You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Relaxation of FFP rules due to Covid-19
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
oakiecokie
Well-Known Member
If you`re solvent you`re breaking the rules but if you owe hundreds of millions,then we`ll turn a blind eye.So it benefits the clubs who have higher income because a one year rest bite for ffp doesn’t give much leeway for the average teams.
As with all FFP rules, it's designed to help a select group of clubs rather than for the good of the game.So it benefits the clubs who have higher income because a one year rest bite for ffp doesn’t give much leeway for the average teams.
Would of been better if they allowed you to spend what you want for 2 seasons then ffp disregard those 2 years then have a monitoring period of 5 years with losses allowed of 200m if the owner guarantees that money it’s like a gift! Well until we back to some “normality”.
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
Quite right as well.
Historic clubs should benefit from historic changes to rules as and when they are required.
Historic clubs should benefit from historic changes to rules as and when they are required.
The Future is Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2010
- Messages
- 358
As with all these "Rules" and the changes they conveniently make when ordered to by certain clubs around Europe City still seem to able to overcome them in time. It wouldn't surprise me if the next one will be linked to the number of Facebook or Twitter followers or noodle sponsors you have. Unfortunately they won't stop as long as Gill and the Bayern mafia have an input!
Greggery Peccary
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11 May 2020
- Messages
- 656
- Team supported
- Liverpool
As with all FFP rules, it's designed to help a select group of clubs rather than for the good of the game.
I’m not certain that’s 100% the case there. When you look at clubs like Portsmouth, Bolton and Sunderland for example, they’re just your average teams who had owners come in and spend money like it was going out of fashion but ultimately saw them nearly all going to the wall. Of course it doesn’t mean that everyone’s financial husbandry is as bad and of course there are wealthy club owners who are much more sensible, but for every good one, there are a lot more bad ones who have no interest in their club other than pound signs with little to no regard for any potential fall out. The fact is though that FFP benefits and hinders all teams in different ways. Yes, the likes of the top six may benefit from no more sugar daddies from below, but the teams around them now are stronger on and off the field than they’ve ever been. That’s an enormous challenge in itself, never mind worrying about someone doing a Leicester and winning it from nowhere. There’ll always be anomalies and glitches here and there, but if it means the consistent financial preservation of clubs all around the country, then in principle it should be a good thing. The biggest issue is the way that all clubs are doing their best to circumvent it, both of ours included. I appreciate it’s the nature of elite level clubs to eke an advantage where they can, but they’re of a mindset that says ‘Well, we’ve got the resources so why shouldn’t we use them?’ That collective thinking across the top shelf is the biggest problem in my book.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Leeds, Portsmouth etc..As with all FFP rules, it's designed to help a select group of clubs rather than for the good of the game.