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 .
 
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.