but then we're left with the situation that the richest prevail. It happens to be us now and that's great but equally unsustainable. There needs to be a happy medium I think. Regulating debt is equally as anti-competition as regulating investment.They DONT have to spend 100s of millions a year on salaries OR transfers. They choose to, chasing a dream, trying to buy success. It’s disgusting. Some might call it financial doping. I’m glad City have never gone down this immoral route
If they were restricted from getting into unmanageable debt (like every other business and individual is) by debt regulation they wouldn’t be able to spend 100s of millions if they didn’t have it, leading to a much more sustainable model of the game.
If clubs couldn’t send 100s of millions, selling clubs couldn’t ask 200m for one player.
It’s a virtuous circle.
Limit debt -> limit exposure -> Encourage financial prudence -> Make clubs look for value -> More sensible transfer fees and wages -> Less debt -> Happy days.
Another analogy: Business X wants to spend 200m on new premises on a turnover of 20m PA. The bank would say “sorry, can’t lend you that much, its too risky. Be more prudent, look for savings and come back next year and we will see what we can do” Next year that business is likely still trading. If the bank says “go on then. It’s a risk but who cares” and there’s a downturn in the economy and the bank calls its debt in, that business goes bust. If however business X takes on a new shareholder and he puts his own cash into the business, no debt is issues, the business gets its investment and everyone is a winner.
Actually that analogy was far too long winded but i got half way through typing it and stuck it out.
Clubs will NEVER go bust from having too much money. They will ALWAYS go bust from not having enough to cove costs.
Investment = Good.
Excessive debt (financial cheating) = Bad.
It’s so simple a united fan could understand it. They wouldn’t agree, but they’d understand it. (Not sure about a scouser. Depends if he finished school (debatable)).
No, club value. If you owe 10% of what your club is worth, you're in no danger. If you like Burnley owe 140% of what your club is worth, well guess what, they get relegated they're doing a Bury unless they come straight back up. Barca are at 33% and they're on the edge, I'd like to see it set somewhere between 10-15%, with extra borrowing allowed for stadium and facilities investment. Clubs should be allowed to run at a loss if they have the cash in the bank to absorb the loss.how do you regulate it? based on what? revenue? Hello FFP 2.0. As unfair as regulating investment and anti-competition
16 or 17 Prem clubs are owned by billionaires/multibillionaires with billionaires on the boards. Palace have two multibillionaire backers. Arsenal and Spurs have owners worth £6b/£7b each. There is a point whereby an owner worth £20b doesn't have an advantage over an owner worth £3b/£4b.It's quite simple really - it's a pretty unique industry that needs competition to be sustainable. One team winning everything because they are financially superior isn't sustainable. There needs to be hope for smaller clubs.
I'm not talking about capping individual salaries pal. I'm talking like the NFL where the cap is a percentage of the leagues revenue and teams can spend it how they see fit within the cap.
I don't think regulating investment and debt is possible legally as we've seen with FFP 1.0. Any other form of it is similarly wrong in my view.
It needs to be internal to the finances of football. It works in other sports, that we're gone out of control salary wise. Why not football?
so they'll be the 16 or 17 clubs ad nauseum and to fuck with the championship clubs then? it's a house of cards.16 or 17 Prem clubs are owned by billionaires/multibillionaires with billionaires on the boards. Palace have two multibillionaire backers. Arsenal and Spurs have owners worth £6b/£7b each. There is a point whereby an owner worth £20b doesn't have an advantage over an owner worth £3b/£4b.
so he has been pumping in money right? just hidden because of incorrect regulation that he shouldn't have had to hide.
There isn't anything wrong with it, it's his money. But unrestricted - nobody can compete with him and PSG financially it really is as simple as that. I don't want to see football in a world where two clubs can dominate financially to the wreck and ruin of everyone else. It's not sport to me
But that is life. It’s unfair but in life the richest DO often prevail. Nobody minds Tesco prevailing over the local corner shop because it is richer.but then we're left with the situation that the richest prevail. It happens to be us now and that's great but equally unsustainable. There needs to be a happy medium I think. Regulating debt is equally as anti-competition as regulating investment.
At least at some point, we’ll be able to buy the rags for a quid and make old toilet a car park.You also accused me of defending financial fair play when I did no such thing.
If City weren't as rich as they were you'd be completely different in your views.
I'd love to see the cross section of people who were complaining about Chelsea who now think its fine to have owners with unlimited funds spending in an an unregulated market, during a downturn
The arse is going to fall out of this fairly soon pal
If and when the money goes look at the shit show that will have to unravelled. We've been rolled up into some conglomerate group of clubs as the flagship. Are we even an entity in ourselves or part of the football group?
Imagine unravelling that if and when the money dries up?
But you can't see passed the end of your nose because fuck it, we're rich, fuck everyone else right
A racket but you're on the inside
I don’t know the financials of every club and I suspect you don’t either but if club X has a debt to turnover ratio of anything more than about 10% they are playing the game with somebody else’s money and that is wrong both morally and financially.but then we're left with the situation that the richest prevail. It happens to be us now and that's great but equally unsustainable. There needs to be a happy medium I think. Regulating debt is equally as anti-competition as regulating investment.
which clubs are in excessive debt? Serviceable debt is a viable business model for the most part.