City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

[jaiguruKun]

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

You think ADUG would allow that to happen with the reputational damage it would cause?
City amounts to about 80% of the overall value of CFG and our revenues dwarf the rest of the group combined. If some of the other clubs within the group start to struggle I'm pretty sure we would be able to withstand it.

If FFP is abolished, and IF City's revenues fell significantly ("the arse falling out" as you put it) there would be nothing to stop the owners from riding in on their white horse with a cash injection. The amounts of money required to so would be fairly piffling to the owners given the scale of their wealth. I appreciate this may offend your clearly strong and dearly held morals but that is the reality.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Fuck FFP. Just allow every club to spend what they can. What’s the problem?

The problem is the history clubs are shit-house cowards, who run to uefa and stamp their feet like spoilt rich kids. And these fuckers have the audacity to question City's integrity, set of cunts.

 

[Esteban de la Sexface]

I appreciate this may offend your clearly strong and dearly held morals but that is the reality.

it is the reality - and it is wrong. Pretty simple.

 

[Academica]

so the biggest clubs in the world are in financial trouble - and you don't think the money is running out. OK.

If the biggest clubs are in financial trouble they can limit their own transfers and cap wages without any outside help.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

If the biggest clubs are in financial trouble they can limit their own transfers and cap wages without any outside help.

Taking personal responsibility, what a novel concept nowadays ;)

 

[kun]

except for when the investment stops and the club has spent way beyond its means due to a benefactor that's no longer there. (for all the sensitive types, I'm not saying that's us).

That is true. There also needs to be a failsafe for this happening. Maybe a compulsory, yearly "rainy day fund" that has to be given to the club and protected (to cover 1 year of operating costs).

Additionally, if they cut costs and sell some assets they should be able to stay out of too much debt, especially if the debt is regulated.

 

[Esteban de la Sexface]

That is true. There also needs to be a failsafe for this happening. Maybe a compulsory, yearly "rainy day fund" that has to be given to the club and protected (to cover 1 year of operating costs).

Additionally, if they cut costs and sell some assets they should be able to stay out of too much debt, especially if it is regulated.

it is my opinion that regulation on revenue be it investment or debt is there to protect the status quo and is unsustainable, it needs to be competition based regulation where every team can spend X amount of money on salary and squad, rated against their leagues revenue. Personal investment can go in to facilities and stadiums etc. This model has proved sustainable in leagues where the money got out of hand before it did in football, namely NHL, NFL, and NBA.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

Despite the prevalent belief on here that debt is damaging no area of economic activity actually bans debt. Debt is seen as a valid way of raising capital for investment and had UEFA forced indebted clubs to settle their debts they would have ruined half (at least) of the clubs in the PL. UEFA abandoned action on debt in the face of threats by "the cartel clubs" of legal action, action they would have won. Debt is essential, for example to enable clubs to finance new stadia etc. Incredibly UEFA replaced action on debt by action to restrict (severely) owner investment. If football needs one thing desperately now, more than ever, it is external investment. Effectively this only comes from sponsorship (which has dried up somewhat) and the TV. Much of this is swallowed up in wages but wages attract good players and this keeps TV revenue high. But wages take money out of the game and this seems to make wage caps attractive, but in fact they are decisive because they put restrictions on transfers as effectively at least as caps on transfer fees. And transfer fees are the only mechanism to distribute wealth from outside within the game. So most of the obvious means of establishing a level playing field or competitive balance are, in fact, non-starters. Do we set a salary cap which all clubs in the PL can reach? What about championship clubs? The Italian league? What about a transfer ceiling? Does it become the norm for all transfers? Which national leagues would have an immediate advantage? We can see why UEFA made a complete mess of their attempt at regulation! My own opinion is that no series of rules will achieve satisfactory regulation of a complex sport such as football on a European scale and we are better of restricting ourselves to trying to ensure honesty rather than regulation.

 

[kun]

it is my opinion that regulation on revenue be it investment or debt is there to protect the status quo and is unsustainable, it needs to be competition based regulation where every team can spend X amount of money on salary and squad, rated against their leagues revenue. Personal investment can go in to facilities and stadiums etc. This model has proved sustainable in leagues where the money got out of hand before it did in football, namely NHL, NFL, and NBA.

You talk about a house of cards. Salary caps work there because there's no threat of relegation.
It's a tiny house of cards so it is sound. By the logic of those leagues then we would be looking at a Super League or a PL without promotion/relegation.

I think salary caps are needed lower down the ladder but look at other top flight FOOTBALL leagues that use a salary cap.

A-League
MLS

No promotion or relegation either. Also not the highest quality of leagues.

The Indian Premier League (cricket) uses a salary cap system and have had 5 teams fold in just 12 years.

 

[Parisian]

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?

You do that and no club outside of the PL can compete. In fact, PL clubs expenditures dwarf already their continental rivals.

You cannot replicate the NFL or other north american model in Europe. They have a single league and it is simple to apply those rules while we have several leagues in Europe following their own rules and their own state laws.

In the case of your proposition, let's take France as an example. They have a lower league revenue in TV rights. They also have higher taxes. So PSG, despite the owner wealth and their commercial development, wouldn't be able to spend much while most likely having to pay the incoming luxury tax because their gross wage bill would be higher than their other european rivals.