Financial Fair Play/Financial Report (merged)

[Gray]

Fuck FFP - we don't owe a penny to anybody, surely that's all that should matter.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Fuck FFP - we don't owe a penny to anybody, surely that's all that should matter.

it should but we`re playing in a bent game

 

[Chris in London]

I wonder how much you would have to spend to take a mid table side into the upper reaches of European football?

Suppose West Ham stay up this season and somebody high up in the Saudi Royal family who likes premier league football says 'I'll have some of that' and buys the club. How much would they need to spend to produce a team that is capable within 3-5 years of challenging for Champions league football, and capable having achieved it of going through the group stages and into the last 16/8/4?

I shouldn't have thought that you would be able to assemble a squad to challenge Liverpool/Rags/Spuds from a base like West Ham's without spending upwards of £200m. Then think of the wages that would need to be paid to get 8 x £25m footballers to West Ham.

The thing is, the FFP 'allowable losses' figure (€45m) comes nowhere near enabling that to happen. It is one of the reasons, perhaps the chief reason, why FFPR is potentially contrary to EU competition law. As of course, cynics stress it was designed to do.

I'm not sure the entire principle of opposing unlimited losses would be anti competitive - there comes a point where sustaining commercial losses over a sustained period is itself anti-competitive, as where for instance a wealthy business owner is willing to underwrite his company's losses in undercutting their competitors until they go out of business (because achieved a monopoly is self evidently anti-competitive). So I suspect there is a balance to be struck between a complete absence of regulation and imposing a ceiling on allowable losses which is so low as to stifle any club with ambitions to challenge Europe's elite.

But I'm bloody sure that the figure of €45m doesn't strike the right balance.

 

[aguero93:20]

I wonder how much you would have to spend to take a mid table side into the upper reaches of European football?

Suppose West Ham stay up this season and somebody high up in the Saudi Royal family who likes premier league football says 'I'll have some of that' and buys the club. How much would they need to spend to produce a team that is capable within 3-5 years of challenging for Champions league football, and capable having achieved it of going through the group stages and into the last 16/8/4?

I shouldn't have thought that you would be able to assemble a squad to challenge Liverpool/Rags/Spuds from a base like West Ham's without spending upwards of £200m. Then think of the wages that would need to be paid to get 8 x £25m footballers to West Ham.

The thing is, the FFP 'allowable losses' figure (€45m) comes nowhere near enabling that to happen. It is one of the reasons, perhaps the chief reason, why FFPR is potentially contrary to EU competition law. As of course, cynics stress it was designed to do.

I'm not sure the entire principle of opposing unlimited losses would be anti competitive - there comes a point where sustaining commercial losses over a sustained period is itself anti-competitive, as where for instance a wealthy business owner is willing to underwrite his company's losses in undercutting their competitors until they go out of business (because achieved a monopoly is self evidently anti-competitive). So I suspect there is a balance to be struck between a complete absence of regulation and imposing a ceiling on allowable losses which is so low as to stifle any club with ambitions to challenge Europe's elite.

But I'm bloody sure that the figure of €45m doesn't strike the right balance.

no it doesn't, to put it into context a rough estimation on Gareth bales cost over 3 years to real Madrid on a 5 year contract would be €51m on transfer fee alone(no wages included), no smaller clubs can compete with that

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I wonder how much you would have to spend to take a mid table side into the upper reaches of European football?

Suppose West Ham stay up this season and somebody high up in the Saudi Royal family who likes premier league football says 'I'll have some of that' and buys the club. How much would they need to spend to produce a team that is capable within 3-5 years of challenging for Champions league football, and capable having achieved it of going through the group stages and into the last 16/8/4?

I shouldn't have thought that you would be able to assemble a squad to challenge Liverpool/Rags/Spuds from a base like West Ham's without spending upwards of £200m. Then think of the wages that would need to be paid to get 8 x £25m footballers to West Ham.

The thing is, the FFP 'allowable losses' figure (€45m) comes nowhere near enabling that to happen. It is one of the reasons, perhaps the chief reason, why FFPR is potentially contrary to EU competition law. As of course, cynics stress it was designed to do.

I'm not sure the entire principle of opposing unlimited losses would be anti competitive - there comes a point where sustaining commercial losses over a sustained period is itself anti-competitive, as where for instance a wealthy business owner is willing to underwrite his company's losses in undercutting their competitors until they go out of business (because achieved a monopoly is self evidently anti-competitive). So I suspect there is a balance to be struck between a complete absence of regulation and imposing a ceiling on allowable losses which is so low as to stifle any club with ambitions to challenge Europe's elite.

But I'm bloody sure that the figure of €45m doesn't strike the right balance.

Cost a damn site more than £200 million in transfer fees imo. There would be a premium on the purchase price - "a City tax" I believe it used to be called and there would be some inevitable duds in there.

£300 million I reckon for West Ham to compete with Liverpool, in that period of time, and for it to be sustainable over more than one season.

West Ham would be much better off trying to do it the....errr..... right way.

 

[JGL07]

It would be mighty difficult for any team to do what City have managed and break the cartel at the top of the Premier League while abiding with the FFP rules.

It is not just the transfer fees but the team would also have to pay way over the odds in wages to attract top quality players without the prospect of Champions' League football at least in the immediate term.

Chelsea broke in to the top-four after the Abramovich takeover but they were almost there with the earlier cash injections by Matthew Harding. City took three seasons to move from mid-table to a top-three finish. Liverpool had been in self-destruct mode and that made things easier.

I can see the attraction of Paris Saint Germain and Monaco to investors with a less competitive league to deal with. It will be much harder to make things sustainable in the French League particularly Monaco with next to no support and an 8,000 capacity stadium.

City just made it over the moat before the drawbridge was pulled up. I do not see any prospect for, say, West Ham or Everton making it into the top four on a sustainable basis.

 

[squirtyflower]

I see PB has just posted a comment on there

As has GDM.
He's wrong, as usual.

i've ignored his

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I wonder how much you would have to spend to take a mid table side into the upper reaches of European football?

Suppose West Ham stay up this season and somebody high up in the Saudi Royal family who likes premier league football says 'I'll have some of that' and buys the club. How much would they need to spend to produce a team that is capable within 3-5 years of challenging for Champions league football, and capable having achieved it of going through the group stages and into the last 16/8/4?

I shouldn't have thought that you would be able to assemble a squad to challenge Liverpool/Rags/Spuds from a base like West Ham's without spending upwards of £200m. Then think of the wages that would need to be paid to get 8 x £25m footballers to West Ham.

The thing is, the FFP 'allowable losses' figure (€45m) comes nowhere near enabling that to happen. It is one of the reasons, perhaps the chief reason, why FFPR is potentially contrary to EU competition law. As of course, cynics stress it was designed to do.

I'm not sure the entire principle of opposing unlimited losses would be anti competitive - there comes a point where sustaining commercial losses over a sustained period is itself anti-competitive, as where for instance a wealthy business owner is willing to underwrite his company's losses in undercutting their competitors until they go out of business (because achieved a monopoly is self evidently anti-competitive). So I suspect there is a balance to be struck between a complete absence of regulation and imposing a ceiling on allowable losses which is so low as to stifle any club with ambitions to challenge Europe's elite.

But I'm bloody sure that the figure of €45m doesn't strike the right balance.

Totally agree. Certainly it's anti-competitive for a club to run aggressive long-term losses in the hopes of driving out a competitor with more limited resources. But FFP strikes me differently. It appears to make "illegal" venture capital funding. Surely VC investors expect the start-up, growing companies in which they invest to run operating losses as they move toward profitability -- they want the big return on the sale, or they expect the discounted cash flows over time to exceed the losses incurred during the start-up/growth phase with a return commensurate with their risk.

And the notion that FFP somehow "protects" smaller clubs is a sham. Exhibit A: Bolton Wanderers.

 

[Shirley]

Fcuk em
Fcuk em all
The long the short and the tall


So come on you Blues fcuk em all

I'm pissed...

 

[BlueAnorak]

I'm going for our accounts to be released on Monday 17th February to take the pressure off the team for the Barca game.