Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
When are the FFP fines going to kick in?
- Thread starter Icy Gull
- Start date
DarrenFreemansPerm
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Surely the training ground is only a 'money making machine' if it actually produces any players that are a valuable asset? Otherwise it's just a very expensive and flash park. I can't help but think a lot of people are of the belief that someone just needs to flick the switch and the likes of Shaw, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Bale will start to appear at the end of a conveyor belt. It needs the right staff and a lot of time before we could potentially see any players developed from the training ground. It's also worth bearing in mind that just because the facilities are there it doesn't automatically mean every kid will want to come here, not with all the London clubs so close and the extremely successful Saints academy just along the road.
DarrenFreemansPerm
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Surely whether it's sustainable depends on the wealth of the chairman/owners? If Al-Fawaz is happy to keep pumping millions into Forest then a few poxy fines aren't really going to put him off are they, and if the gamble pays off and they reach the cash cow of the premier league then it will have been worthwhile for him.
Agree with both your last two posts.
Personally I don't see FFP sticking and it will be challenged ad infinitum. There are clubs that adhere to FFP because they have no choice because they can't find sugar daddies to pump money in, so easy for them to take the moral high ground. TB, I suspect simply doesn't want to pump money in and FFP is a convenient piece of regulation that helps him control his investment.
I know I'll get a thumbs down from the usual source but FFP really is the totally wrong approach to financial control when such huge money is available to many clubs that another club is trying to directly compete with. Personally if a club can attract investment and there are sensible governance mechanisms in place to ensure that an investor cannot walk away and has to (sort of) deposit the cash to cover forward commitments then why not? To me the whole idea of FFP is daft.
BrianWade4
Well-known member
We will be the best run club in the third tier next year
Well there IS a point in complying with them and that's to make sure the club doesn't rack up season after season of massive losses. I do accept though that isn't the way that modern football clubs (or fans) think. The current modus operandi for most clubs is to rack up millions of pounds of debt, and then at some future stage if your backer can't or won't meet these debts then you swap them all for twelve league points. Rinse and repeat.
I mean sustainable for football as a whole, not for that club in particular.
But he's pumping millions in every year. If that's nothing to you then great!
Part of the problem is that owners lend the clubs money and gamble on reaching the PL. If they fail, the owners asset strip the club to pay themselves back, and leave the club without anything.
The reasons that's not the case with Brighton, is that the owner hasn't paid a small sum to take on a club with a ground that has value, he's paid a huge some of money to build a ground and academy that cost more to build than it's worth outside of football. If he stripped the club of assets, he'd get back less than he's put in, which suggests that's not his motive.
In the context of limiting what he is putting in. Of course he's pumped in gazillions but I doubt he's ever been up for continually putting in the sorts of sums he has these past few years.
FFP gives him some sort of ceiling ... he would likely do it anyway and so I think FFP is largely irrelevant; he just wants a sensible fiscal approach and if I were him I'd want exactly the same.
None of what I'm saying is intended to trivialise what he has done, is doing, and will continue to do!
DarrenFreemansPerm
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
It's also worth noting that Bloom isn't just pouring money into a hole with nothing tangible to show for it, he owns a superb stadium, superb training facility and a Championship football team. That represents a very intriguing investment for any potential buyers, should he wish to sell.
But should he wish to sell he isn't going to get back the £200 million he has already spunked on the Albion. West Ham cost the porn brothers £105 million, Villa are up for sale at £150 million.
portslade seagull
Well-known member
This is the answer
portslade seagull
Well-known member
Have to agree with this as well
Marty___Mcfly
I see your wicked plan - I’m a junglist.
- Sep 14, 2011
- 2,251
FFP seeks to punish clubs who spend too much money by fining them money. Thus worsening their problems (if they have any).
Absolute farce. Those who came up with FFP have lost any idea of why they did in the first place. To save clubs from bankruptcy? Those fined so far being Man City and PSG?! Ha!
Why not just wait until clubs do get in trouble and then help them and enforce regulation at that stage?
If a rich benefactor wants to spend money on transfers and wages what's the problem?
Platini and the established top clubs didn't like the idea that clubs could be funded to progress to the top in swift fashion rocking the status quo. That's what it sought to restrict. Unfortunately if you have bottomless pockets you won't give a $hit whatever fines are dished out. Blocking entry into competitions such as the Champs league or relegating teams would probably be the only tangible punishment for the richest of clubs.
Transfer embargoes are an option but that doesn't seem to be stopping Barca at the moment!
I suggest scrap FFP, and put a fund aside from the TV deals cash to assist clubs and enforce regulation if they do get into serious problems.
Absolute farce. Those who came up with FFP have lost any idea of why they did in the first place. To save clubs from bankruptcy? Those fined so far being Man City and PSG?! Ha!
Why not just wait until clubs do get in trouble and then help them and enforce regulation at that stage?
If a rich benefactor wants to spend money on transfers and wages what's the problem?
Platini and the established top clubs didn't like the idea that clubs could be funded to progress to the top in swift fashion rocking the status quo. That's what it sought to restrict. Unfortunately if you have bottomless pockets you won't give a $hit whatever fines are dished out. Blocking entry into competitions such as the Champs league or relegating teams would probably be the only tangible punishment for the richest of clubs.
Transfer embargoes are an option but that doesn't seem to be stopping Barca at the moment!
I suggest scrap FFP, and put a fund aside from the TV deals cash to assist clubs and enforce regulation if they do get into serious problems.
No it doesn't.
It seeks to punish clubs who 'win' at least £120,000,000 by taking a chunk of those winnings in fines (with another chunk of it going to paying off the debt accrued in winning it, it reduces the gain side of the risk/reward equation thus making it so teams will see that the reward reaped while breaking rules isn't so great, and thus make teams more likely to not bother).
If a club doesn't win a minimum of £120m, FFP they are not fined, they are stopped from spending money, thus prevented from making their situation worse, until they show they are financially stable.
nwgull
Well-known member
Put a fund aside to bail clubs out who recklessly spend more than they can afford on over inflated players' wages?
Does FFP prevent a club from racking up massive deferred debt, or taking on forward commitments that it might not be able to fulfill? I may well be wrong but I don't think it does either, in which case FFP doesn't guarantee much at all (other than perhaps limiting much needed "investment" further down the food chain)
I don't think FFP is about stopping investment. I think its primary aim is to control wages which is footballs biggest problem.
If Tony wanted to spend £150 million on another stadium and training ground then there is nothing to stop him. If he wanted to spend £150 million on transfers and wages over the next few seasons, he would be braking FFP rules.
I think its a good thing. Saying that a few financial experts seem to have reservations about the motives and set up of FFP, and I have to bow down to their superior understanding and am willing to believe that maybe it is not all that it seems and there could be a better way.