Should FFP be scrappped for something different

[mike1923]

Scrap it or keep it

Changing it gives them a change to move the goalposts to be away from however we are running our club

 

[Manchester_lalala]

The value of the club is so high the owners could sell up at anytime.

Clubs like Leeds, Portsmouth, Rangers who over spent chasing glory are the reasons for FFP.

Nope

and

Nope

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Pretty much agree.
FFP wouldn't save any club from being another Glasgow Rangers, Portsmouth or Leeds.

Exactly. It's based on accounts over 3 years so you could take over a successful club, run it profitably for 12 months then start to asset strip it and you'd still pass FFP. In fact Portsmouth would have passed FFP on their previous 3 years' accounts even after they'd gone into administration.

 

[nmc]

I think it was a typo and should have read Uefa adulterer.

 

[bumbleblue]

It’s all bollocks and anti competitive. An owner doing nothing illegal should be able to invest whatever they want into their businesses.

 

[waspish]

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????

They probably got a cheaper payment loan out to pay it Of.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

FFP as we know it and FFP as employed below the Premier League are two completely different things. Clubs relegated from the EPL effectively have one year to get back otherwise they are in fire sale territory and facing points deductions that could, potentially wipe them out. Either it stays or it's all scrapped, but whatever happens the reasoning has to be unified.

 

[Rammyblues]

Well it certainly failed in its attempt to curtail transfer spending, which has impacted on the clubs who brought the thing in. I know Karma is a woman, not sure whether I want to leave it in place and watch the other clubs squirm, certainly dont want it changed because the aim will be against ourselves and PSG.

 

[Onholiday(somemightsay)]

It is about time that UEFA dropped FFP and substituted for what I call COP, which stands for CAN OWNERS PAY. In other words e.g. should the bank to which M.U. are in debt too, come calling for the football club to reduce their debt, to the bank have the owners enough money in their own accounts to reduce the debt. If they can't do this then they should be banned from signing any players until the debt is reduce by a level which is set by the governing bodies. I would set that limit by around 40-50%

This should be the way that the bosses of both the Premier League, and those that run all the other leagues, should have as their number 1 rule, before they allow any takeover to take place. Their is no point in allowing a take over to take place if they owners can't pay of any debts which are owed, be it to the banks or creditors.

Definitely needs to change - we need a knew mechanism to return football to the nineties where United can purchase any players unchallenged as no other clubs can compete financially.........much simpler time :-)

I call this equasion the Sky Sports prinicple

 

[waspish]

A relegated team to the championship with there own ffp is a killer for majority of clubs that don’t come straight back up and fining a team 40m is a joke what if that team can’t afford it go in debt go bust.