Should FFP be scrappped for something different

[Gorton_Tubster]

Just dont call it Fair Play!. We all know what it is there for and why they use it.

 

[sweenyuk]

As much as I love United baiting as much as the next guy the simple fact is their debt is sustainable. The value of the club is so high the owners could sell up at anytime, pay off the debt and still have a crazy profit. They could even do what CFG have done, sell shares equal to their original investment and still own by far the majority of the club

Clubs like Leeds, Portsmouth, Rangers who over spent chasing glory are the reasons for FFP. The current rules don't work, maybe we should have no sympathy for Leeds but I sure miss them in the PL so would like others protected but don't have the answers

 

[crazyg]

As much as I love United baiting as much as the next guy the simple fact is their debt is sustainable. The value of the club is so high the owners could sell up at anytime, pay off the debt and still have a crazy profit. They could even do what CFG have done, sell shares equal to their original investment and still own by far the majority of the club

Clubs like Leeds, Portsmouth, Rangers who over spent chasing glory are the reasons for FFP. The current rules don't work, maybe we should have no sympathy for Leeds but I sure miss them in the PL so would like others protected but don't have the answers

I think you'll find you're on your own there.

 

[waspish]

As much as I love United baiting as much as the next guy the simple fact is their debt is sustainable. The value of the club is so high the owners could sell up at anytime, pay off the debt and still have a crazy profit. They could even do what CFG have done, sell shares equal to their original investment and still own by far the majority of the club

Clubs like Leeds, Portsmouth, Rangers who over spent chasing glory are the reasons for FFP. The current rules don't work, maybe we should have no sympathy for Leeds but I sure miss them in the PL so would like others protected but don't have the answers

How do you know there debt would be covered by the sale of the club?

We don’t know what they up to in the Cayman Islands.

 

[burning blue soul]

If UEFA genuinely want financial fair play then they should introduce revenue sharing across the whole of UEFA, put in place a salary band similar to American sports, where there's a minimum and maximum level, and ban club takeovers being financed by debt secured on club assets.

There should also be a 'golden share' whereby the national association or some other body can take control of a club and oust the owners if they feel the club isn't being run as it should be.

i dont think european sports should ever follow the american route (or rowt). their sports are closed shop franchises.

furthermore, salary bands will kill the leagues in europe. there are chinese clubs that will say "thank you very much" and take all the star players and pay them what they are worth. And be in no doubt, the stars of are the players, not the clubs, not the owners and not the fans. nobody bats an eyelid when jack nicholson or scarlett johansson (sp) get 20 mill for 3 months work, but the skies come crashing down when a footballer (who has devoted his life to playing the game) gets the same a year.

looking at the viewing figures for the prem, if i was a footballer and the global interest in the game/league had gone up over 500% in my playing lifetime, i would be expecting to take a fair share of that increase in revenue, after all i am the star. If you are honest with yourself, you know you would react the same way if your chosen industry had exploded like football has.

i say leave things as they are and let uefa rot in their own slime.

 

[Hoghead]

It should only apply to teams who play in red.

 

[portisheadblue]

Out of interest ..... the rags debt is now £400m plus a bit .... it used to be higher ....

On top of that or alongside it there was a PIK - payment in kind - for which the glazers were liable .... this was very onerous as the interest due was added to the amount borrowed which then incurred interest so at the end of the term the debt becomes £700m plus

Then a few years back when the glazers moved the club from Las Vegas to Delaware (that actually happened) the PIK was paid off but publicly no other details were forthcoming at the time

Does anyone know who paid off the PIK and what they got in return????

 

[BlueAnorak]

If UEFA genuinely want financial fair play then they should introduce revenue sharing across the whole of UEFA, put in place a salary band similar to American sports, where there's a minimum and maximum level, and ban club takeovers being financed by debt secured on club assets.

There should also be a 'golden share' whereby the national association or some other body can take control of a club and oust the owners if they feel the club isn't being run as it should be.

Pretty much agree.
FFP wouldn't save any club from being another Glasgow Rangers, Portsmouth or Leeds.
If you aren't going to take the US sport approach then put in place a system were clubs have to pay off debt and keep sufficient cash flow in place.
New debt should only be allowed on infrastructure but owners can plough whatever they want into a club so long as debt is not incurred by the club - a gift or an additional club shareholding is fine.
If they want to limit investment then it should be based on current club infrastructure value + urrent squad values of the top clubs in Europe (say twice the highest squad value). Then it would be fair(Ish).
But fairness isn't what they want.

 

[Brightwell’s left peg]

I'm all for scrapping it, if the alternative is something specifically designed to screw the clubs who were all for it in the first place.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Keep it as it is.

Don't give the bastards another opportunity to create a new way of fucking us over, leave their original half arsed tin pot effort as it is.

Yeah, keep FFP but get rid of Uefa!