Clubs can grow revenue streams.
They just have to run their businesses better.
Look at Aldi.
Nobody had heard of them in the UK 20 years ago, now they are having a big effect on the big guns profits with Tesco and Sainsburys posting losses.
It doesn't stop competition.
It just makes clubs have to be run more like proper business, it should make clubs less wasteful on fees, agent fees, fewer costly managerial changes etc, in the long term.
A club can still rise up the leagues and compete.
Competing at the very top will be hard, but it has been since the day the PL was approved.
What, 5 clubs have won the PL in 24 years.
How many clubs won the league championship in the 24 prior years?
7, and about 5 or 6 others finished in the top 2 compared to only 5 winners and 2 others in the top 2 or something in the PL era.
FFP has only added slightly to what the PL already did.
FFP is a good thing in general IMO.
The PL wasn't a good thing.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Doesn't a pretty large portion of Man City's revenue come from within their owner's family? How is that any different?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2111563/Manchester-City-400m-Etihad-deal-banned-says-EU-watchdog.html
Old article and the deal passed all the tests.
comment by Cyrus (U5245)
posted 3 minutes ago
Still dodgy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The deal or reading the mail?
City are just bank rolling the club through sponsorship and UEFA can look at it all they like but I'd like to see them try and stop. Because you can't, a club can strike a deal with who they like for how ever much they like.
Whatever you can say is irrelevant.
The deal passed that's all that matters.
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 20 seconds ago
Whatever you can say is irrelevant.
The deal passed that's all that matters.
-------------------------------
You can't stop it, it would be some sort of restriction of trade.
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 32 minutes ago
@Shortback
I think the owners have other worries like wage inflation and supporter unrest about spending to consider.
They all know they'll never be CL sides /champions, FFP gives them a way to keep that at bay despite the 'loss of hope'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are probably right Kaiser, my brain hurts on FFP. Daniel Levy has called upon the EPL and UEFA to take more time explaining the rules in plain English to supporters as he says there is very little room for manoeuvre. This was a bit of an eye opener...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3016432/Club-club-guide-Premier-League-s-financial-health.html
SB&S
Not sure on Chelsea's debt on that link. Unless all their business is done on an IOU to Roman.
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
"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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well then you need owners who are willing to take spending to the linits
Daniel Levy takes about £2m a year out of Spurs and gives himself nice payrises too.
That's some room for manoeuvre straight away.
I think it has curtailed City somewhat.The standard at the top is a poor as it has been for years to be honest.
Without it, a few lucky clubs would be better off, but the gap from top to bottom would increase.
comment by terminator1 (U1863)
posted 1 hour, 39 minutes ago
comment by Arouna Jagielka oooh I wanna take ya, Heitinga Nikica come on pretty mama (U1308)
posted 1 minute ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not entirely sure what your point is??? Who's being bitter?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All the teams outside of the current top four. How Arsenal can spend more is through greater revenue, not financial backing from a rich owner....or united as they developed the brand better than anyone
I've just come onto this and I'm sure as hell going to go through nearly 70posts to see who's agreeing with who!.
But a little question or more for some, or maybe all!..
(might have already been asked so sorry if so!)
Was there not talk off a European Super league once upon a time?..
Surly while the rich are getting richer and the rest getting left scrapping over what's left, well surly that's one way off milking the cream and getting the fat cats fattened up if there was to be a breakaway?..
Or has the Super league been put in the "footballing cupboard for the blind" in the hope that when the time comes nobody will notice the money bags being loaded into the European footy Vaults?..
It seems the fat cats are being well fed, so maybe there is a sting to it in the future!..
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 16 minutes ago
Whatever you can say is irrelevant.
The deal passed that's all that matters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure you'd be equally indifferent if you were on the other side of it.
Dodgy club dodgy fans.
I thought the rules only allowed clubs to add £4m per year to the existing wage bill?
Will that not stop all the big earning clubs from simply splashing all the excess cash on players and stockpiling large squads?
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 31 seconds ago
SB&S
Not sure on Chelsea's debt on that link. Unless all their business is done on an IOU to Roman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It pretty much is Vidics. Interest free loans basically, pay it back when you can. Most 'normal' clubs would have to pay a lot of interest for debts of that size which would really dent the profit margin. Not Chelsea though it seems.
united were always going to get back into top4, I have no issues with them spending money, its actually there money earned from there huge amount of fans around the world, completely different to man city who can barely fill the stands but spend mega millions.
We need to buy smart, 25mil on lallana wasnt a great idea considering our resources available to us, hes a very useful squsd player to have and im more than happy for him to be here, just he would have been like 10-14mil if he wasnt english, obviously I dont think spending 20mil on a second lcb was a good way to spend it either, hopefully the control he got last summer has been taken away.
Daniel Levy takes about £2m a year out of Spurs and gives himself nice payrises too.
That's some room for manoeuvre straight away.
Levy has invested something like £125m of his money to half own the club, I think a return of £2m per year as Chairman of a multi million pound business is about the going rate!
it is the rich helping themselves to remain rich-with FFP, there can never be any challengers to the incumbents
Why is it more relevant to query why for instance Levy earns £2m (when he has invested millions of his money in a club) a year, than query why Rooney earns £15m a year at United?
I would suggest quite a few of most clubs players earn well in excess of the man who employs them!
I've been a strong supporter of Lallana, and Lovren since theyve arrived. While I remain so, Lallana doesn't seem to be progressing. Lovren, slowly but surely, is beginning to show his worth. That having been said, it's too early to judge them. It's really disappointing to read, especially from my fellow Reds who can't wait to write off last summer's buys.
JimmyTheRed
Sign in if you want to comment
Is FFP ruining football?
Page 3 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 11/5/15
Clubs can grow revenue streams.
They just have to run their businesses better.
Look at Aldi.
Nobody had heard of them in the UK 20 years ago, now they are having a big effect on the big guns profits with Tesco and Sainsburys posting losses.
It doesn't stop competition.
It just makes clubs have to be run more like proper business, it should make clubs less wasteful on fees, agent fees, fewer costly managerial changes etc, in the long term.
A club can still rise up the leagues and compete.
Competing at the very top will be hard, but it has been since the day the PL was approved.
What, 5 clubs have won the PL in 24 years.
How many clubs won the league championship in the 24 prior years?
7, and about 5 or 6 others finished in the top 2 compared to only 5 winners and 2 others in the top 2 or something in the PL era.
FFP has only added slightly to what the PL already did.
FFP is a good thing in general IMO.
The PL wasn't a good thing.
posted on 11/5/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/5/15
Doesn't a pretty large portion of Man City's revenue come from within their owner's family? How is that any different?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2111563/Manchester-City-400m-Etihad-deal-banned-says-EU-watchdog.html
posted on 11/5/15
Old article and the deal passed all the tests.
posted on 11/5/15
Still dodgy
posted on 11/5/15
comment by Cyrus (U5245)
posted 3 minutes ago
Still dodgy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The deal or reading the mail?
posted on 11/5/15
City are just bank rolling the club through sponsorship and UEFA can look at it all they like but I'd like to see them try and stop. Because you can't, a club can strike a deal with who they like for how ever much they like.
posted on 11/5/15
Whatever you can say is irrelevant.
The deal passed that's all that matters.
posted on 11/5/15
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 20 seconds ago
Whatever you can say is irrelevant.
The deal passed that's all that matters.
-------------------------------
You can't stop it, it would be some sort of restriction of trade.
posted on 11/5/15
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 32 minutes ago
@Shortback
I think the owners have other worries like wage inflation and supporter unrest about spending to consider.
They all know they'll never be CL sides /champions, FFP gives them a way to keep that at bay despite the 'loss of hope'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are probably right Kaiser, my brain hurts on FFP. Daniel Levy has called upon the EPL and UEFA to take more time explaining the rules in plain English to supporters as he says there is very little room for manoeuvre. This was a bit of an eye opener...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3016432/Club-club-guide-Premier-League-s-financial-health.html
posted on 11/5/15
SB&S
Not sure on Chelsea's debt on that link. Unless all their business is done on an IOU to Roman.
posted on 11/5/15
comment by The Kaiser's Trainers (U5676)
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
"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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well then you need owners who are willing to take spending to the linits
posted on 11/5/15
Daniel Levy takes about £2m a year out of Spurs and gives himself nice payrises too.
That's some room for manoeuvre straight away.
posted on 11/5/15
I think it has curtailed City somewhat.The standard at the top is a poor as it has been for years to be honest.
Without it, a few lucky clubs would be better off, but the gap from top to bottom would increase.
posted on 11/5/15
comment by terminator1 (U1863)
posted 1 hour, 39 minutes ago
comment by Arouna Jagielka oooh I wanna take ya, Heitinga Nikica come on pretty mama (U1308)
posted 1 minute ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not entirely sure what your point is??? Who's being bitter?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All the teams outside of the current top four. How Arsenal can spend more is through greater revenue, not financial backing from a rich owner....or united as they developed the brand better than anyone
posted on 11/5/15
I've just come onto this and I'm sure as hell going to go through nearly 70posts to see who's agreeing with who!.
But a little question or more for some, or maybe all!..
(might have already been asked so sorry if so!)
Was there not talk off a European Super league once upon a time?..
Surly while the rich are getting richer and the rest getting left scrapping over what's left, well surly that's one way off milking the cream and getting the fat cats fattened up if there was to be a breakaway?..
Or has the Super league been put in the "footballing cupboard for the blind" in the hope that when the time comes nobody will notice the money bags being loaded into the European footy Vaults?..
It seems the fat cats are being well fed, so maybe there is a sting to it in the future!..
posted on 11/5/15
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 16 minutes ago
Whatever you can say is irrelevant.
The deal passed that's all that matters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure you'd be equally indifferent if you were on the other side of it.
Dodgy club dodgy fans.
posted on 11/5/15
I thought the rules only allowed clubs to add £4m per year to the existing wage bill?
Will that not stop all the big earning clubs from simply splashing all the excess cash on players and stockpiling large squads?
posted on 11/5/15
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 31 seconds ago
SB&S
Not sure on Chelsea's debt on that link. Unless all their business is done on an IOU to Roman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It pretty much is Vidics. Interest free loans basically, pay it back when you can. Most 'normal' clubs would have to pay a lot of interest for debts of that size which would really dent the profit margin. Not Chelsea though it seems.
posted on 11/5/15
united were always going to get back into top4, I have no issues with them spending money, its actually there money earned from there huge amount of fans around the world, completely different to man city who can barely fill the stands but spend mega millions.
We need to buy smart, 25mil on lallana wasnt a great idea considering our resources available to us, hes a very useful squsd player to have and im more than happy for him to be here, just he would have been like 10-14mil if he wasnt english, obviously I dont think spending 20mil on a second lcb was a good way to spend it either, hopefully the control he got last summer has been taken away.
posted on 11/5/15
their*
posted on 11/5/15
Daniel Levy takes about £2m a year out of Spurs and gives himself nice payrises too.
That's some room for manoeuvre straight away.
Levy has invested something like £125m of his money to half own the club, I think a return of £2m per year as Chairman of a multi million pound business is about the going rate!
posted on 11/5/15
it is the rich helping themselves to remain rich-with FFP, there can never be any challengers to the incumbents
posted on 11/5/15
Why is it more relevant to query why for instance Levy earns £2m (when he has invested millions of his money in a club) a year, than query why Rooney earns £15m a year at United?
I would suggest quite a few of most clubs players earn well in excess of the man who employs them!
posted on 11/5/15
I've been a strong supporter of Lallana, and Lovren since theyve arrived. While I remain so, Lallana doesn't seem to be progressing. Lovren, slowly but surely, is beginning to show his worth. That having been said, it's too early to judge them. It's really disappointing to read, especially from my fellow Reds who can't wait to write off last summer's buys.
JimmyTheRed
Page 3 of 7
6 | 7