Positive thread: the last transfer window of treading water

dwayne

Well-known member

Jul 5, 2003

14,957

London

• Aug 15, 2014

• #1

So, in theory is this the last transfer window we will be treading water?

Tony Bloom was quite open in expressing the fact that FFP will kick in next transfer window and the punished teams will need to sell before they can buy more.

This , again, in theory will lead to 2 outcomes:

1) We will be at a competitive advantage to punished teams. Players will become cheaper other teams will suffer, we will therefore start spending and be in a strong position.

2) The FA will not have the balls to do anything, we can all forget FFP and spend anyway without fear of the consequences?

Or am I too optimistic that it will be that simple?

 

Tom Hark Preston Park

Will Post For Cash

Jul 6, 2003

70,187

• Aug 15, 2014

• #2

Seems to me we're placing an awful lot of trust in FFP penalties being strictly applied. These things tend to end up watered-down, else you'd put half the clubs in the division out of business.

 

M

martin tyler

Well-known member

Jan 25, 2013

5,844

• Aug 15, 2014

• #3

It will be interesting. I am not 100% convinced reference FFP penalties being imposed.

 

El Sid

Well-known member

May 10, 2012

3,806

West Sussex

• Aug 15, 2014

• #4

Treading water?
Seems to me we've set sail in a sieve with a paper hankie as a sail and a plastic fork for a paddle.

 

T

thbjenkins

Active member

Mar 12, 2014

154

Lancing

• Aug 15, 2014

• #5

If Bloom and Barber are correct then option 1 will be more or less true.
However I can't shake this feeling that option 2 will be the reality.

Money talks.

 

beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Jul 21, 2003

35,310

• Aug 15, 2014

• #6

seems fair enough. though there is one other issue to consider - FFP is just a daft meme thrown up every two seconds in place of "tight budget". so it depends if FFP is really the driver, or just being sensible about spending. is there a bottomless pit that opens up in scenario 2?

 

lizard

Well-hung member

Jul 14, 2005

3,332

• Aug 15, 2014

• #7

I feel FFP is just a mask to hide the fact that we are potless. There seems little chance the penalties will enforce it either or have much bearing on our potential squad.

 

T

thbjenkins

Active member

Mar 12, 2014

154

Lancing

• Aug 15, 2014

• #8

El Sid said:

Treading water?
Seems to me we've set sail in a sieve with a paper hankie as a sail and a plastic fork for a paddle.

Click to expand...

A beautiful analogy.

 

Tom Hark Preston Park

Will Post For Cash

Jul 6, 2003

70,187

• Aug 15, 2014

• #9

lizard said:

I feel FFP is just a mask to hide the fact that we are potless. There seems little chance the penalties will enforce it either or have much bearing on our potential squad.

Click to expand...

FFP does sometimes appear to be a bit of a smokescreen for a flawed business model. We fill the stadium, we stuff our faces with pies and pints at premium rates like there's no tomorrow, and still the club makes a year-on-year operational loss. Something doesn't add up, and maybe never will do.

 

J

jabba

Well-known member

Jul 15, 2009

1,322

York

• Aug 15, 2014

• #10

I liked the idea of the fines being shared out amongst the clubs that had adhered to FFP rules.

 

Tom Hark Preston Park

Will Post For Cash

Jul 6, 2003

70,187

• Aug 15, 2014

• #11

jabba said:

I liked the idea of the fines being shared out amongst the clubs that had adhered to FFP rules.

Click to expand...

Redistribution of the fines on a strict pro-rata basis of adherence to FFP would appear to be by far the best way of ensuring a level financial playing field. IMHO, like.

 

J

jabba

Well-known member

Jul 15, 2009

1,322

York

• Aug 15, 2014

• #12

Especially as the extra income would help us comply with FFP!

Tom Hark said:

Redistribution of the fines on a strict pro-rata basis of adherence to FFP would appear to be by far the best way of ensuring a level financial playing field. IMHO, like.

Click to expand...

 

symyjym

Banned

Nov 2, 2009

13,138

Brighton / Hove actually

• Aug 15, 2014

• #13

There a scenario to scenario 1) All the clubs have stocked up with the best of the current pick of players. So the only ones they will get rid of will be passed their sale by date, which may not be of great use to us. That said up we would have the pick of up and coming players from the lower leagues.

2) On the positive, if every club flouted FFP it would fail because player embargos wouldn't work if every club were issued with one. With us near breaking even on the scale on the graph it should effect the range of punishment levels.

As long as one club sets the bar the FL will be forced to act accordingly with FFP.

 

GT49er

Well-known member

Feb 1, 2009

46,743

Gloucester

• Aug 15, 2014

• #14

It's not just FFP though, is it? The stated long term aim is for the club to be self sufficient, ie make a profit, or at least break even. Difficult to see how this can happen when we still make a loss with a full stadium and high prices though.