FFP is a competition crushing ruse to ensure no clubs other than the current top few will ever be able to compete.
The marketing money machine wants consistent winners to guarantee the highest possible branding and product placement revenues for sponsors.
And they got it
How much money have the likes of City and Chelsea wasted - if they'd done it "properly" and taken a few seasons they could've done it on a lot less.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Brilliant!! It was precisely because UEFA planned to introduce FFP within 2 years that we could not have done it over a longer period, genius.
The reason we had to spend big over a short period was we needed to rebuild the squad to one that was capable of competing with the Sky 3 because of the introduction of FFP!!! Once that was in place it would have seriously limited our ability to achieve what we have done, as it will for any other smaller club from now on. We had to get in quick before they slammed the door to the executive lounge, thats FFP, insurance by Platini to protect the elite and maintain the status quo.
We have demonstrated since that initial spend to build a competitive squad that we have reduce spending and increased revenue. We are in the process of constructing a fabulous campus housing training pitches and a mini stadium for our academy and ladies teams.
I understood that teams that could demonstrate that they are making such inroads with their finances would not be punished?
I agree with the guys above that think that this FFP is great if it protects clubs form doing a Leeds or Portsmouth but when responsible owners are being impeded from investing their own money into a Club/brand to make it bigger and better then it is wrong.
It also serves only to prevent any other club having that same opportunity ever again, so who benefits from that? The old guard as usual.
Surely measures to prevent clubs spending outwith their means could have been found without preventing owners spending the money out of their own pockets which is not placing the club in jeopardy?
"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"
Absolutely, personally as a City fan, thinking selfishly, I'm ecstatic about it.
"FFP will encourage clubs to concentrate on youth development and long term stability rather than recent unsustainable models we have seen."
I wish that was the case, however that will only happen if clubs get fair recompense for when their youth players are (more now than ever) inevitably poached by the big guns. Arsenal, United, City and Chelsea have all been massively guilty of that for a while and it has been a long been a bug bear of mine.
For those smaller clubs, it is more likely now that the bigger clubs will hoover them up at 16 and pay the nominal fee, rather than leave them where they are to develop and then pay fair whack for them.
Let's hope it does encourage youth development, we need it in England.
But FFP will just ensure that those smaller clubs will lose all their best players to bigger clubs as they won't be able to compete financially over the long term.
And even then, they might not just concentrate on youth development when the premier league makes the small English clubs a lot richer than foreign clubs meaning they can poach some youngsters or bargains that'll keep them in the league from abroad - as has been the case for years.
comment by Dr Cunni & Mr Lingus (U3072)
posted 27 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please can you give a specific example?
It seems (as always when FFP is debated) there still remains a lot of prejudices and objections based mainly on some media scaremongering.
Club investment is permitted, however it is the LEVEL of investment that Uefa (and the EU) were concerned with.
The majority of club’s outlay is on player wages and IMO it was appropriate for UEFA to try to address this. Ie if an “investor” wants to invest they can, just not to the extent were the investment (should it cease – whatever the reason) might place the club in a precarious or vulnerable position
Stuart Pearce,
I'm not sure many are arguing on on that?
"Ie if an “investor” wants to invest they can, just not to the extent were the investment (should it cease – whatever the reason) might place the club in a precarious or vulnerable position"
I disagree with this, investors can still very easily put a club into a difficult position. Infrastructure is exempt from FFP and they only look at the profit and loss account. There is nothing to stop someone still getting a massive loan to build a new academy and heaping the debts for it onto the club, as they are not looking at the balance sheet at all as part of their assessment.
The bits they have done, I agree they are ok, but only due to the condition that any loss has to be written off as equity by the owner.
Their ultimate concern was not level of investment as such, it was sustainability, which is why the limits are on the profit and loss account t and not the balance sheet. Clubs are slightly more protected now, but not by much.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 5 minutes ago
It seems (as always when FFP is debated) there still remains a lot of prejudices and objections based mainly on some media scaremongering.
Club investment is permitted, however it is the LEVEL of investment that Uefa (and the EU) were concerned with.
The majority of club’s outlay is on player wages and IMO it was appropriate for UEFA to try to address this. Ie if an “investor” wants to invest they can, just not to the extent were the investment (should it cease – whatever the reason) might place the club in a precarious or vulnerable position
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What in your opinion would constitute a vulnerable position?
Borrowing money from the banks to fund the club for the short term or putting personal funds to grow the club?
club for the short term or putting personal funds to grow the club?
-----
Depends how those personal sums are classified. As long as they don't have any conditions to be repaid to the owner that's fine.
comment by Redinthehead - At least we didnt finish 13th! (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
club for the short term or putting personal funds to grow the club?
-----
Depends how those personal sums are classified. As long as they don't have any conditions to be repaid to the owner that's fine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that is fine by me too.
But some fans on here still feel that if an owner converts debt to equity, it is still wrong.
meltonblue
In relation to your infrastructure scenario it may exempt from FFP however any losses incurred (relating to infrastructure costs) would be, and therefore be taken into consideration by the control body.
mancini
Re vulnerable position – any consequence which placed the wellbeing or future of the club at risk.
Surely measures to prevent clubs spending outwith their means could have been found without preventing owners spending the money out of their own pockets which is not placing the club in jeopardy?
------
It sounds like that would be a preferable solution - if the aim is to protect clubs from going bust thanks to irresponsible owners.
There seems to be a general consensus that FFP works to that effect, but actually hurts competition in terms of the gap between the haves and have nots.
I put it to you FFP doubters that the way a club earns success in the future cannot be down to a rich owner suddenly investing huge sums but by gradually improving every aspect within their means until such a point that elite sponsorship and tv money kicks in.
You don't need oil money to get into the PL.
As the Huddersfield fan said, he can see it being possible for his side to be a mid-table PL side one day. So we're talking about closing that gap.. which has been created by the oligarchs' artificial injection of cash. By artificial I mean sums which no financial institution would lend as the return simply isn't there.. or at least wouldn't be for the forseeable.
FFP or no FFP that gap would still be there, in fact it'd be wider and no doubt at least one club would be on the way to going bust in an effort to compete.
Jeez I'm on nights and posted this last night.... I've got some reading to do!
Ruiney only meant it as a wum. Turns up to find 213 essay length comments.
Mr Chelsea - a debate on ja606 that didn't include a single reference to wums or bites?
It's been a pleasure
Yeah its been good Pav. From both sides. I been reading all the way through
If you want an article to get 100s of comments post about FFP.
"In relation to your infrastructure scenario it may exempt from FFP however any losses incurred (relating to infrastructure costs) would be, and therefore be taken into consideration by the control body."
Any costs related to infrastructure or youth/community development is exempt, there is the P&L account and then the FFP adjusted P&L account. We can spend as much as we like building the new stand at the Etihad and none of it counts towards FFP.
We could still load up the balance sheet through loans and have the debt on the club rather than written off as equity, FFP doesn't look at it at all.
omment by Mr Chelsea ✪ (U3579)
posted 23 minutes ago
Ruiney only meant it as a wum. Turns up to find 213 essay length comments.
....
Too many big words not enough rofls for my liking
"As the Huddersfield fan said, he can see it being possible for his side to be a mid-table PL side one day. So we're talking about closing that gap.. which has been created by the oligarchs' artificial injection of cash. By artificial I mean sums which no financial institution would lend as the return simply isn't there.. or at least wouldn't be for the forseeable."
This is where we differ I think. I believe football created that disparity far more than "oliagarchs" did and that if football had continued without further outside investment coming in, it would have been worse than it actually was in terms of competition.
In all honesty, I don't think United would have lost the title more than three times at most in the last 17 years if investment had not been allowed for the past twenty years.
The next thing I would say is that that gap existed before the PL began as well and rich owners creating the gap goes all the way back to Chapman with Arsenal in the between wars era. I'm not sure why the "oliagarchs" get all the blame yet no one seems to remember the rich english owners and the disparity they created at the time...
I dunno about that, melton.
I think Arsenal and Liverpool would have been far more competitive had it not happened, particularly Arsenal.
We can never know, of course, but Chelsea and City's rise to prominence had a huge effect on their ability to compete. Probably why they are so bitter about it.
We had no such problems, which is why I don't think United fans seem as bothered about it as many others as we were still rich and still had Fergie.
Spurs, Liverpool, Arsenal, Everton and Newcastle must all be thinking what if, eh?
They were all getting investment in the nineties themselves anyway though Darren, be it through selling shares rather than through one owner (which I don't really see much difference in terms of end result) or the Hicks and Gillette route of Liverpool with loans up to the hilt in the noughties.
You were the best run club off the pitch by a long shot in terms of maximising revenue generation and coupled that with having the best manager. Even Newcastle when they were investing a lot still sold you guys Cole after finishing third...
Everton can't really say anything, they've been courting outside investment like an acne riddled teenager at a justin bieber gig for the past 20 years...
Yeah I suppose that's true. I do think it's really hit Arsenal hard, though. I know they moved to their new stadium but that must have been in the pipeline years before Chelsea were even taken over, let alone City, so wouldn't have foreseen how badly it would effect them.
Melton - you seem unwilling or unable to seperate normal investment as would happen in any business from owners that are happy to lose a billion or more.
Selling shares gives the buyer a return, bank loans have to be repayed, what we're talking about here is the desire to win at any cost being encouraged.
Yes, it hurts as a Spurs fan that we've been run - albeit with outside investment - as a business that has to pay for itself, and come so close only for the top table to be filled by teams making massive losses that only an oil baron could sustain.
The oligarchs have ruined football, FFP has failed to fix it.
Sign in if you want to comment
Have City and PSG failed FFP?
Page 9 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 15/4/14
FFP is a competition crushing ruse to ensure no clubs other than the current top few will ever be able to compete.
The marketing money machine wants consistent winners to guarantee the highest possible branding and product placement revenues for sponsors.
And they got it
posted on 15/4/14
How much money have the likes of City and Chelsea wasted - if they'd done it "properly" and taken a few seasons they could've done it on a lot less.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Brilliant!! It was precisely because UEFA planned to introduce FFP within 2 years that we could not have done it over a longer period, genius.
The reason we had to spend big over a short period was we needed to rebuild the squad to one that was capable of competing with the Sky 3 because of the introduction of FFP!!! Once that was in place it would have seriously limited our ability to achieve what we have done, as it will for any other smaller club from now on. We had to get in quick before they slammed the door to the executive lounge, thats FFP, insurance by Platini to protect the elite and maintain the status quo.
We have demonstrated since that initial spend to build a competitive squad that we have reduce spending and increased revenue. We are in the process of constructing a fabulous campus housing training pitches and a mini stadium for our academy and ladies teams.
I understood that teams that could demonstrate that they are making such inroads with their finances would not be punished?
I agree with the guys above that think that this FFP is great if it protects clubs form doing a Leeds or Portsmouth but when responsible owners are being impeded from investing their own money into a Club/brand to make it bigger and better then it is wrong.
It also serves only to prevent any other club having that same opportunity ever again, so who benefits from that? The old guard as usual.
Surely measures to prevent clubs spending outwith their means could have been found without preventing owners spending the money out of their own pockets which is not placing the club in jeopardy?
posted on 15/4/14
"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"
Absolutely, personally as a City fan, thinking selfishly, I'm ecstatic about it.
"FFP will encourage clubs to concentrate on youth development and long term stability rather than recent unsustainable models we have seen."
I wish that was the case, however that will only happen if clubs get fair recompense for when their youth players are (more now than ever) inevitably poached by the big guns. Arsenal, United, City and Chelsea have all been massively guilty of that for a while and it has been a long been a bug bear of mine.
For those smaller clubs, it is more likely now that the bigger clubs will hoover them up at 16 and pay the nominal fee, rather than leave them where they are to develop and then pay fair whack for them.
posted on 15/4/14
Let's hope it does encourage youth development, we need it in England.
But FFP will just ensure that those smaller clubs will lose all their best players to bigger clubs as they won't be able to compete financially over the long term.
And even then, they might not just concentrate on youth development when the premier league makes the small English clubs a lot richer than foreign clubs meaning they can poach some youngsters or bargains that'll keep them in the league from abroad - as has been the case for years.
posted on 15/4/14
comment by Dr Cunni & Mr Lingus (U3072)
posted 27 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please can you give a specific example?
posted on 15/4/14
It seems (as always when FFP is debated) there still remains a lot of prejudices and objections based mainly on some media scaremongering.
Club investment is permitted, however it is the LEVEL of investment that Uefa (and the EU) were concerned with.
The majority of club’s outlay is on player wages and IMO it was appropriate for UEFA to try to address this. Ie if an “investor” wants to invest they can, just not to the extent were the investment (should it cease – whatever the reason) might place the club in a precarious or vulnerable position
posted on 15/4/14
Stuart Pearce,
I'm not sure many are arguing on on that?
"Ie if an “investor” wants to invest they can, just not to the extent were the investment (should it cease – whatever the reason) might place the club in a precarious or vulnerable position"
I disagree with this, investors can still very easily put a club into a difficult position. Infrastructure is exempt from FFP and they only look at the profit and loss account. There is nothing to stop someone still getting a massive loan to build a new academy and heaping the debts for it onto the club, as they are not looking at the balance sheet at all as part of their assessment.
The bits they have done, I agree they are ok, but only due to the condition that any loss has to be written off as equity by the owner.
Their ultimate concern was not level of investment as such, it was sustainability, which is why the limits are on the profit and loss account t and not the balance sheet. Clubs are slightly more protected now, but not by much.
posted on 15/4/14
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 5 minutes ago
It seems (as always when FFP is debated) there still remains a lot of prejudices and objections based mainly on some media scaremongering.
Club investment is permitted, however it is the LEVEL of investment that Uefa (and the EU) were concerned with.
The majority of club’s outlay is on player wages and IMO it was appropriate for UEFA to try to address this. Ie if an “investor” wants to invest they can, just not to the extent were the investment (should it cease – whatever the reason) might place the club in a precarious or vulnerable position
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What in your opinion would constitute a vulnerable position?
Borrowing money from the banks to fund the club for the short term or putting personal funds to grow the club?
posted on 15/4/14
club for the short term or putting personal funds to grow the club?
-----
Depends how those personal sums are classified. As long as they don't have any conditions to be repaid to the owner that's fine.
posted on 15/4/14
comment by Redinthehead - At least we didnt finish 13th! (U1860)
posted 1 minute ago
club for the short term or putting personal funds to grow the club?
-----
Depends how those personal sums are classified. As long as they don't have any conditions to be repaid to the owner that's fine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that is fine by me too.
But some fans on here still feel that if an owner converts debt to equity, it is still wrong.
posted on 15/4/14
meltonblue
In relation to your infrastructure scenario it may exempt from FFP however any losses incurred (relating to infrastructure costs) would be, and therefore be taken into consideration by the control body.
mancini
Re vulnerable position – any consequence which placed the wellbeing or future of the club at risk.
posted on 15/4/14
Surely measures to prevent clubs spending outwith their means could have been found without preventing owners spending the money out of their own pockets which is not placing the club in jeopardy?
------
It sounds like that would be a preferable solution - if the aim is to protect clubs from going bust thanks to irresponsible owners.
There seems to be a general consensus that FFP works to that effect, but actually hurts competition in terms of the gap between the haves and have nots.
I put it to you FFP doubters that the way a club earns success in the future cannot be down to a rich owner suddenly investing huge sums but by gradually improving every aspect within their means until such a point that elite sponsorship and tv money kicks in.
You don't need oil money to get into the PL.
As the Huddersfield fan said, he can see it being possible for his side to be a mid-table PL side one day. So we're talking about closing that gap.. which has been created by the oligarchs' artificial injection of cash. By artificial I mean sums which no financial institution would lend as the return simply isn't there.. or at least wouldn't be for the forseeable.
FFP or no FFP that gap would still be there, in fact it'd be wider and no doubt at least one club would be on the way to going bust in an effort to compete.
posted on 15/4/14
Jeez I'm on nights and posted this last night.... I've got some reading to do!
posted on 15/4/14
Ruiney only meant it as a wum. Turns up to find 213 essay length comments.
posted on 15/4/14
Pavlyuchenko's smile
posted on 15/4/14
Mr Chelsea - a debate on ja606 that didn't include a single reference to wums or bites?
It's been a pleasure
posted on 15/4/14
Yeah its been good Pav. From both sides. I been reading all the way through
posted on 15/4/14
If you want an article to get 100s of comments post about FFP.
posted on 15/4/14
"In relation to your infrastructure scenario it may exempt from FFP however any losses incurred (relating to infrastructure costs) would be, and therefore be taken into consideration by the control body."
Any costs related to infrastructure or youth/community development is exempt, there is the P&L account and then the FFP adjusted P&L account. We can spend as much as we like building the new stand at the Etihad and none of it counts towards FFP.
We could still load up the balance sheet through loans and have the debt on the club rather than written off as equity, FFP doesn't look at it at all.
posted on 15/4/14
omment by Mr Chelsea ✪ (U3579)
posted 23 minutes ago
Ruiney only meant it as a wum. Turns up to find 213 essay length comments.
....
Too many big words not enough rofls for my liking
posted on 15/4/14
"As the Huddersfield fan said, he can see it being possible for his side to be a mid-table PL side one day. So we're talking about closing that gap.. which has been created by the oligarchs' artificial injection of cash. By artificial I mean sums which no financial institution would lend as the return simply isn't there.. or at least wouldn't be for the forseeable."
This is where we differ I think. I believe football created that disparity far more than "oliagarchs" did and that if football had continued without further outside investment coming in, it would have been worse than it actually was in terms of competition.
In all honesty, I don't think United would have lost the title more than three times at most in the last 17 years if investment had not been allowed for the past twenty years.
The next thing I would say is that that gap existed before the PL began as well and rich owners creating the gap goes all the way back to Chapman with Arsenal in the between wars era. I'm not sure why the "oliagarchs" get all the blame yet no one seems to remember the rich english owners and the disparity they created at the time...
posted on 15/4/14
I dunno about that, melton.
I think Arsenal and Liverpool would have been far more competitive had it not happened, particularly Arsenal.
We can never know, of course, but Chelsea and City's rise to prominence had a huge effect on their ability to compete. Probably why they are so bitter about it.
We had no such problems, which is why I don't think United fans seem as bothered about it as many others as we were still rich and still had Fergie.
Spurs, Liverpool, Arsenal, Everton and Newcastle must all be thinking what if, eh?
posted on 15/4/14
They were all getting investment in the nineties themselves anyway though Darren, be it through selling shares rather than through one owner (which I don't really see much difference in terms of end result) or the Hicks and Gillette route of Liverpool with loans up to the hilt in the noughties.
You were the best run club off the pitch by a long shot in terms of maximising revenue generation and coupled that with having the best manager. Even Newcastle when they were investing a lot still sold you guys Cole after finishing third...
Everton can't really say anything, they've been courting outside investment like an acne riddled teenager at a justin bieber gig for the past 20 years...
posted on 15/4/14
Yeah I suppose that's true. I do think it's really hit Arsenal hard, though. I know they moved to their new stadium but that must have been in the pipeline years before Chelsea were even taken over, let alone City, so wouldn't have foreseen how badly it would effect them.
posted on 15/4/14
Melton - you seem unwilling or unable to seperate normal investment as would happen in any business from owners that are happy to lose a billion or more.
Selling shares gives the buyer a return, bank loans have to be repayed, what we're talking about here is the desire to win at any cost being encouraged.
Yes, it hurts as a Spurs fan that we've been run - albeit with outside investment - as a business that has to pay for itself, and come so close only for the top table to be filled by teams making massive losses that only an oil baron could sustain.
The oligarchs have ruined football, FFP has failed to fix it.
Page 9 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10