Relaxation of FFP rules due to Covid-19

[Greggery Peccary]

You've spent well over a billion since you last won the league, so don't pontificate. Your owners tried to play their own strategy of moneyball and it failed abysmally, so you copied our strategy of hiring the best manager you could and spending heavily in your weakest areas. You're nothing more than a tribute act, and like every tribute act you try so desperately through every outlet possible to spam the world to claim you're as good if not somehow better because of the "experience", when everyone knows you're not as good, you're just a pale imitation who uses every trick and edit possible to try and make it seem so. Tribute acts might need sound studios to create the effect, you needed the VAR studio. And like with the former, you can dress it up however much you want it always leaves people feeling "it's good, but it's false" and leaves everyone else yearning for the real thing.

I’m going to leave this as your very first sentence shows that you’ve completely misunderstood what was being discussed. Have a nice day.

 

[Sheriff Fatman]

Well in the last fifteen years, I’ve seen two FA Cup wins, 2 Champions Leagues wins and a League Cup. Plus another two Champions League finals and others. Of course I’ve lived in decades where we’ve been more successful, but the last fifteen years have certainly had some sweet moments. I’m sure you have had some too.

In the last 15 years you've seen 1 FA cup and 1 champions League win. To get to two of each you need to stretch it to 20 years.

 

[Greggery Peccary]

In the last 15 years you've seen 1 FA cup and 1 champions League win. To get to two of each you need to stretch it to 20 years.

You’re right on the FA Cup, fair tackle, but we won the CL in 2005 and 2019. That’s definitely within fifteen years.

 

[danielwood5]

danielwood5
I was always under the impression that FFP was initially brought to stop Chelsea or clubs like Chelsea from doing what they were doing. FFP was supposed to be like an European DNCG (the french financial policeman in football). DNCG allows you to spend whatever you want as long as the owner can provide assurance he is backing up the spending.
My understanding is Chelsea made their transition from big spenders to footballers farm (to sustain their lifestyle) and voted in favour of the current version of FFP we know. It would secure their place among the top clubs in PL after they had accomplished their goal of winning the CL and expanding their brand through their initial investment.

Maybe you are right and i'm mistaken.

Here's the interview with Michel Platini about how FFP got corrupted from preventing debt and protecting clubs into the protectionist version that was introduced. It's interesting stuff and is a genuinely hard hitting interview.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...FULL-transcript-interview-UEFA-president.html

 

[danielwood5]

Your correct , i was astonished when we were awarded that penalty , we never get them in the Champs league , but it soon evened up when you centre forward punched your winning goal in the net , which was a real shame , because we wouldnt have let Liverpool walk all over us in the final.

That wasn't really a soft penalty though, it was as a direct result of them changing the rules the previous round about accidental defensive handballs. We conceded one the round previously against a German or Russian team (can't remember who it was) and it was part of them messing about with the rules to suit the newly implemented VAR system.
The way they used the rules that year it was as stonewall as it gets as there was no scope for interpretation. Any ball hitting a defenders arm is an instant penalty whether accidental or not. This led to Liverpool using it as a tactic in the final by hitting the ball straight at the defenders hand to get a guaranteed penalty.
Bloody stupid rule and happily it disappeared the next year.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

That wasn't really a soft penalty though, it was as a direct result of them changing the rules the previous round about accidental defensive handballs. We conceded one the round previously against a German or Russian team (can't remember who it was) and it was part of them messing about with the rules to suit the newly implemented VAR system.
The way they used the rules that year it was as stonewall as it gets as there was no scope for interpretation. Any ball hitting a defenders arm is an instant penalty whether accidental or not. This led to Liverpool using it as a tactic in the final by hitting the ball straight at the defenders hand to get a guaranteed penalty.
Bloody stupid rule and happily it disappeared the next year.

Your last point about LFC tactics is pure fantasy . A bit like FFP and its purpose - Gregory P will confirm that.

 

[Sheriff Fatman]

You’re right on the FA Cup, fair tackle, but we won the CL in 2005 and 2019. That’s definitely within fifteen years.

May 2005 is over 15 years too.

 

[danielwood5]

and that’s why net spend is so important in transfer talk, it shows how well a squad is financially managed.

There's been a lot of posts in here since I last logged on but I do want to go back to a couple of things you've said as I still don't really know what you're trying to say.

You said "You say FFP wouldn’t have stopped it but if there’d been sanctions applied from the off, it certainly wouldn’t have deteriorated notably further. Transfer bans or points deducted, they’re the punishments the clubs fear the most. But it wasn’t applicable back then so it is what it is"

Are you trying to say that if there was some form of FFP back then that had looked at the way that money was loaded on to the club then that would be fine as they would have been sanctioned? If you are then that makes sense, clubs shouldn't be on danger of folding due to the financial shenanigans of charlatan owners, there absolutely should be regulation to stop that from happening.

If you're saying that FFP regs as they were written when introduced would have stopped then from getting into financial difficulties then you're just plain wrong. All the clubs you mention as struggling in recent times would all have sailed through FFP easily, FFP as it was originally written does not stop clubs going bust. It just stops competion to already rich clubs. It really is that simple.

The rules have been changed now (at the request of AC and Inter Milan coincidentally) to allow structured and safe investment in some form I believe but it still very much restricts competion and is absolutely a protectionist set of rules. So in my opinion it is bad for the sport altogether.

I also really need to pull you up on this particular line from this post as, frankly, I thought you were better than that to be honest.

That line I've quoted above is utter guff. Net spend actually only shows a very small fraction of how well a squad is financially managed. What all the winners of the Net Spend Trophy (usually Liverpool or Spurs fans in recent years ) have in common is that have sold their best player at that time for a crazy sum.

Net Spend only takes into account spending on incoming and outgoing transfers, it doesn't show what effect selling or retaining players has on other areas of the balance sheet. As an easy example PSG have a poor net spend due to the huge amount of money spent on Neymar, what it doesn't take in to account though is the huge boost in profile and therefore sponsorship income to the team. That's just the financial side too, it also doesn't show how signing someone like Neymar makes it easier to sign better quality players due to the draw of being in the same side as someone with that profile.

City bought Kompany for a ridiculously small amount but can you imagine how much we'd have made if we sold him in his prime? We'd have been the Net Spend Trophy holders for decades if we had, especially if we'd also sold David Silva (21m to buy) and Aguero (32m, less than Andy Carroll to Liverpool the same season). We also probably wouldn't have won anything so would have lost out on all the prize money and trophies. We wouldn't have then got better sponsorship deals which brings in more money and better players and more trophies and so on.

The two biggest indicators of how successful teams are likely to be is having a terrible net spend figure (I.E. not selling your best players) and a high wage bill. If I remember right from the most recent figures United and Liverpool have the highest wage bills in the UK, obviously United are demonstrating that a huge wage bill and terrible net spend doesn't guarantee success, but it will be interesting to see if going forward Liverpool chase actual sustained success or just go back to competing for the Net Spend trophy we hear so much about.

In the post covid world there won't be any more crazy sky high transfers like Bale, Coutinho or Neymar so would Liverpool fans be satisfied to see Van Dyke or Mane sold off to enable you to buy in three or four more players and go back to scraping around 4th, 5th or 6th in the league? Or would you happily concede the Net Spend trophy if it meant you can keep your best players and build on the success you've been given? It's a no brainer in my opinion.

Liverpool has pretty much the same income as all the other top teams in the world so there's absolutely no reason you need to sell to buy. It has to be remembered that the entire concept of 'Net Spend' has been created and pushed by chairmen who are more interested in shareholders dividends than on field success, it's a weird phrase that distracts fans from the greed and absolute lack of ambition shown by their clubs owners and management.

In my opinion of course.

 

[bluetonium]

In years to come they'll release a hit Netflix drama about the football cartel. Think Ozarks but the businesses are not casinos and 'tiddy' bars.

"So, the Sheikh wants a slice of our little nest egg then, does he? Woody, call our mutual friend Mr Gill and throw some 'legal' obstacles their way. He owes us a favour, if he doesn't comply give his wife that video...

Henry, turn some of their lads over to find out what they know.. I don't care how! Threaten them, recruit them, get them in a bus and blow them up for all I care. This...means... More!!!"

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

There's been a lot of posts in here since I last logged on but I do want to go back to a couple of things you've said as I still don't really know what you're trying to say.

You said "You say FFP wouldn’t have stopped it but if there’d been sanctions applied from the off, it certainly wouldn’t have deteriorated notably further. Transfer bans or points deducted, they’re the punishments the clubs fear the most. But it wasn’t applicable back then so it is what it is"

Are you trying to say that if there was some form of FFP back then that had looked at the way that money was loaded on to the club then that would be fine as they would have been sanctioned? If you are then that makes sense, clubs shouldn't be on danger of folding due to the financial shenanigans of charlatan owners, there absolutely should be regulation to stop that from happening.

If you're saying that FFP regs as they were written when introduced would have stopped then from getting into financial difficulties then you're just plain wrong. All the clubs you mention as struggling in recent times would all have sailed through FFP easily, FFP as it was originally written does not stop clubs going bust. It just stops competion to already rich clubs. It really is that simple.

The rules have been changed now (at the request of AC and Inter Milan coincidentally) to allow structured and safe investment in some form I believe but it still very much restricts competion and is absolutely a protectionist set of rules. So in my opinion it is bad for the sport altogether.

I also really need to pull you up on this particular line from this post as, frankly, I thought you were better than that to be honest.

That line I've quoted above is utter guff. Net spend actually only shows a very small fraction of how well a squad is financially managed. What all the winners of the Net Spend Trophy (usually Liverpool or Spurs fans in recent years ) have in common is that have sold their best player at that time for a crazy sum.

Net Spend only takes into account spending on incoming and outgoing transfers, it doesn't show what effect selling or retaining players has on other areas of the balance sheet. As an easy example PSG have a poor net spend due to the huge amount of money spent on Neymar, what it doesn't take in to account though is the huge boost in profile and therefore sponsorship income to the team. That's just the financial side too, it also doesn't show how signing someone like Neymar makes it easier to sign better quality players due to the draw of being in the same side as someone with that profile.

City bought Kompany for a ridiculously small amount but can you imagine how much we'd have made if we sold him in his prime? We'd have been the Net Spend Trophy holders for decades if we had, especially if we'd also sold David Silva (21m to buy) and Aguero (32m, less than Andy Carroll to Liverpool the same season). We also probably wouldn't have won anything so would have lost out on all the prize money and trophies. We wouldn't have then got better sponsorship deals which brings in more money and better players and more trophies and so on.

The two biggest indicators of how successful teams are likely to be is having a terrible net spend figure (I.E. not selling your best players) and a high wage bill. If I remember right from the most recent figures United and Liverpool have the highest wage bills in the UK, obviously United are demonstrating that a huge wage bill and terrible net spend doesn't guarantee success, but it will be interesting to see if going forward Liverpool chase actual sustained success or just go back to competing for the Net Spend trophy we hear so much about.

In the post covid world there won't be any more crazy sky high transfers like Bale, Coutinho or Neymar so would Liverpool fans be satisfied to see Van Dyke or Mane sold off to enable you to buy in three or four more players and go back to scraping around 4th, 5th or 6th in the league? Or would you happily concede the Net Spend trophy if it meant you can keep your best players and build on the success you've been given? It's a no brainer in my opinion.

Liverpool has pretty much the same income as all the other top teams in the world so there's absolutely no reason you need to sell to buy. It has to be remembered that the entire concept of 'Net Spend' has been created and pushed by chairmen who are more interested in shareholders dividends than on field success, it's a weird phrase that distracts fans from the greed and absolute lack of ambition shown by their clubs owners and management.

In my opinion of course.

And some fell on stony ground.