[Football] FFP The reality!

[Buffalo Seagull]

Man City restricted to 21 players in Champions League - Reality is only used 21 this year and only plan the same next year.

They may have only used 21 this year, but next season they will still have to meet the home grown and club trained player requirements in their 21 players, rather than 25. So it is wrong to say that they could simply pick the 21 players that they used this year as their squad for next season.

 

[Acker79]

Did I hear rightly that if man city comply with FFP over the next two years they get the money from the find back?

 

[Kevlar]

Rather than fining clubs because they spend their cash, they should put restrictions on the number of non English players they put out on the pitch

No more than 3 at a time

rich clubs would still be able to buy the best English players and maintain
their dominance and restrict competition.
ideally individual and / or squad wage caps
That may not be possible so a more pragmatic solution
incrementally increase the amount of academy ( or players on books at 16) players
that have to be in a squad.
That way no club could have a squad full of established internationals
regardless of their nationality.There may have to be regulations on young player
recruitment .
If half the squad ( or more)came through the youth structure
the connections between club players and fans would be strengthened
as well as competition amongst clubs.
If FFP was strictly enforced the new (sugar daddy owned clubs) would lose
spending power but only to the old rich clubs with global brands with
the greatest revenue .If it was in place in the last era Man Utd would
have had the pick of the players Chelsea and Man city would not have been able
to afford .
In the championship as many have commented FFP would enhance the advantages
of the clubs receiving parachute payments.
In football as in wider society fair play is impossible if the elite can spend
their way to maintain dominance regardless of where that spending power
comes from

 

[Creaky]

FFP needs ripping up and starting again.

You're right it is the debt that gets them. I think they put cash in but then sign players and other commitments to long term contracts that cannot be covered if they walk away - current QPR is a good example, if Fernandes walks they are uber fukked!

So for me, at the core of FFP v2 should be a methodology that doesn't allow a club to have current and future commitments beyond what is reasonable (historic) recurring revenue with the difference made up of either readily available capital or cash that can be drawn on to meet those commitments.

It would be fairly easy to control with clubs having to submit regular Management Accounts and a fairly routine audit approach

I really have no idea why it isn't handled in this sort of way ... it would also allow lower league clubs the occasional opportunity of much needed investment

If the money used by a rich 'sugar daddy' to bring in top class players on high wages has not been 'invested' by way of loans but rather as equity purchases then there is not a problem if they subsequently walk away from a club.

Sure the wage bill will be high but the club also has a very large asset which can be realised by selling those very same players that are demanding high wages.

It is debt and lack of cashflow to service those debts that creates problems.

 

[Creaky]

There are PL rules on FFP, but they are different to UEFA's. Essentially clubs in the PL and UEFA competitions can, in principle, be punished twice, although the punishment and criteria are different. Also Premier League restrictions are being rolled out between this December and December 2016, so it's a slower pace. Lots of details here.

As for a points deduction, could UEFA not apply a smaller points deduction in the group stages?

UEFA will not do anything that undermines the income they get from the Champions League. They aren't going to make it more difficult for any of the top European teams to get a place.

 

[n1 gull]

When they are fined who gets the money?

 

[Rugrat]

If the money used by a rich 'sugar daddy' to bring in top class players on high wages has not been 'invested' by way of loans but rather as equity purchases then there is not a problem if they subsequently walk away from a club.

Sure the wage bill will be high but the club also has a very large asset which can be realised by selling those very same players that are demanding high wages.

It is debt and lack of cashflow to service those debts that creates problems.

Totally. If debt and future commitments (contracts) can be properly limited to what can be serviced with expected cashflow and equity then a club won't run into any major problems. I'm no accountant but it seems a pretty easy solution to me

Plus no need to figure out fines, embargo's or any other restrictions

 

[Surf's Up]

That's real tough on Man City, imagine only being able to spend £49m!! Guess their Arabs will have come up with a shirt sponsorship deal when they get desperate to spend more.

 

[drew]

That's real tough on Man City, imagine only being able to spend £49m!! Guess their Arabs will have come up with a shirt sponsorship deal when they get desperate to spend more.

Bearing in mind they have failed at the CL, I would suggest that £49m is a drop in the ocean when you considered the players they probably need to make the next step up!

 

[El Presidente]

No. The £17m fine will be an expense in the accounts, but not for FFP purposes.

Here's a crazy FFP idea:
How about clubs can spend as much as they like, as long as all debt is underwritten by the owners/board.

But that would mean that no clubs would be able to spend money they don't have...................KRAZY idea, you'll upset 'Arry with such an approach.

 

[El Presidente]

When they are fined who gets the money?

They haven't been fined, the money will be deducted from their next CL payment from UEFA.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

As an aside, a lot of people said FFP was a restrain of trade, against the law etc etc. How come none of these rich clubs are taking UEFA to court?

 

[Bry Nylon]

They haven't been fined, the money will be deducted from their next CL payment from UEFA.

So the answer to the question is that UEFA get the money.

 

[El Presidente]

As an aside, a lot of people said FFP was a restrain of trade, against the law etc etc. How come none of these rich clubs are taking UEFA to court?

City were prepared to take UEFA to court but agreed to drop it when the majority of the fine was suspended.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

City were prepared to take UEFA to court but agreed to drop it when the majority of the fine was suspended.

But if they felt they had a case why did they agree to any fine or restrictions? And what about the other 9 team who also all complied? Maybe there was no case?

 

[Triggaaar]

But that would mean that no clubs would be able to spend money they don't have...................KRAZY idea, you'll upset 'Arry with such an approach.

I don't think my brain is fully functioning yet - in my head it seems like a good idea, but I'm probably missing something.

Clubs would still be able to go into debt, subject to some limits (as we have limits now). And if they went past those limits, they'd face sanctions/points deduction. But if a rich owner came in and wanted to spend his way to the top, he could, as long as he underwrote all debt (so in effect the club has no debt at all - player contract are underwritten by the owner). 'arry would be ok, as the owners have the money.

 

[El Presidente]

But if they felt they had a case why did they agree to any fine or restrictions? And what about the other 9 team who also all complied? Maybe there was no case?

Because UEFA threatened to ban City from next year's CL whilst the case was rumbling through the courts, so City decided the fine was the lesser of two evils.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Because UEFA threatened to ban City from next year's CL whilst the case was rumbling through the courts, so City decided the fine was the lesser of two evils.

I still do not see this though. If City felt they had a case then they would be able to sue the living day lights out of UEFA if they were banned for a year. UEFA would be ruined. I'm not convinced UEFA would be able to risk this. I think the reality is that there is no case.

 

[El Presidente]

I still do not see this though. If City felt they had a case then they would be able to sue the living day lights out of UEFA if they were banned for a year. UEFA would be ruined. I'm not convinced UEFA would be able to risk this. I think the reality is that there is no case.

You're entitled to your opinion. My understanding from speaking to people at City is different.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You're entitled to your opinion. My understanding from speaking to people at City is different.

But my theory holds for all the affected clubs; all 9 of them and not just city. If there was a case I find it very odd that all 9 have agreed to pay up and not one club is prepared to challenge.