FFP: Fair or not?

[maxjam]

Saw this on Sky tonight before the match kicked off, thought Gary Neville made some very good points - ultimately all it does is help maintain the status quo.

 

 

[GenBr]

If an owner wants to pump billions into a club without saddling the club with debt I don't see why he should be stopped from doing so. 

In the Championship it would only ever be a fair system if everyone was playing by the same rules, but anyone on parachute payments has a huge unfair advantage that skews everything in their favour.

[RadioactiveWaste]

I recognize the good intention behind it, but it's fundamentally flawed and I am convinced if it didn't suit those already at the top it would never have come into force.

[Wolfie20]

Best idea I've heard is to ban director loans but allow owners / investors to plough whatever they want into a club but with no option to recover what they've put in.

I get the thinking behind parachute payments but id6limit them to one year.

[Ambitious]

It's arguably the most unfair method you could possibly use. You've got a bunch of teams going for trophies all working off significantly different budgets because of their size and historic success. I hate it. It's the most off putting aspect of football. 

If everyone had the same budgets to work to and someone over spent then that's a different story. Unfortunately it effects every level of football. FFP as a vehicle will hurt a lot of football clubs, either by potential owners not wanting to get stung by the regulations or otherwise. 

Man City have never even had the biggest wage bill in the world. I think their latest results showed they were nearly 20% behind Man Utd - 20%! 

How is that a fair system? 

 

[Ambitious]

24 minutes ago, Wolfie20 said:

Best idea I've heard is to ban director loans but allow owners / investors to plough whatever they want into a club but with no option to recover what they've put in.

I get the thinking behind parachute payments but id6limit them to one year.

Absolutely - perhaps a director loans up to a certain (low) amount and then everything else above it is fair game. 

If you then want to level the playing field then introduce a £300m worldwide annual wage cap. 

The problem is that the bigger clubs wouldn't want it and these regulations are put in place to protect their best interest.

[cannable]

Debt HAS come down across top clubs, so it’s working in some form. 

Dunno what to do about it. Companies such as Amazon made massive losses early on but in doing so set them up to become self sustainable, which they now are. 

Chelsea are football’s example. 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

I don't know a great deal about American football, but always thought there draft selection system has merits .  If football adopted a similar system regarding young players, would that not reduce the money spent on players and give a fairer playing field overall.  Just a thought. Maybe impractical, don't know the intricacies.

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

19 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

I don't know a great deal about American football, but always thought there draft selection system has merits .  If football adopted a similar system regarding young players, would that not reduce the money spent on players and give a fairer playing field overall.  Just a thought. Maybe impractical, don't know the intricacies.

I find it amazing that the most capitalist country in the world would have the most egalitarian system for its sports. It does have its merits the lowest ranked teams get top picks, seems fair to me. That and the fact that they have no  shirt sponsor. 

[Ghost of Clough]

11 hours ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

I don't know a great deal about American football, but always thought there draft selection system has merits .  If football adopted a similar system regarding young players, would that not reduce the money spent on players and give a fairer playing field overall.  Just a thought. Maybe impractical, don't know the intricacies.

Where's the motivation for a club to invest in an academy, if they can pick whichever star player they want from another club?

[ramsbottom]

15 hours ago, Ambitious said:

Absolutely - perhaps a director loans up to a certain (low) amount and then everything else above it is fair game. 

If you then want to level the playing field then introduce a £300m worldwide annual wage cap. 

The problem is that the bigger clubs wouldn't want it and these regulations are put in place to protect their best interest.

This is the problem UEFA face, every time they mention stuff like this, the top 4 from each of the big leagues just scream "European Super League!" like Josh Ackland in Lethal Weapon 2 and they lose their arse.  Leveling the amount you're allowed to pay for, and in turn pay players is the only way to ensure parity.  Obviously you'll still get the best players wanting to play for the best clubs, but they all can't play for them at the same time...

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

15 hours ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

I find it amazing that the most capitalist country in the world would have the most egalitarian system for its sports. It does have its merits the lowest ranked teams get top picks, seems fair to me. That and the fact that they have no  shirt sponsor. 

They make up for that by having an ad break every 30 seconds.

[Ghost of Clough]

In the Championship, the objectives of P&S are:

1. [FFP] rules introduced in 2012 were loosely based on UEFA's to bring more discipline and rationality in football finance, to operate on own revenues and protect long term sustainability of the club.
2. When the rules were changed in 2014 to become P&S, those objectives continued to apply.

Is it fair to bring discipline/rationality in to football finance? Yes
Is it fair for teams to operate on their own revenues, minimising club debt? Yes
Is it fair to protect a club's long term sustainability? Yes
Is it fair to prevent an owner from injecting as much money as he want in to a club, as long as it doesn't saddle the club with debt, and doesn't cause any issues if the flow of cash was stopped? Not for the club who wish to spend, but it is for all other clubs.
Is it fair for parachute payments to count towards P&S , giving a club a £100m advantage over 3 years? Not for clubs without them.

There's also some relegated clubs such as Stoke - they can't sell some of their players without making a loss and failing P&S, even though it would reduce the wage bill and make the club more sustainable; defeating the main objective of Profit & Sustainability Rules.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

8 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Where's the motivation for a club to invest in an academy, if they can pick whichever star player they want from another club?

I assume it would be more complicated but I would consider that a saving.  Sure Mel would like to keep the six million a year .

[Ghost of Clough]

1 hour ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

I assume it would be more complicated but I would consider that a saving.  Sure Mel would like to keep the six million a year .

And when every club adopts that approach...?

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

And when every club adopts that approach...?

They'll all save money I suppose

[Ghost of Clough]

8 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

They'll all save money I suppose

And you don’t think the quality of player produced will decrease as a result?

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

10 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

And you don’t think the quality of player produced will decrease as a result?

I think we will see liquidation of a number of clubs in the next 10-15 years if money being laid out isn't reduced . players with natural ability will always have it .  Maradona was playing keepy up with a couple of ping pong balls when he was five. It will also stop the monopoly of 4-5 clubs stuffing there academies year on year with the best young players and using them as cash cows.

[Stagtime]

23 hours ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

I find it amazing that the most capitalist country in the world would have the most egalitarian system for its sports. It does have its merits the lowest ranked teams get top picks, seems fair to me. That and the fact that they have no  shirt sponsor. 

We went through that over here and unfortunately the law of the land threw it out.The first player that took it to court as a restraint of trade and it was all over. The idea was to have a salary cap the same for every team and then the lowest side picks the no1 draft etc. I know Aussie rules still runs to a draft but it would only take 1 player or most likely their manager to take it to court and it would be gone. What we run to now is a salary cap the same for every club but then you have exemptions for academy players that hit certain number of games eg. player plays for 10 years only 50% of their salary is counted towards the cap. At the moment our captain at 27 has been with the club for 10 years and i would say half our side has come through the junior system so in effect it makes it worthwhile to have a academy, as a strong one will give you a advantage down the track.

[ramsbottom]

20 hours ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

They make up for that by having an ad break every 30 seconds.

And branding everything to within and inch of it's life.  Have you noticed in after-game press conferences, an away teams sponsors are displayed behind their players/managers when being interviewed?  Even more parity there...