side playing to big(ger) crowds, and rising up the leagues.

Not to the extent that you could bankroll a very small club to win the Premier League - but such overstretching results in situations like Portsmouth, when the money tap is turned off.

Perfect, no. Of some merit, yes.

 

[MattBackHome]

Because however badly its written, and noting your stance that it is a curb on newly rich clubs progressing, the fundamental spirit of the thing is to encourage clubs to live within their means.

Yeah this is what I reckon - unless there's a reason that FFP does not fulfil this criteria?

 

[Dr. Notthenineo'clocknews]

Stick em in The Ryman I say, get em down here bank holiday Monday!

 

[El Presidente]

Yeah this is what I reckon - unless there's a reason that FFP does not fulfil this criteria?

There's a very good criteria. FFP in the Premier League allows a club to lose £105 million over a 3 year period. That is not living within its means. Under those rules Portsmouth would have satisfied FFP and still ended up in the situation they are in today. FFP also ignores the fundamental issue of focussing on profit instead of cash.

The fundamental spirit of FFP is to prevent competition, and maintain the status quo of rich clubs playing each other in the Champions League each season.

I would be in favour of FFP if it was fair, such as in the NFL, what we have instead is a smokescreen.

 

[The Truth]

I agree it's a good idea to protect small clubs from spend happy owners who will soon walk away. Sadly, it still seems the rules won't apply for the likes of Man City and co, who can happily just pay the fines or buy alternative football clubs who will, on paper, cover the wages. Frank Lampard for example.

 

[El Presidente]

FFP would not have stopped Archer taking over the Albion, the pass the parcel activities at Portsmouth and Leeds, the ongoing power struggles at Glasgow Rangers, or Palace going into administration.

 

[MattBackHome]

FFP would not have stopped Archer taking over the Albion, the pass the parcel activities at Portsmouth and Leeds, the ongoing power struggles at Glasgow Rangers, or Palace going into administration.

But would it not have dissuaded the bogeymen in each of these examples from going into football? Isn't there less to gain?

Thanks for the earlier explanation btw - makes good sense.

 

[brightonrock]

The ironically socialist-style draft system and squad salary caps in US sport would be a great model to follow as it makes things genuinely interesting, levelling the playing field each season. That way there is no restriction on an individual player earning £300kpw like Rooney, but the rest of the squad has to be paid less to allow for it. Of course it would never happen in Europe because as EP says, it would allow the nouveau riche to topple the traditional big clubs whereas the current system reinforces their dominance year-on-year. The Man Us/Barcas/Bayerns of the world would never agree to a system that threatens their place at the top table. But with the hypothetical power to change one thing about football without repute, that would be mine, above all others.

 

[Spadge]

There is also the argument that FFP is not fair to smaller clubs as it fixes their available spend at a lower level than richer clubs, thereby setting them at a possibly permanent disadvantage as it introduces a vicious circle. Would any smaller club want to take this argument up? Would this angle also be considered if there was a legal challenge from a club that was fined?

One could also then argue that the payments to clubs in the premier league is not fair and that money should be distributed more evenly across all the divisions.

A business should live within its means, quiet simple really.

The only real way to make any club pay attention is quiet simple.

Should they slip into liquidation then they should be thrown out of the league into the conference. (AKA Glasgow Rangers)

That would then ensure all clubs are FFP compliant or as near to it as possible otherwise they face losing every investment they have made.

 

[tinycowboy]

One could also then argue that the payments to clubs in the premier league is not fair and that money should be distributed more evenly across all the divisions.

A business should live within its means, quiet simple really.

The only real way to make any club pay attention is quiet simple.

Should they slip into liquidation then they should be thrown out of the league into the conference. (AKA Glasgow Rangers)

That would then ensure all clubs are FFP compliant or as near to it as possible otherwise they face losing every investment they have made.

I agree that we can't have clubs not living within their means, but what if a billionaire wants to buy a club and bankroll them? Under FFP, they would have no incentive to buy a club with smaller revenues as they would be unable to spend the money the billionaire would be willing to give, except for the development of infrastructure. Therefore, this notional billionaire's choices are limited to buying out a club that already has substantial revenues and which is therefore allowed to spend larger amounts on players, or building up a smaller club through investment at the bottom. The former would mean that the rich get richer and the latter would require a long-term commitment. Now, one of these choices seems preferable to the other for a sustainable and possibly varied football experience, but which one will appeal to the people with the deep pockets?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

There's a very good criteria. FFP in the Premier League allows a club to lose £105 million over a 3 year period. That is not living within its means. Under those rules Portsmouth would have satisfied FFP and still ended up in the situation they are in today. FFP also ignores the fundamental issue of focussing on profit instead of cash.

The fundamental spirit of FFP is to prevent competition, and maintain the status quo of rich clubs playing each other in the Champions League each season.

.

The the idea was for (Championship) FFP fines to be paid to the compliant clubs, then there was an element of levelling the field. Shame this got kyboshed by Premier League self interest.

 

[Creaky]

It's all very well saying that under FFP clubs can invest in infrastructure such as a new ground but our own recent experiences have shown that whilst the capital cost of such 'improvements' does not count against the FFP figures the initial start up and running costs do and these can be considerable.

The other argument against owners being allowed to invest heavily in expensive players is that should they walk away then the club wil be left with unsustainable wage costs - this is a red herring in my opinion. IF, (and this is where FFP should be targeted in my opinion), those players have been bought without increasing the clubs debt liability, (i.e. purchase of equity), then should the owner walk away the club has its disposal a high level of assets - players that can be sold for substantial fees enabling the club to buy lower level players and demanding lower level wages than the current squad. Talented players are an asset to a club irrespective of their running costs - assets which can be sold and replaced if and when required.

 

[El Presidente]

But would it not have dissuaded the bogeymen in each of these examples from going into football? Isn't there less to gain?

Thanks for the earlier explanation btw - makes good sense.

I don't think it would stop the bogeymen, provided you kept within FFP limits (and the above clubs effectively did), they could still be bought and sold for a profit, asset stripped, or used as moneylaundering vehicles.