It's done both to us:
1) Its stopped another Chelsea/Man City being formed.
2) It's left us behind the well established clubs who have been in CL regularly like United and Arsenal.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
United would have spent the money anyway. Probably more if it weren't for FFP. Chelsea and City also were restricted in their buying (City having a spending cap, Chelsea having to sell big to buy).
I would definitely say that Liverpool are one of the beneficiaries. For teams like Leeds Utd they now have a monumental struggle to get back to the levels that the clubs has historically operated at.
"This rule was supposed to provide a more level playing field"
Who told you that? Whoever it was they weren't being entirely honest were they?
This rule was designed to maintain the status quo and prevent small clubs with billionaire owners from buying their way to the very top.
It's certainly affected us negatively imo. Whatever some say, we didn't actually splurge a huge amount of money last summer. It was Suarez + around 20mill or so...... For us to have challenged the same in the league and in the CL, we would of needed to have kept Suarez and spent 100m+.
comment by Tatter (U6440)
posted 2 minutes ago
"This rule was supposed to provide a more level playing field"
Who told you that? Whoever it was they weren't being entirely honest were they?
This rule was designed to maintain the status quo and prevent small clubs with billionaire owners from buying their way to the very top.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree entirely. I should of said 'the line being trotted out was......'
comment by terminator1 (U1863)
posted 7 seconds ago
It's certainly affected us negatively imo. Whatever some say, we didn't actually splurge a huge amount of money last summer. It was Suarez + around 20mill or so...... For us to have challenged the same in the league and in the CL, we would of needed to have kept Suarez and spent 100m+.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont think it has. The global revenue from Liverpool shirts and merchandising makes the confines of FFP much easier. If i wanted to take say west ham into the top 4, it would be much harder due to FFP as the revenue streams aren't there.
It stops quick fix and over spending.
Not sure it was ever meant to bring the clubs closer to a level playing field. More to stop dodgy rich people taking over clubs, getting them massively in debt, then walking out with a profit and the club close to death.
Rich investors can still come in and improve clubs, but long term will be very much the timeframe.
This rule was supposed to provide a more level playing field, but all its actually doing is keeping the big clubs at the top, and made it virtually impossible for the smaller clubs to really challenge.....
------
It was always designed to preserve the status quo for the top clubs and prevent smaller clubs gatecrashing their party.
It's about keeping clubs sustainable, and it will do that.
The advent of the PL and CL 'ruined football' if we want to go down that hysterical route.
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would definitely say that Liverpool are one of the beneficiaries. For teams like Leeds Utd they now have a monumental struggle to get back to the levels that the clubs has historically operated at.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it only really helps Liverpool to maintain our current position. Let's face it, the only chance we realistically have of consistently getting top four is to have a one off NET spending spree to get the quality needed. It's how Chelsea and City achieved their top four status, and the rules now work in their favour to keep them there....
comment by righteous1 (U7048)
posted 16 seconds ago
It's about keeping clubs sustainable, and it will do that.
The advent of the PL and CL 'ruined football' if we want to go down that hysterical route.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it was about keeping clubs viable it would prevent borrowing not spending. If someone wanted to do an Abramovich and pour in hundreds of millions without loading the club with debt that doesn't put the club at risk it just puts the clubs that already have their snouts in the trough at risk.
If it's done properly then I'm not against buying success. It's always been the way. Surely, there's not many of us that didn't enjoy Blackburn winning the league to some extent? Their owner did it in a way that didn't endanger the clubs future. Obviously future events were out of his control.
It's good in my opinion that it stops every club just splashing huge wads of the owners cash and potentially going into debt like Portsmouth, but sadly what other way could a team outside the top 8 realistically challenge for the top 4 or title without spending?
You could argue Southampton but they're still going to fall short by some 10+ points and next year they'll likely have the Europa league to contend with too. It's going to be a long time before we see a team outside United, Arsenal, Chelsea and City win the league. Teams like Spurs and Liverpool have the potential to challenge but it requires everything falling into place to even have the opportunity like last season.
What it does do is stop club's in the lower league dreaming off ever making the top.
If you take hope away, what's the point?
It does benefit United hugely mind, hopefully they go down the Madrid Galactico route, that mixed with us having Mourinho should help Bridge that gap considerably.
The door into the CL was effectively slammed shut behind City.
It was very shortsighted of teams not in the CL club voting for FFP,clearly they weren't looking at the big picture
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by terminator1 (U1863)
posted 7 seconds ago
It's certainly affected us negatively imo. Whatever some say, we didn't actually splurge a huge amount of money last summer. It was Suarez + around 20mill or so...... For us to have challenged the same in the league and in the CL, we would of needed to have kept Suarez and spent 100m+.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont think it has. The global revenue from Liverpool shirts and merchandising makes the confines of FFP much easier. If i wanted to take say west ham into the top 4, it would be much harder due to FFP as the revenue streams aren't there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The bitterness comes from teams who feel they should be top four but no longer are. In the past Everton and Liverpool were well backed by the Moores money, did either club complain.....?
Jack Walker used his personal fortune to take Blackburn to the title and Whelan used his wealth to take Wigan to the PL.....did anyone complain then?
It definitely helps liverpool in that if one more oil rich billionaire joined the party, it would be goodnight Vienna for our future.
But it definitely hurts us in that time has been frozen effectively and we're in 5th.
We were right to support it in that now we can't be run over by new entrants, but it was really a lesser of two evils as it would take a minor miracle to reach the top now.
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 6 seconds ago
It definitely helps liverpool in that if one more oil rich billionaire joined the party, it would be goodnight Vienna for our future.
But it definitely hurts us in that time has been frozen effectively and we're in 5th.
We were right to support it in that now we can't be run over by new entrants, but it was really a lesser of two evils as it would take a minor miracle to reach the top now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool have fantastic deals and a global support that is possibly top 10 in the world....
Shirts sales and sponsorship and football tourism should allow them to spend heavily and not breach FFP?
I think FFP should be backdated - Chelsea's titles should be given to Arsenal, and ManC's to ManU. Arsenal would also gain a CL title into the bargain.
"Shirts sales and sponsorship and football tourism should allow them to spend heavily and not breach FFP?"
yes
but the 4 clubs above us are allowed to spend at least £50-200mil a season more than us. And that will probably keep growing. More success more revenue better sponsorship deals and so on.....
It's a self fulfilling upward prophecy.
comment by Kings Road (U1762)
posted 2 minutes ago
What it does do is stop club's in the lower league dreaming off ever making the top.
If you take hope away, what's the point?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is no disrepect to Leeds Utd, when I group them as lower league. But their long suffering fans should at least have a chance of seeing their team win the PL in the future. The new Sky deal makes that even harder now, as the lowest teams of the PL get a £100m, a sum Leeds Utd could only dream of.
Sign in if you want to comment
Is FFP ruining football?
Page 1 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 11/5/15
It's done both to us:
1) Its stopped another Chelsea/Man City being formed.
2) It's left us behind the well established clubs who have been in CL regularly like United and Arsenal.
posted on 11/5/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/5/15
United would have spent the money anyway. Probably more if it weren't for FFP. Chelsea and City also were restricted in their buying (City having a spending cap, Chelsea having to sell big to buy).
posted on 11/5/15
I would definitely say that Liverpool are one of the beneficiaries. For teams like Leeds Utd they now have a monumental struggle to get back to the levels that the clubs has historically operated at.
posted on 11/5/15
"This rule was supposed to provide a more level playing field"
Who told you that? Whoever it was they weren't being entirely honest were they?
This rule was designed to maintain the status quo and prevent small clubs with billionaire owners from buying their way to the very top.
posted on 11/5/15
It's certainly affected us negatively imo. Whatever some say, we didn't actually splurge a huge amount of money last summer. It was Suarez + around 20mill or so...... For us to have challenged the same in the league and in the CL, we would of needed to have kept Suarez and spent 100m+.
posted on 11/5/15
comment by Tatter (U6440)
posted 2 minutes ago
"This rule was supposed to provide a more level playing field"
Who told you that? Whoever it was they weren't being entirely honest were they?
This rule was designed to maintain the status quo and prevent small clubs with billionaire owners from buying their way to the very top.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree entirely. I should of said 'the line being trotted out was......'
posted on 11/5/15
comment by terminator1 (U1863)
posted 7 seconds ago
It's certainly affected us negatively imo. Whatever some say, we didn't actually splurge a huge amount of money last summer. It was Suarez + around 20mill or so...... For us to have challenged the same in the league and in the CL, we would of needed to have kept Suarez and spent 100m+.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont think it has. The global revenue from Liverpool shirts and merchandising makes the confines of FFP much easier. If i wanted to take say west ham into the top 4, it would be much harder due to FFP as the revenue streams aren't there.
posted on 11/5/15
It stops quick fix and over spending.
Not sure it was ever meant to bring the clubs closer to a level playing field. More to stop dodgy rich people taking over clubs, getting them massively in debt, then walking out with a profit and the club close to death.
Rich investors can still come in and improve clubs, but long term will be very much the timeframe.
posted on 11/5/15
This rule was supposed to provide a more level playing field, but all its actually doing is keeping the big clubs at the top, and made it virtually impossible for the smaller clubs to really challenge.....
------
It was always designed to preserve the status quo for the top clubs and prevent smaller clubs gatecrashing their party.
posted on 11/5/15
It's about keeping clubs sustainable, and it will do that.
The advent of the PL and CL 'ruined football' if we want to go down that hysterical route.
posted on 11/5/15
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 4 minutes ago
I would definitely say that Liverpool are one of the beneficiaries. For teams like Leeds Utd they now have a monumental struggle to get back to the levels that the clubs has historically operated at.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it only really helps Liverpool to maintain our current position. Let's face it, the only chance we realistically have of consistently getting top four is to have a one off NET spending spree to get the quality needed. It's how Chelsea and City achieved their top four status, and the rules now work in their favour to keep them there....
posted on 11/5/15
yes
horrible rule
posted on 11/5/15
comment by righteous1 (U7048)
posted 16 seconds ago
It's about keeping clubs sustainable, and it will do that.
The advent of the PL and CL 'ruined football' if we want to go down that hysterical route.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it was about keeping clubs viable it would prevent borrowing not spending. If someone wanted to do an Abramovich and pour in hundreds of millions without loading the club with debt that doesn't put the club at risk it just puts the clubs that already have their snouts in the trough at risk.
posted on 11/5/15
If it's done properly then I'm not against buying success. It's always been the way. Surely, there's not many of us that didn't enjoy Blackburn winning the league to some extent? Their owner did it in a way that didn't endanger the clubs future. Obviously future events were out of his control.
posted on 11/5/15
It's good in my opinion that it stops every club just splashing huge wads of the owners cash and potentially going into debt like Portsmouth, but sadly what other way could a team outside the top 8 realistically challenge for the top 4 or title without spending?
You could argue Southampton but they're still going to fall short by some 10+ points and next year they'll likely have the Europa league to contend with too. It's going to be a long time before we see a team outside United, Arsenal, Chelsea and City win the league. Teams like Spurs and Liverpool have the potential to challenge but it requires everything falling into place to even have the opportunity like last season.
posted on 11/5/15
What it does do is stop club's in the lower league dreaming off ever making the top.
If you take hope away, what's the point?
posted on 11/5/15
It does benefit United hugely mind, hopefully they go down the Madrid Galactico route, that mixed with us having Mourinho should help Bridge that gap considerably.
posted on 11/5/15
The door into the CL was effectively slammed shut behind City.
It was very shortsighted of teams not in the CL club voting for FFP,clearly they weren't looking at the big picture
posted on 11/5/15
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by terminator1 (U1863)
posted 7 seconds ago
It's certainly affected us negatively imo. Whatever some say, we didn't actually splurge a huge amount of money last summer. It was Suarez + around 20mill or so...... For us to have challenged the same in the league and in the CL, we would of needed to have kept Suarez and spent 100m+.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont think it has. The global revenue from Liverpool shirts and merchandising makes the confines of FFP much easier. If i wanted to take say west ham into the top 4, it would be much harder due to FFP as the revenue streams aren't there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The bitterness comes from teams who feel they should be top four but no longer are. In the past Everton and Liverpool were well backed by the Moores money, did either club complain.....?
Jack Walker used his personal fortune to take Blackburn to the title and Whelan used his wealth to take Wigan to the PL.....did anyone complain then?
posted on 11/5/15
It definitely helps liverpool in that if one more oil rich billionaire joined the party, it would be goodnight Vienna for our future.
But it definitely hurts us in that time has been frozen effectively and we're in 5th.
We were right to support it in that now we can't be run over by new entrants, but it was really a lesser of two evils as it would take a minor miracle to reach the top now.
posted on 11/5/15
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 6 seconds ago
It definitely helps liverpool in that if one more oil rich billionaire joined the party, it would be goodnight Vienna for our future.
But it definitely hurts us in that time has been frozen effectively and we're in 5th.
We were right to support it in that now we can't be run over by new entrants, but it was really a lesser of two evils as it would take a minor miracle to reach the top now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool have fantastic deals and a global support that is possibly top 10 in the world....
Shirts sales and sponsorship and football tourism should allow them to spend heavily and not breach FFP?
posted on 11/5/15
I think FFP should be backdated - Chelsea's titles should be given to Arsenal, and ManC's to ManU. Arsenal would also gain a CL title into the bargain.
posted on 11/5/15
"Shirts sales and sponsorship and football tourism should allow them to spend heavily and not breach FFP?"
yes
but the 4 clubs above us are allowed to spend at least £50-200mil a season more than us. And that will probably keep growing. More success more revenue better sponsorship deals and so on.....
It's a self fulfilling upward prophecy.
posted on 11/5/15
comment by Kings Road (U1762)
posted 2 minutes ago
What it does do is stop club's in the lower league dreaming off ever making the top.
If you take hope away, what's the point?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is no disrepect to Leeds Utd, when I group them as lower league. But their long suffering fans should at least have a chance of seeing their team win the PL in the future. The new Sky deal makes that even harder now, as the lowest teams of the PL get a £100m, a sum Leeds Utd could only dream of.
Page 1 of 7
6 | 7