Eh?! UEFA doing it makes no difference, they only have control over their own competition, which is why clubs not in european competition are not investigated for FFP.

You would need every single individual league to sign up to not only the salary cap but also the movement of players between leagues, which would need to go through the EU courts as it will be seen as a restriction of trade.

It just isn't going to happen.

comment by Marcelino (U6171)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Pavlyuchenko's smile (U3582)
posted 11 seconds ago
Technically the US system is different - there are always differences, but the reason behind their financial rules is to ensure competitiveness. That's what we all want, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. FFP doesn't bring about competitiveness though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe not, but we've moved on to salary caps.

For the sake of clarity - a salary cap based on the current top clubs' wage bills, enforced by UEFA and fixed for....... 5 seasons to see how we get on?

Marcel

I dunno melton, if they can "enforce" FFP give whoever it is a salary cap to manage!

Why are there so many idiots who think that having a billionaire is the only way to become successful?

I agree it's the only way to have instant success... but real success without a sugar daddy is SUPPOSED to take time, luck and is very very unlikely (this is because you really have to EARN it).

In many ways the only thing really stopping clubs building genuine success is the hyper inflation caused by the sugar daddy clubs. It makes the spending gaps far vaster than ever before. In England we have a great platform for natural growth as unlike plenty of other countries our TV money is huge and importantly shared evenly. Sponsorship and gate receipts are obviously the main difference but certainly not an impossible hurdle.

Pav

I'm finding that the face that you put at the end of each point are kind of patronising.

They can't enforce FFP though Pav, they can only do it for clubs in one of their competitions, which is why there is a PL version as well as a Football league version too.

I still don't get what you think it will achieve though unless it is coupled with a transfer cap as well at the very least.

I don't think UEFA would be able to bring in a salary cap, though.

The PL would still have to make this decision, as would the governing bodies of all the other leagues in Europe. I just don't see that happening, and if there was a way that UEFA or FIFA could impose a salary cap the leagues would just break away.

UEFA and FIFA wouldn't risk that, so I doubt they'd even entertain the notion of an enforced salary cap.

Dr Cunni & Mr Lingus

"In many ways the only thing really stopping clubs building genuine success is the hyper inflation caused by the sugar daddy clubs. It makes the spending gaps far vaster than ever before"

It doesn't though. The increase in both wages and transfer fees was accelated far higher before sugar daddies got anywhere near football (at least, the ones that are around now) due to what it did to itself with the formation of the premier league, change in TV rights and reallocation of match day revenue.

Wages and transfer inflation rates have both actually slowed in the last 10 years.

It's meant to be friendly Mr Chelsea.

I dunno melton, if we can agree we want a more competitive league how about you contribute to the points you think i'm getting wrong or not considering?

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 25 seconds ago
"In many ways the only thing really stopping clubs building genuine success is the hyper inflation caused by the sugar daddy clubs. It makes the spending gaps far vaster than ever before"

It doesn't though. The increase in both wages and transfer fees was accelated far higher before sugar daddies got anywhere near football (at least, the ones that are around now) due to what it did to itself with the formation of the premier league, change in TV rights and reallocation of match day revenue.

Wages and transfer inflation rates have both actually slowed in the last 10 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TV money was the inflator and it went up for all top flight teams... still allowed for a natural/genuine/organic growth model.

Thats exactly what I am doing though Pav, I pointed out where you were wrong about FFP and also UEFAs remits on domestic league and I said two things earlier in this thread that need to happen depending on what people are trying to fix - protection of clubs or stopping sugar daddies.

It depends on the size of the club and its infrastructure. Some clubs just won't be able to attain it without a billionaire owner.

Others are better placed but still cannot attain it without outside investment.

So all FFP does is maintain the status quo. Liverpool, Arsenal and United are likely to benefit from it most as they are the three biggest clubs in England with the fan base, infrastructure and commercial appeal to remain at or near the top of English football by simply performing par for the course.

"TV money was the inflator and it went up for all top flight teams... still allowed for a natural/genuine/organic growth model"

For wages I agree, for competitive football though, two things happened that had a greater impact in creating disparity for me though. Firstly, the reallocation of match day revenue. Secondly, and the one with the biggest impact, was clubs setting up PLCs and flotation of the stock market (and in the worse cases, burdening the club with debt rather than the individuals, which was not allowed under the existing FA rules) .

So all FFP does is maintain the status quo.

------

Assuming you can't grow your club's revenue organically.

Fair enough melton, in which case how would you propose we could make the league more competitive, or are you saying we can't, that it's too broken already?

comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
It depends on the size of the club and its infrastructure. Some clubs just won't be able to attain it without a billionaire owner.

Others are better placed but still cannot attain it without outside investment.

So all FFP does is maintain the status quo. Liverpool, Arsenal and United are likely to benefit from it most as they are the three biggest clubs in England with the fan base, infrastructure and commercial appeal to remain at or near the top of English football by simply performing par for the course.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly you have no comprehension of the building of success. An incredibly difficult and slow process which rarely happens but is possible.

Even then though Darren, for everything people say about our (nowhere near record breaking) deal with Etihad from Abu Dhabi, Liverpools boston based owners managed to get a record breaking sponsorship deal with a boston based sports company...

Dr Cunni & Mr Lingus (U3072)

Pavlyuchenko's smile

Larger clubs (revenues, fanbases etc) have historically been more competitive.

FFP will encourage those who wish to develop and emulate the elite; do so naturally and without bankrupting themselves in the process.

"Fair enough melton, in which case how would you propose we could make the league more competitive, or are you saying we can't, that it's too broken already?"

Unfortunately, the latter Pav. If there was a closed competition with 20 teams and no movement of players outside of those 20 teams, then it could be done. Without complete restructure of the way football clubs are owned and leagues are run, then I don't see any way to make it more competitive as such. There are slight measures such as the reallocation of match day revenue back to the way it used to be that could make a difference, but then what would attract anyone to invest in a club in the first place if the rewards are then shared equally.

I think we have to accept that some things in football are the way they are and it will never be truly competitive - what owners do in the boardroom has always been equally as important as what players and managers do on the pitch when it comes to sustaining success.

"Clearly you have no comprehension of the building of success. An incredibly difficult and slow process which rarely happens but is possible."

Out of interest, who has it happened to? Who has maintained success at the top without that initial investment to get them there?

I'm interested as if City or Chelsea post a profit for the next thirty years, are they justified then?

An incredibly difficult and slow process which rarely happens but is possible.
----
How do I have no comprehension of building success then because this is effectively what I'm saying.

With FFP and how modern football is controlled so much by money it makes the likelihood of this happening pretty slim.

There are few clubs in a position to challenge the financial disparity in the league through organic growth. The money from the CL that clubs will miss out on when the money goes up next year will further illustrate that.

FFP is brilliant for clubs like United, City, Chelsea, Spurs, Liverpool and Arsenal but not very good for everyone else trying to catch up with these powerhouses

Darren The King Fletcher

FFP will encourage clubs to concentrate on youth development and long term stability rather than recent unsustainable models we have seen.

IMO while it is by no means perfect, it is certainly a step in the right direction.

The biggest surprise I had was the Prem chairmen voting for our own version of FFP which will create an even more static league than there has been.

200!

Don't like seeing odd numbers like 199