The General FFP /PSR / SCR Financial Regs Thread

[The_Steve]

Zero sympathy for Newcastle. Equally, outside of Brennan Johnson, the other sales from Forest were under £6m each and they've brought in 43 players since they earned promotion. Everton at least sold some big names, but you look at their spending pattern and it's utterly no surprise. In that sense, FFP is correcting these shortcomings for these clubs.

[foreveryoung]

10 hours ago, The_Steve said:

Zero sympathy for Newcastle. Equally, outside of Brennan Johnson, the other sales from Forest were under £6m each and they've brought in 43 players since they earned promotion. Everton at least sold some big names, but you look at their spending pattern and it's utterly no surprise. In that sense, FFP is correcting these shortcomings for these clubs.

If we was Newcastle though, we would be pretty pissed we have all this money and can't spend to catch the big boys, who have had the advantage before FFP came in. Thye are set for life now, we need at least 5 years to build anywhere near them, an where will they be then. FFP is such a basic system to work from, gives the big big boys such a unfair advantage, but I guess that's what they wanted isn't it!

[GlobalVillan]

On 17/01/2024 at 14:08, LondonLax said:

It was not just throwing endless illegitimate money at it that won them titles though, 

Yes it was! They pay players and managers illegally through other companies. Have you even seen the charges they are facing? It doesnt seem like it. You seem to ignore some pretty important stuff in relation to them and almost defend them. 

They couldn't be better on the pitch without the manager and players bought and paid for ILLEGITIMATELY.

Its really odd for a fan of a club cheated by them to be keen to defend them and ignore what they have done.

[osmark86]

14 hours ago, PieFacE said:

FFP seems to be getting a fair bit of hate at the minute seemingly due to Newcastle, Everton and Forest's situation.  In the case of Newcastle I can see the arguments as to why they may feel frustrated but boo hoo. 

I actually think FFP is doing a pretty decent job of keeping things competitive as of late. Man City aside, things look pretty good in the Premier League I think. I think FFP allows teams without huge revenue streams to be smart and end up not too far away from the "elite" clubs in the top 4. 

Man City is a bit of a problem but we all know they've artificially got to where they are and hopefully that all gets sorted out (doubt I though).

But there was a time when I was hugely against FFP but I think it's pretty decent really. The main thing I have against it is that it encourages selling homegrown talent. Which is a shame. But there's never going to be a perfect solution. It's a better scenario than Newcastle spending all the money in the world on players and inflating the market more. 

I'm kinda in the same boat. FFP is there to protect clubs from themselves so that they don't take on too much debt and I understand that, even support it. I do think that the way it is set up also acts as a huge advantage for richer clubs with higher revenue streams. I think that the best would be to revise it a bit. Make it more progressive in the sense that it should be better at limiting runaway spending at the top. Just random ideas here, but why not have a general maximum expenditure limit per window to limit those clubs with higher revenues from distorting markets and gaining unfair advantages? Or set a limit based on the average revenue of the clubs combined.

There are some disadvantages to this for sure, but all I'm really saying here is that the current implementation of FFP is far from perfect, but as you say, the alternative is not better. I think it's worse to be honest. If we would do away with FFP, then it would just open the door for new Chelseas, Man Cities, Newcastles to absolutely destroy the market. The inflation we see in wages and transfers is already ridiculous as it is. We have already opened Pandora's box when it comes to nation states owning clubs, so removing any sort of upper roof on spending would turn football into a GDP question more than a sport. I don't think anyone would welcome this if they think about it for a second.

[Hobsons Choice]

24 minutes ago, osmark86 said:

I'm kinda in the same boat. FFP is there to protect clubs from themselves so that they don't take on too much debt and I understand that, even support it. I do think that the way it is set up also acts as a huge advantage for richer clubs with higher revenue streams. I think that the best would be to revise it a bit. Make it more progressive in the sense that it should be better at limiting runaway spending at the top. Just random ideas here, but why not have a general maximum expenditure limit per window to limit those clubs with higher revenues from distorting markets and gaining unfair advantages? Or set a limit based on the average revenue of the clubs combined.

There are some disadvantages to this for sure, but all I'm really saying here is that the current implementation of FFP is far from perfect, but as you say, the alternative is not better. I think it's worse to be honest. If we would do away with FFP, then it would just open the door for new Chelseas, Man Cities, Newcastles to absolutely destroy the market. The inflation we see in wages and transfers is already ridiculous as it is. We have already opened Pandora's box when it comes to nation states owning clubs, so removing any sort of upper roof on spending would turn football into a GDP question more than a sport. I don't think anyone would welcome this if they think about it for a second.

Some good ideas there I think. I was thinking about a multiplier of the revenue of the lowest FFP compliant clubs, but no the average as you say would be better. 

Some sort of cap needs to be looked at now we have multi billionaires and state sponsored clubs involved. 

[LondonLax]

3 hours ago, GlobalVillan said:

Yes it was! They pay players and managers illegally through other companies. Have you even seen the charges they are facing? It doesnt seem like it. You seem to ignore some pretty important stuff in relation to them and almost defend them. 

They couldn't be better on the pitch without the manager and players bought and paid for ILLEGITIMATELY.

Its really odd for a fan of a club cheated by them to be keen to defend them and ignore what they have done.

Money alone doesn’t make you dominant. Chelsea and Man U are proof. 

It wasn’t until Man City took the back of house team behind Barcelona’s period of dominance that all that success switched from Barcelona to Manchester City. Before that, under Mancini / Pellegrini they had all the same money advantage and were competing at the top but were not dominant. 

If Chelsea or Man U had enticed that Barcelona team to their clubs instead it would be them having the success and Man City would still be chugging along in their wake. 

 

[Jareth]

20 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Money alone doesn’t make you dominant. Chelsea and Man U are proof.

I mean its fair to say that the footballing talent installed at City is the reason they win stuff - but the reason said talent went to an unattractive middling english club, rather than say united, was the money alone. The money alone which enabled them to attract the best players from other clubs, even if they don't get a game. And the money alone which is preventing timely scrutiny of their FFP breaches again through employing the best legal talent that money alone can get you.

[LondonLax]

55 minutes ago, Jareth said:

I mean its fair to say that the footballing talent installed at City is the reason they win stuff - but the reason said talent went to an unattractive middling english club, rather than say united, was the money alone. The money alone which enabled them to attract the best players from other clubs, even if they don't get a game. And the money alone which is preventing timely scrutiny of their FFP breaches again through employing the best legal talent that money alone can get you.

The point is, the money allows you a seat at the table but you need more than just money to become a force. You also need competence at all levels.

I suspect Man City will go through a period of decline/regeneration once Guardiola leaves, much like Man U did after Ferguson. How big a decline will depend on how competent the owners are at managing that transition. 

[foreveryoung]

Pretty smart guy just on Talk Sport, used to be a litigation advisor for City before Mansour bought them. He said there is no doubt the charges against City are very serious and will likely get relegated if convicted. Problem is, he said they are playing the conspiracy card and said its going to be extremely hard to prove any charge and was saying they will probably get away with it.

Note even though he was slightly biased, this guy seemed to know his stuff.

[Jareth]

54 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

The point is, the money allows you a seat at the table but you need more than just money to become a force. You also need competence at all levels.

I suspect Man City will go through a period of decline/regeneration once Guardiola leaves, much like Man U did after Ferguson. How big a decline will depend on how competent the owners are at managing that transition. 

I think we're probably in the same boat on all this - but the only point of difference is that the reverse is true - put Pep and co at a club who have always obeyed FFP (i.e. played by the rules) and they would not dominate like city have.

[Mr_Dogg]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

The point is, the money allows you a seat at the table but you need more than just money to become a force. You also need competence at all levels.

I suspect Man City will go through a period of decline/regeneration once Guardiola leaves, much like Man U did after Ferguson. How big a decline will depend on how competent the owners are at managing that transition. 

The thing is, they are very competent. Or very competent at hiring very competent people.

[LondonLax]

10 minutes ago, Jareth said:

I think we're probably in the same boat on all this - but the only point of difference is that the reverse is true - put Pep and co at a club who have always obeyed FFP (i.e. played by the rules) and they would not dominate like city have.

I think it depends which club you put them into. If it is a club like Chelsea or Man U who could match Man City’s spending power without needing to break FFP then they would have dominated with those clubs. 

The interesting hypothetical would be how far down the pyramid you could place a top management/DOF team before they stop dominating i.e. could they have turned a Spurs into a force? Probably not turn them into a Man City but perhaps won some trophies? What about a club even further down like a West Ham? 

It’s difficult to untangle which part is attributable to the money and which proportion is down to the skill of the manager and DOF team it but it definitely takes both to be successful in such an emphatic way. 

Edited January 18 by LondonLax

[Zatman]

One thing I have noticed is there seems to be no big appetite to defend City which might go against them. If this United or Liverpool the conspiracy chats would be all Sky/BBC instead of randomers on Twitter

[Villa_Vids]

 

[VillaJ100]

3 hours ago, Zatman said:

One thing I have noticed is there seems to be no big appetite to defend City which might go against them. If this United or Liverpool the conspiracy chats would be all Sky/BBC instead of randomers on Twitter

I sure hope for one there's a lot of glory hunter manc and pool fans who are lawyers and want to see city burn 

[foreveryoung]

They'll get away with this, I'm telling you!

 

[villa89]

21 hours ago, LondonLax said:

Money alone doesn’t make you dominant. Chelsea and Man U are proof. 

No but the problem is that if you don't have money then there's a 0% chance you can ever become dominant. It's not possible to win a league like Leicester did and then build on that. The clubs with money will take your best players (Mahrez & Kante & nearly Vardy [to arsenal] ) and back down you go.  

[bobzy]

On 18/01/2024 at 09:19, osmark86 said:

Just random ideas here, but why not have a general maximum expenditure limit per window to limit those clubs with higher revenues from distorting markets and gaining unfair advantages? Or set a limit based on the average revenue of the clubs combined.

There are some disadvantages to this for sure, but all I'm really saying here is that the current implementation of FFP is far from perfect, but as you say, the alternative is not better. I think it's worse to be honest. If we would do away with FFP, then it would just open the door for new Chelseas, Man Cities, Newcastles to absolutely destroy the market. The inflation we see in wages and transfers is already ridiculous as it is. We have already opened Pandora's box when it comes to nation states owning clubs, so removing any sort of upper roof on spending would turn football into a GDP question more than a sport. I don't think anyone would welcome this if they think about it for a second.

It would reduce the Premier League as the dominant league financially, which is why it will never happen.  Even ignoring the biggest spenders, just look at us.  We've spent a lot of money over the last few seasons in developing a team which can help us progress up the league.  We've been able to attract players such as Diaby and Torres away from more recently-established "big sides" to join us because we can offer vast wages for a middle Premier League side.  If you limit the amount of expenditure, you'll see nation states or loaded businessmen buying up, say, La Liga sides instead and investing vast fortunes there.  There'd be a player drain from the Premier League rather than the ability to attract the top players - or very good players for middle-lower teams.

FWIW, I'd agree with this setup.  I'm not massively fussed about Villa spending loads or cheering on the wealth and would be far happier to have a more even playing field.  But this won't happen because there are no clubs competing for trophies who want an even playing field.  They want advantages, instead.

[osmark86]

1 hour ago, bobzy said:

It would reduce the Premier League as the dominant league financially, which is why it will never happen.  Even ignoring the biggest spenders, just look at us.  We've spent a lot of money over the last few seasons in developing a team which can help us progress up the league.  We've been able to attract players such as Diaby and Torres away from more recently-established "big sides" to join us because we can offer vast wages for a middle Premier League side.  If you limit the amount of expenditure, you'll see nation states or loaded businessmen buying up, say, La Liga sides instead and investing vast fortunes there.  There'd be a player drain from the Premier League rather than the ability to attract the top players - or very good players for middle-lower teams.

FWIW, I'd agree with this setup.  I'm not massively fussed about Villa spending loads or cheering on the wealth and would be far happier to have a more even playing field.  But this won't happen because there are no clubs competing for trophies who want an even playing field.  They want advantages, instead.

I agree with this. Money talks and this is the only logical end game in the current economic system.

As for the rest of what you're saying, I also agree for the same reason as above. Money flows where money is not regulated. BUT, I think a regulated league is preferable for a more fairly competitive environment and ultimately good for the fans and the sport. I would welcome it even at the expensive of a drain of the biggest talents. I want to see a competitive league more than I want to see the silky touches of the De Bruynes of the world.

Sport is competition and that competition should be on the field and not in board rooms imo.

Edited January 19 by osmark86

[villa4europe]

if the maths of it does actually add up to what is being suggested and selling a youth team player for £5m and buying another team's young player for £15m on a 5 year deal actually results in your end of year FFP numbers being positive then FFP has broken football even more than i thought