Jump to content

Financial Fair Play


zaragozaram

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

To threaten sanctions and then to do nothing is far, far more unfair than having no sanctions at all because it punishes those who tried to comply and rewards those who ignored it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DERBY COUNTY BLOG[/size] @derbycountyblog

Follow

If promoted, Leicester could be fined around £19m under FFP rules. So they're threatening to sue the Football League

Pardon the pun but that's a bit rich. Leicester, the club who led the charge to blatantly abuse the administration system now want to flout the FFP as well.

The FL should make an example of them and relegate them to non-league where they belong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely knew this was coming. West Ham started murmuring about it last season (although hilariously want a wage cap in the Premiership now they are back to being a small fish in a big pond) & QPR were hardly going to take a punishment lying down when they weren't in the league last year to vote & were nailed on to be punished the most because of their ridiculous spending.

 

I hope the Football League show some backbone & call their bluff, however far it goes down the legal road. Football at the level below the Prem faces enough problems without abandoning any pretence of curbing the ruinous financial mess many clubs are in. Fans of all clubs deserve better than facing the constant risk of financial extinction chasing the impossible dream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've probably misunderstood all this FFP palaver, but, whilst I agree that clubs shouldn't be allowed to make huge year on year  losses , I don't see why owners, sponsors or anyone else for that matter shouldn't be allowed to give a club as much as they like.

When all's said and done, it's their money to do with as they wish.

If Joe Bloggs the local butcher wants to sponsor the corner flags to the tune of £10 million apiece or Ali Baba the kitchen appliance salesman wants to blow his families' fortune, then surely that's their affair.  So long as there is no expectation of repayment, I can't see a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no halfway house with this - the FL has to remain resolute in this.

Very disappointing that the Premier League opposed the fines being dished out amongst the compliant clubs, due the preference for clubs with wealthy backers (according to the Guardian).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've probably misunderstood all this FFP palaver, but, whilst I agree that clubs shouldn't be allowed to make huge year on year losses , I don't see why owners, sponsors or anyone else for that matter shouldn't be allowed to give a club as much as they like.

When all's said and done, it's their money to do with as they wish.

If Joe Bloggs the local butcher wants to sponsor the corner flags to the tune of £10 million apiece or Ali Baba the kitchen appliance salesman wants to blow his families' fortune, then surely that's their affair. So long as there is no expectation of repayment, I can't see a problem.

Isn't the problem more that said owner spends x million on a bunch of players in the hope of going up. A couple of years down the line the club has not gone up, they can't afford to pay the crazy wages they signed up for and a huge debt just keeps getting bigger as the interest mounts up. The original owner has probably gone by this point and the only ones with any stake in the club ie the supporters are left with a ruined club.

Spending what you haven't got is what makes the world go round. Until the bubble bursts. We need to football bubble to burst and our prudent model plus high gates would seee us become very strong again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are 2 reasons for ffp as far as I can see:

To try to retain some integrity in the competition - by lessening the impact one person can have over it just because they have a bottomless pit of cash.

And to ensure the long term stability of member clubs by preventing one person incurring debt, often in the form of loans to payable to themselves, payable long after that owner had jumped ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's go all American. Salary Caps, competition committees etc.

 

At least gives you a different winner year in, year out.

But how would that work with so many clubs with such  massive variations in size? Chelsea and Accrington can't be governed by the same financial rules, but if there are different rules then the smaller clubs can never hope to advance to the higher realms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the problem more that said owner spends x million on a bunch of players in the hope of going up. A couple of years down the line the club has not gone up, they can't afford to pay the crazy wages they signed up for and a huge debt just keeps getting bigger as the interest mounts up. The original owner has probably gone by this point and the only ones with any stake in the club ie the supporters are left with a ruined club.

Spending what you haven't got is what makes the world go round. Until the bubble bursts. We need to football bubble to burst and our prudent model plus high gates would seee us become very strong again.

Hmm tricky, I take your point. But supposing that you or I was found to be a long lost reletive of Bill Gates, if I were to inherit his fortune, I'd be somewhat miffed to find that I couldn't give the Rams untold millions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are 2 reasons for ffp as far as I can see:

To try to retain some integrity in the competition - by lessening the impact one person can have over it just because they have a bottomless pit of cash.

And to ensure the long term stability of member clubs by preventing one person incurring debt, often in the form of loans to payable to themselves, payable long after that owner had jumped ship.

 

It's not just member clubs protecting themselves though.  A proportion of the money that clubs owe will be owed to other clubs in the league - e.g. if you sign a player for £3m over 3 years (paying £1m a year) and then go broke in year 1, the selling club is out £2m that they would have budgeted for, potentially leaving them in financial trouble.  That's almost more important for the sake of the league than just preventing one club from shooting themselves in the foot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...