The Footie Thread

[Bdill93]

No doubt once PIF have the 40 international players they want to buy, they will start to loan Newcastle a few.

I'm not sure the Premier League would allow it tbh.

 

[GB72]

This is where FFP confuses me. The aim, as I understand it was to prevent reckless ownership and the risk of clubs going out of business, which is a good thing. Now, however, it also holds back clubs with significant new investment.

Realistically, the way to increase spending is to increase global support and to increase the size of sponsorship deals and to do that you have to win, and to do that you have to spend but to spend you need global support and large sponsorship deals. Chicken and egg situation and once that hamstrings clubs from getting to the top table.

Surely, if the intention is simply to prevent clubs goiing out of business or racking up massive debts, non repayable investment should also be allowed as this does not impact on club debt levels so, if any owner wants to put a billion pound in the club that they will not see back except by an increase in the club's value then why not.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

This is where FFP confuses me. The aim, as I understand it was to prevent reckless ownership and the risk of clubs going out of business, which is a good thing. Now, however, it also holds back clubs with significant new investment.

Realistically, the way to increase spending is to increase global support and to increase the size of sponsorship deals and to do that you have to win, and to do that you have to spend but to spend you need global support and large sponsorship deals. Chicken and egg situation and once that hamstrings clubs from getting to the top table.

Surely, if the intention is simply to prevent clubs goiing out of business or racking up massive debts, non repayable investment should also be allowed as this does not impact on club debt levels so, if any owner wants to put a billion pound in the club that they will not see back except by an increase in the club's value then why not.

Alternatively, FFP is there to protect those big clubs already at the top table by preventing new teams coming along and breaking up their cosy closed shop.

 

[Bdill93]

This is where FFP confuses me. The aim, as I understand it was to prevent reckless ownership and the risk of clubs going out of business, which is a good thing. Now, however, it also holds back clubs with significant new investment.

Realistically, the way to increase spending is to increase global support and to increase the size of sponsorship deals and to do that you have to win, and to do that you have to spend but to spend you need global support and large sponsorship deals. Chicken and egg situation and once that hamstrings clubs from getting to the top table.

Surely, if the intention is simply to prevent clubs goiing out of business or racking up massive debts, non repayable investment should also be allowed as this does not impact on club debt levels so, if any owner wants to put a billion pound in the club that they will not see back except by an increase in the club's value then why not.

Whilst I somewhat agree, within 3 years you could see whole leagues collapse across Europe with this model.

 

[GB72]

Whilst I somewhat agree, within 3 years you could see whole leagues collapse across Europe with this model.

Not sure how in that any funding would be gifted and so it would have no impact on the financial secutirty of the clubs. What is would mean, more than likely, is that there will be rich leagues and clubs bidding for the elite players and other leagues that will not. What is would do, however, is level the playing field somewhat in individual leagues by not artificially limiting the spending power of some clubs whilst allowing others to spend far more.

 

[Tashyboy]

Coming along nicely

 

[Deleted member 15344]

This is where FFP confuses me. The aim, as I understand it was to prevent reckless ownership and the risk of clubs going out of business, which is a good thing. Now, however, it also holds back clubs with significant new investment.

Realistically, the way to increase spending is to increase global support and to increase the size of sponsorship deals and to do that you have to win, and to do that you have to spend but to spend you need global support and large sponsorship deals. Chicken and egg situation and once that hamstrings clubs from getting to the top table.

Surely, if the intention is simply to prevent clubs goiing out of business or racking up massive debts, non repayable investment should also be allowed as this does not impact on club debt levels so, if any owner wants to put a billion pound in the club that they will not see back except by an increase in the club's value then why not.

So the sport then becomes about which club has the richest owner and is happy to spend billions of their owner money

You then see every oil state buying up clubs coming in and just throwing money around to bring in players

It’s not sustainable in any shape

Clubs spending way beyond what they make to try and keep up

We have seen enough clubs struggle financially over the years trying to keep up with the Jones’s

The sport is bad enough right now being money driven - we need to stop that getting worse and make it more about clubs bringing through youth , building teams , good coaching etc

Alternatively, FFP is there to protect those big clubs already at the top table by preventing new teams coming along and breaking up their cosy closed shop.

Really ? Does it not force clubs to spend smartly, recruit properly , coach better , manage better and have clubs earn their place through the sport

There are many clubs spending more than the successful ones but it’s not got them anywhere.

Not sure how in that any funding would be gifted and so it would have no impact on the financial secutirty of the clubs. What is would mean, more than likely, is that there will be rich leagues and clubs bidding for the elite players and other leagues that will not. What is would do, however, is level the playing field somewhat in individual leagues by not artificially limiting the spending power of some clubs whilst allowing others to spend far more.

In what way is it a “level playing field” when it becomes about the club with the richest owner.

There is no artificial limiting

Every club can spend the same level - the clubs can only make a certain level of losses over a 5 year period - but it’s the same level for Man City as it is for Luton.

 

[GB72]

So the sport then becomes about which club has the richest owner and is happy to spend billions of their owner money

You then see every oil state buying up clubs coming in and just throwing money around to bring in players

It’s not sustainable in any shape

Clubs spending way beyond what they make to try and keep up

We have seen enough clubs struggle financially over the years trying to keep up with the Jones’s

The sport is bad enough right now being money driven - we need to stop that getting worse and make it more about clubs bringing through youth , building teams , good coaching etc

Really ? Does it not force clubs to spend smartly, recruit properly , coach better , manage better and have clubs earn their place through the sport

There are many clubs spending more than the successful ones but it’s not got them anywhere.



In what way is it a “level playing field” when it becomes about the club with the richest owner.

There is no artificial limiting

Every club can spend the same level - the clubs can only make a certain level of losses over a 5 year period - but it’s the same level for Man City as it is for Luton.

Surely it pretty much already is about which club has the richest owner and if not specifically that, which club can spend the most, the correlation between spending and success in football is pretty clear and so by denying spending your are preventing success and without success, you cannot increase the global support and increase sponsorship deals to increase revenue and reduce the need for external funding.

The thing is, it is sustainable as long as the money is effectively gifted and not in the form of loans or in any repayable structure. You then have a club with no increased level of debt but a £100 million pound asset on the books so the club is in a better position.

I agree, spending on transfers and wages should be capped at the same level, and an affordable level, across the whole league but htat will never happen and so they only other way to even it up is to open up the spending floodgates so long as the spending does not take the form of debt. You can then have FFP in place to ensure that debt remains within agreed levels based on revenue, that achieves the original goal, whilst not holding back the likes of Newcastle by allowing any and all non debt backed spending.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Meanwhile, reports that Al Hilal have bid £259m for Mbappe

 

[Swango1980]

Meanwhile, reports that Al Hilal have bid £259m for Mbappe

I presume he wanted to leave PSG as they played in a bit of a Mickey Mouse league, and wanted to go to a top team in a top.league. Especially as he was apparently already on a million pound a week.at PSG.

So, going to Saudi Arabia would make little sense.

I heard Spurs were interested. I wonder how they'd make that work financially?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Surely it pretty much already is about which club has the richest owner and if not specifically that, which club can spend the most, the correlation between spending and success in football is pretty clear and so by denying spending your are preventing success and without success, you cannot increase the global support and increase sponsorship deals to increase revenue and reduce the need for external funding.

The thing is, it is sustainable as long as the money is effectively gifted and not in the form of loans or in any repayable structure. You then have a club with no increased level of debt but a £100 million pound asset on the books so the club is in a better position.

I agree, spending on transfers and wages should be capped at the same level, and an affordable level, across the whole league but htat will never happen and so they only other way to even it up is to open up the spending floodgates so long as the spending does not take the form of debt. You can then have FFP in place to ensure that debt remains within agreed levels based on revenue, that achieves the original goal, whilst not holding back the likes of Newcastle by allowing any and all non debt backed spending.

It’s only sustainable if the club has owners that are willing to continue to gift hundreds of millions each season to cover losses the clubs make

It’s not just about transfer fees though because with the big players comes big wages as well - and what if the club doesn’t bring in the commercial income to cover those wage bills etc


And at the moment it’s not always about which club spends the most - over the last 10 years Man Utd have spent significantly more than many but haven’t seen much success , same with Chelsea

If there was nothing in place to stop PIF spending what they want and any of the oil state owned clubs then it becomes worse than what it is now - you will have 2/3 clubs spending significantly amount more than anyone else and others getting nowhere near them.

Man Utd built on their success on the field through the 90’s , they bought well , sorted out their youth system to bring players through - they used great scouting and very good commercial marketing to build their brand up and also build their stadium up , it’s the same as what we are doing now , good recruitment and selling of players to bring others in

Clubs can spend what they want to build up their stadiums and facilities to bring in more commercial income to allow them to spend more - it’s why Spurs moved , why Arsenal moved , and other clubs looking to do the same

Allowing an open chequebook will make things a lot worse than it is now

 

[Bdill93]

Surely it pretty much already is about which club has the richest owner and if not specifically that, which club can spend the most, the correlation between spending and success in football is pretty clear and so by denying spending your are preventing success and without success, you cannot increase the global support and increase sponsorship deals to increase revenue and reduce the need for external funding.

The thing is, it is sustainable as long as the money is effectively gifted and not in the form of loans or in any repayable structure. You then have a club with no increased level of debt but a £100 million pound asset on the books so the club is in a better position.

I agree, spending on transfers and wages should be capped at the same level, and an affordable level, across the whole league but htat will never happen and so they only other way to even it up is to open up the spending floodgates so long as the spending does not take the form of debt. You can then have FFP in place to ensure that debt remains within agreed levels based on revenue, that achieves the original goal, whilst not holding back the likes of Newcastle by allowing any and all non debt backed spending.

But again, this just kills other leagues.

Billionaires will just buy clubs in England (or elsewhere) - throw billions at their clubs etc and it will create a league so powerful that no other league can cope.

By having FFP it encourages slow growth.

And I'm not having Newcastle being held back as an argument - they've got CL football this coming season within 12/18 months of the take over. With CL money next year they'll have a much better summer spend than this year and will be able to grow again.

 

[GB72]

It’s only sustainable if the club has owners that are willing to continue to gift hundreds of millions each season to cover losses the clubs make

It’s not just about transfer fees though because with the big players comes big wages as well - and what if the club doesn’t bring in the commercial income to cover those wage bills etc


And at the moment it’s not always about which club spends the most - over the last 10 years Man Utd have spent significantly more than many but haven’t seen much success , same with Chelsea

If there was nothing in place to stop PIF spending what they want and any of the oil state owned clubs then it becomes worse than what it is now - you will have 2/3 clubs spending significantly amount more than anyone else and others getting nowhere near them.

Man Utd built on their success on the field through the 90’s , they bought well , sorted out their youth system to bring players through - they used great scouting and very good commercial marketing to build their brand up and also build their stadium up , it’s the same as what we are doing now , good recruitment and selling of players to bring others in

Clubs can spend what they want to build up their stadiums and facilities to bring in more commercial income to allow them to spend more - it’s why Spurs moved , why Arsenal moved , and other clubs looking to do the same

Allowing an open chequebook will make things a lot worse than it is now

I disagree, it can be managed. Lets say that the owner has to deposit the transfer fee and a percenatage of the wages as well to be held in escrow, no financial risk but the club can spend what it can afford.

We could see growth in all sorts of clubs. Why spend £5 billion pouns buying united when you can spend half a billion on another club and then spend the balance on building a team of champions league contenders.

I do not see it as worse than it it now, just the same but with more clubs being able to buy themselves into the mix, which is what it takes now.

But again, this just kills other leagues.

Billionaires will just buy clubs in England (or elsewhere) - throw billions at their clubs etc and it will create a league so powerful that no other league can cope.

By having FFP it encourages slow growth.

And I'm not having Newcastle being held back as an argument - they've got CL football this coming season within 12/18 months of the take over. With CL money next year they'll have a much better summer spend than this year and will be able to grow again.

I get your point but we have already done that to the other leagues, not sure anyone can keep up with the premier league and it is really only Real Madrid's 'unique' financial method that keeps them in the mix.

Football has sold itself out to be all about money, there is no current parity so you may as well let clubs spend what their owners can afford to level the playing field.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I disagree, it can be managed. Lets say that the owner has to deposit the transfer fee and a percenatage of the wages as well to be held in escrow, no financial risk but the club can spend what it can afford.

We could see growth in all sorts of clubs. Why spend £5 billion pouns buying united when you can spend half a billion on another club and then spend the balance on building a team of champions league contenders.

I do not see it as worse than it it now, just the same but with more clubs being able to buy themselves into the mix, which is what it takes now.



I get your point but we have already done that to the other leagues, not sure anyone can keep up with the premier league and it is really only Real Madrid's 'unique' financial method that keeps them in the mix.

Football has sold itself out to be all about money, there is no current parity so you may as well let clubs spend what their owners can afford to level the playing field.

Have you not seen the level of money being given to players within the Saudi league ?

They have just bid £256mil for Mbappe and offering him £700mil a year in wages ?!?

Who else beyond oil states can be ok with spending that sort of money - no one

You just create a league with 4 clubs owned by oil states just spending their trillions on players

Has the recent LIV not shown how there is a region that has unlimited levels of money that can be spent without a blink

Just allowing a club to spend whatever it wants makes things worse by a significant margin when there is Saudi , Dubai , Qatar etc with unlimited levels of disposable income

 

[GB72]

Have you not seen the level of money being given to players within the Saudi league ?

They have just bid £256mil for Mbappe and offering him £700mil a year in wages ?!?

Who else beyond oil states can be ok with spending that sort of money - no one

You just create a league with 4 clubs owned by oil states just spending their trillions on players

Has the recent LIV not shown how there is a region that has unlimited levels of money that can be spent without a blink

Just allowing a club to spend whatever it wants makes things worse by a significant margin when there is Saudi , Dubai , Qatar etc with unlimited levels of disposable income

Then limit everyone with an agreed annual spend that is on par with what is affordable by a mid table team or perhaps the league average, then nobody can spend big money and it is level again. I would just look for some level of parity in the rules so you can all either spend and agreed amount or spend what you like but that is the same for all rather than some can spend loads and some cannot irrespective of their financial backing. Personally I would rather everyone had a massively reduced set budget for transfer fees and wages but then we would not be the 'top league in the world'

 

[TimShady]

I can’t see any way City, United or Liverpool take Mbappe. None of those managers would want him. Poch might want him at Chelsea but surely they can’t keep dodging FFP the way they have. Newcastle similarly seem constrained. That only leaves Spurs if he wants to come to England. So I guess he isn’t coming to England.

He already plays for PSG so he doesn’t care about the blood money so a year in Saudi Arabia before his dream move to Real. He’ll be fresh for the Euros next summer.

 

[Neilds]

But again, this just kills other leagues.

Billionaires will just buy clubs in England (or elsewhere) - throw billions at their clubs etc and it will create a league so powerful that no other league can cope.

By having FFP it encourages slow growth.

And I'm not having Newcastle being held back as an argument - they've got CL football this coming season within 12/18 months of the take over. With CL money next year they'll have a much better summer spend than this year and will be able to grow again.

When I mentioned something similar about Wrexham and their new owners, I got shot down in flames but I can see a few lower league clubs trying to copy the model without having the deep pocketed owners and then we will see clubs going bust at the lower level. this will then spread until we have just the Premier league and Championship left with the rest just being part time clubs. Something needs to change, and change fast to save the leagues as we know it.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I can’t see any way City, United or Liverpool take Mbappe. None of those managers would want him. Poch might want him at Chelsea but surely they can’t keep dodging FFP the way they have. Newcastle similarly seem constrained. That only leaves Spurs if he wants to come to England. So I guess he isn’t coming to England.

He already plays for PSG so he doesn’t care about the blood money so a year in Saudi Arabia before his dream move to Real. He’ll be fresh for the Euros next summer.

There is no one in the Prem that can afford him , that boat sailed when he first went to PSG


He is just like Messi - unattainable for Prem Clubs because he takes home around £900k a week with PSG - for any club in the Prem to match that would need for them to pay him around £1.5mil a week

 

[Tashyboy]

RIP Trevor Francis. A quality player indeed

 

[RichA]

RIP Trevor Francis. A quality player indeed

As was written on many a Nottingham schoolboy's pencil case in the 80s, "Jesus saves but Francis nets the rebound."