FFP alternatives

Football has existed for well over a century, this obsession with putting in rules to benefit the cartel clubs has to stop, clubs are now a business and in my opinion if they sink organically they should sink.

The Cat is out of the bag and I don't want a draft system or a wage cap or any other thinly veiled attempt to make it into a happy clapping league where EVERYONE wins.
 
The problem with the current version of FFP is that it's historic, going back 3 years. Steve Parish, the Palace chairman, made this point and I think there's a post on here linking to that Talkshite interview. How does your financial situation 3 years ago say anything about your financial situation now, or in the next 2 years?

And it only looks at one thing, which is profit and loss. I've said before that in 2008 we were days away from administration but would have passed FFP. That alone shows how farcical it is. The reason we would have gone into administration is that we didn't have the cash to meet a £15m payment for transfers done the previous summer. FFP would not have picked that up yet cashflow problems are the main cause of clubs (and companies generally) going into administration.

For me, any financial rules should be about looking at all aspects - profit/loss, assets/liabilities and cash flow, particularly the last of those. Clubs should have to provide a projected cash flow statement showing how they're going to be able to meet their short term liabilities. They should also undergo 'stress tests' showing how they'd cope if a longer-term debt became payable. So Chelsea should have been made to submit a plan as to how they would repay Abramovich if he called in his debt.

The Financial Services authorities effectively banned interest-only mortgages in this country and should do the same for football clubs. There should be a capital repayment requirement for any debt and debt should be restricted to infrastructure, and not allowed for things like leveraged buy-outs.
 
I think the only alternative is let the 2 shitty red teams do what they want, same goes for Barca. If they were challenging for the top honours this wouldn’t be happening.
 
I don't like the name FFP, because everybody knows it is not about fairness. The only alternative I see is to keep the financial part of the current EPL rule, accumulated loss over certain period of time - it is three years now - cannot go over a certain threshold. Punishment should never be directly sporting one, meaning no points deduction or idiotic possibility of relegation. Clubs would be forced to balance books in a set time-span and if not complying, transfer ban and the wage reduction would be forced on them until the clear the balance.
New owners would be allowed to invest 3x, 4x, or any other multiplication ratio into newly acquired clubs for the set period of time. It would need to be agreed upon BY ALL and I repeat BY ALL 20 EPL clubs, I would actually include among those clubs all EPL winners and FA cup winners and the clubs that spent a certain number of seasons in EPL.
Everything else is the push back to reset the EPL back 70s-00s and triarchy of the red shirted teams.
 
Anything that only links spending to revenue will always favour the bigger clubs.

A standard overall wage cap across the board?
A standard wage cap for individual players?
Limiting each club to 3 or 4 1st team signings only to stop stockpiling?
Something similar to the US league where ypu can break the structure for 3 players only?

I honestly dont know what the solution is but anything thats linked to commercial revenue or income isnt fair as some clubs like yourselves, RS, Man U, Chelsea and Arsenal have that big head start.
 
Semper aggressus said:
If you can afford to, spend it. If you can’t, don’t. Just like real life really.

Given that City had over £700m income we should be able to spend more than anyone. Clubs like Accrington Stanley and Barrow probably hardly anything. Unless they were bought by a multi-billionaire, in which case if that owner wanted to, why shouldn’t he or she be allowed to offer £300m to sign Mbappe or Salah for Barrow and pay their wages?

Say Jeff Bezos or the Sultan of Brunei bought a League 2 club, why should the football authorities imply he can’t afford to sign £1bn of players in one transfer window? Other clubs should just suck it up and accept it wasn’t them who won the lottery. Which brings us back to why ffp started - rags, scousers, arsenal and to some extent Barca and Milan wanted to take their ball home when City got Sheikh Mansour. That’s all it is. The whole reason for it and why we should always fight it and spend what the fuck we want.
Click to expand...
If bezos bought a league 2 club he could spend as much as he wanted no ffp in league 2. Just like Reynolds is doing at Wrexham. It’s all reported on in the media as exiting great for the town a real Hollywood story. It’s only when you get in the premier league and become a threat to the red shirts. Then you’re a problem and have to be dealt with. Reynolds would probably be ok though as he’s white and American
 
Bald fraud said:
If bezos bought a league 2 club he could spend as much as he wanted no ffp in league 2. Just like Reynolds is doing at Wrexham. It’s all reported on in the media as exiting great for the town a real Hollywood story. It’s only when you get in the premier league and become a threat to the red shirts. Then you’re a problem and have to be dealt with. Reynolds would probably be ok though as he’s white and is Canadian.
Click to expand...

Bald fraud said:
If bezos bought a league 2 club he could spend as much as he wanted no ffp in league 2. Just like Reynolds is doing at Wrexham. It’s all reported on in the media as exiting great for the town a real Hollywood story. It’s only when you get in the premier league and become a threat to the red shirts. Then you’re a problem and have to be dealt with. Reynolds would probably be ok though as he’s white and American
Click to expand...
He's Canadian.
 
If you really want to do it, you don't need rules, you just need an equitable distribution of money in football. Champions League money should be shared even down to League Two. The Premier League TV deal should be shared right down the ladder. Additional payments should only cover the costs associated with hosting live TV games, travelling to Europe, etc. Gate receipts should be split 50/50 with the home and away teams in every game. And what you'd probably find is that if there was no chance of cementing your place at the top of the table indefinitely and guaranteeing income for decades, there probably wouldn't be such an influx of billionaires into the game in the first place, because there'd be no chance of any of them getting their money back. Successful teams would get more sponsorship money, but without such a huge difference in incomes, the chances of clubs building a dynasty that will last for decades would be much smaller.

But it's never going to happen because it would involve a lot of very highly paid people getting a big pay cut for the common good.
 
Throw the Rags the Scousers and the Gunners out of the Premier league then get the remaining clubs to set aside new rules which they all agree on instead of all this greed, the clubs belong to the fans .
 
I'm With Stupid said:
If you really want to do it, you don't need rules, you just need an equitable distribution of money in football. Champions League money should be shared even down to League Two. The Premier League TV deal should be shared right down the ladder. Additional payments should only cover the costs associated with hosting live TV games, travelling to Europe, etc. Gate receipts should be split 50/50 with the home and away teams in every game. And what you'd probably find is that if there was no chance of cementing your place at the top of the table indefinitely and guaranteeing income for decades, there probably wouldn't be such an influx of billionaires into the game in the first place, because there'd be no chance of any of them getting their money back. Successful teams would get more sponsorship money, but without such a huge difference in incomes, the chances of clubs building a dynasty that will last for decades would be much smaller.

But it's never going to happen because it would involve a lot of very highly paid people getting a big pay cut for the common good.
Click to expand...


Could you imagine that? All the money filtering down the leagues would leave our entrants into the CL without a pot to piss in.

Scunthorpe outbidding Chelsea for a player, no reason to win the league because everyone gets paid the same no matter what.
 
RACHACE said:
I'm sick and tired of having to listen to knuckle dragging armchair supporters of mainly ManUre and Liverpool, but as I do quite a bit of work down south, both Arsenal and Spurs too calling us cheating ***** etc due to the farce that is FFP.
A set of rules that restrict the amount a club can spend. A set of rules that for some reason weren't required until around the time we started to rock the boat with regard the top 4 in the Premier League and started to qualify for the Uefa Champions League regularly.

Buy let's imagine for a minute that both Uefa and the Premier League were genuinely wanting to make things fair. What rules could be brought in to make things fair?

Also, what rules with regard ownership could be brought in to prevent a club going bust like Bury, or prevent situations whereas players and staff might not get paid on time like Reading recently, who were a Premier league club less than 10 years ago.

I'm after some quality ammunition to blow these planks away in a calm and precise manner, with the long term goal being, that these knuckle draggers just fuck off and give me a wide berth when it comes to football talk, or 'bantz'.

I've tried a simple 'fuck off' but the rats just keep coming so like I say, a bit of quality ammunition might just be the tonic.
Click to expand...
Just laugh in their faces and remark with an ear to ear shit-eating grin,
'Whatever you try, tough shit - you can't touch us and you know it. That's why it makes you so angry.'
 
I have always said that regulating the P&L:
1. Would lead to more and more rules of ever greater detail and most of them without logical foundation.
2. Restricts clubs’ ability to profit from a good business model and to suffer from a bad one.
The former has now come to pass. For example:

— the junking of the legally recognised definition of related parties under IAS 24 and its replacement with a ludicrous definition of associated. Read the rules, they can mean whatever you want them to mean.
— the attempt to turn sponsorships into a public auction.
— the attempt to restrict loans in group clubs.
etc etc.

So I come back to my start position which is:
REGULATE DEBT, not the P&L. It is debt that leads clubs into trouble and regulation of debt to a given level such as 1X turnover would take care of most problems, while leaving clubs to pursue whatever business policies they wished.
In addition, there needs to be agreement on how certain income, such as tv, can be distributed for the common good.

THAT’S IT.
 
I’ve got an alternative to FFP..

Stop fucking crying about the success of clubs who’s necks you used to have your foot on, who are now funded like you were for multiple decades and wiping the fucking floor with you success wise…

Karma will always get ya in the end…! Especially if you are a mard arsed set of utter cunts … !
 
Blue Til Death said:
I’ve got an alternative to FFP..

Stop fucking crying about the success of clubs who’s necks you used to have your foot on, who are now funded like you were for multiple decades and wiping the fucking floor with you success wise…

Karma will always get ya in the end…! Especially if you are a mard arsed set of utter cunts … !
Click to expand...
You have a point!
 
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