1. Outside investment for one-off purchases (such as transfer costs) is good for the game and some of the investments will filter down to smaller clubs

2. Simply set a cap on the amount of investment allowed per season. That way,rich owners don't have a free reign and it doesn't become a battle of who has the richest owners. (Imagine if the Qatari Royal Family got hold of United with no FFP in place and they were prepared to spend a couple of billion quid?)

3. Ongoing costs (salries etc) should always be coverable by the clubs own revenues. Allowing outside ongoing investment to cover a club's annual running costs (aside from one-offs) is dangerous, particularly concerning long term player contracts.

4. This is one I'm speculating on as I don't understand all the rules but, if you severely break FFP rules one season and as a result you are thrown out of the CL for a season, even 2 or 3, then who gives a chit. Break the rules temporarily if it's better for the club long term. (I'm not too sure how PL FFP affect this)

All in all, I cannot see a single reason why outside investment into a club for one off purchases is a bad thing whatsoever aside from the obvious - if everyone got themselves sugar daddy owners comparable to Chelsea and City's owners, then football would get stupid very quicky, and it's already stupid as it is

Allow investment but set the same cap for all

Is there a club outside of the big 4 that has done all of that and cemented their place in the top 4?

-----

Arsenal have, it looks like Liverpool will, and Spurs were on the cusp of doing it before City came along. Bearing in mind we're talking about sustainable investment here - debt you can manage a pay off rather than owner's loans like Roman and the Sheikhs have done which the clubs could never pay off.

comment by Mr Chelsea ✪ (U3579)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by If United did beers... (U16990)<br abp="373">posted 13 seconds ago<br abp="374">FFP seems like a good idea for the smaller clubs, but what happens when a billionaire wants to buy them? Not such a good idea then.<br abp="375">----------------------------------------------------------------------<br abp="376">If a billionaire did want to buy a smaller club and invest into the infrastructure and grow the club organically then that would be allowed under FFP if im not mistaken.<br abp="377"><br abp="378">but do you realise the amount of time if would take to even see the fruits of this labour? Would take years and even then there is no guarantee that bigger clubs wont come on and take your players away .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's my point. If a club doesn't have money to spend on players and wages, it won't compete at the top.

What the feck happened there?

Both are needed. You can't solely do it by either.

-----

Agreed. My point is some people seem convinced that money is the only way.

How can FFP be a good idea for smaller clubs? Now they will never be able to challenge.

Southampton have spent some amount of money in the last few seasons and have grown gradually. It's not out of the question to see them challenging for a Europa League spot in coming seasons if they continue that investment- is there anything outrageous about what they have done?

This is effectively preventing smaller clubs from entering the market for success.

Arsenal have, it looks like Liverpool will, and Spurs were on the cusp of doing it before City came along. Bearing in mind we're talking about sustainable investment here - debt you can manage a pay off rather than owner's loans like Roman and the Sheikhs have done which the clubs could never pay off.
----
So no then.

comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 6 minutes ago
Wigan only grew because of Dave Whelan's money.

He didn't take them to another level in the league, though, and they got relegated because Whelan stopped investing - so basically that one example is actually going against what you're saying as outside investment was the only way they were in the premier league and Martinez wasn't able to keep them in the league, let alone take them to the next level, because the funds weren't there.

So it wouldn't happen with Huddersfield either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Whelan couldn't force people through the doors.

If United's attendances dropped to 15-20k you'd struggle to compete.

So no then.

----

It's a yes. The argument is being muddied from spending anything to blowing massive holes in accounts the size of a small country's gdp.

God knows what FFP means, I'm sure we'll find out. Personally I think the Russian was the best thing ever for the Premier league. Without his investment we could be looking at something like they've got in Scotland, where one team dominates year after year and the game is dying on it's ar**se.

comment by Pavlyuchenko's smile (U3582)
posted 2 minutes ago
Is there a club outside of the big 4 that has done all of that and cemented their place in the top 4?

-----

Arsenal have, it looks like Liverpool will, and Spurs were on the cusp of doing it before City came along. Bearing in mind we're talking about sustainable investment here - debt you can manage a pay off rather than owner's loans like Roman and the Sheikhs have done which the clubs could never pay off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I see this is where you are going all along.
Tell me how Liverpool have grown organically without outside investment. And please don't be selective in your time period. .

Liverpool lost more money than Chelsea this season, I wish people would actually look at this before singling out Chelsea as some financially insane lunatics and Liverpool as a model for sustainability.

comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 38 seconds ago
comment by Pavlyuchenko's smile (U3582)
posted 2 minutes ago
Is there a club outside of the big 4 that has done all of that and cemented their place in the top 4?

-----

Arsenal have, it looks like Liverpool will, and Spurs were on the cusp of doing it before City came along. Bearing in mind we're talking about sustainable investment here - debt you can manage a pay off rather than owner's loans like Roman and the Sheikhs have done which the clubs could never pay off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I see this is where you are going all along.
Tell me how Liverpool have grown organically without outside investment. And please don't be selective in your time period..
----------------------------------------------------------------------

How about you make your own point.

Whelan is the sole reason that Wigan are where they are now.

If United's attendances went down from what they are now it wouldn't matter so much as the sponsorship money is so much and FFP strengthens our position in the English game.

That said, you're still agreeing with the point that smaller clubs are hamstrung by not having the finances to compete - as you've suggest even United would struggle with lower attendances - and that outside investment in many cases is the only way as they don't have the fans and infrastructure of bigger clubs.

Sustainable spending is completely irrelevant to the points we are making. If Mansour wants to call in his debts so be it. But City's spending has been sustainable, because he's carried on spending, and it was the only way they were going to ever to compete with us.

Mr C was referring to the big 4. Two of the clubs you named are part of that big four he was referring to, the other club never cemented a place in the CL and so it's only City that have and they needed outside investment to do so.

"Arsenal have, it looks like Liverpool will,"

You do realise Liverpool would have failed FFP and made a bigger loss than City did this season...?

comment by Pavlyuchenko's smile (U3582)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 38 seconds ago
comment by Pavlyuchenko's smile (U3582)
posted 2 minutes ago
Is there a club outside of the big 4 that has done all of that and cemented their place in the top 4?

-----

Arsenal have, it looks like Liverpool will, and Spurs were on the cusp of doing it before City came along. Bearing in mind we're talking about sustainable investment here - debt you can manage a pay off rather than owner's loans like Roman and the Sheikhs have done which the clubs could never pay off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I see this is where you are going all along.
Tell me how Liverpool have grown organically without outside investment. And please don't be selective in your time period..
----------------------------------------------------------------------

How about you make your own point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
my point being that Liverpool became a highly successful club courtesy of huge financial backing in the 80's. These success brought increased worldwide fan base and hence, the revenue of the club.
Also, recently, Liverpool were bailed out by their rich owner.Also, £50m was given the club during the last financial statement to enable the club adhere to its financial obligation. Liverpool are the 3rd or 4th highest spenders since the PL began. So, that is not the model you are advocating.
Just because you have Rodgers today doesn't mean that your history should be ignored.
And guess what, you will need massive cash injection this Summer to keep your current momemtum otherwise, it may be back to square one.

That said, you're still agreeing with the point that smaller clubs are hamstrung by not having the finances to compete - as you've suggest even United would struggle with lower attendances - and that outside investment in many cases is the only way as they don't have the fans and infrastructure of bigger clubs.

Sustainable spending is completely irrelevant..

-------

I thought the debate was about FFP and it's affects throughout the football league on competition.. sustainable spending IS the point, FFP allows for a certain amount of debt in the short term.

Infrastructure is built over time, a new stand here, a scouting network there, a new training facility.... it's just a fact of life some teams will never have the fanbase to compete financially, if 50 people turn up to watch Acrrington Stanley they don't deserve to be in the PL!

Just because you have Rodgers today doesn't mean that your history should be ignored.
And guess what, you will need massive cash injection this Summer to keep your current momemtum otherwise, it may be back to square one.

------



There's no bias here mate, i'm a Spurs fan

As for fanbase etc see my point above

comment by Pavlyuchenko's smile (U3582)
posted 8 seconds ago
Just because you have Rodgers today doesn't mean that your history should be ignored.
And guess what, you will need massive cash injection this Summer to keep your current momemtum otherwise, it may be back to square one.

------



There's no bias here mate, i'm a Spurs fan

As for fanbase etc see my point above
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ah my bad.
anyway, my point still stand.

You do realise Liverpool would have failed FFP and made a bigger loss than City did this season...?

----

A loss over a single season does not "fail FFP".

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

But outside investment can be sustainable, as many clubs have proven.

They may not have the fans and stadia, but if their owner can buy the best players and a new stadium then their growth is far more achievable than anything they could do under organic growth.

But outside investment can be sustainable, as many clubs have proven.

------

The FFP won't cause a problem then

I'm back, sorry I haven't been able to reply Pav + What would. Busy busy.

Right, Pav.

In a word. No. Martinez couldn't help huddersfield do a Blackpool and then remain there, because it becomes about survivability then. Huddersfield very well may get to that point sometime in the future, and obviously I'd be over the moon for the club. But FFP would take away whatever little chance the club has of building on that or even staying there. What player is going to want to stay at Huddersfield if Newcastle, Villa and co. come calling, let alone of of the big guns like United or Chelsea? It becomes a situation of treading water and without the backing of outside investment, clubs that finally get to the promised land cannot sustain it for more than a few years at most. Players are cherry picked, replacing them becomes more and more expensive, the club is stretched thin and eventually, relegation happens. The only teams who make it and can survive are teams like Norwich, Southampton and Swansea, who have massive followings in their own right, are big clubs with big club infrastructure, and are capable of survive the premier leagues constant storm. The trouble is that there are probably 30 clubs like that in England, and they're all battling to be there, so when a Blackpool does happen, inevitably, it will end after a few years at best. FFP ensures the football pyramid survives, and fleeting moments of glory for a small teams doesn't compensate for the fact that, as far as they're concerned, it cannot be sustained.

What would.

Your attitude of "I know what I'm talking about and no one else does" is grating me now. I've provided you with a link to use as a reference to make your points, but all you've done is ignore that and make out that you're the authority on the subject. I've backed up my points with logic, reason, examples and evidence. If you aren't prepared to do the same, please don't bother contributing to what is a very interested are rare debate on ja606.