allani Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 7 hours ago, bobzy said: I don't know where Hanoi's original post was, but the thing with the Champions League is the exposure. So, yes, you can't budget for qualifying season on season like a handful of clubs, but you can increase sponsorship immediately just for being in that competition. There's an initial monetary bonus for competing (rumoured around £30m I think?) and then you can probably drive another £10-20m for sponsors. With FFP as it is, a £50m "pure profit" income is worth £250m on players on 5 year contracts. That's why it's so big. Not the long term planning - although I'm sure clubs work with a "what if" and "what if not" scenario - but the immediate boost which 16 (or maybe 15) other clubs just don't get for that season. The danger is if you base your entire budgetary plan on reaching the CL that if you don't make it then it's a pretty massive hole to fill. Like you say it's not so much the prize money it is all the added "extras" that might disappear or be harder to renegotiate. That's why if you treat it as a bonus it can give you a massive boost and allow you to spend additional money wisely. But if you become reliant on it to make ends meet then it can very quickly become an issue. There's a difference between aiming to finish as high as possible and making it an absolute financial necessity so that if you miss it your only choice is to sell players and possibly not being able to replace them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Segundo Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 12 minutes ago, KentVillan said: The problem with FFP is that it’s a gigantic bait and switch. It was supposedly brought in to prevent a Leeds / Portsmouth scenario, and yes, to some extent it does prevent that from happening. But it ludicrously forces clubs with enormous external resources to either treat those capital injections as something like debt (Villa) or to play accounting tricks to disguise that money as revenue (all the Middle Eastern owned clubs). So the main effect is to just pull up the drawbridge after Chelsea, City, PSG, etc had carte blanche to spend their way to established Champions League status. The worst thing is it may force clubs to undermine their identity by cashing in on academy talent, as that brings the biggest FFP benefit. The whole thing is a fkin shambles when it’s being tightly enforced while the fit and proper test is routinely ignored for club takeovers. It’s like there are two parallel universes, one where the rules are strictly enforced, and one where they are laughed at, and we seem to operate in the first universe. It’s completely bent Absolutely. In the interview with Palace co-Owner John Textor on the BBC and other websites, he pretty much says this as well. I know he's come out with some shot about a global superleague but he seems on the money with his PSR comments. Laments the fact they have three billionaire co owners but they are not allowed to invest, whereas City, Chelsea, PSG etc. had the opportunity to buy their way in to the elite, and now others are prevented from doing so and the established clubs are protected. He also makes the point that sustainability should be about the quality of your balance sheet, not a ratio against P&L. He also mentions in one interview that some PL clubs have been meeting outside the official PL meetings to discuss pushing for massive reform to profit and sustainability rules. But even if they can get the FA/PL to change tack, there is still FFP when you are in Europe. A system promoted by the in-no-way-dodgy-or corrupt-at-all Anglophobe Michel Platini to stop English clubs from dominating too much. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Segundo Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 5 minutes ago, rodders0223 said: Do you think the owners would be happy losing 100m every other year should FFP be abolished? I'm not sure that would happen though. An initially large investment would be required to catch up with the likes of City, but the the aim should be to use that increase revenue massively with regular CL football, leading to greater commercial revenue and then increasing capacity to improve match day income. Problem is us and Newcastle, maybe other clubs with very rich owners like Palace and Forest, as well as the sky 6 would be investing on a similar scale so there will be at least 8 or 9 mega rich clubs vying for 4 or 5 CL spots each year. And I can see that situation leading to the resurrection of super league ideas. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 12 minutes ago, rodders0223 said: Do you think the owners would be happy losing 100m every other year should FFP be abolished? If they were doing that for an extended period of time (ie 5-10 yrs), then of course that would be a problem - although it’s the owners’ problem, not the league’s. If it is just the short-term investment needed to secure Champions League football and profitability at a higher level, it’s probably just an accepted part of the plan. There’s a big difference between this and what Leeds and Portsmouth did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Follyfoot Posted March 5 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted March 5 @Brentfordnylons on another thread has said PL are having a meeting in June to announce new rules on FFP which will suit clubs with Billionaire owners. Apparently the top 6 and a few other clubs outside will be free to spend as much as they like as long as the spend is backed up with guarantees a type of escrow account will be up for the vote. UEFA are in agreement apparently. 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 4 minutes ago, Follyfoot said: @Brentfordnylons on another thread has said PL are having a meeting in June to announce new rules on FFP which will suit clubs with Billionaire owners. Apparently the top 6 and a few other clubs outside will be free to spend as much as they like as long as the spend is backed up with guarantees a type of escrow account will be up for the vote. UEFA are in agreement apparently. Sounds like bullshit to me. If uefa are in agreement why their own new rules prohibit spending by owners and are more stringent than current Premier League rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentfordnylons Posted March 5 Visiting Supporter Share Posted March 5 17 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said: Sounds like bullshit to me. If uefa are in agreement why their own new rules prohibit spending by owners and are more stringent than current Premier League rules? Money,FIFA are encouraging money from wherever they can get it hence the Saudi investment coming their way.Premier league owners like at Newcastle and City will spend mountains of money mostly in Europe on players that will feed back into their coffers.Lets see what happens in the summer and clubs like yours think Christmas has come early. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderPower_14 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 That escrow type system makes too much sense, I can't believe they'll go for it. Maybe they've had a few taps on the shoulder from the Saudis regarding the amount of money that they'd like to tip into football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 55 minutes ago, Follyfoot said: @Brentfordnylons on another thread has said PL are having a meeting in June to announce new rules on FFP which will suit clubs with Billionaire owners. Apparently the top 6 and a few other clubs outside will be free to spend as much as they like as long as the spend is backed up with guarantees a type of escrow account will be up for the vote. UEFA are in agreement apparently. That would make a lot more sense, although it would have the unpleasant side effect of allowing Newcastle to do a City 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villa_Vids Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Uefa scared of Super League? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheltenham_villa Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 1 hour ago, Follyfoot said: @Brentfordnylons on another thread has said PL are having a meeting in June to announce new rules on FFP which will suit clubs with Billionaire owners. Apparently the top 6 and a few other clubs outside will be free to spend as much as they like as long as the spend is backed up with guarantees a type of escrow account will be up for the vote. UEFA are in agreement apparently. not possible that they can limit it to top 6 clubs and a few outside. It wouldnt surprise me to see something implemented that allows owners to burn their own cash as long as they secure the finances of the club. I wonder how long it is before third party ownership is also suggested like we see in other countries. Companies can bear some of the player cost in exchange for a slice of the profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rightdm00 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 1 hour ago, Follyfoot said: @Brentfordnylons on another thread has said PL are having a meeting in June to announce new rules on FFP which will suit clubs with Billionaire owners. Apparently the top 6 and a few other clubs outside will be free to spend as much as they like as long as the spend is backed up with guarantees a type of escrow account will be up for the vote. UEFA are in agreement apparently. Can't see it happening. First, you need 14 clubs to pass that. Top 6 plus a few others doesn't get you close to 14. Secondly owners lover FFP. NSWE can't compete against a nation's investment fund. If FFP wasnt here half our team would have signed for Newcastle by now. Just like when City ran the Randy Lerner out of town. With FFP, as long we pay a competitive wage, clubs can't poach our talent and our owners losses have a hard limit year over year. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Random Precision Posted March 5 Visiting Supporter Share Posted March 5 (edited) The only solution for any club with ambition is here………… https://www.catribunal.org.uk Edited March 5 by Random Precision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano & Dalian's Umbrella Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 (edited) 2 hours ago, Rightdm00 said: "Just like when City ran the Randy Lerner out of town" I used to love the Randy Lerner. He was the most electrifying owner in all of sports and entertainment. I could definitely smell what the Randy Lerner was cooking. Edited March 5 by Deano & Dalian's Umbrella 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 1 hour ago, Rightdm00 said: Can't see it happening. First, you need 14 clubs to pass that. Top 6 plus a few others doesn't get you close to 14. Secondly owners lover FFP. NSWE can't compete against a nation's investment fund. If FFP wasnt here half our team would have signed for Newcastle by now. Just like when City ran the Randy Lerner out of town. With FFP, as long we pay a competitive wage, clubs can't poach our talent and our owners losses have a hard limit year over year. Lost Barry and Miler to them, and Randy pulled the plug. City did it to Arsenal as well, bought loads of their players until they overtook them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rightdm00 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 57 minutes ago, duke313 said: Lost Barry and Miler to them, and Randy pulled the plug. City did it to Arsenal as well, bought loads of their players until they overtook them. Boggles the mind that some don't see it. We have our highest earners on £150k p/w. City, Newcastle, and United could double that. Grealish is getting £300k p/w and he's only the third highest earner for City. United has multiple players earning over 300k p/w. You abolish FFP and the vultures will descend and unless we have the revenue to afford higher wages there won't be a thing we can do about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwi1890 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 1 hour ago, Deano & Dalian's Umbrella said: "Just like when City ran the Randy Lerner out of town" I used to love the Randy Lerner. He was the most electrifying owner in all of sports and entertainment. I could definitely smell what the Randy Lerner was cooking. The Jabroni didn’t know his role 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarnikjak Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 9 minutes ago, Rightdm00 said: Boggles the mind that some don't see it. We have our highest earners on £150k p/w. City, Newcastle, and United could double that. Grealish is getting £300k p/w and he's only the third highest earner for City. United has multiple players earning over 300k p/w. You abolish FFP and the vultures will descend and unless we have the revenue to afford higher wages there won't be a thing we can do about it. This is our problem, With FFP or without we are going to be disadvantaged either way. With FFP, we can't financially compete with teams with high revenues ( liverpool, arsenal etc). without ffp, we won't be able to compete with state owned clubs 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoVillan1983 Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 16 minutes ago, Rightdm00 said: Boggles the mind that some don't see it. We have our highest earners on £150k p/w. City, Newcastle, and United could double that. Grealish is getting £300k p/w and he's only the third highest earner for City. United has multiple players earning over 300k p/w. You abolish FFP and the vultures will descend and unless we have the revenue to afford higher wages there won't be a thing we can do about it. However, I don't think anyone can argue that City's squad is twice as good as ours. My guess is that we intend to play in the tier right below the biggest 4 spenders and make up some of the difference with infrastructure (management, academy, etc). We're never going to complete for the title year on year - it's just not possible at all. But we can have a run one of the next 5 years, win some cups etc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted March 5 VT Supporter Share Posted March 5 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Czarnikjak said: This is our problem, With FFP or without we are going to be disadvantaged either way. With FFP, we can't financially compete with teams with high revenues ( liverpool, arsenal etc). without ffp, we won't be able to compete with state owned clubs But wouldn’t being able to compete with Liverpool and Arsenal without FFP be a good thing. We’re not a 1,000,000 miles off this season already. Edited March 5 by Follyfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts