Well if it's ignored by all and sundry then of course it is.
FFP was originally about debt. When City upset the apple cart, the European cartel clubs went crying to the crook Platini, and FFP was reworked, to impose limits on spending. Platini has admitted this. FFP was nothing to do with the health of the game, it's protectionism, it's a con.
Tbf to Platini, he was presented with cartel clubs saying they would leave the CL and set up their own comp unless UEFA changed the proposal from debt to income.FFP was originally about debt. When City upset the apple cart, the European cartel clubs went crying to the crook Platini, and FFP was reworked, to impose limits on spending. Platini has admitted this. FFP was nothing to do with the health of the game, it's protectionism, it's a con.
Tbf to Platini, he was presented with cartel clubs saying they would leave the CL and set up their own comp unless UEFA changed the proposal from debt to income.
This won't be popular on here but the last 2 or 3 pages show why FFP is required. Everton are being run like Bury on steroids, they have spent £500m on players but unlike Chelsea and City before them they have nothing to show for it. They have a shit squad with only 2 or 3 players anyone would show any interest in. If their owner decides he's not going to plug the holes anymore then they are proper fucked, a Leeds United type scenario awaits them if they're lucky.
FFP at least calls a halt to their spending, without the requirement to make a profit next year then they would just continue to throw good money after bad.
Spot on with every point, especially the Leicester thing..Let's be clear here. Bury FC never failed FFP regulations at any point. Nor have Macclesfield, who appear to be the next to go. How can anyone claim FFP is there to stop clubs going under when it clearly does nothing of the kind?
And to whoever pointed out Leicester as a well-run club. They failed FFP before promotion to the Premier League.
Incidentally, so did QPR, and FFP is doing a fantastic job of keeping them down when their extremely rich owner could have had them up the top end of the Premier League if he were allowed to spend his own money in the fashion he sees fit. Which he is not.
FFP should consist of an assessment of a series of KPI's or metrics covering all aspects of a club's financial health - things like operating profit, wage ratios, ownership of assets, net assets, debt levels and other liabilities and cashflows. It should be a traffic light system, with a set number of ambers or reds setting in chain a requirement for further explanations or, at worst, more in-depth examination of a club's books and overall financial management. As a last resort they should assess an owner's ability to finance the club over a future period, say 3 years.As I have been saying all long. This version of FFP should be scraped at the end of the season. What I would have in its place is what I call COP., it means CAN OWNERS PAY. The way it would work is that the owner/s of a football club, must prove that they have the money to pay of all of the debts, should the bank come asking for their money back, or reduce the debt.
Surely this is a much better way to run all clubs. This would keep clubs afloat and stop clubs from folding i.e. Bury for an example. How many more clubs are there like Bury where the current owners are spending more money of the club then what it has .