GB72
Money List Winner
I have a fairly simple solution that would level the playing field, just have an annual net spending cap and cap on salary based on a percentage of annual turnover.
I have a fairly simple solution that would level the playing field, just have an annual net spending cap and cap on salary based on a percentage of annual turnover.
Clubs managed before.
Genuine FFP will never happen because clubs / the league want to buy in the best players in the world and they cost a lot. Any sort of real restriction means that would not happen and you would hand over those players to other leagues.
GB72
Money List Winner
Actually, with the financial dominance of the Premier League, now would be a prime time for UEFA to try and introduce spending restraints. Other than maybe Real and PSG, can you seen any of the other clubs in Europe voting against something to level out the overall spending power.
PaulMdj
Well-known member
I don’t think we’ve been hard done too in terms of spending rules, we broke the rules and deserve a punishment.
They wouldn’t accept the money we lost from Usmanov, apparently we should of made contingencies for the Ukraine War
We weren’t allowed to write off our value for the Icelandic player who was investigated by Police after no charges were brought.
The disciplinary panel found we made no sporting advantage from the overspend.
So my issue was the punishment, we should of received a fine and not a points deduction as this is a sporting disadvantage.
Sky News reported:
The ruling shows the Premier League pushed for a six-point sanction - with eight points as an initial figure to account for Forest's excess over the threshold being 77% greater than Everton's, but discounted by two points to reflect Forest's early plea and co-operation.
Bdill93
Undisputed King of FOMO
Fixed it...
Let clubs spend what they want so long as losses are guaranteed by owners and not by loans. Some sort of not more than 5x revenue within 12 months so lower clubs cant just go silly big.
Every club pays into a central football fund annually - proportional up the pyramid
Clubs that start to struggle financially etc. are taken over at point of failure, subsidised by the central pot and then sold again/ handed to fan ownership.
Effectively make the rich pay for the poor.
Let clubs spend what they want so long as losses are guaranteed by owners and not by loans. Some sort of not more than 5x revenue within 12 months so lower clubs cant just go silly big.
Every club pays into a central football fund annually - proportional up the pyramid
Clubs that start to struggle financially etc. are taken over at point of failure, subsidised by the central pot and then sold again/ handed to fan ownership.
Effectively make the rich pay for the poor.
PaulMdj
Well-known member
That’s not level though, how could a team like B’Mouth for example, compete with Man Utd.
B’Mouth would never match the profile or history of a Man Utd, the worldwide income generated from any of the big Clubs is huge.
Stadium income, marketing etc.
You can’t stop the big Clubs growing!
fundy
Ryder Cup Winner
I don’t think we’ve been hard done too in terms of spending rules, we broke the rules and deserve a punishment.
They wouldn’t accept the money we lost from Usmanov, apparently we should of made contingencies for the Ukraine War
We weren’t allowed to write off our value for the Icelandic player who was investigated by Police after no charges were brought.
The disciplinary panel found we made no sporting advantage from the overspend.
So my issue was the punishment, we should of received a fine and not a points deduction as this is a sporting disadvantage.
Sky News reported:
The ruling shows the Premier League pushed for a six-point sanction - with eight points as an initial figure to account for Forest's excess over the threshold being 77% greater than Everton's, but discounted by two points to reflect Forest's early plea and co-operation.
so not greater losses, just a greater excess over different thresholds lol, clear as mud as usual from MSM
PaulMdj
Well-known member
So a business shouldn’t be allowed a 10 or 20yr plan were they spend heavily initially and break even or go into profit whenever?
PaulMdj
Well-known member
Not difficult to confuse an idiot like me.
GB72
Money List Winner
OK to truly level the playing field you would have to have a spend and salary cap for all teams based on the average revenue of the clubs across the league.
By having an annual spend limit and salaries based on annual turnover, you are preventing increased debt levels and the league being overly swayed by billionaire owners.
Swango1980
Well-known member
As I mentioned before, I don't think Leeds managed to brilliantly before?
And, with the amount of money in the game today, and the difference in resources between clubs, trying to compare how clubs managed before to how they'd manage now is probably pointless. If there were no restrictions, I can genuinely envisage many clubs, and many pretty big clubs, could absolutely destroy themselves after a bit of careless management. Whereas in the 70's, I reckon they could probably get away with it more often than not.
Swango1980
Well-known member
And how will Kidderminster compete with Bournemouth? And how will Nettleham Village seconds compete with Arsenal?
Do we need to create a system that, at the start of the season, things are so level that every team in the Premier league has a 5% chance of winning the league, and a 15% chance of getting relegated? I'm not sure that will ever be the aim of FFP, I thought it was just to try and protect clubs from themselves, and reduce the chance they'd bankrupt themselves. I don't think I'd ever be interested in a sport where everything is completely reset. If clubs have managed to build up to some sort of success and popularity, and made money doing so, good luck to them
PaulMdj
Well-known member
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FFP AND THE PL.
Who mentioned a reset?
As for the bit in bold, FFP restricts that! Take a look at Newcastle.
PaulMdj
Well-known member
But with no ffp or restrictions, B’mouth could, with the right owner, compete for success with the big clubs.
GB72
Money List Winner
That is the other option, take off the handcuffs and allow any spending so long as the funds are put in by the owners and do not create debt. Trouble with that is that it will continue the transfer fee and wage inflation and that bubble has got to burst eventually.
Swango1980
Well-known member
Newcastle didn't. They suddenly got a rich owner, nothing about building up the club through success. Had Newcastle done that to the same level other clubs have done, then they could obviously spend a lot more.
Hogieefc
Club Champion
I think you will find a lot of Evertons losses have been against the new stadium, maybe we should have asked for a government handout like United are hoping to do.
GB72
Money List Winner
I suppose the conundrum now is that you cannot get success without substantial spending (generally speaking) but you cannot spend substantial amounts without success. Equally, you cannot increase revenue massively without global support and you cannot easily widen your appeal abroad without big name players and trophies and you cannot get those without spending. Classic chicken and egg situation.
PaulMdj
Well-known member
Newcastle are currently restricted on their spending by ffp, massive Club who will not be able to compete for the title for quite a few years, a lot longer than may of been possible if there was no spending restriction.
Beezerk
Money List Winner
I’m sort of in agreement with this.
Back when the missus did director disqualification she chased down a few football club owners. It infuriated her that football clubs are allowed to operate outside of the normal business regulations such as running at a loss, getting preferential treatment from HMRC etc etc.
Obviously in a utopian society all clubs chug along nicely with a tidy profit and I accept it’s never going to happen, but it still bugs me how they get away with stuff.
