MattBackHome
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 11,873
I'd rather the club used FFP as a catalyst to bring wages etc in control and make football more affordable. Not simply pass on the additional costs to supporters.
Totes this blud
I'd rather the club used FFP as a catalyst to bring wages etc in control and make football more affordable. Not simply pass on the additional costs to supporters.
The club seems to think the priority should be increasing revenues and cutting costs to allow them to keep paying competitive wages which will compete for promotion.
I'd rather the club used FFP as a catalyst to bring wages etc in control and make football more affordable. Not simply pass on the additional costs to supporters.
The most important thing is that we find a balance between the two, is the correct answer.
The club seems to think the priority should be increasing revenues and cutting costs to allow them to keep paying competitive wages which will compete for promotion.
I'd rather the club used FFP as a catalyst to bring wages etc in control and make football more affordable. Not simply pass on the additional costs to supporters.
I agree with the principle of this but the trouble is, Brighton can't act alone. We could reduce our wage bill by 75% but other clubs won't and we'll find ourselves playing local derbies with Lewes very swiftly. Using FFP as a catalyst to reduce wages will work only if other clubs did as well