FFP and why it's so bad for football supporters World wide.

[MCC]

We were very, very fortunate at City, as are the supporters at Chelsea, that our owners arrived at a point just prior to Platini conspiring with the European hirachy in an attemp to shut up shop, but though I'm sure we will still possibly even benefit in the long term, it doesn't make it right, and for them to even consider the use of the word 'fair' in the title of their new rules is an absolute joke.

Maybe, but no more fortunate than the Rags and Arsenal.

Think back before the late 1980s. Arsenal have been a top flight club since the 20s. Yet how many truly great teams have they produced in their history? One, in the thirties, and they were no better in truth than us at the time. They produced a very good team at the beginning of the 70s but who turned out to be a flash in the pan. You rightly say that at that time, any one of a dozen clubs could win the league in any given season, and the year after their double they didn't mount a serious title challenge.

So why has a team that has hovered around mid table or above for most of its first sixty years in the league become a global superstar in the last 20 years?

Because when the huge amount of new money from the premier league and the champions league became available, Arsenal had the good fortune to have a good side under George Graham, one capable of winning trophies.

Much the same is true of the rags. They had a fairly mid-table or just above side for most of the 70s and 80s. Certainly, they had been a long way short of challenging for the title on a sustained basis since the late 60s and were down, as you know, in 74/5, was it? Then in the close season of 1989 the Gracious One spent a shitload of money on new talent (which is party why the 5-1 was so piss funny). Over time their team gelled and titles started to arrive - just as the new money from the EPL and the Champions league did.

What those two things did, of course, was cement the status quo as it was at that time into place. Chelsea were not part of the status quo, the established European elite, throughout the 90s. Leeds were. Why? Because they had a good team at the right time - the last champions of the old division one. Leeds' story in the last 10 years proves that being in at the start doesn't guarantee continued success, but Blackburn's story shows that a sugar daddy doesn't either.

The good fortune of City, Chelsea and Blackburn has been the arrival of a massively powerful benefactor. The good fortune of the rags and Arsenal is that they happened to have a good team in the right place at the right time. Liverpool and Leeds had the same good fortune, but that wasn't enough for them (though in Liverpool's case it was enough for them until Chelsea and City came along.)

Put it another way. Had the premier league and champions league come along fifteen years earlier, who would have been the Sky 4, the dominant teams who would cement their positions at the top table? Probably the top teams of the day - Liverpool, Villa, Forest and maybe Ipswich, maybe us (we were a top 4 side throughout the late 70s). As it was, their stars faded - except for Liverpool - and Arsenals and the rags started to shine.

So the rags and Arsenal's place at Europe's top table is just as fortunate as ours - so many better teams weren't in the right place at the right time: they, lucky sods, were. They had one kind of luck, we had another.

They won the national lottery, we won Euromillions.

I like this. Great post.

+1

 

[alky313]

Yes, sometimes, people are able to justify things with a good arguement on paper, which is reality is just pure spin, and though appearing on the surface to be all about 'fairness and equality', is in truth absolutely to the contrary.

If you look at what developed football wise, on a World wide basis, and was created in almost every Country excepting England pre 1990, it's a no brainer, almost every Footbal League in the World grew a system, whereby only two, three or in rare cases maybe four Clubs ruled the roost and dominated all of their Domestic footballing competitions.

Every true footbal fan I assume would prefer there to be some actual 'competion' and not just have a system in which pre season it is accepted that one of 2 or 3 Clubs win everything, each year?

The contrary is certainly the case, and has been so in most Countries for decades, and flies in the face of any fairness and genuine competition.

Up to 1990 in Englland, and even more so the further back you go, particularly in the 60's and 70's, success was achievable by almost any Club, and all had a genuine chance ie: City, Utd, Leeds, Chelsea, Derby, Forrest, Villa, Spurs, Ipswich, Norwich, QPR, Liverpool, Everton, Wimbledon, Arsenal, West Ham, Newcastle etc etc.

After that point however, other than when some wealthy owners have intervened, genuine competition went out of the window, and obviously the cases of Blackburn, Chelsea and City are cases in point, whereby the Monopoly on the two horse race scenario was broken, and the cycle interupted giving and increasing the spread and share of power.

New owners from consortiums from around the Globe have been intervening in our game for the past decade, and cotinue to do so, and each brings with it the opportunity to share the potential winnings and spread the success over a larger group of Clubs.

However in cases of some Clubs, any chance they might have had will be dashed by the FFP rules, and although this probably won't fully dent City's chances of staying seated at the top table, other smaller Clubs, will never be able to satisfy the regulators due to smaller stadia, lower fan base and far lesser means of generating the cash flow to justify their owners cash investments.

We all surely want a more level playing field and a larger group of competeive Clubs to be involved, but shutting this door will just perpetuate the tight grip those Clubs like Utd, Real Madrid, Barcellona, Bayern, Milan, you know the Clubs I'm talking about, it's the ones that never stop referring to 'History' as though it justifies their permanent possition at the top table.

We were very, very fortunate at City, as are the supporters at Chelsea, that our owners arrived at a point just prior to Platini conspiring with the European hirachy in an attemp to shut up shop, but though I'm sure we will still possibly even benefit in the long term, it doesn't make it right, and for them to even consider the use of the word 'fair' in the title of their new rules is an absolute joke.

The only bonus at this stage is that I honestly believe that as and when they try to impliment restrictions, and there is then a legal challenge, that he (Platini) and they(UEFA) will fall flat on their faces, leading to the demise of some of those Clubs that have had a real UNFAIR advantage for far too long.

Thanks for summating my previous post about FFP.

 

[Lordeffingham]

Yes, sometimes, people are able to justify things with a good arguement on paper, which is reality is just pure spin, and though appearing on the surface to be all about 'fairness and equality', is in truth absolutely to the contrary.

If you look at what developed football wise, on a World wide basis, and was created in almost every Country excepting England pre 1990, it's a no brainer, almost every Footbal League in the World grew a system, whereby only two, three or in rare cases maybe four Clubs ruled the roost and dominated all of their Domestic footballing competitions.

Every true footbal fan I assume would prefer there to be some actual 'competion' and not just have a system in which pre season it is accepted that one of 2 or 3 Clubs win everything, each year?

The contrary is certainly the case, and has been so in most Countries for decades, and flies in the face of any fairness and genuine competition.

Up to 1990 in Englland, and even more so the further back you go, particularly in the 60's and 70's, success was achievable by almost any Club, and all had a genuine chance ie: City, Utd, Leeds, Chelsea, Derby, Forrest, Villa, Spurs, Ipswich, Norwich, QPR, Liverpool, Everton, Wimbledon, Arsenal, West Ham, Newcastle etc etc.

After that point however, other than when some wealthy owners have intervened, genuine competition went out of the window, and obviously the cases of Blackburn, Chelsea and City are cases in point, whereby the Monopoly on the two horse race scenario was broken, and the cycle interupted giving and increasing the spread and share of power.

New owners from consortiums from around the Globe have been intervening in our game for the past decade, and cotinue to do so, and each brings with it the opportunity to share the potential winnings and spread the success over a larger group of Clubs.

However in cases of some Clubs, any chance they might have had will be dashed by the FFP rules, and although this probably won't fully dent City's chances of staying seated at the top table, other smaller Clubs, will never be able to satisfy the regulators due to smaller stadia, lower fan base and far lesser means of generating the cash flow to justify their owners cash investments.

We all surely want a more level playing field and a larger group of competeive Clubs to be involved, but shutting this door will just perpetuate the tight grip those Clubs like Utd, Real Madrid, Barcellona, Bayern, Milan, you know the Clubs I'm talking about, it's the ones that never stop referring to 'History' as though it justifies their permanent possition at the top table.

We were very, very fortunate at City, as are the supporters at Chelsea, that our owners arrived at a point just prior to Platini conspiring with the European hirachy in an attemp to shut up shop, but though I'm sure we will still possibly even benefit in the long term, it doesn't make it right, and for them to even consider the use of the word 'fair' in the title of their new rules is an absolute joke.

The only bonus at this stage is that I honestly believe that as and when they try to impliment restrictions, and there is then a legal challenge, that he (Platini) and they(UEFA) will fall flat on their faces, leading to the demise of some of those Clubs that have had a real UNFAIR advantage for far too long.

Thanks for summating my previous post about FFP.

To be honest, I haven't and didn't read your post, I appologise if I've thought up anything anybody else has already considered or expressed, but I've just summarised my views and interpretations, sorry if I've invaded your space.

 

[MCFC_ Phil]

Yes, sometimes, people are able to justify things with a good arguement on paper, which is reality is just pure spin, and though appearing on the surface to be all about 'fairness and equality', is in truth absolutely to the contrary.

If you look at what developed football wise, on a World wide basis, and was created in almost every Country excepting England pre 1990, it's a no brainer, almost every Footbal League in the World grew a system, whereby only two, three or in rare cases maybe four Clubs ruled the roost and dominated all of their Domestic footballing competitions.

Every true footbal fan I assume would prefer there to be some actual 'competion' and not just have a system in which pre season it is accepted that one of 2 or 3 Clubs win everything, each year?

The contrary is certainly the case, and has been so in most Countries for decades, and flies in the face of any fairness and genuine competition.

Up to 1990 in Englland, and even more so the further back you go, particularly in the 60's and 70's, success was achievable by almost any Club, and all had a genuine chance ie: City, Utd, Leeds, Chelsea, Derby, Forrest, Villa, Spurs, Ipswich, Norwich, QPR, Liverpool, Everton, Wimbledon, Arsenal, West Ham, Newcastle etc etc.

After that point however, other than when some wealthy owners have intervened, genuine competition went out of the window, and obviously the cases of Blackburn, Chelsea and City are cases in point, whereby the Monopoly on the two horse race scenario was broken, and the cycle interupted giving and increasing the spread and share of power.

New owners from consortiums from around the Globe have been intervening in our game for the past decade, and cotinue to do so, and each brings with it the opportunity to share the potential winnings and spread the success over a larger group of Clubs.

However in cases of some Clubs, any chance they might have had will be dashed by the FFP rules, and although this probably won't fully dent City's chances of staying seated at the top table, other smaller Clubs, will never be able to satisfy the regulators due to smaller stadia, lower fan base and far lesser means of generating the cash flow to justify their owners cash investments.

We all surely want a more level playing field and a larger group of competeive Clubs to be involved, but shutting this door will just perpetuate the tight grip those Clubs like Utd, Real Madrid, Barcellona, Bayern, Milan, you know the Clubs I'm talking about, it's the ones that never stop referring to 'History' as though it justifies their permanent possition at the top table.

We were very, very fortunate at City, as are the supporters at Chelsea, that our owners arrived at a point just prior to Platini conspiring with the European hirachy in an attemp to shut up shop, but though I'm sure we will still possibly even benefit in the long term, it doesn't make it right, and for them to even consider the use of the word 'fair' in the title of their new rules is an absolute joke.

The only bonus at this stage is that I honestly believe that as and when they try to impliment restrictions, and there is then a legal challenge, that he (Platini) and they(UEFA) will fall flat on their faces, leading to the demise of some of those Clubs that have had a real UNFAIR advantage for far too long.

Thanks for summating my previous post about FFP.

To be honest, I haven't and didn't read your post, I appologise if I've thought up anything anybody else has already considered or expressed, but I've just summarised my views and interpretations, sorry if I've invaded your space.

I think sarcasm has been lost! Yours is a top post on FFP, pertty much spot on. Ignore him

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

We were very, very fortunate at City, as are the supporters at Chelsea, that our owners arrived at a point just prior to Platini conspiring with the European hirachy in an attemp to shut up shop, but though I'm sure we will still possibly even benefit in the long term, it doesn't make it right, and for them to even consider the use of the word 'fair' in the title of their new rules is an absolute joke.

Maybe, but no more fortunate than the Rags and Arsenal.

Think back before the late 1980s. Arsenal have been a top flight club since the 20s. Yet how many truly great teams have they produced in their history? One, in the thirties, and they were no better in truth than us at the time. They produced a very good team at the beginning of the 70s but who turned out to be a flash in the pan. You rightly say that at that time, any one of a dozen clubs could win the league in any given season, and the year after their double they didn't mount a serious title challenge.

So why has a team that has hovered around mid table or above for most of its first sixty years in the league become a global superstar in the last 20 years?

Because when the huge amount of new money from the premier league and the champions league became available, Arsenal had the good fortune to have a good side under George Graham, one capable of winning trophies.

Much the same is true of the rags. They had a fairly mid-table or just above side for most of the 70s and 80s. Certainly, they had been a long way short of challenging for the title on a sustained basis since the late 60s and were down, as you know, in 74/5, was it? Then in the close season of 1989 the Gracious One spent a shitload of money on new talent (which is party why the 5-1 was so piss funny). Over time their team gelled and titles started to arrive - just as the new money from the EPL and the Champions league did.

What those two things did, of course, was cement the status quo as it was at that time into place. Chelsea were not part of the status quo, the established European elite, throughout the 90s. Leeds were. Why? Because they had a good team at the right time - the last champions of the old division one. Leeds' story in the last 10 years proves that being in at the start doesn't guarantee continued success, but Blackburn's story shows that a sugar daddy doesn't either.

The good fortune of City, Chelsea and Blackburn has been the arrival of a massively powerful benefactor. The good fortune of the rags and Arsenal is that they happened to have a good team in the right place at the right time. Liverpool and Leeds had the same good fortune, but that wasn't enough for them (though in Liverpool's case it was enough for them until Chelsea and City came along.)

Put it another way. Had the premier league and champions league come along fifteen years earlier, who would have been the Sky 4, the dominant teams who would cement their positions at the top table? Probably the top teams of the day - Liverpool, Villa, Forest and maybe Ipswich, maybe us (we were a top 4 side throughout the late 70s). As it was, their stars faded - except for Liverpool - and Arsenals and the rags started to shine.

So the rags and Arsenal's place at Europe's top table is just as fortunate as ours - so many better teams weren't in the right place at the right time: they, lucky sods, were. They had one kind of luck, we had another.

They won the national lottery, we won Euromillions.

Good post and on the money as usual, Chris.

I agree with the thrust of what you say, however I think you are wrong about Ipswich and Forest for the same reason that the likes of St Etienne and Sampdoria no longer impose themselves on European competition.

All the powerhouses of European football now come from big urban locations. The attractions for young athletes with millions of pounds at their disposal are too great for them to be content in twee secondary towns.

For this reason Forest and Ipswich would only have been able to keep their finger in the dyke for so long before they were overwhelmed by demographics beyond their control.

 

[joe hart's gloves]

So, basically, because of Twatini's new regulations, no team will ever be able to do what we've done or similar ever again?

What a joke.

 

[jake28]

So, basically, because of Twatini's new regulations, no team will ever be able to do what we've done or similar ever again?

What a joke.

In a nutshell...football will soon be set in stone forever more with only a handful of clubs picking up the trophys between them.

 

[waspish]

What gets me it's not about the Chelsea's or the blackburns who spent bucket loads to win the league it's about US and Chelsea and the scum don't like it! Look through history how many teams get bought out and spent loads and actually win leagues? It should be welcomed not bring rules in to stop it

 

[S04]

So, basically, because of Twatini's new regulations, no team will ever be able to do what we've done or similar ever again?

What a joke.

That´s not exactly true, any club could grow their infrastructure and commercial enterprises to the point of overtaking the established clubs. But it would be a slower process of course.
You guys have not seen half the commercial opportunities clubs in say Germany are using to add revenue.

Take away games for example where club owned travel agencies handle that business and pick up the fans with their own coaches outside club owned bars next to the stadium etc etc.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

So, basically, because of Twatini's new regulations, no team will ever be able to do what we've done or similar ever again?

What a joke.

That´s not exactly true, any club could grow their infrastructure and commercial enterprises to the point of overtaking the established clubs. But it would be a slower process of course.
You guys have not seen half the commercial opportunities clubs in say Germany are using to add revenue.

Take away games for example where club owned travel agencies handle that business and pick up the fans with their own coaches outside club owned bars next to the stadium etc etc.

Growinf infrastructure is actually a very expensivce business and it's not available to most clubs. Even though the expense doesn't count in FFP calculations most clubs don't have the capital available in the first place and the banks won't lend them it because their turnover isn't big enough to pay it back. Your post actually misses the point when you talk about Germany. It's true that German clubs tend to have hight commercial revenues than English clubs - though only Bayern and Dortmund (just) have higher commercial income than City! - the commercial income at Bayern is actuall growing relative to other German clubs. And Germany is one of the least competitive leagues in Europe - Bayern have won it 27 times in the last 44 seasons! No club has come up with a way of rivalling the order which was established in the 1990s, often by changing the rules, other than by an injection of cash by an owner. It's true at all levels - Blackburn, Chelsea and City are the examples quoted, with the suggestion that somehow it isn't fair, but United bought their first PL titles with cash provided by injection from the owners and built up other revenue sources (many previously not allowed by the rules!), and Wigan did it to get to the PL. Investment by the owner is the necessary first step to "growing infrastructure". The underlying problem is, of course, that champions league revenues give club finances such a boost thatthose who were in place to benefit from them from the 90s onwards have a massive financial advantage over other clubs.