Financial Fair Play

[BWFC_Insane]

I don't buy your first bit. We were regularly finishing above clubs whose owners threw more cash in than ED did. If you took *our* backer away we'd have been worse off. If you'd taken *everyone*'s away I'm not convinced.

Everton managed to finish in the top 4 without the daft money. Spurs did it with a much smaller amount of daft money. But they couldn't do it again, because they got out-billionaired.

The assumption is that those clubs were spending external investment.

Our wage bill was something like 85% of our turnover in the premiership. Others far less. So your assumption is that taking away the ability to have significant investment into the playing side of the football club affects all clubs equally. Which it doesn't.

So your point is genuinely that football is in a better place when a team is spending 85% if its turnover on player wages?!

Absolutely not. But FFP is not the way to fix it IMO.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

There's a difference between investment and sunk money into. The FFP rules are there to ensure that sinking money in is no longer allowed, that sustainable business practices take over. I see nothing wrong with the principle, even if I'm a little hazy on the minutiae

FFP is there to prevent clubs from spending more than their income. Whelan has sunk tens of millions into Wigan. However you slice it, that is what FFP is trying to stop. It's saying survive on your income not on what your owner puts in. And don't go into debt. Wigan are £20M plus in debt as far as I know as well as the investment Whelan put in during their rise up the leagues.

That would have been penalised had FFP been in place.

This is what needs to be understood this isn't just about rich clubs spending fortunes this will be the effect for smaller clubs. Arguably it will be worse.

Wrong. It's about not having unsustainable debts in the long run. Losses are allowed under FFP, so long as they aren't continual and mounting. At least as far as I understand it they are. Money can still be invested, but a more careful approach to business practice is required. I don't see this as the Big Evil you obviously do. I understand even less your point about it cementing an in built hierarchy into place - there's one of them already (one which multibillionaires could admittedly gain entrance to, but they can still do that even under FFP).

[BWFC_Insane]

There's a difference between investment and sunk money into. The FFP rules are there to ensure that sinking money in is no longer allowed, that sustainable business practices take over. I see nothing wrong with the principle, even if I'm a little hazy on the minutiae

FFP is there to prevent clubs from spending more than their income. Whelan has sunk tens of millions into Wigan. However you slice it, that is what FFP is trying to stop. It's saying survive on your income not on what your owner puts in. And don't go into debt. Wigan are £20M plus in debt as far as I know as well as the investment Whelan put in during their rise up the leagues.

That would have been penalised had FFP been in place.

This is what needs to be understood this isn't just about rich clubs spending fortunes this will be the effect for smaller clubs. Arguably it will be worse.

Wrong. It's about not having unsustainable debts in the long run. Losses are allowed under FFP, so long as they aren't continual and mounting. At least as far as I understand it they are. Money can still be invested, but a more careful approach to business practice is required. I don't see this as the Big Evil you obviously do. I understand even less your point about it cementing an in built hierarchy into place - there's one of them already (one which multibillionaires could admittedly gain entrance to, but they can still do that even under FFP).

Losses are allowed to a prescribed amount. £8M a year for a championship club and roughly €22M a year for a champs league club. But they want to reduce those amounts over time.

If you can't go into debt how can an owner invest? City's tried to circumvent it via sponsorship deals but UEFA aren't allowing those to stand as they were inflated to make the investment.

As far as I can tell, Eddie cannot invest 10M into our playing staff this year without failing to comply with FFP.

[malcd1]

The FFP rules have 'probably' been introduced for the right reasons but as a consequence it will guarantee that the big clubs stay big and the smaller clubs kept in their place. UEFA and the British hating prick, Platini, want it that way.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

There's a difference between investment and sunk money into. The FFP rules are there to ensure that sinking money in is no longer allowed, that sustainable business practices take over. I see nothing wrong with the principle, even if I'm a little hazy on the minutiae

FFP is there to prevent clubs from spending more than their income. Whelan has sunk tens of millions into Wigan. However you slice it, that is what FFP is trying to stop. It's saying survive on your income not on what your owner puts in. And don't go into debt. Wigan are £20M plus in debt as far as I know as well as the investment Whelan put in during their rise up the leagues.

That would have been penalised had FFP been in place.

This is what needs to be understood this isn't just about rich clubs spending fortunes this will be the effect for smaller clubs. Arguably it will be worse.

Wrong. It's about not having unsustainable debts in the long run. Losses are allowed under FFP, so long as they aren't continual and mounting. At least as far as I understand it they are. Money can still be invested, but a more careful approach to business practice is required. I don't see this as the Big Evil you obviously do. I understand even less your point about it cementing an in built hierarchy into place - there's one of them already (one which multibillionaires could admittedly gain entrance to, but they can still do that even under FFP).

Losses are allowed to a prescribed amount. £8M a year for a championship club and roughly €22M a year for a champs league club. But they want to reduce those amounts over time.

If you can't go into debt how can an owner invest? City's tried to circumvent it via sponsorship deals but UEFA aren't allowing those to stand as they were inflated to make the investment.

As far as I can tell, Eddie cannot invest 10M into our playing staff this year without failing to comply with FFP.

You see this is the point, you say that like it's an outrage! £10,000,000 into playing staff...
I know you seem to think this is normal, but if that amount of input leads to debt it's not an investment. If the business model is not sustainable, then pumping money in doesn't make it more sustainable but less. It also affects ALL THE OTHER CLUBS TOO. So if we can't, they can't: unless of course their business model is better. Plus remember it was the clubs in the North West in the 1880s, us, PNE, and Blackburn in particular that started us all off down this route.

[BWFC_Insane]

You see this is the point, you say that like it's an outrage! £10,000,000 into playing staff...
I know you seem to think this is normal, but if that amount of input leads to debt it's not an investment. If the business model is not sustainable, then pumping money in doesn't make it more sustainable but less. It also affects ALL THE OTHER CLUBS TOO. So if we can't, they can't: unless of course their business model is better. Plus remember it was the clubs in the North West in the 1880s, us, PNE, and Blackburn in particular that started us all off down this route.

If Eddie Davies wants to invest into the playing squad, why the hell shouldn't he be able to?

The point is that smaller town clubs with less support, less marketing and merchandising potential and smaller catchment areas will be disproportionately affected by these rules.

Should for example Sunderland come down they'd almost certainly be able to spend that £10M and more and stay within FFP rules, especially whilst they have their parachute payments.

It rewards bigger clubs, it rewards those clubs who have had more success.

I really don't see why someone investing into a football club without expecting a return is a bad thing.

Why do we not ensure that a more rigorous fit and proper person test is applied to prospective new owners of clubs rather than penalising owners who want to invest in their teams and destroying the chance many teams have to compete above their balance sheets?

[Worthy4England]

If this was anything to do with Fair Play (using Finance as the vehicle to suggest it is) then I might just be broadly supportive. I think its intent is abmirable, but its execution not. It's about protecting market share for vested interests. How does a Club such as Strømsgodset - Champions of Norway, feel any benefit from this at all, they have a capacity of 7,500. This makes it no easier for them to compete in Europe. The only thing that would help them do that, would be "sugar daddy".

Do "new entrants" to the "Club" get any benefit? - well no, they don't, because we're taking away the means of them getting there in the first place. If they were really serious about creating a level playing field, you wouldn't do it this way.

Oh and as to £50m fine to Citeh and PSG. That's just gravy train funding.

If you take "owner funding" out of the equation for a minute, a Club like ours is only ever going to attract 27,000 supporters that are revenue generating and limited TV revenue, unless the status quo is challenged - that isn't going to happen at a UEFA level, because they have to protect what was the G14 Clubs.

Serious about balancing the sport out, cap the salary at the average wage... Use a draft system for Clubs to get players...yadda yadda...

[BWFC_Insane]

If this was anything to do with Fair Play (using Finance as the vehicle to suggest it is) then I might just be broadly supportive. I think its intent is abmirable, but its execution not. It's about protecting market share for vested interests. How does a Club such as Strømsgodset - Champions of Norway, feel any benefit from this at all, they have a capacity of 7,500. This makes it no easier for them to compete in Europe. The only thing that would help them do that, would be "sugar daddy".

Do "new entrants" to the "Club" get any benefit? - well no, they don't, because we're taking away the means of them getting there in the first place. If they were really serious about creating a level playing field, you wouldn't do it this way.

Oh and as to £50m fine to Citeh and PSG. That's just gravy train funding.

If you take "owner funding" out of the equation for a minute, a Club like ours is only ever going to attract 27,000 supporters that are revenue generating and limited TV revenue, unless the status quo is challenged - that isn't going to happen at a UEFA level, because they have to protect what was the G14 Clubs.

Serious about balancing the sport out, cap the salary at the average wage... Use a draft system for Clubs to get players...yadda yadda...

Exactly this. The principle is fine. The execution terrible.

[Gravedigger]

Chelsea'll get round it by giving free season tickets out with every shirt bought for 800 squids.

[Toni_DelijeSever]

As UEFA announced today, Red Star are knocked out from European Champions League for breaking the financial fair-play regulations.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

As UEFA announced today, Red Star are knocked out from European Champions League for breaking the financial fair-play regulations.

How come they're out but City just get a fine? Or have I missed summat

[Prufrock]

Coz they did different things.

City's is for spending too much. Red Star's is for not paying debts.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Aaah. Makes a bit more sense now. I was thinking it might be double standards, which lets face it, wouldn't be beyond UEFA.

[bobo the clown]

Coz they did different things.

City's is for spending too much. Red Star's is for not paying debts.

↑↑↑↑

Just an idle thought but, if the punishment for overspending is a fine does that fine not constitute spending and so perpetuate the overspend for the following year ?

[Lord Kangana]

Rather like a bank charging you for going overdrawn, I would say.

[Bruce Rioja]

Coz they did different things.

City's is for spending too much. Red Star's is for not paying debts.

But both ultimately constitute living beyond your means, don't they? How's one more punishable than the other?

[Prufrock]

Not for me. I'm all for slagging UEFA off for being pricks, which they are, but not paying your staff and not paying other clubs money you owe them is worse than spending more than an enforced spending cap.

[bobo the clown]

Coz they did different things.

City's is for spending too much. Red Star's is for not paying debts.

But both ultimately constitute living beyond your means, don't they? How's one more punishable than the other?

Well, Citeh aren't actually living beyond their means, not really. Beyond their income flow, but not their means.

[Bruce Rioja]

Coz they did different things.

City's is for spending too much. Red Star's is for not paying debts.

But both ultimately constitute living beyond your means, don't they? How's one more punishable than the other?

Well, Citeh aren't actually living beyond their means, not really. Beyond their income flow, but not their means.

Of course they are if you look purely at their self-generated income.

[bobo the clown]

Coz they did different things.

City's is for spending too much. Red Star's is for not paying debts.

But both ultimately constitute living beyond your means, don't they? How's one more punishable than the other?

Well, Citeh aren't actually living beyond their means, not really. Beyond their income flow, but not their means.

Of course they are if you look purely at their self-generated income.

Which I'm not doing !!

So ne're, ner-ne ne'er ner.