|
Post by cotswoldblues on Jun 10, 2018 13:10:33 GMT
Hi All
Used to post infrequently on tapatalk under Bombay Blues. Now back in the promised land and looking forward to next season.
What are your views on the following alternative to FFP? Many myself included predicted FFP would fail to control the growing divide between the rich and poor given the lack of understanding of finance and accounting by Monsieur Platini.
I suspect we would all agree that it is only benefiting the larger clubs. I did speak Mr Platini at a lounge in Geneva airport and subsequently wrote to him following this chance encounter. Unfortunately, this was not long before his demise.
Anyhow back on track!
My suggestion is to replace or enhance the present rules with the following alternative.
UEFA Impose and implement a cap on expenditure for each team that covers Player Salaries (all players including youth), Transfer Fees, Manager Salaries, Agents Fees, Accommodation and Housing, Non Match Travel or Subsistence, Motor Vehicles and associated costs, other costs?
The cap could be set at Ca. £500M? (the value is less important than the principle at this stage) initially to not initially constrain, the biggest clubs in Europe, who appear to have significant political clout.
Advantages
In my opinion these are the potential benefits that such a change could bring about:
1. Minimises the influence / power that Oligarchs, Billionaires, oil rich states (i.e. QATAR with Paris St Germain) can have on the game.
2. Limits the unfettered increase in transfer fees on world class players (i.e. Neymar)
3. Limits the number of players that a club can have on its books, thereby helping to reduce the epidemic of loans that seriously skew the opportunities for promotion in the Championship or helping under performing clubs in the premiership.
4. Will enable the gap between rich and poor clubs to minimise over time, bringing back meaningful competition to more than 5 clubs competing clubs in the UK and a further 5 in Europe as an example.
5. Does not limit the amount of funds raised by any club.
6. Will potentially make more clubs profitable allowing the cost of tickets to be reduced, improve facilities etc
7. Limits the “poaching” of talented youngsters from smaller clubs
Disadvantages
• Will minimise the “power” the larger brands have over time i.e. Man Utd, Real Madrid
• Profits generated may be absorbed by owners
What are peoples thoughts on this as an alternative or extension to existing FFP rules?
What other advantages / disadvantages do you see?
If we believed this could be beneficial to the majority of clubs and football supporters, how could we promote such an approach?
Who would be an influential ambassador to be the figurehead of a cause to gather support and help influence change at UEFA etc?
Please add your own comments and suggestions.
KRO SOTV
|
|
|
Post by spider1875 on Jun 10, 2018 14:53:36 GMT
Trouble with any change to FFP rules is that any of the big clubs in Europe feel it could possibly erode their financial superiority over the clubs in their respective leagues it will immediately get dismissed......look at how the big 6 managed to steamroller the recent vote on UK TV revenue?
The other problem is that the PL hold control over the FA who in turn hold control over the FL so anything that makes it easier for PL clubs to hoover up the best FL talent at lower prices (especially the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea, Man U, etc) will always hold sway, those teams are not going to vote in something that means they can't sign a young talent simply because of financial rules..............after all Chelsea and Arsenal have been doing it for years with every young talent in Europe then loaning them out to keep UEFA off their backs financially!
As much as it has massive flaws I can't see us getting anything better than the current FFP rules and lets face it Cardiff, Brighton and Burnley are very good examples of how a well run club can gain promotion and stay in the Prem while being financially sensible. We've learned the hard way how to keep your heads above water, our 6 fingered neighbours are now learning the hard way how NOT to do it. I think we're going to be in a good position over the next few seasons if our board can make sensible decisions and Garry Monk can be allowed to develop the squad the way he wants to; I suspect our development and U18 players now will be pivotal into our fortunes over the next 2-3 seasons.
I'd love to see a set of rules that is fair for everyone introduced by UEFA but I'm also pragmatic enough to realise that the BIG European club sides would start a huge campaign that could ultimetly lead to the European Superleague that's been bubbling under the surface for at least a decade now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2018 18:32:44 GMT
I think that you will not stop the power and the money getting worse. That ship has sailed but you can start to look at how we control the stream of football clubs just buying up all the best kids.
Personally I would introduce a county youth football and attach these to schools and colleges across the UK.
Every club would have to contribute according to income so Man Utd have to pay say £5m a year and Exeter £100k for instance. This would then fall into a US style draft system.
This would then have county wide leagues and you get drafted players only from your county and to stop them getting kids moving house they have to consider place of birth and how many years you have lived in an area prior to joining the county. They could also introduce sports scholarships too and ensure that education is still a huge factor. Given that kids all now have to go to school until they are 18 it's easy to keep a lot of the struggling educationally children in check.
Then all clubs get an even share of the better players.
Spinning on from this you would ban clubs from buying draft picks off the smaller teams and even if a big club wants to buy a player aged 18 then the player should be kept playing for the drafted team until aged 21.
It could also decide the tribunal prices....For instance:
1st pick in draft 5 England caps 100 games by 21 years old =£10m
20th pick in the draft 0 caps 3 games by 21 years old =£100k
All fees would require a hefty percentage of future moves too.
At the moment the lower league clubs rarely sell players for big fees and that's since clubs are allowed to just waltz up to training and walk off with the pick of the bunch for feck all.
I also think from FFP you have to consider some sobering facts.
You can VET anyone you like and one year they will be rich then their world can come crashing down. It's no different to being on £35k a year and easily getting a £15k loan but nowhere in that does it cater for you suddenly being on benefits having lost your job. In the business world it's similar so effectively vetting only means are you fit and proper today not in 3 years.
What you can do is guard against it.
The glazers bought Man Utd and let the clubs income finance the purchase thus more or less getting a football club for free that's now worth the best part of £2bn. Why is that fair?
When someone buys a club then they should be providing the finance for the whole deal on day one. I heard that Lerner only took a small deposit and the rest in instalments with the parachute being provided as a guarantor for any missed payments.
It's high time that football clubs had a levy against income which would be the property of the EFL/EPL/Supporters trust and these monies would be there for bail out.
As much as I want the scum punished I do think it's really annoying that the fans pay the price for the failings of a dodgy board. Not sure how you get round this but I guess a trust given a high percentage voting ability at a club for any changed made regardless of wether they actually own 20% for example may be a way. Sadly the moden clubs are far more secretive and fans know nothing about what goes on.
|
|
|
Post by mrbluesky on Jun 11, 2018 8:51:10 GMT
Am I in the right place ? -- An informed and reasoned debate with no name calling --- whatever next.
|
|
|
Post by cyberman on Jun 11, 2018 14:10:06 GMT
sorry guys but for me ffp was never about financial fair play, it was drafted in so the haves have and the have nots dont get, it was simply to satisfy the bigger clubs hunger, to get richer and not be hindered
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jun 11, 2018 14:18:09 GMT
sorry guys but for me ffp was never about financial fair play, it was drafted in so the haves have and the have nots dont get, it was simply to satisfy the bigger clubs hunger, to get richer and not be hindered Spot on.
|
|
|
Post by jazzzy786 on Jun 11, 2018 14:35:35 GMT
Yes so an Abromovic or Sheikh Masood cannot just walk into Birmingham City with his billions and bankroll the club as enjoyed by Chelsea and Man City.
|
|
|
Post by Oldman on Jun 12, 2018 6:57:28 GMT
Yes so an Abromovic or Sheikh Masood cannot just walk into Birmingham City with his billions and bankroll the club as enjoyed by Chelsea and Man City. Unless of course there is a certain greasing of palms at UEFA and FIFA. There are many blind eyes at those organisations.
|
|
|
Post by mark1875 on Jun 12, 2018 7:00:23 GMT
have to agree ,its always been about the big boys with the money
|
|
|
Post by bubba on Jun 12, 2018 8:34:00 GMT
My suggestion is to replace or enhance the present rules with the following alternative. UEFA Impose and implement a cap on expenditure for each team that covers Player Salaries (all players including youth), Transfer Fees, Manager Salaries, Agents Fees, Accommodation and Housing, Non Match Travel or Subsistence, Motor Vehicles and associated costs, other costs? The cap could be set at Ca. £500M? (the value is less important than the principle at this stage) initially to not initially constrain, the biggest clubs in Europe, who appear to have significant political clout. Advantages In my opinion these are the potential benefits that such a change could bring about: 1. Minimises the influence / power that Oligarchs, Billionaires, oil rich states (i.e. QATAR with Paris St Germain) can have on the game. 2. Limits the unfettered increase in transfer fees on world class players (i.e. Neymar) 3. Limits the number of players that a club can have on its books, thereby helping to reduce the epidemic of loans that seriously skew the opportunities for promotion in the Championship or helping under performing clubs in the premiership. 4. Will enable the gap between rich and poor clubs to minimise over time, bringing back meaningful competition to more than 5 clubs competing clubs in the UK and a further 5 in Europe as an example. 5. Does not limit the amount of funds raised by any club. 6. Will potentially make more clubs profitable allowing the cost of tickets to be reduced, improve facilities etc 7. Limits the “poaching” of talented youngsters from smaller clubs Disadvantages • Will minimise the “power” the larger brands have over time i.e. Man Utd, Real Madrid • Profits generated may be absorbed by owners What are peoples thoughts on this as an alternative or extension to existing FFP rules? What other advantages / disadvantages do you see? If we believed this could be beneficial to the majority of clubs and football supporters, how could we promote such an approach? Who would be an influential ambassador to be the figurehead of a cause to gather support and help influence change at UEFA etc? Please add your own comments and suggestions. KRO SOTV I'm not entirely sure what you mean by a £500m cap. Is that a direct replacement for the current 3 year rolling total figures?
If so, then blues currently, or rather last season as after recent events according to Dan Ivery's blog it's not entirely clear the old system will survive anyway, were allowed to lose up to 39 million in any 3 year rolling period, so that's quite a hike. Prem clubs were allowed to lose 105 million in any 3 year rolling period and clubs that had been recently promoted to/relegated from the prem a figure inbetween these sums dependent on in which division they'd been playing in each of the last 3 seasons. Now it should be remembered these are permitted losses over and above revenues and not total spending limits which would be enhanced by individual club turnover. So Man United for example say turnover 300 million a season so could spend 3 x 300 million plus their 500 million permitted loss level to only spend 1.4 billion in any 3 year period, whilst blues at a 17 million turnover x 3 plus their 500 million allowed FFP loss could only spend a total of 551 million in any 3 year rolling period, yikes.
Tbh no I'm not a fan of allowing blues to lose and subsequently be in debt by 30+ times the club's annual turnover in just 3 years, at a meeasly 3% interest on that debt the club's entire turnover would have to be spent just on paying the interest on that debt - FOREVER, all club staff including players would have to be volunteers, we'd also need all utility bills to be free aswell as policing, grounds maintenence etc but of course that wouldn't happen. Long before we got to that stage the club would be wound up.
I appreciate you said the figure wasn't as important as the principle, but it is pretty important. Personally I wouldn't have FFP at all, it's very existence materially protects the status quo of top clubs placings in the hierarchy and stifles competition. What I would in favour of is all club debts above say 200 or 300% of any club's turnover becoming the responsibility of club owners. It doesn't stop a situation like Wolves buying promotion, but it does stop a situation like Portsmouth and Coventry by controlling levels of debt that can be carried by clubs. I think fundamentally ensuring the future of clubs is of far higher importance than transitory short period spending. At the same time if a club has an owner willing to speculate they can do so, so long as that owner covers all losses once a threshold of current total debt is reached.
|
|
|
Post by royalblue on Jun 12, 2018 9:45:50 GMT
Firstly,good to see you posting Bubba. I totally agree that FFP rules are about maintaining the status quo and keeping the elite clubs in their lofty positions.They are as much a fudge to stop the top clubs waltzing off to form a European Super League as they are about stopping small clubs overspending and going out of business. Any competitive environment requires those involved to make investments and take risks to achieve success and at the same time risk failure. The market place is the same for football clubs as it is for any other business. FFP rules try and prevent that natural competition with the risks and rewards it brings. No doubt for the best of reasons but it is not how the world works. We the supporters are the ones who want players signed and winge like hell if if they are not despite the costs but still expect the club to be there if those signings cost a fortune and flop.
I believe we have far too many football clubs and to little competition. In the natural order of things clubs, which could include Blues or the Vile, will go to the wall. Painful yes but that what happens in other competitive business environments. Clubs would have to adapt to that risk internally and the need for some external bureaucratic system of control no longer be required. The alternative as I see it is to have more and more clubs having to be controlled as they attempt to achieve success particularly in the championship. It strikes me as no surprise that up to half the clubs in the championship are believed to have fallen foul of financial fair play rules this season alone. Frankly I'd let the Elite Football Club's go off and form their European Super League and see how that goes for them. No doubt in the short term it would be a success but I don't know about anybody else, but I have to say I find a lot of that Champions League football up until the knock out stages frankly pretty boring. It would leave the rest of us with a more even playing field but in time new hierarchies would emerge because that's just the way things go.
I think we embrace the idea of competition with all that brings or we don't. Football should be free to adapt to the competitive environment both on and off the field and if that means Football Club's have to go out of business, merge with other football clubs or adopt very strict pay structures for players to control outgoings then so be it.
The trickle down inflation from the Premier League is killing the Football League and for the seeable future cannot be stopped externally. It's up to those clubs in the football league to adapt to this environment and do what is necessary in order to compete. If they fail to do that and go out of business then that is the affair of individual Football Clubs and is not the business of the football authorities. Half a dozen or so medium sized football clubs going out of business will serve as a far more effective wake up call than any rules or regulations printed by the FIFA or FA or anyone else.it would also mean that the football authorities do what they should be doing and take much more care over who is allowed to buy football clubs which I don't think has been done anywhere near well enough to date.
I believe that if we don't have competition we don't have anything and the game will slowly die. Financial fair play is not about being competitive it's about maintaining the status quo and making sure the halves continue to have and the have nots well, who cares!
|
|
|
Post by cotswoldblues on Jun 12, 2018 15:55:36 GMT
My suggestion is to replace or enhance the present rules with the following alternative. UEFA Impose and implement a cap on expenditure for each team that covers Player Salaries (all players including youth), Transfer Fees, Manager Salaries, Agents Fees, Accommodation and Housing, Non Match Travel or Subsistence, Motor Vehicles and associated costs, other costs? The cap could be set at Ca. £500M? (the value is less important than the principle at this stage) initially to not initially constrain, the biggest clubs in Europe, who appear to have significant political clout. Advantages In my opinion these are the potential benefits that such a change could bring about: 1. Minimises the influence / power that Oligarchs, Billionaires, oil rich states (i.e. QATAR with Paris St Germain) can have on the game. 2. Limits the unfettered increase in transfer fees on world class players (i.e. Neymar) 3. Limits the number of players that a club can have on its books, thereby helping to reduce the epidemic of loans that seriously skew the opportunities for promotion in the Championship or helping under performing clubs in the premiership. 4. Will enable the gap between rich and poor clubs to minimise over time, bringing back meaningful competition to more than 5 clubs competing clubs in the UK and a further 5 in Europe as an example. 5. Does not limit the amount of funds raised by any club. 6. Will potentially make more clubs profitable allowing the cost of tickets to be reduced, improve facilities etc 7. Limits the “poaching” of talented youngsters from smaller clubs Disadvantages • Will minimise the “power” the larger brands have over time i.e. Man Utd, Real Madrid • Profits generated may be absorbed by owners What are peoples thoughts on this as an alternative or extension to existing FFP rules? What other advantages / disadvantages do you see? If we believed this could be beneficial to the majority of clubs and football supporters, how could we promote such an approach? Who would be an influential ambassador to be the figurehead of a cause to gather support and help influence change at UEFA etc? Please add your own comments and suggestions. KRO SOTV I'm not entirely sure what you mean by a £500m cap. Is that a direct replacement for the current 3 year rolling total figures?
If so, then blues currently, or rather last season as after recent events according to Dan Ivery's blog it's not entirely clear the old system will survive anyway, were allowed to lose up to 39 million in any 3 year rolling period, so that's quite a hike. Prem clubs were allowed to lose 105 million in any 3 year rolling period and clubs that had been recently promoted to/relegated from the prem a figure inbetween these sums dependent on in which division they'd been playing in each of the last 3 seasons. Now it should be remembered these are permitted losses over and above revenues and not total spending limits which would be enhanced by individual club turnover. So Man United for example say turnover 300 million a season so could spend 3 x 300 million plus their 500 million permitted loss level to only spend 1.4 billion in any 3 year period, whilst blues at a 17 million turnover x 3 plus their 500 million allowed FFP loss could only spend a total of 551 million in any 3 year rolling period, yikes.
Tbh no I'm not a fan of allowing blues to lose and subsequently be in debt by 30+ times the club's annual turnover in just 3 years, at a meeasly 3% interest on that debt the club's entire turnover would have to be spent just on paying the interest on that debt - FOREVER, all club staff including players would have to be volunteers, we'd also need all utility bills to be free aswell as policing, grounds maintenence etc but of course that wouldn't happen. Long before we got to that stage the club would be wound up.
I appreciate you said the figure wasn't as important as the principle, but it is pretty important. Personally I wouldn't have FFP at all, it's very existence materially protects the status quo of top clubs placings in the hierarchy and stifles competition. What I would in favour of is all club debts above say 200 or 300% of any club's turnover becoming the responsibility of club owners. It doesn't stop a situation like Wolves buying promotion, but it does stop a situation like Portsmouth and Coventry by controlling levels of debt that can be carried by clubs. I think fundamentally ensuring the future of clubs is of far higher importance than transitory short period spending. At the same time if a club has an owner willing to speculate they can do so, so long as that owner covers all losses once a threshold of current total debt is reached.
|
|
|
Post by cotswoldblues on Jun 12, 2018 16:17:12 GMT
Apologies all, it is not clear what I meant by £500m cap!
I am suggesting that the maximum revenue any one club can spend each season on player related costs (as per my original post) is limited to an agreed fee i.e. £500m, possibly a little high. This should in principle stop the widening of the gap between rich and poor clubs and over time, should see the less glamorous (smaller) clubs catching up with the spending power of the big clubs.
Limiting the revenue spend on player or playing staff costs, does not have any impact upon the amount of revenue that can be generated by any one club. It only limits how that money is spent.
For example Paris St Germain is sponsored by the State of Qatar who have an unlimited budget with no limits set on annual sponsorship. Therefore the existing FFP rules permits PSG to spend €200m on Neymar and they could easily spend double that fee on a transfer for Messi and still comply with present FFP rules.
By placing a cap on the annual Revenue budget for Player or Player related costs this will inevitably cease the continued spiralling of transfer fees that have been witnessed in recent years.
The annual salary costs of Man City are estimated at £225m for 2016/17. Having a cap of £500m will immediately have an impact on the number of players they can sign and the maximum amount that the could pay in a transfer deal i.e. £500m - £225m leaves £275m for transfer fees, agent fees, accommodation etc.
Hope this is more explanatory.
KRO
|
|
|
Post by bubba on Jun 12, 2018 18:07:03 GMT
COWABUNGA! 500 million in ONE season.
OK can see you're coming from the mega clubs angle but considering 95% of clubs don't fall into that category I'm not sure a one size fits all approach works, In theory blues could spend 3000% of their turnover and Man Utd just over 150%.
I can see why even the average fan could see a need for some kind of cap being put in place but I thnk there's huge risk of just creating greater distortions particularly away from the mega club level who have access to different levels of revenues and funding and would likely always find a buyer of last resort if things went pear shaped.
Even at the mega club level though it's not exactly a massive list of different Champions League winners over the last couple of decades, so not sure I'm overly bothered if PSG or whoever dominate it for a decade by throwing a wall of money at it. You didn't hear complaints about unfair competiton when Real, Barca, Bayern, Man Utd etc were carving these things up between them.
I still come back to being more concerned about sustainability and clubs being there for future generations than worrying about unfair competition. At least by having a turnover linked cap on total debt before losses become payable by owners you'd get in the main more sensibly run clubs and if some wildly rich benefactor is willing to sustain heavy personal losses getting a club into the prem, well it's a free country.
|
|
|
Post by blueinblack on Jun 14, 2018 5:25:07 GMT
PSG have just satisfied FFP for last season. What a joke. The system clearly doesn’t work.
|
|
|
Post by Oldman on Jun 14, 2018 6:30:55 GMT
PSG have just satisfied FFP for last season. What a joke. The system clearly only works for those who have. Sorry BinB...I had to correct your post.
|
|
|
Post by blueinblack on Jun 14, 2018 9:45:42 GMT
PSG have just satisfied FFP for last season. What a joke. The system clearly only works for those who have. Sorry BinB...I had to correct your post. Apologies. You are indeed correct.
|
|