UEFA cave in on FFP

[El Presidente]

FFP has tried to be all things to all people and failed completely! It's been 'sold' as a measure to protect the financial well being of clubs - it doesn't. A means to curtail player wages - it hasn't. To level the playing field between clubs - again it hasn't.

Had FFP addressed the real problem faced by clubs, debt, then it would have had a real chance. Instead FFP actively promotes clubs getting further and further into debt via 'permitted losses' and allowing those losses to be covered by clubs borrowing from their owners.

'Proper FFP' based not on the P&L of a club but on the Balance Sheet might have a chance. Allow clubs to make what losses they like so long as those losses are covered by equity purchase not loans. Prevent clubs that make a loss from paying a dividend. That way clubs would not be increasing their liabilities and if a chairman or rich patron wanted to take a gamble on getting their club promoted or higher up the league then it would be real money they would be risking with no chance of getting it back unless they can get the club to trade profitably.

If a club owner knew that the cost of buying a player and paying astronomical wages was going to come directly from their pockets it might make them think twice. This might have a chance of curtailing player costs. It would certainly stop owners taking a gamble on getting promotion and getting the money they have put into the club back from the higher income.

The chance of clubs getting into financial difficulties would be reduced as clubs couldn't get into debt.

Whilst my suggested system of FFP wouldn't level the playing field between clubs per se it would give all clubs the same potential opportunity.

I don't want to appear rude, but that's gibberish.

 

[osgood]

It's beginning to look as though the FFP financial prudence that has seen the Albion sell its best players and replace them with rubbish has all been for nowt. In the meantime Bournemouth have been promoted to the Prem.

WHAT.A.****ING.SHAMBLES!

So has our strict adherence to the FFP rules been in vain ?, whod have guessed that would happen ?

 

[Eeyore]

Different rules in League 2

How do assets and liabilities work in this ? Say I spend 1m on a player, and go in the red, isn't this balanced out by the value of the player as shown on the balance sheet itself ?

 

[sydney]

Won't someone think about the lawyers?

Range Rovers don't pay for themselves you know.

a seemingly earnest attempt to create a more level playing field for all teams , once again undone by billionaires , lawyers and generally the big end of town , this and blatters general behaviour and comments re; qatar and russia w.c's are an indication that this is no longer " the peoples' game" but another industry for filthy rich people to basically bend , flout or make up their own rules......sure uefa are shitting themselves over the prospect of a super league so have backed down to the big guns............not good for the game. imho.

 

[Eeyore]

The FFP rules, as they stand, must be quite discriminatory anyway. Take a mid table Premier League side, Crystal Palace for example, it's quite possible that in the next few years they'll be reaping more television money than the likes of Bayern Munich. Such is the nature of the latest deal.

I'm guessing they'll never be a level playing field.

 

[sydney]

The FFP rules, as they stand, must be quite discriminatory anyway. Take a mid table Premier League side, Crystal Palace for example, it's quite possible that in the next few years they'll be reaping more television money than the likes of Bayern Munich. Such is the nature of the latest deal.

I'm guessing they'll never be a level playing field.

it is important that the spectators get a fair go as well.....i could be wrong but ticket prices in Germany are much less than the Prem.

 

[Triggaaar]

I don't want to appear rude

I have bad news...

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

It's more like Financial Foul Play than Financial Fair Play. Bin it.

 

[nwgull]

Bin FFP Bin Parachte payments

Unless of course we we get promoted next May, in which case parachute payments are perfectly fine and give promoted clubs a chance of competing with the established PL clubs in offering PL sized contracts.

 

[Marty___Mcfly]

If QPR escape paying their Football League fine then FFP will be proven as completely toothless in the championship. Chances are it will then be ignored by all clubs other than those who have simply been using FFP as a smokescreen for frugal spending which has demonstrably restricted the progression of their club.

I know at least one club who has been doing that for the last couple of seasons..

 

[El Presidente]

How do assets and liabilities work in this ? Say I spend 1m on a player, and go in the red, isn't this balanced out by the value of the player as shown on the balance sheet itself ?

It's simpler than that. Clubs can't spend more than 60%/70% of revenue in wages (percentage depends on the division).

They have to submit monthly accounts to the league.

 

[El Presidente]

I'm guessing they'll never be a level playing field.

Correct, but there never has been one historically either.

 

[Creaky]

I don't want to appear rude, but that's gibberish.

Now you've lost me EP.

In what way was my post gibberish?

Do you think the current FFP regulations makes clubs less likely to fail financially, curtail player costs or level the playing field between clubs? - if you do then I'd like to see the evidence for that!

Maybe you think the idea of covering losses via enforced equity purchase would achieve none of those aims, or at least be more effective than the current system. Fair enough, but what is your reasoning behind such an idea?

 

[El Presidente]

Now you've lost me EP.

In what way was my post gibberish?

Do you think the current FFP regulations makes clubs less likely to fail financially, curtail player costs or level the playing field between clubs? - if you do then I'd like to see the evidence for that!

Maybe you think the idea of covering losses via enforced equity purchase would achieve none of those aims, or at least be more effective than the current system. Fair enough, but what is your reasoning behind such an idea?

1: Current rules allow losses so doesn't particularly reduce the likelihood of financial failure. It's an irrelevance anyway as cash flow is more important than profit. The clubs with the greatest debts ( Chelsea, City, PSG) are the ones least likely to go bust.

2: Player wages are continuing to rise, just take a look at the Sporting Intelligence that came out yesterday.

3: Current FFP rules maintain the gap between the haves and the have nots. The aim is to prevent another City or PSG joining the closed shop of the wealthy.

4: I've never suggested forced equity purchase.

My view is that FFP is a load of hogwash and we are better off without it. It's just an opportunity for lawyers to fill their boots.

 

[Creaky]

1: Current rules allow losses so doesn't particularly reduce the likelihood of financial failure. It's an irrelevance anyway as cash flow is more important than profit. The clubs with the greatest debts ( Chelsea, City, PSG) are the ones least likely to go bust.

2: Player wages are continuing to rise, just take a look at the Sporting Intelligence that came out yesterday.

3: Current FFP rules maintain the gap between the haves and the have nots. The aim is to prevent another City or PSG joining the closed shop of the wealthy.

4: I've never suggested forced equity purchase.

My view is that FFP is a load of hogwash and we are better off without it. It's just an opportunity for lawyers to fill their boots.

So in summary you agree with me on the first 3 points I made and on point 4 I never said you suggested forced equity purchase, I was putting that forward as a suggested system of FFP - from my post you labeled as 'gibberish' - "Whilst my suggested system of FFP . . . . . . ." .

I'm therefore still at a loss to understand which part of my post was 'gibberish.

 

[El Presidente]

So in summary you agree with me on the first 3 points I made and on point 4 I never said you suggested forced equity purchase, I was putting that forward as a suggested system of FFP - from my post you labeled as 'gibberish' - "Whilst my suggested system of FFP . . . . . . ." .

I'm therefore still at a loss to understand which part of my post was 'gibberish.

City, PSG, United, Chelsea have huge debts but won't go bust.

 

[Creaky]

City, PSG, United, Chelsea have huge debts but won't go bust.

And . . . . .

Can you name a club that has gone bust that didn't have debts?

 

[El Presidente]

And . . . . .

Can you name a club that has gone bust that didn't have debts?

All businesses have debts. Why are you trying to make football clubs different?

Under your plan the Albion would be playing non-league at best. You may want that. I don't.

 

[Creaky]

All businesses have debts. Why are you trying to make football clubs different?

Under your plan the Albion would be playing non-league at best. You may want that. I don't.

All, (most?), businesses have trading debts - not all businesses have long term debts incurred to cover trading losses.

I see no reason why the Albion would be disadvantaged in comparison to other clubs were a system in force that prevented clubs from continuously trading at a loss and covering those losses by way of increased debt. To a large extent TB has behaved 'responsibly' in that respect by converting much of his financial support for the club into equity.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It's simpler than that. Clubs can't spend more than 60%/70% of revenue in wages (percentage depends on the division).

They have to submit monthly accounts to the league.

This is where I struggle to understand how clubs like Bournemouth with 12K crowds can outbid us for Grabban, for example.