Is FFP in anyway Fair?

[Dethorn]

I have heard a few things recently which have made me think about the FFP rules and whether they are having the desired effect.

Firstly what is the desired effect is it to make it fairer for the clubs without mega rich oligargs to compete ?  Is it to protect those clubs for when their bank roller leaves them ?

I think it is a bit of both but I lean a little towards the former.

So to put this in perspective and I know that at the moment we are in the championship and Chelsea, Man City etc are in the Prem but recently I heard that Antonio Conte was bemoaning the fact that he only spent £237M last summer and he did not get what he wanted. Meanwhile GR leaves the Rams among soundbites that there is no money for next season as we are hitting FFP limits and maybe fined.

Next up speculation GR is eyeing up Davies and Carson ??

So if GR jumps ship and knows we need to shift money off of our wage bill he can go sniffing around for cut price bargains at our place.

So the Champions get to spend £237M and a team in a division below gets penalised for making almost a net gain in the transfer market (alright I am guessing at this but minus Hughes minus Ince plus Hudds plus Davies we must be close right) how is that fair.

And just to make it extra fair we will give parachute payments etc. So the relegated teams can afford to pay the wages of the higer division and stay within FFP.

This seems totally against what it is trying to achieve.

Bear with me here (tongue in cheek) I have a proposal

No FFP

No Parachutes

It is rule that every contract has a relegation wage decrease clause and a promotion increase clause of at least 20%

There is also a rule that every contract has a relegation minimum release clause (no minimum)

Clubs that go into administration are relegated.

More prize money for getting further in the FA Cup

 

I think I have pretty much got it covered apart from the likes of abramovic leaving and chelsea being burdened with a £3333M (?? or somut) wage bill. But so what they go into admin get relegated - price they pay for 10 - 15 years of FA Cup Finals - Champions League nights etc.

 

What do you think ?

[Cam the Ram]

I think the biggest problem is parachute payments. Teams are coming down from the richest division in the world and really should have plenty of players to sell, but they're given a much greater allowance than teams who've been in the division for a few years and League 1 teams coming up. So they already have a better team than the majority of the league and then they're allowed to spend more than anyone else to add to it. Villa come down and spend £70 + million. Newcastle came down, spent tons and ended up with a £112 million wage bill, win promotion and face no punishment. That's nearly 3 times our wage bill and we're having to cost cut because of FFP. It's just silly

[Ghost of Clough]

Been out in the sun too long?

[Mostyn6]

it's there to protect the suppliers and creditors. When Pompey went under/into Administration, it was local businesses who suffered.

[Rev]

46 minutes ago, Moist One said:

it's there to protect the suppliers and creditors. When Pompey went under/into Administration, it was local businesses who suffered.

I've always thought a fair system would be to allow high rollers to deposit excess funds over and above the FFP limits into an escrow account, controlled by the league.

Signings and wages would come from this account, and obviously couldn't exceed the amount deposited.

The money couldn't be held against the club in that way, and it was at the backers risk rather than loaded onto the clubs balance sheet.

Allows everyone who wishes to chuck money about to do so, but not to put the club at risk.

[Sith Happens]

Its a very valid question to ask. In my view if said investor/owner guarantees any money spent is not in the form of a loan, including wages then FFP shouldn't apply.

So in Forests case it was fair as fatwaz was loaning the money.

Sadly clubs like Leicester have ruined it for the rest of us. 

With regards to parachute payments i agree with them. It should be 2 years only, but the idea is to give PL clubs incentive to compete in the PL.

They should change the rule though,  if you get relegated again ala Sunderland then they cease, or at least half.

 

[David]

FFP is probably helping to keep a lid on the mind boggling wages/fees out there today, a complete free for all would be a disaster. Nothing good would come of making it an open season for billionaires to dump a load of cash because they can as the end result would be clawing more money back from us, the fans. 

Whilst some clubs have gone rogue sticking two fingers, the majority have played by the rules. It needs reworking in a way where it can prevent clubs being promoted, a fine after the event over time will become less of a deteroant as clubs watch the EFL struggle to get payment out of QPR. The PL also need to work with the EFL as well on this, if it’s impossible to prevent promotion, hold back prize money and transfer to the EFL where it’s distrubuted to the clubs in the league where rules were broken, this would need to move away from the rolling 3 seasons.

Parachute payments should also be scrapped, just allow relegated clubs more room with FFP which decreases over 3 seasons to put them level with the competition.

Idea is great, execution is poor.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

2 hours ago, David said:

FFP is probably helping to keep a lid on the mind boggling wages/fees out there today, a complete free for all would be a disaster. Nothing good would come of making it an open season for billionaires to dump a load of cash because they can as the end result would be clawing more money back from us, the fans. 

Whilst some clubs have gone rogue sticking two fingers, the majority have played by the rules. It needs reworking in a way where it can prevent clubs being promoted, a fine after the event over time will become less of a deteroant as clubs watch the EFL struggle to get payment out of QPR. The PL also need to work with the EFL as well on this, if it’s impossible to prevent promotion, hold back prize money and transfer to the EFL where it’s distrubuted to the clubs in the league where rules were broken, this would need to move away from the rolling 3 seasons.

Parachute payments should also be scrapped, just allow relegated clubs more room with FFP which decreases over 3 seasons to put them level with the competition.

Idea is great, execution is poor.

Thought it interesting that we all assume Mel will be quid's in if we gain promotion but its not that easy. Bournemouth for instance had a wage bill of £70m for the year. £100m is quite common. Of course we would be better off than where we are now but it gives some kind of perspective.

[Red_Dawn]

15 hours ago, Paul71 said:

Its a very valid question to ask. In my view if said investor/owner guarantees any money spent is not in the form of a loan, including wages then FFP shouldn't apply.

So in Forests case it was fair as fatwaz was loaning the money.

Sadly clubs like Leicester have ruined it for the rest of us. 

With regards to parachute payments i agree with them. It should be 2 years only, but the idea is to give PL clubs incentive to compete in the PL.

They should change the rule though,  if you get relegated again ala Sunderland then they cease, or at least half.

 

LOL. So when it impacts Forest it's totally fair, however in the likelihood of you lot getting stung all of a sudden it's a terrible system?

Nobody forced Derby to buy a bunch of aging, over the hill players for big wages. If you need to sell and cut costs to fall in line, so be it. 

[Spanish]

1 minute ago, Red_Dawn said:

LOL. So when it impacts Forest it's totally fair, however in the likelihood of you lot getting stung all of a sudden it's a terrible system?

Nobody forced Derby to buy a bunch of aging, over the hill players for big wages. If you need to sell and cut costs to fall in line, so be it. 

maybe you will take the tree out of your ar5e for a second because I wonder how you feel about the other comment on parachute payments.  I think the longer the both of us are out of the prem the harder it will be to compete with those relegated.  we have the risk of gambling and failing to get promoted looks like those relegated are somewhat more cushioned.  Oh and by the way when it impacts you guys its only fair and proper when it affects us it is totally wrong!

[jagerbob]

Itr doesnt help that the clubs cant agree, and it doesnt help how many teams change divisions year on year, a swing of 6 teams changing in a division each season is too many. - oh and parachute payments from the EPL are too much.

[IlsonDerby]

My only gripe with it is that parachute payments make it redundant. 

I believe you should get parachute payments for one season only and I also believe they should be exempt from the FFP calculations. 

PP are there to protect clubs after relegation and allow them to move on unaffordable players sometimes at a loss.

They shouldn’t be used as an unfair advantage for getting back up the league. 

 

E.g. you get gifted £50m by the prem to protect your club from the effects of relegation however you cannot use this as part of your budget for FFP. You must sell in order to buy and you must get your wage bill in check. 

[SaintRam]

I think parachute payments should be offset against assets. 

If you manage to get relegated with a valuable squad, for example, you should have to sell assets in order to protect the financial security of the club - at the moment parachute payments are allowing clubs to gamble further by keeping hold of their expensive squad, and failure to get promoted basically ducks them. Getting promoted (in some ways) ducks everyone else in the league.

But parachute payments should exist for clubs that get relegated lacking viable assets.

 

[Philmycock]

Parachute payments should be scrapped and the money dealt equally to every club in all 3 divisions, why are we extra rewarding teams for getting relegated?

[Inglorius]

6 minutes ago, philmycock said:

Parachute payments should be scrapped and the money dealt equally to every club in all 3 divisions, why are we extra rewarding teams for getting relegated?

They're being rewarded to cushion the huge financial differential between the Premiership and the Championship and to lessen the shock from having a income of hundreds of millions of pounds to single digit millions. 

If yours was a rhetorical question then I apologise ?