mindmyp's_n_q's
Well-Known Member
Don't know if this is the right thread for this, but one of the things people I keep speaking to about FFP keep quoting is the UEFA report that since FFP came in, the top division clubs across Europe have gone from making a loss of €5bn a year to a profit of €500m. They use this to show how restricting spending by people like us is a good thing.
Am I being stupid here, or would Mansour pumping 500m into transfers not change that one iota? We would make a 500m loss, but if we bought players from other top divisions club, they would get +500m. The net effect is zero, no?
In fact all that change from loss making represents is players earning a smaller % of total revenue, or clubs not buying from lower divisions.
I can't find the report immediately, so these figures will be guesswork.
I think that losses fell across Europe by about 5billion since FFP has been introduced. However I think debt has increased by pretty much the same amount.
So UEFA are using an accounting word trick to claim that the rules are helping more than they are.
I imagine it like below but am happy to be corrected by more financially litterate folk.
Two years ago i went to the races and lost £100 on the horses
Last year I went and lost another £100.
This year the Mrs has put in place betting fair play and I can only bet the £10 she gave me.
So this year I lost another £100 at the races but my mate said he's lend me £500 to help out with going home.
Last three years I have lost £300 at the races but the Mrs thinks her new betting rules have added an extra £190 to the household pot.
She couldn't be happier and all her mates think the rules work.