The General FFP (Financial Fair Play) Thread

[NoelVilla]

Yes. Let's go back to Manchester Uniteds dominance. That is their right because they had most revenue when we implemented FFP to not save Reading FC.

[Kuwabatake Sanjuro]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

There is no indication Leicester’s owner was prepared to put in the extra £300m a season required to make up the difference if he had been allowed to.

That’s without considering that it would most likely have been City or Chelsea throwing in another £300m on top, rather than Leicester had they been allowed to. 

Leicester were back in the running for champions league football for two years running before COVID messed up the owners business and that coupled with things going stale under Rodgers led to their downfall. They had a good run though.

[HanoiVillan]

3 hours ago, NoelVilla said:

Yes. Let's go back to Manchester Uniteds dominance. That is their right because they had most revenue when we implemented FFP to not save Reading FC.

This is, charitably, quite confused. Man United have to abide by FFP too; it's not about who was dominant when the rules were introduced; and Reading aren't subject to the same rules anyway. 

[Don_Simon]

22 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

This is, charitably, quite confused. Man United have to abide by FFP too; it's not about who was dominant when the rules were introduced; and Reading aren't subject to the same rules anyway. 

Am I stupid?

Surely the teams with the highest revenue when FFP was introduced were in a much better place than all others? They had the most revenue at the time and therefore could spend the most money whereas everyone else plays catch up.

In addition, teams pre-FFP created their fortune at a time when there was no FFP, so had advantages (Sovereign state funds, Russian war sympathisers, etc), that teams don't have now.

Can someone tell me why I'm wrong, please.

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, Don_Simon said:

Am I stupid?

Surely the teams with the highest revenue when FFP was introduced were in a much better place than all others? They had the most revenue at the time and therefore could spend the most money whereas everyone else plays catch up.

In addition, teams pre-FFP created their fortune at a time when there was no FFP, so had advantages (Sovereign state funds, Russian war sympathisers, etc), that teams don't have now.

Can someone tell me why I'm wrong, please.

Nothing in what you've said there is wrong. I'm just disputing that any of this is about Man United's 'right' (or not) to be the biggest club.  

[VillaChris]

4 hours ago, paul514 said:

He would probably have to find some form to get a big price 

If his form picks up he'll get in the England squad at some stage this year so that will help. I think summer 2025 is probably when a big sale like him may occur, England squad regular and season playing in CL will boost his value considerably. He'll only just have turned 24 by that point aswell and will have played pretty much 150 prem games at that point.

[paul514]

3 hours ago, VillaChris said:

If his form picks up he'll get in the England squad at some stage this year so that will help. I think summer 2025 is probably when a big sale like him may occur, England squad regular and season playing in CL will boost his value considerably. He'll only just have turned 24 by that point aswell and will have played pretty much 150 prem games at that point.

I think he is the most replaceable out of any so called big sales

[CVByrne]

15 hours ago, Made In Aston said:

It didn't really help Newcastle enough as the coefficient bias means clubs like ours don't get the same amount of prize money as bigger ones. Also it is really difficult to win games in the group stages anyway so there is no guarantee of much money. 

I agree that our commercial income will increase a bit from additional sponsorship but won't be a massive amount initially. 

The coefficient bias is an issue and totally unfair. However Newcastles problem is one we suffered from the second season after we came up. We had invested in the squad over 2 big summer windows and hit our limit. Jacks sale was needed to continue spending. Newcaste in CL is just one seasons income of a 3 year rolling window, so only 1/3rd of it goes into calculations. Teams need 3 years of top 7 finishes, European football and good sponsorship deals to manage FFP in the stable way. Newcastle have not even had their CL accounts counted yet as they will come next season. So their FFP accounts are based off seasons finishing in the bottom half fighting relegation.

Our season in ECL will really really help us if we qualify for CL 

Edited January 14 by CVByrne

[Villaphan04]

well well well...

 

 

[Brumstopdogs]

 

[Avfc96]

I'm of the view that FFP or PSR should be more strictly implemented than it currently is.

Out of the PL clubs+ the 72 FL clubs, the number of clubs that are self sustainable is in single figures, which is ridiculous. 

 

 

 

[Wurzel]

 

[pas5898]

As a similar sized club, we should be concerned about the likes of Everton, not laughing at them.

FFP is nothing more than a tool to restrict the likes of us, Newcastle, West Ham, Everton etc from stealing the 500m+ yearly revenue the "big 6" enjoy. Its a closed shop, nothing to do with sustainability. Remove FFP then Tottenham, Liverpool, Man U are replaced by clubs with owners willing to spend (Newcastle).

Unless we manage to keep Emery for 5-10 years, it will be impossible for us to long term compete even with Spurs. They can comfortably spend 150 million every season, offer higher wages. We will spend 40-50million during the summer and eventually sell a Luiz, Martinez, Bailey, Torres, Kamara or Watkins to be "sustainable".

Man City can buy our captain/best player for 100m, Leeds captain/best player for 50m, Wolves best player 50m, Bournemouths best player 40m etc as bench warmers! Despite WE/NS being extraordinarily wealthy, we are recalling and selling £2million youth player to fund 9million pound purchase from Belgrade. Without FFP, we'd go and get a 40-50million ready-made fullback.

This summer without FFP - we could go and spend £200m+ on 4 high quality players to really solidify ourselves as a top 6 team. The reality of what we do, will be a rude awakening for some.

Edited January 15 by pas5898
additions

[Lichfield Dean]

Just now, pas5898 said:

As a similar sized club, we should be concerned about the likes of Everton, not laughing at them.

FFP is nothing more than a tool to restrict the likes of us, Newcastle, West Ham, Everton etc from stealing the 500m+ yearly revenue the "big 6" enjoy. Its a closed shop, nothing to do with sustainability. Remove FFP then Tottenham, Liverpool, Man U are replaced by clubs with owners willing to spend (Newcastle).

Unless we manage to keep Emery for 5-10 years, it will be impossible for us to long term compete even with Spurs. They can comfortably spend 150 million every season, offer higher wages. We will spend 40-50million during the summer and eventually sell a Luiz, Martinez, Bailey, Torres, Kamara or Watkins to be "sustainable".

Man City can buy our captain/best player for 100m, Leeds captain/best player for 50m, Wolves best player 50m, Bournemouths best player 40m etc as bench warmers! Despite WE/NS being extraordinarily wealthy, we are recalling and selling £2million youth player to fund 9million pound purchase from Belgrade. Without FFP, we'd go and get a 40-50million ready-made fullback.

Yes, but equally, we didn't try and make a quick buck out of the biggest health crisis the world has seen in a hundred years. So, well, I don't have much sympathy.

[Kuwabatake Sanjuro]

Who could have predicted that Nottm Forest signing roughly 40 players could have led to ffp consequences, was stupid and unnecessary. 

[VillaChris]

1 hour ago, Kuwabatake Sanjuro said:

Who could have predicted that Nottm Forest signing roughly 40 players could have led to ffp consequences, was stupid and unnecessary. 

Didn't sell Brennan Johnson when they were required to in the summer either.

[desensitized43]

I'd love to know what Chelsea's plan is to escape punishment when the 3 year cycle catches up to them.

[OutByEaster?]

It'll be interesting to see what happens with this going forwards - the Premier league product is based on being the most exciting league in the world - if Premier league clubs are struggling to sign players because they're all maxed out, that affects the product, it kills a buzz.

I wonder if ultimately we might have to see the rules changed because they're working.

[bobzy]

15 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

It'll be interesting to see what happens with this going forwards - the Premier league product is based on being the most exciting league in the world - if Premier league clubs are struggling to sign players because they're all maxed out, that affects the product, it kills a buzz.

I wonder if ultimately we might have to see the rules changed because they're working.

They're absolutely working.

Quite a while ago, I wanted FFP scrapped.  It wasn't fair because it limited "smaller" clubs who could get wealthy owners (lets say, Aston Villa) from pumping in a vast amount to compete at the top end of the table.  But, actually, it just encourages teams to do things properly - to develop talent, to scout wisely, to run the club well and not just flog it into the ground.  That, plus we'd obviously get nowhere near the financial power of nation state clubs or those with set, Worldwide appeal (Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea) anyway so removing any sort of financial implication would enhance the gap, if anything.

The other thing that people seem to often overlook when discussing FFP is the squad limits that we have in place in the Premier League.  You have to name up to a 25-man squad with 8 players being of homegrown status - those u21 don't count towards these limits.  Whilst Man City could well "spend £2bn, the cheating pricks", they've also got a limited number of playing staff to spend this month on.  Sure, they could hoard up all the best U21 talent in the World (I guess Chelsea are trying this), but I can't see the huge appeal for a player joining Man City for, say, £60m to then sit outside of their 25-man squad and not play any football at all.  Whilst some players may well move solely for money, I'd wager that most professional footballers actually want to play football.

I think the main advantages of increased financial wealth is the ability to attract better players (obviously) but also to be able to afford to get the best players from other Premier League clubs having seen them develop in the league that you play in.  You don't need to take the same risks as getting someone to settle from another league.  Grealish, Rice, Caicedo all went for £100m+ to "big" clubs.  Whilst these players could offer an improvement to the clubs who bought them, they're also giving good value to the selling club who can then invest appropriately and improve their squad (exactly what we've seen with us, and you could probably argue the same for Brighton and West Ham too).  On the face of it, this is an "unfair", net difference of £200m club-on-club but I think, with hindsight, we'd be happy getting a whole load of money for our star player and then spreading that across the squad.

In a similar way that people are saying it's a shame that the system navigates away from developing "one of our own" type players, I think it actually does the opposite.  Invest heavily in your youth setup (not sure facility etc. costs count toward FFP?  Could be wrong) and find the best young talent around for really not very much money at all.  If you find star players who improve the first team, fantastic.  If you find very good players who don't quite make the cut but have a value to another club, also fantastic.  It players end up not making it, the outlay is minimal.  FFP should encourage youth development and it probably does.  It takes time, but is a less costly risk than bringing in players from elsewhere for £m's.

[bobzy]

Just to add, actually, I think the bigger issue English football has is the vast wealth gap between the Premier League and everything else.  It's getting closer and closer to a closed shop league.