FFP was put on hold, back on again

[G STAR RAM]

I don't think that it will ever be implimented and if it were, it would be a terrible idea.

The basic principle of reducing the running costs of clubs to a level where they can live within their means is not a bad idea, but probably only achievable by market forces - if enough clubs go bust the others won't be able to borrow and no sensible investors will put money in. Eventually this will have a deflationary effect and will moderate football without the need for ill thought out regulation,.

Under FFP, the big get bigger and the small get smaller. Limiting club's spending to their earnings would eventually make all the leagues uncompetitive and create huge discrepancies between divisions. Relegation and promotion would become a forgone conlcusion - leading, imo, to a move towards fixed divisions. This lack of competitiveness would see gates falling and this great game start to wither.

To improve competion within a division the best way forward would be for each club to be allowed to pay the same wages and transfer fees. Apart from probably being an illegal restraint of trade, this system would cause huge problems for relegated and promoted teams and probably increase the gap between the Premier League and the Chanpionship. If it were only introduced in England it could also see all the best players move abroad.

IMO the best way forward is to remove the football creditors first rule and just let the market regulate club's spending.

That is a very sensible suggestion but unfortunately common sense appears to be at a premium in our game at the moment.

As well as looking at wage structures I think we should also be looking at debt levels, and having penalties for clubs who are quite clearly running up unsustainable debts when chasing dreams.

[G STAR RAM]

The wage cap idea seems to work in rugby league

[GboroRam]

Does FFP seem an improvement on nothing at all though? I agree it's not perfect (a long way from it) - but does it help address the spiral of debt in football?

I think if we asked 10 people for opinions you'd get 10 different plans of action that they'd prefer to FFP, but it's really the only option on the table at the minute - does it improve the situation at all?

[uttoxram75]

Forget the FFP. Clubs should have to pay up front any transfer fees, pay their tax on time, stop the football creditors first thing and the market will take care of the rest.

Administration and the clearing of debts should be scrapped. If a club cannot pay its debts it should be relegated to non-league or booted out of the League by the FA.

It'll never happen though.

[GboroRam]

It'll never happen though.

And that's the question - as the above won't happen, would FFP be better than piling up more debt?

[observer]

How can the clubs be allowed to get in that situation with tax and Vat though,

like somebody said it should all be automatic! no excuses!

I know that I certainly couldnt get away with what rangers do in my business

[David]

So does this all mean we can buy Billy Sharp now?

[CumbrianRam]

Said it before and will say it again, adminstration should involve relegation and a 15 pt penalty the following season.

[uttoxram75]

And that's the question - as the above won't happen, would FFP be better than piling up more debt?

Yeah, FFP would be better than nowt if it was enforced.

[Alph]

To : Nigel Clough

From : Tom Glick and Co

Re: The Plan

I have some bad news i'm afraid. The plan, as i'm sure you're aware, was that with the introduction of Financial Fair Play rules the DCFC Franchise would become slightly stronger.

As we continue to pray for an accidental promotion to make some considerable cash we'll now have to make up new fairytale statements to the fans of the Franchise. I had hoped that our accidental promotion would come as every other club in world soccer goes out of business. Leaving us, and our academy only team to play against Man City and Chelsea in a very small Premier League.

Now it seems that other clubs might survive we'll have to think up at pretty rapid response to keep fans coming for the Matchday Experience.

I'm afraid this leaves you in a vulnerable position. We won't be making new funds available. We expect you though, to stumble towards promotion. IF not, then the fans become restless with us, then i'm afraid we'll have to sack you as a sacrafice.

We will continue to tell the fans that any spending could leave us like Pompey for now until a new approach is decided. I'll be using the same old rhetoric that our wage budget needs to fall in line with other Championship clubs of similar size (well, Barnsley and Palace eh? lol). It is vital to our plan that we keep comparing ourselves to other clubs and in no way show any belief in the team or you as a manager by putting money forward to give that promotion push.

Oh, Andy rang me today. He'll be coming over to watch the soccer again soon, He's bought ANOTHER Bentley. He's crazy man. I don't know how he can afford it when he plays the American Sportsman a few million per year alone!

Crazy times. Big Love

T Glicky.

[size=1]Probably[/size]

[LeedsCityRam]

The wage cap idea seems to work in rugby league

Are you aware of Bradford Bulls' current predicament? £1 million needed to stop it going bust imminently.

That said, I am 100% in favour of a wage cap across all division & leagues. When a club of our size still posts £7m losses despite having a sensible wage structure in place (one of only 2/3 clubs conforming to UEFA's FFP guidelines in this division) - there is clearly something wrong with the game.

I take CornwallRam's point about % of turnover putting smaller clubs at a disadvantage but I would change the rules to allow clubs to spend beyond turnover levels BUT ONLY if the board/club benefactors put the difference between the allowed wage bill & the actual wage bill into a holding/escrow account which can not be touched apart from paying existing contracts i.e. spending more on wages over the regulated level can not be off the back of borrowed money

[GboroRam]

I take CornwallRam's point about % of turnover putting smaller clubs at a disadvantage but I would change the rules to allow clubs to spend beyond turnover levels BUT ONLY if the board/club benefactors put the difference between the allowed wage bill & the actual wage bill into a holding/escrow account which can not be touched apart from paying existing contracts i.e. spending more on wages over the regulated level can not be off the back of borrowed money

I still don't like the idea of football being based on a model that means you need a sugar daddy in order to win anything.

[LeedsCityRam]

I still don't like the idea of football being based on a model that means you need a sugar daddy in order to win anything.

I don't think it would do but at least the new system wouldn't penalise smaller clubs for being well, small & would mean clubs would not be flirting with financial disaster every year (as any increase over salary cap could not be funded by debts)

And thinking about it - how many clubs have genuinely been funded by a "sugar daddy"? The vast majority of big spending clubs appear to be borrowing to splash the cash - Leicester, Forest, even Chelsea are funded by loans to the club - the expectation being that these would be paid back at some stage.

In a new system banning borrowed money for exceeding wage caps, the only "benefactors" would be people putting money into the club without expectation of getting it back. It stands to reason this would be limited to rich fans who genuinely have affection for the clubs they are pouring money into - I don't necessarily think thats a bad thing.

[McRamFan]

Do you know how to make a £1,000,000 in football?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Start with £50,000,000

Regardless of FFP being on hold, a lie sold by TG to the fans, or tuning into something else. It will happen, if UEFA don't get it sorted, European Governments will get involved and God help us all if the EU start to interfer.

Football is running an unsustainable model, not just at club level, also throughout the leagues. There are a few clubs that are being run correctly and there is transparency, however there are a lot that are not. It would not surprise me to see 2 or 3 clubs go bust in a single season this league in the next few years, and possibly one in the prem.

[ramblur]

i have said it before but i don't mind saying it again, don't fund these useless parasites anymore.

Stop buying season tickets en masse and they will look to sell up.

They sure as **** won't want to run the club out of their own money and even if they sold players and refused to buy new ones there are still bills to pay.

Anyone who tolerates this after all that has gone before needs to take a good long look at their lives and consider do they really have nothing else to do on a saturday PM

Come on u rams ...............goodbye uncle sam

As one who continued to buy a S/T during the bad days when I was UK based,and as one who would admit that I would continue to buy a S/T if health permitted in the current situation,I couldn't call for others to do what I wouldn't myself do (if I were able).Any ownership group has us by the curlies,because any financial action we take hurts the club.If the owners were to sell players,then we would no doubt be relegated and no doubt end up in administration because of it.

If next season goes badly there'll be enough unrest (which I hope is directed properly) -it seems to me that a bombardment of the Detroit press proves effective.Anyway,there's a slim chance their approach may be vindicated,so I'll just wait and see (with much interest).These people are going nowhere-they're far too deeply dug in now,as £44.6m is a lot to recoup.

[bourneyesterday]

Some people really don't get it do they?!

Ramblur, you are good at explaining things....can you think of an easier way of explaining to this guy that the owners are now into us to the tune of approx £44million?

They are not into me for £44,000,000, they bought a football club and its their business. They have used a good deal of funds that were earned by the previous owners to fund the club as well as using some of their own money to run their business.

If Sainsbury's open a supermarket next to me hoping that i wil shop there is it my responsibility to worry about how they invest in the infrastructure or products to convince me to be a customer.

I suggest its you that does'nt get it because you are being taken for a mug. when they have gone i will return to being a paying customer but untill then i will cheer from the sidelines.

If clubs have to be run like real business's then they can't complain when people stop coming into the store because the product has become substandard.

[G STAR RAM]

They are not into me for £44,000,000, they bought a football club and its their business. They have used a good deal of funds that were earned by the previous owners to fund the club as well as using some of their own money to run their business.

If Sainsbury's open a supermarket next to me hoping that i wil shop there is it my responsibility to worry about how they invest in the infrastructure or products to convince me to be a customer.

I suggest its you that does'nt get it because you are being taken for a mug. when they have gone i will return to being a paying customer but untill then i will cheer from the sidelines.

If clubs have to be run like real business's then they can't complain when people stop coming into the store because the product has become substandard.

You called them parasites. I am not sure how you class people who have invested £26million into the club as parasites. Maybe if we had a more loyal fanbase instead of fickle people like you then their cash could be used on signings rather than covering losses.

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

FFP is/was a sensible way of ensuring clubs are run in a responsible way. The vast majority of Championship clubs want it, one or two don't. The owners have just funded YOUR club (as many put it) to the tune of several million pounds. If you don't think they are good enough for Derby who would you suggest funds the shortfall? I can't believe some of the rubbish spouted on here. Are some of you still seriously looking for a sugar daddy? How much excatly do the think the owners should continue to put into the club? Cloud cookoo land doesn't come close to the place some of you inhabit.

Rant over..............Sorry for any offence.

[G STAR RAM]

FFP is/was a sensible way of ensuring clubs are run in a responsible way. The vast majority of Championship clubs want it, one or two don't. The owners have just funded YOUR club (as many put it) to the tune of several million pounds. If you don't think they are good enough for Derby who would you suggest funds the shortfall? I can't believe some of the rubbish spouted on here. Are some of you still seriously looking for a sugar daddy? How much excatly do the think the owners should continue to put into the club? Cloud cookoo land doesn't come close to the place some of you inhabit.

Rant over..............Sorry for any offence.

The laughable thing is, I bet most of them wanted Peter Gadsby back with his promise of £5million investment!

[ramblur]

The laughable thing is, I bet most of them wanted Peter Gadsby back with his promise of £5million investment!

Not strictly true.I can't remember the exact figures,but seem to remember the bid was £37m.This would have effectively matched the £16m the owners paid for the club and 'bought' the cash injection they'd put in up to that date (rather generous,seeing as much of it produced failure).I also seem to remember that the £5m extra investment was to be for a transfer kitty and was to be net (Clough to get proceeds of sales).Many on the DET thought this was nowhere near enough to secure promotion-how much have the owners put in net since the bid (with the brakes now seemingly applied).