Financial Fair Play

[BWFC_Insane]

Is the worst thing that could possibly happen to football, if it is not challenged and becomes widely accepted and adopted.

UEFA are supposedly fining Man City £50M and restricting their squad size for next seasons champions league. If City appeal they could be thrown out of the competition altogether.

Now I don't really care what happens to Man City but this is an incredibly dangerous precedent here.

Financial Fair Play is about limiting clubs to essentially living off their own income. Everyone initially thinks "great". But what it means were it to happen across all competitions is that clubs are artificially limited in their progression.

Man City were a club that at best enjoyed mid-table premiership finishes. At worst relegation from the championship into league one. They were absolutely not what anyone would describe as successful or potential trophy winners. Then they are bought by a couple of times by wealthy people and suddenly are in the hands of Arabs willing to back the club to the hilt. And from virtually nowhere they become FA Cup and League winners. The dream of any fan supporting a club outside of the top 4 or top 6. Roy of the Rovers stuff almost. Sure the route to that is money but the end result, fans being able to live their wildest dreams is the same.

But it seems that FFP wants to stop that. It wants to stop smaller clubs competing with the big ones. Keep everyone nailed down in their hutches. Nobody will compete with the incomes of Man Utd or Barcelona or Real Madrid. Clubs can't compete with banks wiping off debts from the top two in Spain. Or the global dominance Man Utd and a few others share. So ultimately they are rewarded with the highest spending power. Anyone below that must know their place. However much your owner might want to invest, you can't spend it, or UEFA will knock you back down into your kennels.

FFP might work well across an evenish playing field. But we're far from that.

All FFP will do is supress smaller clubs from living the dream and maintain the monopoly that Europe's richest clubs have on the game.

[Prufrock]

You do love your hyperbole don't you! 'Worst thing that could possibly happen to football'? Give over.

Pre-billionaire owners, Forrest won the league the season after getting promoted. That's never going to happen in a million years now.

If you think City being taken over by a billionaire and then inevitably winning things is somehow romantic then your definition of romance is different to mine.

The current situation, being able to spend beyond you means is clearly nuts. We couldn't afford to stay in the Premiership, and we couldn't afford not to be in it. Properly done, it should narrow the gap between the massive clubs and the rest, not widen it. Yes, there'll be an inbuilt advantage for the likes of United, but there already is, and the only way to get rid of that is to go to a US style draft system with wage caps and all sorts.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

hutches, kennels... ?

Apart from the mixed metaphors I don't get why punishing Man City for transgressing the FFP rules, a club who you admit have bought a trophy, equates to them not being able to compete with the likes of anybody. The same rules apply across the board, and despite this vision you have of 'fans living the dream', I don't see the likes of Corby Town, f'rinstance, lifting the European Championship anytime soon, with or without FFP.

[boltonboris]

I'd like to know what will happen to this £50m? Have they come out and said? Or will it be shared amongst the bell-ends in charge of UEFA?

Actually... No wonder they're so keen to implement it!

Pay daaaaay!

[BWFC_Insane]

You do love your hyperbole don't you! 'Worst thing that could possibly happen to football'? Give over.

Pre-billionaire owners, Forrest won the league the season after getting promoted. That's never going to happen in a million years now.

If you think City being taken over by a billionaire and then inevitably winning things is somehow romantic then your definition of romance is different to mine.

The current situation, being able to spend beyond you means is clearly nuts. We couldn't afford to stay in the Premiership, and we couldn't afford not to be in it. Properly done, it should narrow the gap between the massive clubs and the rest, not widen it. Yes, there'll be an inbuilt advantage for the likes of United, but there already is, and the only way to get rid of that is to go to a US style draft system with wage caps and all sorts.

Romantic? No. But dreamland for their fans? Yes.

Totally disagree on the last point. It won't narrow the gap. It will widen it.

In 2011/12 Manchester United's turnover (which will essentially be a measure of their spending power under FFP if it is adopted in the premiership) was more than 6 times greater than the smallest clubs turnover - Wigan.

Their wage bill on the other hand was only 4 times larger.

So the natural effect of bounding clubs by their own generated income is a widening of the spending gap.

The way to change it is to put a flat spending or wage cap that applies to ALL clubs. But because football is only interested in preserving the dominance of a few that will never happen.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Mansour bin Zayed an-Nahyan has a personal wealth estimated at around $31.5 billion and an estimated family fortune of $500 billion. He'll look on that FFP fine a bit like we do a parking ticket, annoying but hey I knew what I was doing when I left the car there.

[BWFC_Insane]

Mansour bin Zayed an-Nahyan has a personal wealth estimated at around $31.5 billion and an estimated family fortune of $500 billion. He'll look on that FFP fine a bit like we do a parking ticket, annoying but hey I knew what I was doing when I left the car there.

Yes I agree. Though perhaps less happily on the champions league restrictions. And this is the "test the water punishments", if clubs don't appeal the sanctions will go up.

And it seems appealing leaves you open to an even more severe potential punishment. I await what will happen in the championship with interest.

[Prufrock]

You do love your hyperbole don't you! 'Worst thing that could possibly happen to football'? Give over.

Pre-billionaire owners, Forrest won the league the season after getting promoted. That's never going to happen in a million years now.

If you think City being taken over by a billionaire and then inevitably winning things is somehow romantic then your definition of romance is different to mine.

The current situation, being able to spend beyond you means is clearly nuts. We couldn't afford to stay in the Premiership, and we couldn't afford not to be in it. Properly done, it should narrow the gap between the massive clubs and the rest, not widen it. Yes, there'll be an inbuilt advantage for the likes of United, but there already is, and the only way to get rid of that is to go to a US style draft system with wage caps and all sorts.

Romantic? No. But dreamland for their fans? Yes.

Totally disagree on the last point. It won't narrow the gap. It will widen it.

In 2011/12 Manchester United's turnover (which will essentially be a measure of their spending power under FFP if it is adopted in the premiership) was more than 6 times greater than the smallest clubs turnover - Wigan.

Their wage bill on the other hand was only 4 times larger.

So the natural effect of bounding clubs by their own generated income is a widening of the spending gap.

The way to change it is to put a flat spending or wage cap that applies to ALL clubs. But because football is only interested in preserving the dominance of a few that will never happen.

Whereas City's turnover was 3 times that of Wigan, and their wage bill 5 times that of Wigan.

Neither of those numbers take into account transfer spending which is also a massive factor.

Is FFP going to make it an egalitarian paradise? No. But something needs to change. Pre-billionaire owners teams were able to compete a lot more than they can now, but it still wasn't a level playing field.

[BWFC_Insane]

Whereas City's turnover was 3 times that of Wigan, and their wage bill 5 times that of Wigan.

Neither of those numbers take into account transfer spending which is also a massive factor.

Is FFP going to make it an egalitarian paradise? No. But something needs to change. Pre-billionaire owners teams were able to compete a lot more than they can now, but it still wasn't a level playing field.

My argument is that FFP makes it worse. You can't talk pre-billionaire ownership if you aren't talking about the Premiership and Sky money era because we're looking at an almost entirely different model.

FFP makes the gap widen IMO. It is a terrible idea.

Why not simply flat cap spending, that would make it very competitive. In line more with some American sports. Then clubs really would be dependent upon how well they were run and managed.

In the current football world I'd rather as a supporter of a club outside of the rich elite have the option of one day a very wealthy person being able to invest into my club in the same way Jack Walker did at Blackburn for example and have some trophies than not have that option. It might be a remote possibility but it is still there.

Take that away and essentially we're crippled behind every club who has a bigger regular attendance than ourselves.....

[Prufrock]

I'm not sure the TV money makes a difference, the vast majority, before you get to individual games, is split equally.

The big problem is the massive commercial operations the likes of United have all over the world. But then they already have that advantage now. Plus the benefactor money.

To get from what we have now, to what you're saying FFP will be, you only take things away (external investment). All those advantages are built in already, and so for the extra investment to make a difference it would have to be going to clubs who don't already have that advantage. Chelsea were already challenging. City had already had one simply millionaire owner and had a swanky new stadium for cheap rent. No billionaire is coming taking over Bolton. If Jack Walker was around now he wouldn't even be able to get Blackburn into the top 6.

As I say, FFP isn't the answer, but it's certainly not 'the worst possible thing that could happen to football'!

A flat cap on spending is never, ever happening.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm not sure the TV money makes a difference, the vast majority, before you get to individual games, is split equally.

The big problem is the massive commercial operations the likes of United have all over the world. But then they already have that advantage now. Plus the benefactor money.

To get from what we have now, to what you're saying FFP will be, you only take things away (external investment). All those advantages are built in already, and so for the extra investment to make a difference it would have to be going to clubs who don't already have that advantage. Chelsea were already challenging. City had already had one simply millionaire owner and had a swanky new stadium for cheap rent. No billionaire is coming taking over Bolton. If Jack Walker was around now he wouldn't even be able to get Blackburn into the top 6.

As I say, FFP isn't the answer, but it's certainly not 'the worst possible thing that could happen to football'!

A flat cap on spending is never, ever happening.

But investment into clubs isn't always the headline billionaires. Look at Eddie Davies. We'd not have been able to do what we did in the premiership. No Okocha or Anelka or Diouf or Europe. Some might argue that would be a good thing, but not me.

And you're neglecting the inbuilt circular advantage the champions league money provides to the most sucessful clubs.

I agree that a billionaire takeover at Bolton is highly unlikely, but I'd argue it is more possible than the club winning a major trophy or reaching Europe again whilst operating under Financial Fair Play restrictions.

I'm with you that the money orientated game needs changing. FFP isn't the way to do it IMO. In fact it is the worst possible way. Trying to preserve the inbuilt hierachy is exactly what football doesn't need.

[Prufrock]

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.

[bwfcdan94]

hutches, kennels... ?

Apart from the mixed metaphors I don't get why punishing Man City for transgressing the FFP rules, a club who you admit have bought a trophy, equates to them not being able to compete with the likes of anybody. The same rules apply across the board, and despite this vision you have of 'fans living the dream', I don't see the likes of Corby Town, f'rinstance, lifting the European Championship anytime soon, with or without FFP.

did you ever see Wigan in the premiership though of Wimbledon winning the f.a cup?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

hutches, kennels... ?

Apart from the mixed metaphors I don't get why punishing Man City for transgressing the FFP rules, a club who you admit have bought a trophy, equates to them not being able to compete with the likes of anybody. The same rules apply across the board, and despite this vision you have of 'fans living the dream', I don't see the likes of Corby Town, f'rinstance, lifting the European Championship anytime soon, with or without FFP.

did you ever see Wigan in the premiership though of Wimbledon winning the f.a cup?

Were either of those because some billionaire had bought a trophy? And if it had have been, which it wasn't, would FFP rules now transform Wigan and/or Wimbledon into part of the in built hierarchy?

[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.

[BWFC_Insane]

hutches, kennels... ?

Apart from the mixed metaphors I don't get why punishing Man City for transgressing the FFP rules, a club who you admit have bought a trophy, equates to them not being able to compete with the likes of anybody. The same rules apply across the board, and despite this vision you have of 'fans living the dream', I don't see the likes of Corby Town, f'rinstance, lifting the European Championship anytime soon, with or without FFP.

did you ever see Wigan in the premiership though of Wimbledon winning the f.a cup?

Were either of those because some billionaire had bought a trophy? And if it had have been, which it wasn't, would FFP rules now transform Wigan and/or Wimbledon into part of the in built hierarchy?

Whelan has invested plenty into Wigan. They would have been penalised by FFP rules were they in place when Whelan was investing. Plus they are in debt.

[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

[Prufrock]

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?!

[jaffka]

I'm very confused.

[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.