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

Citizen Green said:
What is your assessment of the proposed rules themselves, are they practical and a real long term solution to football finance?
Click to expand...
They're better than the current rules but I'm not sure they're practical. How are clubs going to be able to adjust their wage bill significantly when most players are on 5-year contracts? If united go out of the CL at the group stage, as they did a while back, that could cost 10% of their turnover. So contracts will probably have to be heavily performance based.

And they don't answer the question of long-term sustainability either. Imagine two clubs with identical revenue who both meet that 70% limit on football spending. But one has to pay a net £150m in transfer liabilities the following season while the other is owed a net £50m. If the first club don't have that money and can't pay it, they will potentially face administration.

I hate to say this about Tebas but the system in La Liga, which looks at what clubs can afford to spend in the coming year, is far better.
 
So the same basic premise? The richest clubs can spend more than the poorest? No matter how much a wealthy entrepreneur wants to put into a club they will not be able to spend as much as utd/bayern/barca/etc. And now City too.

Why cant they just set a figure that everyone can spend ffs! (With a set allowance/percentage for debt)
 
I don’t quite get how these new rules differ from the existing FFP rules? Ultimately spending is linked to revenue so no room for investment. Seems like it’s jus repackaged and given a different name.
 
So it wasn't enough to spend what your earn because certain owners don't like their club doing too much of that. Now they want to limit how much of their own revenue a club can spend? No doubt, it's nothing to do with what a club owes on transfers or any debts a club might have.

Sounds like a rule proposition written in America. (cough-John Henry-cough)

I may be cynical but if this gets passed, I just see this heading into a situation where they will limit some clubs more than others(they'll add those cartel club clauses later). Artificial financial control.
 
Last edited:
To me the obvious solution was always to steal baseball’s luxury tax system where teams who want to spend can do so but each incremental signing triggers huge taxes which can be redistributed. Better for the health of the entire pyramid and better for players. These asinine systems which tie spending power to revenue either limit player incomes so that billionaires can be more rich and/or make it impossible for any clubs to challenge the current top clubs. It’s so disheartening to me that they went back to this well
 
What does a club do with the spare 30% anyway?? Only so many things a club can spend money on besides players.

Obviously some owners want that extra cash in their back pocket guaranteed. Like the US systems where player earnings are capped as a percentage of income.
 
waspish said:
Where happening to the premier ffp?
Click to expand...
Sly sports will be along soon enough with a guilty verdict. The panel was made up from partisan pricks who take money from America, Qatar and Saudi with special mention to the excellent journalist integrity on show from Der Smeagol.

It’s over, we our long gone. Next attack is to try and destabilise the club by calling our owner a war mongering Muslim. All in the name of fair competition ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.