The Footie Thread

[GB72]

Leicester only got out of the Championship by breaking the rules on spending! Who knows what they’d of become without that.

Which year was that, I remember the boing boing years of the 1990s when we were up and down out of the Championship almost every year

 

[Swango1980]

You’re missing the point, nobody has a right to win or challenge for the PL, but getting back to the original point, it is FFP that is stopping some teams from getting anywhere near it.

Why should Forest or anyone else be told what they can or cannot spend to establish themselves in the PL.

City are only were they are because of money! It didn’t take them blood, sweat or tears! Likewise Chelsea when Abramovich came in.

The game is now ruined by people trying to control spending by creating a bigger gap between those at the top and the rest.

Sadly we’ll never get back to a League were 6-8 Clubs could be there or about trying to win the title, now it’s 2, maybe 3 with another 3 chasing top 4.

Do you remember the complaints from fans who didn't support Chelsea when Abramovich came in? Why on earth should Chelsea suddenly be able to compete for the title, and bypass many teams that were generally better than them, and had built a bigger foundation for many many years? The same accusations are made towards City (and obviously their breaches around FFP).

So, what is it that we want? For all clubs to strictly follow FFP, and be punished if they don't? Or for FFP to not exist at all? Along the lines of my previous post, if you think that Newcastle should simply be able to spend as much money as they like and that will give them a good chance of competing for the title, then by the same logic, just how good could City have been over the last decade? The PL might have turned into what F1 is like with Max Verstappen, or the Scottish League when Rangers were booted out. Or, we'd simply live in an era where, if your club is bought by a nation, then you suddenly become a club lucky enough to compete for the title. meanwhile, there will be other clubs who have built up a good platform for many years, may have a huge global support, but ultimately drop down the league(s) because the money they bring in cannot compete with the oil money at other clubs.

3 clubs get relegated from the Premier league every year. It doesn't matter if you let every club spend exactly what they want. Even if every club spends wisely, 3 are still going to get relegated. FFP at least helps to protects clubs from careless owners, and ultimately ensures fans do not lose the club they love. That is the idea anyway.

PS: How long ago was it that 6-8 clubs were competing for the title? Even in the PL era, Man Utd were fairly dominant pretty much from the start, brief spells with Man Ut / Blackburn, Man Utd / Newcastle, then the Man Utd v Arsenal rivalry for a good few years, Man Utd Chelsea after that, and in latter years Man City v Liverpool mainly. Each league season has pretty much only had 2/3 clubs competing for the title by the second half of the season. There was obviously the amazing season Leicester won it.

 

[Bdill93]

Do you remember the complaints from fans who didn't support Chelsea when Abramovich came in? Why on earth should Chelsea suddenly be able to compete for the title, and bypass many teams that were generally better than them, and had built a bigger foundation for many many years? The same accusations are made towards City (and obviously their breaches around FFP).

So, what is it that we want? For all clubs to strictly follow FFP, and be punished if they don't? Or for FFP to not exist at all? Along the lines of my previous post, if you think that Newcastle should simply be able to spend as much money as they like and that will give them a good chance of competing for the title, then by the same logic, just how good could City have been over the last decade? The PL might have turned into what F1 is like with Max Verstappen, or the Scottish League when Rangers were booted out. Or, we'd simply live in an era where, if your club is bought by a nation, then you suddenly become a club lucky enough to compete for the title. meanwhile, there will be other clubs who have built up a good platform for many years, may have a huge global support, but ultimately drop down the league(s) because the money they bring in cannot compete with the oil money at other clubs.

3 clubs get relegated from the Premier league every year. It doesn't matter if you let every club spend exactly what they want. Even if every club spends wisely, 3 are still going to get relegated. FFP at least helps to protects clubs from careless owners, and ultimately ensures fans do not lose the club they love. That is the idea anyway.

PS: How long ago was it that 6-8 clubs were competing for the title? Even in the PL era, Man Utd were fairly dominant pretty much from the start, brief spells with Man Ut / Blackburn, Man Utd / Newcastle, then the Man Utd v Arsenal rivalry for a good few years, Man Utd Chelsea after that, and in latter years Man City v Liverpool mainly. Each league season has pretty much only had 2/3 clubs competing for the title by the second half of the season. There was obviously the amazing season Leicester won it.

Just whipping it out there that if every club could spend literally whatever they wanted I don't think we would have the same teams winning all the time. People own football clubs for long term profit these days, they wont make that if they just spend and never care about losses.

 

[GB72]

Do you remember the complaints from fans who didn't support Chelsea when Abramovich came in? Why on earth should Chelsea suddenly be able to compete for the title, and bypass many teams that were generally better than them, and had built a bigger foundation for many many years? The same accusations are made towards City (and obviously their breaches around FFP).

So, what is it that we want? For all clubs to strictly follow FFP, and be punished if they don't? Or for FFP to not exist at all? Along the lines of my previous post, if you think that Newcastle should simply be able to spend as much money as they like and that will give them a good chance of competing for the title, then by the same logic, just how good could City have been over the last decade? The PL might have turned into what F1 is like with Max Verstappen, or the Scottish League when Rangers were booted out. Or, we'd simply live in an era where, if your club is bought by a nation, then you suddenly become a club lucky enough to compete for the title. meanwhile, there will be other clubs who have built up a good platform for many years, may have a huge global support, but ultimately drop down the league(s) because the money they bring in cannot compete with the oil money at other clubs.

3 clubs get relegated from the Premier league every year. It doesn't matter if you let every club spend exactly what they want. Even if every club spends wisely, 3 are still going to get relegated. FFP at least helps to protects clubs from careless owners, and ultimately ensures fans do not lose the club they love. That is the idea anyway.

PS: How long ago was it that 6-8 clubs were competing for the title? Even in the PL era, Man Utd were fairly dominant pretty much from the start, brief spells with Man Ut / Blackburn, Man Utd / Newcastle, then the Man Utd v Arsenal rivalry for a good few years, Man Utd Chelsea after that, and in latter years Man City v Liverpool mainly. Each league season has pretty much only had 2/3 clubs competing for the title by the second half of the season. There was obviously the amazing season Leicester won it.

I guess the point is who has the right to decide who spends what and gets a chance at the top.

Newcastle, arguably looking at their owners, are the richest team in the league. As such, why are clubs who have less resources allowed to spend more. Once football became more about money than it did about anything else, and money does win most of the time, not allowing clubs with huge amounts of wealth to spend is the equivalent of financial doping.

 

[Swango1980]

The policing is not the point, the point is that City probably only got to the top table by breaching FFP to allow them to spend and get where they are. They and Chelsea are pretty much case in point (certainly in the early days of Chelsea having money) that being able to spend what you want allows lowlier teams to reach the top and breach the traditional closed shop of top teams.

Of course having vast amounts of money is going to help teams climb the ladder. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

So, is the desire of fans simply to allow any club that suddenly gets a mega rich owner to climb the ladder, at the expense of all other clubs they pass? I'm sure the fans of the clubs that are bought will love this. But, everyone else would hate it.

Bournemouth and Luton (as these clubs were highlighted) are not going to suddenly climb the league if FFP was banished. In reality, they would be even further behind the top of the table, would they not? The big clubs above them, including Newcastle, would be able to spend a vast amount more money than they can. There may well be teams below them, and in leagues below them, that could suddenly start spending more than them. Lifting FFP could just as easily kill clubs like Bournemouth and Luton. Unless, of course, they get a billionaire owner. Fingers crossed for their fans I guess.

 

[Swango1980]

Just whipping it out there that if every club could spend literally whatever they wanted I don't think we would have the same teams winning all the time. People own football clubs for long term profit these days, they wont make that if they just spend and never care about losses.

Are you sure that is the business plan if the owners are from the Middle East (thinking LIV golf)? Or was this even true for Abramovich (seemed like a hobby to him)?

Not all owners seem to take over sporting institutions as they see it as a money making exercise. Some owners have other motives. They have incredible wealth, and chucking it out the window affords them other opportunities and gives them exposure in other areas. Losing billions of pounds to them is like me losing £5

 

[PaulMdj]

Which year was that, I remember the boing boing years of the 1990s when we were up and down out of the Championship almost every year

2013/14 the year they were promoted to PL, took 5 years to settle and Leicester agreed to pay a settlement

 

[GB72]

Of course having vast amounts of money is going to help teams climb the ladder. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

So, is the desire of fans simply to allow any club that suddenly gets a mega rich owner to climb the ladder, at the expense of all other clubs they pass? I'm sure the fans of the clubs that are bought will love this. But, everyone else would hate it.

Bournemouth and Luton (as these clubs were highlighted) are not going to suddenly climb the league if FFP was banished. In reality, they would be even further behind the top of the table, would they not? The big clubs above them, including Newcastle, would be able to spend a vast amount more money than they can. There may well be teams below them, and in leagues below them, that could suddenly start spending more than them. Lifting FFP could just as easily kill clubs like Bournemouth and Luton. Unless, of course, they get a billionaire owner. Fingers crossed for their fans I guess.

But this is the whole point, restrictions in spending are artificially keeping some teams at the top whilst denying other the chance. It is the classic case of old money vs new money.

Of course it would be like the wild west if you removed all rules but at least it would be fair if clubs were allowed to apply the resources they had. Not something I would want to see but it would be fair.

Personally, I would like to see the opposite, spending hugely limited across the board. Stop it being a sport about who can spend the most and make it about training and development and quality scouting and, shock horror, the use of local resources in the teams. Football has not been that for decades but it would be good to see it back.

 

[PaulMdj]

Of course having vast amounts of money is going to help teams climb the ladder. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

So, is the desire of fans simply to allow any club that suddenly gets a mega rich owner to climb the ladder, at the expense of all other clubs they pass? I'm sure the fans of the clubs that are bought will love this. But, everyone else would hate it.

Bournemouth and Luton (as these clubs were highlighted) are not going to suddenly climb the league if FFP was banished. In reality, they would be even further behind the top of the table, would they not? The big clubs above them, including Newcastle, would be able to spend a vast amount more money than they can. There may well be teams below them, and in leagues below them, that could suddenly start spending more than them. Lifting FFP could just as easily kill clubs like Bournemouth and Luton. Unless, of course, they get a billionaire owner. Fingers crossed for their fans I guess.

What it would do for the Clubs mentioned is to give them hope that a billonaire could turn up give them a chance.

 

[GB72]

And can I just say thanks to all for an interesting discussion on a topic that can be fractious. Nothing but well argued points with give and take on both sides. A novel experience and so nice to be able to argue a point in such a manner.

 

[PaulMdj]

But this is the whole point, restrictions in spending are artificially keeping some teams at the top whilst denying other the chance. It is the classic case of old money vs new money.

Of course it would be like the wild west if you removed all rules but at least it would be fair if clubs were allowed to apply the resources they had. Not something I would want to see but it would be fair.

Personally, I would like to see the opposite, spending hugely limited across the board. Stop it being a sport about who can spend the most and make it about training and development and quality scouting and, shock horror, the use of local resources in the teams. Football has not been that for decades but it would be good to see it back.

Absolutely spot on, and unfortunately this is never going to happen… so in the meantime lift the spending rules.

 

[Swango1980]

I guess the point is who has the right to decide who spends what and gets a chance at the top.

Newcastle, arguably looking at their owners, are the richest team in the league. As such, why are clubs who have less resources allowed to spend more. Once football became more about money than it did about anything else, and money does win most of the time, not allowing clubs with huge amounts of wealth to spend is the equivalent of financial doping.

Well, I'm obviously no expert in FFP, so only speaking from a fans perspective (as most of us are).

If Newcastle could spend as much money as they want now, Newcastle fans would be happy enough. Nobody else would. I've done a bit of digging though, just to confirm why rich owners can't just spend what they want, even if it is known the club won't go into debt.

The issue with that was that allowing mega rich owners to spend what they want, adversely effects the market. Newcastle may be fine, but it tempts other clubs to spend more than they can afford just to remain competitive. So Newcastle fans might be loving it, but maybe Villa fans will be in despair if they try and remain competitive with Newcastle, and end up over spending. Or, should they just accept that they are no longer able to compete with Newcastle, and accept a lower position in the league?

Money will always play a huge part in the most popular sport in the world, especially at the highest profile clubs in the world. But, I suspect FFP has limited the gap between the richest clubs and others, rather than enhanced it. If it wasn't for FFP, then I suspect in this day and age, few clubs could ever really compete with the top 2 or 3 clubs, unless they suddenly had a sugar daddy. Would clubs like Villa and Brighton be as high as they are now, if there were zero financial restrictions?

 

[Swango1980]

What it would do for the Clubs mentioned is to give them hope that a billonaire could turn up give them a chance.

I think that would be a much sadder state for professional football. Your only hope is getting investment from a mega billionaire. If you were a Luton fan, what are the odds PIF are going to buy your club rather than any other club?: And, to compete with the title, the new owner would need to have more money than just about all the other owners. For example, if we lifted FFP I don't think Wrexham will be competing for a PL title anytime soon. They may be delighted with rich owners like Ryan Reynolds. But, it is all relative. It won't get them very far when you compare their wealth to the owners at PL clubs.

 

[GB72]

I think that would be a much sadder state for professional football. Your only hope is getting investment from a mega billionaire. If you were a Luton fan, what are the odds PIF are going to buy your club rather than any other club?: And, to compete with the title, the new owner would need to have more money than just about all the other owners. For example, if we lifted FFP I don't think Wrexham will be competing for a PL title anytime soon. They may be delighted with rich owners like Ryan Reynolds. But, it is all relative. It won't get them very far when you compare their wealth to the owners at PL clubs.

Sadly that is pretty much where we are now. You will get one or two clubs who can challenge for a season or two but that is often because the traditionally bigger clubs are having a bad season at the same time.

Wrexham do not have anywhere near the finances to get up to the top. The owners have cash but not the sort of cash needed and before then you are probably looking to have to fund stadium development, training facilities etc. The millions that the owners have are a few zeros off what they need.

 

[Swango1980]

Sadly that is pretty much where we are now. You will get one or two clubs who can challenge for a season or two but that is often because the traditionally bigger clubs are having a bad season at the same time.

Wrexham do not have anywhere near the finances to get up to the top. The owners have cash but not the sort of cash needed and before then you are probably looking to have to fund stadium development, training facilities etc. The millions that the owners have are a few zeros off what they need.

I just think that will almost always be the way. Or, at least, the big clubs at any given time will be the biggest clubs for a generation or more at least. For different clubs to replace any of the current big clubs, it probably takes years for them to both get there and stay there. Build the club, and stabilize themselves in the top 6-8 clubs in the UK. From season to season, it will almost always be mostly on form. Because most of the infrastructure that has made a big club a big club in the first place is still there. The fan base, the stadium, the sponsorship, much of the staff, management, coaches and players, etc. So, a bit of poor and great recruitment might move them one way or another in the league each season, but they don't stop being one of the biggest clubs in the space of a decade or 2, let alone within a few years. But, fast forward 20, 30 years, I wouldn't be surprised if at least one other club, if not more, are competing for titles that we wouldn't expect today.

Obviously I support one of the rich clubs, so lucky for me I guess (despite the circus we are). It would be interesting to know how these things truly suck the joy from fans of clubs at lower levels? I live in Lincoln, so I know a lot of Lincoln fans, many with season tickets. I work with a Sheff Wed fan. I'm sure their dream is to be competing for PL titles, and Sheff Wed were even in the PL in the early days, so my work mate probably misses those days. But, I don't think they think football is joyless now, because they see no hope in them ever competing financially against Man City, Chelsea, Man Utd, etc. I bet they support their clubs just as passionately as they would regardless of where they are in the league, and always hope that something will happen in their club that triggers a surge in form. Not necessarily a purchase from a nation, but just a set of people that come into the club, run it really well, manage to bring in bargain players and develop some great youngsters, have a good manager and see where that can take them. In that sense, I think every fan can be hopeful, things can better, they can also get worse of course.

I think the worst thing that could face fans, however, is if their club just goes bust, and they no longer have a club to support.

 

[GB72]

I just think that will almost always be the way. Or, at least, the big clubs at any given time will be the biggest clubs for a generation or more at least. For different clubs to replace any of the current big clubs, it probably takes years for them to both get there and stay there. Build the club, and stabilize themselves in the top 6-8 clubs in the UK. From season to season, it will almost always be mostly on form. Because most of the infrastructure that has made a big club a big club in the first place is still there. The fan base, the stadium, the sponsorship, much of the staff, management, coaches and players, etc. So, a bit of poor and great recruitment might move them one way or another in the league each season, but they don't stop being one of the biggest clubs in the space of a decade or 2, let alone within a few years. But, fast forward 20, 30 years, I wouldn't be surprised if at least one other club, if not more, are competing for titles that we wouldn't expect today.

Obviously I support one of the rich clubs, so lucky for me I guess (despite the circus we are). It would be interesting to know how these things truly suck the joy from fans of clubs at lower levels? I live in Lincoln, so I know a lot of Lincoln fans, many with season tickets. I work with a Sheff Wed fan. I'm sure their dream is to be competing for PL titles, and Sheff Wed were even in the PL in the early days, so my work mate probably misses those days. But, I don't think they think football is joyless now, because they see no hope in them ever competing financially against Man City, Chelsea, Man Utd, etc. I bet they support their clubs just as passionately as they would regardless of where they are in the league, and always hope that something will happen in their club that triggers a surge in form. Not necessarily a purchase from a nation, but just a set of people that come into the club, run it really well, manage to bring in bargain players and develop some great youngsters, have a good manager and see where that can take them. In that sense, I think every fan can be hopeful, things can better, they can also get worse of course.

I think the worst thing that could face fans, however, is if their club just goes bust, and they no longer have a club to support.

See I think there is more joy in supporting the likes of Lincoln, Sheff Wed etc. There is the element of surprise, of will we win or won't we, who will step to to play well this season and the results of matches are hardly ever foregone conclusions.

I appreciate the supporting of your local team etc and I really do not mean any insult to anyone but is supporting a team expected to win each week and their to an extent because of their wealth, a soulless experience. Dreams are gone replaced by a reality of expectation without risk.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

Or maybe they could be left alone and their finances are up to them? If they go bust, they go bust . So far no PL club has gone bankrupt.

This isn't about saving clubs, it's about maintaining the status quo at the top.

But how much has the Tax man lost becuase of clubs not paying their tax or VAT because they have gone bust, or done a deal so they can continue existing?
If you can name one business where loses to the extent that are currently permitted by FFP and the shareholders of that business are happy, or isn't wound up by the Revenue because of the monies they are owed you will do well.
Ultimately, its a never ending circle. The fans want instant success and demand a manager sacked or owner gone if they dont get success, the owner wants the TV money and everything the PL brings to all the PL clubs,then when the owner buys another player the fans want more and so on forever.

 

[PaulMdj]

I just think that will almost always be the way. Or, at least, the big clubs at any given time will be the biggest clubs for a generation or more at least. For different clubs to replace any of the current big clubs, it probably takes years for them to both get there and stay there. Build the club, and stabilize themselves in the top 6-8 clubs in the UK. From season to season, it will almost always be mostly on form. Because most of the infrastructure that has made a big club a big club in the first place is still there. The fan base, the stadium, the sponsorship, much of the staff, management, coaches and players, etc. So, a bit of poor and great recruitment might move them one way or another in the league each season, but they don't stop being one of the biggest clubs in the space of a decade or 2, let alone within a few years. But, fast forward 20, 30 years, I wouldn't be surprised if at least one other club, if not more, are competing for titles that we wouldn't expect today.

Obviously I support one of the rich clubs, so lucky for me I guess (despite the circus we are). It would be interesting to know how these things truly suck the joy from fans of clubs at lower levels? I live in Lincoln, so I know a lot of Lincoln fans, many with season tickets. I work with a Sheff Wed fan. I'm sure their dream is to be competing for PL titles, and Sheff Wed were even in the PL in the early days, so my work mate probably misses those days. But, I don't think they think football is joyless now, because they see no hope in them ever competing financially against Man City, Chelsea, Man Utd, etc. I bet they support their clubs just as passionately as they would regardless of where they are in the league, and always hope that something will happen in their club that triggers a surge in form. Not necessarily a purchase from a nation, but just a set of people that come into the club, run it really well, manage to bring in bargain players and develop some great youngsters, have a good manager and see where that can take them. In that sense, I think every fan can be hopeful, things can better, they can also get worse of course.

I think the worst thing that could face fans, however, is if their club just goes bust, and they no longer have a club to support.

You can speak for fans locally who know, just like me here near Sunderland.

Sunderland fans want to get back to the PL.

Newcastle fans (some of them) are looking at challenging for Europe and in a few years time looking to challenge for the title. (Last year was a huge over achievment)

It’s baby steps, Wrexham were National Conference, there hope was to get back the Football League, now it’s getting to the 1st Division.

The time scales for the above different, what none of them want is to reach the higher levels and struggle, struggle both on and off the field.

Good friend is a season ticket holder at Hull, followed them home and away for over 20yrs, he views his worst time as being in the PL, expecting to get beat, expecting to be relegated and knowing full well they’ll never have the financial resources to compete in the PL unless the sugar daddy turns up.

Sadly as it’s a business, Clubs may have to go bust, some already have at the lower level, but I firmly don’t believe ffp will stop that, infact I could see more issues with owners getting fed up and walking away.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I support Fulham. My first overriding desire every season is to be the 4th worse team in the league and retain the PL status. If we get a cup run (and the Carabao was a surprise/bonus) then great. I know we won't break into the top 6-8 as we don't have the financial clout and a squad big or good enough. I accept that. If we can turn over some of the big boys in the season that's a massive plus but its about beating the Burnley, Everton of the world that is our make and break

 

[Swango1980]

You can speak for fans locally who know, just like me here near Sunderland.

Sunderland fans want to get back to the PL.

Newcastle fans (some of them) are looking at challenging for Europe and in a few years time looking to challenge for the title. (Last year was a huge over achievment)

It’s baby steps, Wrexham were National Conference, there hope was to get back the Football League, now it’s getting to the 1st Division.

The time scales for the above different, what none of them want is to reach the higher levels and struggle, struggle both on and off the field.

Good friend is a season ticket holder at Hull, followed them home and away for over 20yrs, he views his worst time as being in the PL, expecting to get beat, expecting to be relegated and knowing full well they’ll never have the financial resources to compete in the PL unless the sugar daddy turns up.

Sadly as it’s a business, Clubs may have to go bust, some already have at the lower level, but I firmly don’t believe ffp will stop that, infact I could see more issues with owners getting fed up and walking away.

I know they don't want to struggle, but it can be a fact of life when moving up levels.

Didn't Burnley walk the Championship last year? I'm sure Burnley fans were loving it. But, they were never going to walk the Premier league this year. Sure, the hope is they can finish in the Top 17. But then 20 clubs definitely want to finish in the top 17, so the ones that will most likely be disappointed will be the ones who started from a lower position. Generally the promoted clubs. But, then again, not is all lost. They get relegated, and the hope becomes having another great season in the Championship, getting back to PL and seeing what they might do differently next time.

Surely the worst thing for fans would be getting promoted, spending big because there are no restrictions, still coming up short because all the other PL clubs are spending big and have better players to start with, and then being in massive trouble once they get relegated?

But, do you genuinely believe that FFP increases the chances clubs will go bust, and without it suddenly many more clubs will become more competitive with the current teams with massive resources? I just think that, without FPP, then Hull fans might even have to accept they will never be in the Premier League again, let alone compete in the top half and for European spots.