The Footie Thread

[Pin-seeker]

If it wasn't for FPP, do you think promoted clubs would be able to compete with the finances of most of the established clubs in the PL anyway?

The top teams, which are usually vastly more wealthy, are always able to outstanding everyone else, and it would be almost impossible for the lower clubs to catch up, especially without FPP.

The only caveat to that is if a club gets a massively wealthy owner, they technically can't just go out on a spending spree. Without FPP, that would really be the only hope for a smaller club, get bought by a nation state and almost limitless money

Sorry I’m confused.
Promoted clubs can’t compete with the big clubs?

 

[Swango1980]

That’s doesn’t seem fair that teams that get promoted are not allowed to spend the same as other teams or should I say they are not allowed to have as much loses as teams in the prem already - with parachute payments etc that doesn’t seem fair

I don't think it is about not being able to "spend the same". It is because it is evaluated over a 3 year period, and the assumption is that the promoted club is one season in Championship, 2 seasons in PL.

As there is a lower limit in Championship, their figure is adjusted accordingly.

 

[Swango1980]

Sorry I’m confused.
Promoted clubs can’t compete with the big clubs?

I was simply saying promoted clubs would not be able to outspend the big established clubs. They just don't have the same money to spend, nor will they have the global standing to attract the world's very best players.

FFP isn't holding them back, it is simple economics. But the worry is that if it wasn't for FFP, some clubs may well take the gamble, fail and then severely damage their future.

 

[Pin-seeker]

I was simply saying promoted clubs would not be able to outspend the big established clubs. They just don't have the same money to spend, nor will they have the global standing to attract the world's very best players.

FFP isn't holding them back, it is simple economics. But the worry is that if it wasn't for FFP, some clubs may well take the gamble, fail and then severely damage their future.

Was a genuine question.
It’s a true that it might protect the smaller clubs.
But imagine if ffp was around when the prem started,Man Utd & Liverpool would be outspending everyone.
It’s a tricky one.
Personally I think it’s gone too far now,I have no problem with City & Newcastle spending big to compete at the top if they’ve got the money.

 

[Pin-seeker]

Benzema now wants to leave Saudi.
I’d make them all rot there

 

[PJ87]

Benzema now wants to leave Saudi.
I’d make them all rot there

I'd take him

 

[AmandaJR]

Benzema now wants to leave Saudi.
I’d make them all rot there

Damned right. See out your contract and grow the game you greedy, hypocritical gits.

 

[Swango1980]

Was a genuine question.
It’s a true that it might protect the smaller clubs.
But imagine if ffp was around when the prem started,Man Utd & Liverpool would be outspending everyone.
It’s a tricky one.
Personally I think it’s gone too far now,I have no problem with City & Newcastle spending big to compete at the top if they’ve got the money.

I don't think any club would ever expect to immediately spend the same as the 2 or 3 biggest clubs in the country at any given time. Man Utd and Liverpool have built up a huge following, bringing in massive money, for many many years. Even established PL clubs like Spurs, Arsenal, etc will have a much bigger global following, and thus money coming in, than most or all promoted clubs.

Less rich clubs should never really expect to suddenly become the top dogs overnight. But, if they grow wisely, then technically they can build towards an end goal of being one of the best. Hence, stabilising your place in the biggest league in the world, then trying to compete for European spots, and so on, could put you on that journey. But it is a journey that could take years and years, and a difficult one given every other club wants to go on that same journey. And they can't all become hugely successful, at least at same time. There'll always be 3 clubs relegated after all, even if all 20 clubs invested wisely.

So, if you are a club that hasn't been in PL and then just got yourself promoted, it is naturally going to be tougher for you to just stay in the league. But, many manage it, so it is still achievable in becoming a good PL outfit. And it is also possible for the established clubs above you to go the other way. There was a time teams like Sunderland and Southampton were regularly in PL after all.

 

[Tashyboy]

My main gripe with FFP (outside of the whole debacle of City abusing it and not yet being punished) is that it's a one-rule-for-all, which isn't really fair for teams being promoted.

Taking Forest as an example - last season when we were promoted, we ended up with approx 14-15 first team players available once loanees had gone back to parent clubs and expired contracts meant players moved on. They had two choices:

- Buy a large number of players to try and compete and stay in the hardest league in the world
- try and survive with very little spend in hope that some younger academy players and/or loanees/free agents make enough of a difference.

I don't think it's at all fair that promoted clubs are only permitted losses of £63m over the 3 season period, where clubs already established in the PL are allowed £105m...it makes it that much harder to try and compete in the premier league and often (as we'll likely see this year) see teams just go straight back down.

There should be some balance/allowances to give clubs the incentive to build a strong enough squad to try and compete within the Premier League. The current system is designed to keep the top teams at the top and the bottom teams at the bottom - which provides zero parity and the same teams fighting for the title every single season. There are, of course, exceptions to this happening, but overall, no wonder so many teams yoyo as the jump from the Championship to the bottom of the PL is HUGE.

That being said, Forest absolutely did not need to sign ALL of the players they signed last season, and with better recruitment, would have maybe a.) stayed within FFP...whether we'd have stayed up or not remains to be seen as we were ravaged with injuries last season. Whatever punishment they dish out just needs to be accepted and the goal should be to overcome and reset the goals next season.

I find this a good post, but the highlighted bit. You are correct, but what’s the difference between it now being unfair because Forest cannot have the same losses as established clubs in the Prem, and City spending money that Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool had already spent.In Citys case it does not make it harder to try and compete, it makes it impossible.
Once more how does FFP help any promoted club compete on a level playing field.
Allegedly City had to break FFP rules to build a strong enough squad to compete firstly within the Prem league and then at European level.
There has been a lot of talk about City buying success, but at the same time City have been winning trophies, UTD as a club have been in free fall, something that would not of happened with Fergie as the manager. And Liverpool have blown titles when in the driving seat.

 

[Tashyboy]

Guess that set up works when the sport is only played in 1 country, so the only thing that matters is that league.

Unless the saudis start a American football league

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Salah going off injured hopefully isn’t anything too serious

 

[ColchesterFC]

Way back in this thread I posted that I don’t have problem with big clubs spending big. I’m all for a free market letting clubs fight for their place. Money doesn’t guarantee success, Utd being by far the best example of how a rich club can screw up. And Leicester proved that big bucks aren’t necessary to win a title, although they’ve royally screwed up since.

However, I’m very keen on sustainability rules. When a pack cards falls it’s the staff, the fans and the other clubs that also feel the pain.

This sentence is the key for me. If a billionaire owner wants to come in and buy Colchester/Doncaster/Crewe for £5 and then go out and buy Mbappe for £200 million and pay him £2 million a week for a four year contract then they should be allowed to do that. BUT, they have to pay the £200 million to PSG up front and put the funds to pay his contract for the full four years in a protected FA bank account and they only get the outstanding balance back if they sell him before the end of his contract. The player and the club are protected as the money to pay the player is there even if the owner decides that he/she is bored of owning a football club.

 

[TimShady]

https://x.com/kieranmaguire/status/1747794256637444177?s=48&t=58gp3zhxiu0CoqNSVlp-mw

The numbers involved are mind boggling.

 

[Neilds]

What are people's thoughts on the parachute payments that relegated teams get for 3(?) years when they leave the PL? IMO this makes a very uneven playing field as up to half the Championship could be getting payments when smaller clubs get nothing. The relegated teams will also get more TV games so further tilting the field.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

What are people's thoughts on the parachute payments that relegated teams get for 3(?) years when they leave the PL? IMO this makes a very uneven playing field as up to half the Championship could be getting payments when smaller clubs get nothing. The relegated teams will also get more TV games so further tilting the field.

It’s tough. What it does show is the huge gulf in finances between the Prem and championship is - when clubs come up the gap between the squads is big and clubs need to spend to get themselves competitive or they battle with the players that they come up with

And if a club does spend a lot and then gets relegated I’m not sure it’s right that they get given payments to help keep those players in the championship

Luton spent a grand total of £20mil so if they stay up it shows it can be done and then build from there

Sheff Utd only £30mil

But Burnley have spend £110mil and would have issues if relegated

 

[Pin-seeker]

What are people's thoughts on the parachute payments that relegated teams get for 3(?) years when they leave the PL? IMO this makes a very uneven playing field as up to half the Championship could be getting payments when smaller clubs get nothing. The relegated teams will also get more TV games so further tilting the field.

If they didn’t get the parachute money they’d either stand no chance of staying in the prem,or go bust.

 

[Tashyboy]

What are people's thoughts on the parachute payments that relegated teams get for 3(?) years when they leave the PL? IMO this makes a very uneven playing field as up to half the Championship could be getting payments when smaller clubs get nothing. The relegated teams will also get more TV games so further tilting the field.

The problem is. As has been said. Forest and other clubs re FFP cannot compete at the same level as promoted clubs previously. So thats unfair. Clubs buy players with the pretence of a 3,4 or 5 year deal On Premier league wages. If the team gets relegated income ( predominantly TV drops). But said players are still on big wages. The parachute payment is supposed to Offset this revenue drop. But again is it Fair. A team wins promotion from Division one to the championship and its first gave is against last years Premier league team. Hardly seems fair.
All that said, small clubs can achieve success, Brighton and Bournemouth spring to mind, on top of that Luton, Burnley and Brentford are scrambling to keep in the Prem.
Re the parachute payment, I am honestly not sure what a “ Fair” alternative is. What is a crucial time of the year is now. Do Luton, Sheff Utd and Luton spend 20-30 million trying to keep up or potentially cut there losses.

 

[Neilds]

If they didn’t get the parachute money they’d either stand no chance of staying in the prem,or go bust.

But they didn't stay in the PL. The parachute money is for relegated teams and 'rewards' failure

 

[Swango1980]

What are people's thoughts on the parachute payments that relegated teams get for 3(?) years when they leave the PL? IMO this makes a very uneven playing field as up to half the Championship could be getting payments when smaller clubs get nothing. The relegated teams will also get more TV games so further tilting the field.

The principle of them seems fine to me. The relegated teams have participated in the PL for a start, so I'd expect them to feel like they've earned the payments more than a team that has been nowhere near the PL. Furthermore, as they've been in the PL, then it is likely they will have needed to spend more than they would have done had they just stayed in the Championship. So, I'm sure those payments give them additional help if they get themselves relegated?

I suspect it might seem much more unfair if Leicester only received the same income from PL as Rotherham?

 

[Neilds]

The problem is. As has been said. Forest and other clubs re FFP cannot compete at the same level as promoted clubs previously. So thats unfair. Clubs buy players with the pretence of a 3,4 or 5 year deal On Premier league wages. If the team gets relegated income ( predominantly TV drops). But said players are still on big wages. The parachute payment is supposed to Offset this revenue drop. But again is it Fair. A team wins promotion from Division one to the championship and its first gave is against last years Premier league team. Hardly seems fair.
All that said, small clubs can achieve success, Brighton and Bournemouth spring to mind, on top of that Luton, Burnley and Brentford are scrambling to keep in the Prem.
Re the parachute payment, I am honestly not sure what a “ Fair” alternative is. What is a crucial time of the year is now. Do Luton, Sheff Utd and Luton spend 20-30 million trying to keep up or potentially cut there losses.

Put a clause in the contracts. If the players aren't good enough to play in the PL, then they don't get PL wages.