FFP alternatives

R R

RACHACE

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 Oct 2008
Messages
4,179
Location
http://www.olbg.com/blogs/post.php?id=409471
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.
 
Throughout football history, clubs have gone skint, but football survived and if you read books such as Stanley Matthews autobiography, he asks "where did the money go?" because in his day players were paid pitifully

I suppose what I'm saying is there shouldn't be any rules on ownership
It really is the luck of the draw
 
remember arthur mann said:
Any club in debt should not be allowed to sign players.
Click to expand...
I think debt on building a new stadium or training facilities for example should be allowed.

You probably shouldn't be able to rack up debt that could really damage the club on chasing the golden goose of champions league football or Premier League football though.
 
dickie davies said:
Throughout football history, clubs have gone skint, but football survived and if you read books such as Stanley Matthews autobiography, he asks "where did the money go?" because in his day players were paid pitifully

I suppose what I'm saying is there shouldn't be any rules on ownership
It really is the luck of the draw
Click to expand...
No rules whatsoever?

What about at least the protection of the stadium that said club play in?

Chelsea for example could be bought just for Stamford Bridge alone and potentially sold to make way for plush housing.
 
Is it in American sports where they have the best players coming from colleges end up going to the teams that finish at the bottom in the NBA. That would be one way to make it a level playing field for every team in the league. Can’t think of any other way of doing it.

I’d say scrap the lot, United and Liverpool’s success has come in an era where you could spend what you want. Why have we only needed it now when City have a wealthy owner when we didn’t need financial fair play for the other 120 odd years of association rules football? I’m suprised those two clubs don’t want it scrapped as they have only won two league title between them since FFP has been introduced.
 
No rules on investment or results, no debt other than infrastructure projects and some protection of community assets. Better owner rules that focus on success running businesses. Just that.

Businesses go bust all the time, just make sure the club survives.
 
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.
 
RACHACE said:
No rules whatsoever?

What about at least the protection of the stadium that said club play in?

Chelsea for example could be bought just for Stamford Bridge alone and potentially sold to make way for plush housing.
Click to expand...
All clubs should be guaranteed access to their grounds for a minimum period based on the time it would take to build a replacement of similar capacity.
So perhaps 1 season for a 10k ground, 2 seasons for a 30k ground and maybe 4 seasons for for 50k and larger grounds.
New grounds of all sizes have been built in the past 25-30 years so construction timescales should be easy to estimate.
Other than that, owners should be allowed to spend as they wish.
 
feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
Is it in American sports where they have the best players coming from colleges end up going to the teams that finish at the bottom in the NBA. That would be one way to make it a level playing field for every team in the league. Can’t think of any other way of doing it.

I’d say scrap the lot, United and Liverpool’s success has come in an era where you could spend what you want. Why have we only needed it now when City have a wealthy owner when we didn’t need financial fair play for the other 120 odd years of association rules football? I’m suprised those two clubs don’t want it scrapped as they have only won two league title between them since FFP has been introduced.
Click to expand...
Being rewarded for failure is never a good path to go down.
I don't watch NBA but wouldn't teams throw games to finish nearer the bottom if they had no chance of finishing near the top?
 
Gazza said:
Being rewarded for failure is never a good path to go down.
I don't watch NBA but wouldn't teams throw games to finish nearer the bottom if they had no chance of finishing near the top?
Click to expand...

I suppose there is that way of looking at it, a lot more basketball teams have won the NBA during the 30 odd years the Premier league has been going which has produced 7 different teams. In the NBA there is always that hope your team might compete for the top prize. Where as in the Premier League there are teams that will never see a title race let alone win it.

The flip side of it they don’t have relegation or promotion in top level American sports such as the NFL, NBA or Major League Baseball. You can stink the place out one season and then come back the next.
 
The best rule you could do with FFP is have it based on this

No team allowed to spend more than £250 million on players during the season. You could for example say

If you spend £150 million on players. You have £100 million left. If they sell a player for £50 million. Then you get £150 million to spend on players.

Also the wage bill should be capped on players under 21 where they can't earn more than £50,000 a week for the rest of their career. Eventually you will get players who can't earn more than £50,000 a week meaning the £300k a week players no longer exist.

The profit and loss method doesn't work and restricts the best teams being the best and the ambitious teams never being able to challenge them.
 
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