Reasonable Arguments against Financial Fair Play

[scousemanc]

Take 2 Manchester based clubs:

One of the clubs pays Wayne Rooney's wages out of sales of replica shirts to their Malaysian fan base. These fans have never been to Manchester.

The other club pays David Silva's wages from the money invested in the club by a generous owner based in Abu Dhabi.

Some ageing fat bloke in France, who used to be pretty good at football, decides that one is fair and the other isn't.

Or to put it another way "I say who gets to eat at the top table. And what I say, goes"

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

1) It doesn't address the real issue of creating a level playing field but simply maintains the status quo, where the rich and powerful clubs stay rich and powerful.

2) It also discriminates against the "benefactor model", involving an owner putting investment they can afford into clubs over a number of years, in favour of the leveraged or debt model, whereby owners put money they can ill afford in but also risk the financial future of their club due to unsustainable debt levels.

3) It only applies to clubs playing in European competitions therefore you could finish 6th in the Premiership and not be subject to the same rules as the club that finished fifth.

4) It allows some significantly different accounting policies for the same balance sheet or P&L figure, meaning two clubs with the same revenue & expenditure could show entirely different results.

 

[bridgeblue]

UEFA are a bolus of self-appointed wankers who couldn't give two fucks about the fans or about non-elite clubs. Their interests are extraordinarily narrow; making sure the world's most marketable teams get into their competition; selling advertising space in their competition for all that it's worth.[/quote]

100% agree with this.

 

[Leyther]

................ It seems to me that it's a fundamentally good way to run a football club.........

It would be if it was concerning just a limit on debt to turnover/profit. But to limit non leveraged investment just doesn't make any sense, that money if invested in players will, by the nature things, percolate through all levels of football by way of transfer fees thus strengthening the finances of lower league clubs, in effect they are limiting outside money coming into the game.

 

[lloydie]

Yes, it's quite easy under the current self-sustained Champions League oligarchy. Getting into the Champions League means lots of money. That money then goes towards making sure you can get qualification the next year and so on. FFP makes it impossible to break that cycle by gambling your way in by 'speculating to accumulate' i.e. spending more to begin with. Basically this arrangement enshrines a European super elite and confines everyone else to mediocrity.

It also says nothing about debt or an owner/s loading a club with debt, you simply have to be able to pay the interest. So a club loaded with massive debts (the rags) is considered healthier than City, a club with lower ticket prices, award-winning community scheme and massive investment in the local area. Arsenal is also considered very healthy by these standards. The fact that they've got fans protesting outside the grounds (rightfully so) against ridiculous ticket prices is completely irrelevant to them and of course it would be; UEFA think it's fair game to charge people £176 minimum to see the Champions League final.

UEFA are a bolus of self-appointed wankers who couldn't give two fucks about the fans or about non-elite clubs. Their interests are extraordinarily narrow; making sure the world's most marketable teams get into their competition; selling advertising space in their competition for all that it's worth.

*applauds*

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, it's quite easy under the current self-sustained Champions League oligarchy. Getting into the Champions League means lots of money. That money then goes towards making sure you can get qualification the next year and so on. FFP makes it impossible to break that cycle by gambling your way in by 'speculating to accumulate' i.e. spending more to begin with. Basically this arrangement enshrines a European super elite and confines everyone else to mediocrity.

It also says nothing about debt or an owner/s loading a club with debt, you simply have to be able to pay the interest. So a club loaded with massive debts (the rags) is considered healthier than City, a club with lower ticket prices, award-winning community scheme and massive investment in the local area. Arsenal is also considered very healthy by these standards. The fact that they've got fans protesting outside the grounds (rightfully so) against ridiculous ticket prices is completely irrelevant to them and of course it would be; UEFA think it's fair game to charge people £176 minimum to see the Champions League final.

UEFA are a bolus of self-appointed wankers who couldn't give two fucks about the fans or about non-elite clubs. Their interests are extraordinarily narrow; making sure the world's most marketable teams get into their competition; selling advertising space in their competition for all that it's worth.

That should be printed and stapled to Napoleon Nero's forehead.

 

[goat boy]

It's an illogical half measure. if the premise is that 'financial doping' is cheating, then anyone that says that to you logically must be assumed to be in favour of a far more equitable system. While we're at it, we may as well deal with the clubs that happen to have grown up in large conurbations with vast natural support bases, that small town clubs cant get.

in brief: that all money earned by each and every team in the division is pooled. From every sponsorship deal, to every keyring in the club shop. every player sale to the last half time pie. all the money gets chucked into one big pot which is shared *equally* between every premier league club. prize money is awarded, but is marginal, so the best teams get maybe 5% more than the very worst. play on. there'd be a different winner every year.

Can you see anyone wanting that? No, nor can i. football ceased to be a sport the minute it turned pro in 1880-odd. FFPR is an exercise in anti-competition, and will be suspended within two years because someone finds some eu law that it wantonly controvenes.

 

[Rocket Sauce]

Have a look on the Daily Mail website (I know, I know) and look for Martin Samuel's columns on it. He explains the reasons why it is wrong in a far more eloquent way than I can ever do. In basic terms he says its the equivelent of raising a drawbridge on the teams that arent in the champions league when it comes in to force as the only way to generate enough turnover to get in to the champions league is pretty much by being in it.

You mean this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ittle-fair-play-money-talk-MARTIN-SAMUEL.html

or: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2041769/England-123m-Germany-0-The-result-matters-UEFAs-Fair-Play-League--Martin-Samuel.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... amuel.html</a>

or even: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2013243/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Financial-fair-play-merely-stifle-Manchester-City.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... -City.html</a>

He really hates the FFP, haha.

 

[Joga Bonito]

It's a decent idea, would have been smart to implement a century ago when most clubs were on a somewhat even playing field, but in today's world you are basically drawing a line and saying "OK, you can only spend what you earn and everybody over here has enough to stay at the top, but you guys over there I'm sorry to say you'll have to fight at the bottom."

It only further segregates clubs, hampers investment and won't allow a club like QPR to spend money in order to become more competitive.

Luckily for us we got in before they could implement any big rules, our management are far more intelligent then the goons developing these "fair play" rules, I'm pretty sure there was article saying the Swiss (?) man who was behind this is actually a criminal accused of numerous counts of fraud, etc.

 

[Rocket Sauce]

It's an illogical half measure. if the premise is that 'financial doping' is cheating, then anyone that says that to you logically must be assumed to be in favour of a far more equitable system. While we're at it, we may as well deal with the clubs that happen to have grown up in large conurbations with vast natural support bases, that small town clubs cant get.

in brief: that all money earned by each and every team in the division is pooled. From every sponsorship deal, to every keyring in the club shop. every player sale to the last half time pie. all the money gets chucked into one big pot which is shared *equally* between every premier league club. prize money is awarded, but is marginal, so the best teams get maybe 5% more than the very worst. play on. there'd be a different winner every year.

Can you see anyone wanting that? No, nor can i. football ceased to be a sport the minute it turned pro in 1880-odd. FFPR is an exercise in anti-competition, and will be suspended within two years because someone finds some eu law that it wantonly controvenes.

This is similar to how it works in the US for their MLB. Everyone knows about the Yankees around the world as they are one of the most popular sports franchises on the planet and one of the most profitable. But, they don't win it every year. Part because of the shared revenue system, and part because of the salary cap and player drafting system.

That would be the only way to level the playing field, but none of the clubs that benefit from the current system, as well as the forthcoming FFP rules, would ever want a system that gives Wigan an advantage to pick the best perceived player available based on their lowly position in the table. It would also throw a huge wrench in the promotion/relegation system.