meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 7,019
No, because equity investment from owners would be allowed without FFP/PSR limits. The 25% percent of annual turnover amortised debt limit would stop a Leeds situation where they mortgaged the club to the hilt, based on getting to the CL knockout stages every season.
The first season Leeds didn't make the CL, they were forced into a fire sale of the squad, & sank further & further down the league until they were finally relegated, with huge debts they couldn't service. IIRC, weren't they also forced to sell their stadium too?
If Leeds' long-term amortised debt leveraged against the club was limited to 25% of their annual turnover, they would have had ample wriggle room to restructure, without putting the club's very existence at risk.
It's a two pronged approach to stop reckless owners leveraging debt on their clubs, but also giving sensible ambitious owners the ability to invest their own capital as they see fit, to enable them to secure PL status (Forest) or challenge for the league (Newcastle).
FFP/PSR stops this, merely because the Cartel Clubs think it's unfair on them being challenged by new owners with more money to invest.
Ah I thought you were saying limit any losses rather than limit debt. So you’re saying allow any losses as long as they’re covered by equity and any debt must be limited to a percentage of revenue?
Not averse to that. I would say not all debt is equal though, particularly as the asset growth in football has been so huge in the last couple of decades.