These rules are a sham.
UEFA will not ban teams.The teams at risk of being banned are the teams that supporters want to see and why tv companies pay vast sums to show the games.

If you read the rules it could take a decade or more for a club to exhaust all the provisions before a ban is even contemplated.

That may be true at European level but if Championship clubs adopt this then my optimistic side hopes eventually it will become part of FA rules.

First off, i like your article. It is clear and reasoned without making claims unsupported by evidence..congrats!!

However,,,what IS your point / question??? its got me flumoxed....

As I understand it the Championship has specifically ruled out relegating teams for not adhering to the rules and the limits are an aim not a hard set of rules.

Why thank you
I suppose I'm just hoping during the close season while battle is set aside we can all honestly discuss something which I consider vital to the future of our beloved game. It's the fans who hold the real power if only we wielded it together for once.

These rules,even in the lower leagues are designed to keep the status quo.
How can a small club in Div 2 hope to reach the Championship.
If you're getting 6k a week how can you get to a financial level of teams getting 25k a week?

You can't so these rules stiffle competition not oncrease it.

Dispeller of Myths
That's precisely the sort of thing I'm interested in. The only way for that lower leauge team to compete is to over extend themselves thus risking the very future of that club. Is that a good thing?

I see many many problems with any system of course but the principle of it is surely right? Yes it would maintain some degree of the status quo but based on the right reasons, fanbase and turnover, not the bank balance or borrowing capacity of an owner..

Crawley Town are favourites to win League 2 next season because they have a wealthy backer.

What these Uefa Financial (un)Fair Play Rules state is that the Crawley owners shouldn't be allowed to invest in their club or football.

Instead Crawley should have to run their club with the income based on their 4996 capacity stadium.

These rules take an advantage away from Crawley and hand it directly to Bradford and Rotherham who had 20,000 plus capacity stadiums.

These rules don't make football fairer. They just heavily favour certain teams.

Crawley Town could build a larger stadium, invest in the team and play attractive football to bring in the fans. This would raise them to another level. Isn't this the right way?

The only way for that lower leauge team to compete is to over extend themselves thus risking the very future of that club. Is that a good thing?

I see many many problems with any system of course but the principle of it is surely right?
==================================

I believe a person should be allowed to spend his/her money how they want.If the rule is made that they can't put the debt on the club then fine but these rules mean the big teams stay at the top and the little teams have no chance to get there.That is NOT a good thing.

Crawley Town could build a larger stadium, invest in the team and play attractive football to bring in the fans. This would raise them to another level. Isn't this the right way?
==========================

You have that the wrong way round.People don't go to see a stadium they go to see a good team.You need to attract them first which means buying the good players first and then you can look at getting a new stadium.

I do take your point but there are plenty of examples of 30-50k fanbase clubs who struggle. Size is no guarantee of sucess, the question is whether the smaller clubs such as Crawley Town could ever compete.

Playing Devil's Advocate here but surely football 'should' be about the fans first and foremost. Does anyone want to see a club with 5000 fans bought by an Arab Sheikh and winning titles with an empty stadium?

Yes but they struggle against other teams with 30-50k not against teams with 4-10K

Good players that make good teams have always and will always cost more.If you can't buy good players to get better you will not attract fans to watch you and will not therfore increase your revenue to compete.

If they make a rule that you can spend what you like but can't make it debt on the club then imo you solve your worries but they still have a chance to get to the top.

Sounds good to me! So in essence the problem is club debt and you have no problem with rich benefactors?

The history of football clubs is rich benefactors.That is how your own club started life and continued thta way through the Moores family for decades.Historically rich benefactors is football.

Yup I know all about Mr Holding.

Getting back to the UEFA rules (or lack of) they're simply over-complex and the rule should be no debt loaded onto the club. I doubt any football fan would disagree with that one except of course that means a capable Chief Executive couldn't manage club debt up the leagues.

The problem as I understand it (and I did say earlier I am no expert) is that the manner of Hicks/Gillette/Glazer etc etc is commonplace in business. I remember well when Al Fayed bought Harrods back in the 80s by loading debt/ asset stripping the company he bought. I presume this has been around a long time but to me it seems just as ludicrous in the business world as any other.

So Dispeller of Myths, now we've had a genuine discussion and I've seen your point of view (not that I agree with everything you say). I have a genuine question for you and I do mean genuine...
Why do you appear to be obsessed with LFC?

danjo

I find Liverpool fans very entertaining.It's that simple.
Of all the fans in the world there are none as amusing as those of Liverpool.
They take everything far too seriously,are hypocrites to the core and they make me laugh.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

The history of football clubs is rich benefactors.That is how your own club started life and continued thta way through the Moores family for decades.Historically rich benefactors is football.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn't agree more.

Look at Fulham and Wigan who were competing the likes of Barnet, Northampton, Lincoln and Cambridge 15 years ago. Then with wealthy owners climbed up the leagues and into the Premier League.

If teams are going to be stopped from spending, is it fair that Fulham and Wigan were allowed? Should Fulham and Wigan be demoted to League 2?

It is the same with Arsenal. Their fans claim they are doing it the right way but seem to ignore the money their club spent in the 1920s when they bought the top players from the other clubs smashing and doubling the transfer record several times in one summer and paying far higher wages.

If Arsenal were allowed to do that in the 1920s and dominate football why shouldn't Chelsea and Man City be allowed to do that now?

Striker

It only became wrong when it wasn't their clubs doing it

money and trophies go hand in hand.

no money no trophies.

The FFP rules are a joke and purely designed to stifle competition to the 'big' clubs.

I benefits Liverpool enormously but I'd rather they binned it. It's not fair to the medium and smaller sized clubs. They're essentially being permanently relegated to mid table and lower so Arsenal, Manu and Chelsea will always be guaranteed to be big 'brands'. It's wrong.

FFP will protect city and Chelsea if Uefa actually get round to sanctioning parvenus in say 2018. The rules will stop clubs like Chelsea buying success. Chelsea have already done it and are here to stay. City should make it too

Some fascinating comments here and I have genuinely changed my opinion since posting this. I had wondered why so many were so quiet on the subject but I suppose I hadn't really looked into the full issues surrounding this.

One thing which seems definite to me also seems the simplest to implement, NO MORE OWNERS PUTTING THEIR PERSONAL DEBT ONTO THE CLUB.

As for the rest, well it seems football fans will never agree on much but I suppose that's the fun of it.

Dispeller of Myths
Glad to provide your entertainment. I have a few Chelsea supporting mates and I agree, they can be very boring and they don't take football anywhere near seriously enough. Well not unless I mention Millwall, that can be fun!

You misunderstood.

I meant Liverpool fans take THEMSELVES far too seriously not football.

Hope that clears it up.