[Brighton] Barber on FFP from the Forum

CheeseRolls · Aug 6, 2014

Sorry to start another thread, I looked at a couple of recent ones and they had declined too far to resuscitate them.

At last night's forum, Barber made some interesting comments on FFP. At one point he outlined a scenario, where clubs in breach, would face both transfer embargoes and a ban on extending the contracts of existing players. he then went on to suggest that as a consequence of this, some clubs could be forced into a fire sale of their best players.

Is it possible that the lack of transfer activity, is due to the club holding back funds to take advantage of such a scenario in the future ?

How then will this play out ?

Presumably clubs facing sanctions under FFP, will be desperate to off load their top earners, however these are EXACTLY the sorts of players that other Championship clubs will not want to take on, for exactly the same reason. In a fire sale scenario, it would have to be the promising youngsters, still on relatively low wages, that would be sold to raise cash.

Is this a big opportunity for us or are we still likely to be outbid by premiership clubs ?

How many club owners will accept this as a way out of a difficult position ?

It doesn't seem to be playing too well up in Nottingham.

El Presidente · Aug 6, 2014

CheeseRolls said:
Sorry to start another thread, I looked at a couple of recent ones and they had declined too far to resuscitate them.

At last night's forum, Barber made some interesting comments on FFP. At one point he outlined a scenario, where clubs in breach, would face both transfer embargoes and a ban on extending the contracts of existing players. he then went on to suggest that as a consequence of this, some clubs could be forced into a fire sale of their best players.

Is it possible that the lack of transfer activity, is due to the club holding back funds to take advantage of such a scenario in the future ?

How then will this play out ?

Presumably clubs facing sanctions under FFP, will be desperate to off load their top earners, however these are EXACTLY the sorts of players that other Championship clubs will not want to take on, for exactly the same reason. In a fire sale scenario, it would have to be the promising youngsters, still on relatively low wages, that would be sold to raise cash.

Is this a big opportunity for us or are we still likely to be outbid by premiership clubs ?

How many club owners will accept this as a way out of a difficult position ?

It doesn't seem to be playing too well up in Nottingham.

Good comments from Barber as always, FFP won't come into play until January though, by which time it could be too late for this season. It does mean that those clubs with a long term sustainable model will be at an advantage, whereas those who gamble are likely to suffer. It would appear that a lot of posters on NSC prefer the gamble though.

drew · Aug 6, 2014

It's always been known that the embargo includes not extending existing contracts. The high earners will not be high earners when their contracts finish so they have to take whatever deals are on offer. That or not pick up a wage at all.

KZNSeagull · Aug 6, 2014

The stance on FFP that the club have taken is one so that they are in the best position possible, within our limitations, to take advantage of any scenario that comes along. I doubt that they are holding back transfer funds just in case - it is more a case of holding back transfer funds until we get our main targets, I would say.

Will we be gazumped by other clubs? Yes, of course, but there will be less clubs available to do the gazumping. Also re wages, the smaller the number of clubs willing to take high earners on will make the players/agents think twice about their salaries.

Well if the club owners do not do something to get out of the transfer embargo scenario, they will run out of players eventually, so they will have to do something about it.

Diddums to Nottingham!

Braggfan · Aug 6, 2014

It certainly is interesting, and would be a clever tactic. The problem is though that if these punishments are dished out I can't imagine Man City or Chelsea just letting their squad be ripped apart, and they would fight it with every bit of their financial clout, which is considerable. The knock on from that is that if you can't do it to the top clubs then you can't do it to the clubs in the lower divisions, because legally you've set a precident. As much as ffp is having an affect on how clubs operate, until the punishments aimed those big spenders is something other than just a fine it would be unwise for the club to wait for something that might not even happen.

father_and_son · Aug 6, 2014

El Presidente said:
Good comments from Barber as always, FFP won't come into play until January though, by which time it could be too late for this season. It does mean that those clubs with a long term sustainable model will be at an advantage, whereas those who gamble are likely to suffer. It would appear that a lot of posters on NSC prefer the gamble though.

Sadly, I think you are right... gambling with someone else's money is too easy! Would love to see some of the posters on here taking out a second mortgage and approaching the club with the cash injection that is "bound" to get us up into a division where losing twice as much money per season is a real possibility! Very few clubs in the premier league actually make any money!

CheeseRolls · Aug 6, 2014

Braggfan said:
It certainly is interesting, and would be a clever tactic. The problem is though that if these punishments are dished out I can't imagine Man City or Chelsea just letting their squad be ripped apart, and they would fight it with every bit of their financial clout, which is considerable. The knock on from that is that if you can't do it to the top clubs then you can't do it to the clubs in the lower divisions, because legally you've set a precident. As much as ffp is having an affect on how clubs operate, until the punishments aimed those big spenders is something other than just a fine it would be unwise for the club to wait for something that might not even happen.

The same rules do not apply in the Premiership, although clearly that are preparing for some consequences. Chelsea in particular it seems could probably field three decent teams just from the number of players they have out on loan across Europe.

CheeseRolls · Aug 6, 2014

El Presidente said:
Good comments from Barber as always, FFP won't come into play until January though, by which time it could be too late for this season. It does mean that those clubs with a long term sustainable model will be at an advantage, whereas those who gamble are likely to suffer. It would appear that a lot of posters on NSC prefer the gamble though.

It was the fire sale scenario that really caught my attention. It is possible, but there are other alternatives for clubs. FFP isn't designed to make things fair is it ? If owners want to buy success, they can still do this, as long as they are not loading the clubs with debt. For me FFP a bit like Naylor is taking all the flack here, where the real issue, is the Premiership parachute payments.

supaseagull · Aug 6, 2014

CheeseRolls said:
he then went on to suggest that as a consequence of this, some clubs could be forced into a fire sale of their best players.

Yes lucky for us that over the last 2 years we haven't sold out best players and then been stupid enough not to replace them isn't it?

Braggfan · Aug 6, 2014

I didn't realise they don't apply to the Premier League, but that is interesting because that must have implications. Bear in my that ffp is not the law, it's a set of rules/policy put in place by the governing body. If a club was punished under ffp, and say forced to get rid of players, I would think the club could argue ffp was illegal in that it breached employment laws especially given thatother clubs/business operating in the same profession are not being subjected to the same punishments.

Everyone has said ffp is a grey area, and that noboy is sure exactly how it will be enforced. But it wouldn't surpirse me at all if someone gets punished, challenges it and overturns the punishment.

Incidentally I'm not saying it's wrong to plan for ffp, just I wouldn't hold out for trying to get a load of players on the cheap from sanctioned clubs, as it is something that may never happen.

drew · Aug 6, 2014

CheeseRolls said:
It was the fire sale scenario that really caught my attention. It is possible, but there are other alternatives for clubs. FFP isn't designed to make things fair is it ? If owners want to buy success, they can still do this, as long as they are not loading the clubs with debt. For me FFP a bit like Naylor is taking all the flack here, where the real issue, is the Premiership parachute payments.

On the contrary, debt is not, directly, the problem that FFP is addressing. Owners can't buy success as there is no guarantee, ask Forest about that.

Gazwag · Aug 6, 2014

I just worry that the football league will bottle it or there will be a long drawn out legal challenge

seagullsovergrimsby · Aug 6, 2014

Braggfan said:
I didn't realise they don't apply to the Premier League, but that is interesting because that must have implications. Bear in my that ffp is not the law, it's a set of rules/policy put in place by the governing body. If a club was punished under ffp, and say forced to get rid of players, I would think the club could argue ffp was illegal in that it breached employment laws especially given thatother clubs/business operating in the same profession are not being subjected to the same punishments.

Everyone has said ffp is a grey area, and that noboy is sure exactly how it will be enforced. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if someone gets punished, challenges it and overturns the punishment.

Incidentally I'm not saying it's wrong to plan for ffp, just I wouldn't hold out for trying to get a load of players on the cheap from sanctioned clubs, as it is something that may never happen.

This , no club is going to accept their best players will have to go without mounting a legal challenge.

Tricky Dicky · Aug 6, 2014

Braggfan said:
I didn't realise they don't apply to the Premier League, but that is interesting because that must have implications. Bear in my that ffp is not the law, it's a set of rules/policy put in place by the governing body. If a club was punished under ffp, and say forced to get rid of players, I would think the club could argue ffp was illegal in that it breached employment laws especially given thatother clubs/business operating in the same profession are not being subjected to the same punishments.

Everyone has said ffp is a grey area, and that noboy is sure exactly how it will be enforced. But it wouldn't surpirse me at all if someone gets punished, challenges it and overturns the punishment.

Incidentally I'm not saying it's wrong to plan for ffp, just I wouldn't hold out for trying to get a load of players on the cheap from sanctioned clubs, as it is something that may never happen.

I agree, there seem to br things abiut FFP that may or may not hold up legally, but we'll only find out when they're chzllenged in a court of law. Will be interesting to see ultimately whether we've done the right thing by adhering to the rules, or lose out. I would imagine it'll take a while to sort out, as eveything tskes a long time when legal people zre involved.

drew · Aug 6, 2014

Braggfan said:
I didn't realise they don't apply to the Premier League, but that is interesting because that must have implications. Bear in my that ffp is not the law, it's a set of rules/policy put in place by the governing body. If a club was punished under ffp, and say forced to get rid of players, I would think the club could argue ffp was illegal in that it breached employment laws especially given thatother clubs/business operating in the same profession are not being subjected to the same punishments.

Everyone has said ffp is a grey area, and that noboy is sure exactly how it will be enforced. But it wouldn't surpirse me at all if someone gets punished, challenges it and overturns the punishment.

Incidentally I'm not saying it's wrong to plan for ffp, just I wouldn't hold out for trying to get a load of players on the cheap from sanctioned clubs, as it is something that may never happen.

Not sure what you are talking about. Seems you have read something somewhere and are now regurgitating it. We all know FFP are not laws of the land because they don't have to be, but they are the rules applicable for being members of the club, the club being the Football League. They are laws voted in by the members. I cannot see where there is a conflict with restraint of trade rules either. Also, exactly what laws are you alluding to relating to businesses operating in the same profession not being subject to the same punishments! If you are referring to the fact that the PL and FL have different punishments then that is because they are totally different organisations.

PILTDOWN MAN · Aug 6, 2014

Braggfan said:
I didn't realise they don't apply to the Premier League, but that is interesting because that must have implications. Bear in my that ffp is not the law, it's a set of rules/policy put in place by the governing body. If a club was punished under ffp, and say forced to get rid of players, I would think the club could argue ffp was illegal in that it breached employment laws especially given thatother clubs/business operating in the same profession are not being subjected to the same punishments.

Everyone has said ffp is a grey area, and that noboy is sure exactly how it will be enforced. But it wouldn't surpirse me at all if someone gets punished, challenges it and overturns the punishment.

Incidentally I'm not saying it's wrong to plan for ffp, just I wouldn't hold out for trying to get a load of players on the cheap from sanctioned clubs, as it is something that may never happen.

Firstly take time to read about FFP. Secondly all the clubs knew what FFP was all about and voted it in. The clubs that abide by FFP have far more legal clout should clubs that haven't do not receive the agreed penalties.

Braggfan · Aug 6, 2014

drew said:
Not sure what you are talking about. Seems you have read something somewhere and are now regurgitating it. We all know FFP are not laws of the land because they don't have to be, but they are the rules applicable for being members of the club, the club being the Football League. They are laws voted in by the members. I cannot see where there is a conflict with restraint of trade rules either. Also, exactly what laws are you alluding to relating to businesses operating in the same profession not being subject to the same punishments! If you are referring to the fact that the PL and FL have different punishments then that is because they are totally different organisations.

I'm not regurgitating something, all I'm saying when something isn't law but is policy/rules then it is susceptible to legal challenges. And because the rules aren't blanket ie other divisions have different rules, you are setting precidents, which surely would be the basis of any legal challenge. For example say N. Forest had were told they couldn't extend players contracts and effectively had to sell their best players, whilst Man City guilty of the same thing just got a fine, then N. Forest could argue that they were being treated differently and there's a whole host of laws/legal rights they could argue were being broken.

Again I'm not trying to belittle ffp or the Albion planning for it, but as said I personally doubt ffp would be able to offer that sort sanction and be able to uphold it if it was challenged legally. And because of that my original point was I wouldn't hold out for players on the cheap.

Acker79 · Aug 6, 2014

Braggfan said:
I'm not regurgitating something, all I'm saying when something isn't law but is policy/rules then it is susceptible to legal challenges. And because the rules aren't blanket ie other divisions have different rules, you are setting precidents, which surely would be the basis of any legal challenge. For example say N. Forest had were told they couldn't extend players contracts and effectively had to sell their best players, whilst Man City guilty of the same thing just got a fine, then N. Forest could argue that they were being treated differently and there's a whole host of laws/legal rights they could argue were being broken.

Again I'm not trying to belittle ffp or the Albion planning for it, but as said I personally doubt ffp would be able to offer that sort sanction and be able to uphold it if it was challenged legally. And because of that my original point was I wouldn't hold out for players on the cheap.

No they can't. Man City are subject to either UEFA or FIFA restrictions (I forget which), Forest are subject to Football League Restrictions. That argument has as much legal standing as a macdonald's worker claiming they can't be fired because Burger King don't fire their employees for what he got sack for.

CheeseRolls · Aug 6, 2014

drew said:
On the contrary, debt is not, directly, the problem that FFP is addressing. Owners can't buy success as there is no guarantee, ask Forest about that.

Really ? Under FFP owners can pump huge amounts of money into football clubs, isn't that what TB has been doing ? Isn't that what the owners at Forest are doing ? It will however be much harder for another Portsmouth or Leeds situation to occur, where the owners loan the clubs large sums to try and buy short term success, whilst charging excessively high rates of interest, which just add to the long term debt of the clubs.

The situation at Blackpool is interesting. I suspect that there is nothing in the rules to prevent another Oyston and maybe this is also correct. The Oystons invested a whole load of cash, when the club was at a total low point. Somehow got them promoted to the premiership and then promptly paid themselves back handsomely. The club maybe in a mess right now, but it could be sold as a viable concern and I suspect it is in a healthier state that when they took it over.

Braggfan · Aug 6, 2014

Acker79 said:
No they can't. Man City are subject to either UEFA or FIFA restrictions (I forget which), Forest are subject to Football League Restrictions. That argument has as much legal standing as a macdonald's worker claiming they can't be fired because Burger King don't fire their employees for what he got sack for.

There's a reason people say this a grey area legally. You are right that the two clubs are subject to different resitrictions but the fact that a championship side could get promoted to the premeir league and the those restrictions change, surely means there's areas to argue agaonst the punishments. I don't know why people seem so aggitated by the fact that clubs might challenge it. I'll point out I'M not challenging or advocating clubs do, I'm just realistic enough to acknowledge clubs with money who get punished will challenge it and I'm also realistic enough to realise it's way to early to say that thos epunishments will definitely stick.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Brighton] Barber on FFP from the Forum

Well-known member

The ONLY Gay in Brighton

Drew

Well-known member

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded

Drew

5 millionth post poster

#cpfctinpotclub

New member

Drew

Well-known member

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded

Well-known member

Well-known member

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded

Share this page