villaglint Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 37 minutes ago, Nicho said: I genuinely don’t think it was put in to protect the big clubs its just a happy bi-product for them. Stopping the likes of Leeds, Portsmouth and us run yourselves into the ground was the noble reason for it. The fact that the main part of FFP is driven towards a loss as base proves this, you just can’t be too red on the balance sheet. However if an owner wants to put in ridiculous amounts of money then that should be up to them as long it’s not loaned to the club or secured against the club in anyway. If you want to waste a fortune like Jack Walker in the 90s then go for it. I don’t think our owners want to hold us up but I’m sure they would put their hands in pockets to accelerate our growth, not being able to do that does protect the big teams we’re challenging against but ultimately that money would go on our balance sheet somewhere when our current income can’t deliver it. That’s FFP outside of all of the other commercial stuff. On the one hand I'd quite like it if we all had one set of rules to play for and the club that was run the best had the biggets advantage. This is what we would have now if not for the distorting effects of the CL. On the other hand I think if an owner wants to invest it seems silly stop them as long as the club/fans/community is protected. That said if that rule came in I'd like to see a ban on any state linked investment vehicles being involved in PL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villaphan04 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 4 hours ago, duke313 said: The key is cashing in at the right time, look at Coutinho's career after he left. Liverpool got maximum value, and peak years from Coutinho before cashing in. I think this is the absolute key. I put this in the transfer thread, but Man City are the kings of selling a first team player every year for a decent wedge allowing them to be more ffp compliant -- not commenting on their alleged breaches, but being able to sell one or two first team players for 50m every summer is always going to be extremely good for FFP reasons. In this day & age of financial rules, there should be very few "unsellable" players in a squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 3 minutes ago, Villaphan04 said: I think this is the absolute key. I put this in the transfer thread, but Man City are the kings of selling a first team player every year for a decent wedge allowing them to be more ffp compliant -- not commenting on their alleged breaches, but being able to sell one or two first team players for 50m every summer is always going to be extremely good for FFP reasons. In this day & age of financial rules, there should be very few "unsellable" players in a squad. Sterling, Jesus and Zinchecnko all first team players sold to rivals and replaced with Haaland, Akanji and Alvarez. Selling those three at the time looked like bad business, but looks good now. City also have made over £400m from academy player sales in the time Pep has managed them, absolutely massive from an FFP perspective. You can see why we have started something similar under Monchi. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
est1874 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 41 minutes ago, The_Steve said: Newcastle voted for FFP in its current form - they are only crying now because they can’t keep spending that Saudi money. They can't have their cake and eat it now. They probably can. They'll have no doubt looked at Citeh and realised you can out-lawyer the authorities on this one, if you just throw enough money at it. And they have more money than anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 1 hour ago, Pongo Waring said: The problem with this thesis is it just isn't true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
est1874 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 (edited) 18 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: The problem with this thesis is it just isn't true. Even if it was... Every other club including ourselves has been hypervigilant about not falling foul of FFP for years now, or else been punished. We've had to restrain ourselves from spending enormously despite mega rich owners, we've had to shop for bargains at times and sell off young players and negotiate the best deals possible... Nobody **** wrote about our woes and how unfair it all was. Now Newcastle come along and the press are whining and moaning that they can't just do whatever the feck they want, well I'll be darned! Why the **** are they special? Why should anyone care now if they didn't didn't give a flying **** when it was Everton, Leeds, us? They're such a **** horrible little rat's nest of odious pricks, right from the top down - from their bastard owners to the average flabby **** shouting Howay the lads on the terraces. Shitty sack of words removed. Edited January 12 by est1874 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 12 Moderator Share Posted January 12 The biggest problem with FFP is that it's a system that purports to support clubs and prevent them collapsing into debt by limiting their spending, but it doesn't include any sort of calculation for debt - levels of debt should absolutely be included in FFP calculations, with debt free clubs given more licence than those with large debts. It won't happen, because the clubs with the biggest debts in world football are United, Real and Barca - so this key measure of a clubs health is simply ignored like it doesn't exist. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicho Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 6 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: The biggest problem with FFP is that it's a system that purports to support clubs and prevent them collapsing into debt by limiting their spending, but it doesn't include any sort of calculation for debt - levels of debt should absolutely be included in FFP calculations, with debt free clubs given more licence than those with large debts. It won't happen, because the clubs with the biggest debts in world football are United, Real and Barca - so this key measure of a clubs health is simply ignored like it doesn't exist. It’s a constructive point to be fair and I think the clubs in debt this should be applied. I don’t see how relaxing the rules for clubs in that arnt in debt work however, well done you’ve ran yourself well and not get debt now you can have some debt doesn’t seem the right approach to football sustainability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 25 minutes ago, The_Steve said: Yes, this guy's thread (beginning with this tweet) is the right way to think about the rules and how they're working IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 (edited) 25 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Yes, this guy's thread (beginning with this tweet) is the right way to think about the rules and how they're working IMO. It's not nonsense though. Newcastle have spent 400m after a few years of spending nothing, some hyper inflated sponsorship deals, and CL qualification. They have hit an artificial limit that is FFP as a result, but it's way less than the likes of spurs, chelsea, and United have spent recently. United amd Chelsea are perfect examples of having been able to spend way more than anyone else in the league for years, but having spent that money terribly. Give it a year or two and they're back to spunking money up the wall again. The fact they're now constrained by FFP isn't a sign that FFP works. It may stop endless spending, but it still massively favours the teams that regularly qualify for the champions league. Edit, : He is right about the real issue being state owned clubs though, which means FFP has to hang around in some guise. Edit 2: and for Villa, the fact we're supposedly at the limit, despite having spent relatively little from a net perspective, shows we're fighting against the tide. We've recruited exceptionally well, maybe got a little lucky, but overall we're hamstrung more than any of the clubs around us at the moment. Qualifying for the CL, and this Adidas deal, may well help us get closer to a level playing field. Edited January 12 by MrBlack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 11 minutes ago, MrBlack said: It's not nonsense though. Newcastle have spent 400m after a few years of spending nothing, some hyper inflated sponsorship deals, and CL qualification. Newcastle had lots of FFP headroom because Ashley had managed them conservatively. They are now limited because they haven't been able to grow their revenue at the pace they would need to to match any further spending. That's the rules working as they are supposed to. The reason 'big 6' clubs can spend more is because they have higher revenues; of course it is true that 'having more money' is beneficial, but it would be beneficial under any plausible rules. The one club who genuinely could simply run at a massive loss forever without ever having to consider increasing revenue is of course Newcastle, but it's an argument in *favour* of FFP (as you acknowledge) that it has prevented a nation state from buying a football club and then never having any financial restriction at all. 17 minutes ago, MrBlack said: United amd Chelsea are perfect examples of having been able to spend way more than anyone else in the league for years, but having spent that money terribly. Give it a year or two and they're back to spunking money up the wall again. That's because they make lots of money. See above; clubs that make more money will be able to spend more money under any plausible rules you can think of. FFP/PSR makes no judgement about whether clubs spend the money wisely or not, so that's not very relevant to the discussion. 18 minutes ago, MrBlack said: The fact they're now constrained by FFP isn't a sign that FFP works. It may stop endless spending, but it still massively favours the teams that regularly qualify for the champions league. The second sentence disproves the first, that *is* the system working as intended, because 'regularly qualifying for the Champions League' = greater revenue. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 The penny is finally dropping for Bohley 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 12 Moderator Share Posted January 12 You do wonder if every club in the league hits an FFP ceiling at the same time this coming summer whether the rules might end up getting changed to continue to allow the league to dominate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 11 minutes ago, duke313 said: The penny is finally dropping for Bohley I'm sure people are figuring this out but this is why they want to sell Gallagher despite Poch making him captain; he'd be pure profit and would make up over half of that deficit alone if they got their asking price for him. Unfortunately it doesn't look at this stage as if there's any interest. Very sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 35 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Newcastle had lots of FFP headroom because Ashley had managed them conservatively. They are now limited because they haven't been able to grow their revenue at the pace they would need to to match any further spending. That's the rules working as they are supposed to. The reason 'big 6' clubs can spend more is because they have higher revenues; of course it is true that 'having more money' is beneficial, but it would be beneficial under any plausible rules. The one club who genuinely could simply run at a massive loss forever without ever having to consider increasing revenue is of course Newcastle, but it's an argument in *favour* of FFP (as you acknowledge) that it has prevented a nation state from buying a football club and then never having any financial restriction at all. That's because they make lots of money. See above; clubs that make more money will be able to spend more money under any plausible rules you can think of. FFP/PSR makes no judgement about whether clubs spend the money wisely or not, so that's not very relevant to the discussion. The second sentence disproves the first, that *is* the system working as intended, because 'regularly qualifying for the Champions League' = greater revenue. And hence it means its a closed shop. So the OP on twitter saying it isnt protecting them is wrong. It does protect them and creates a glass ceiling for the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 3 minutes ago, MrBlack said: And hence it means its a closed shop. So the OP on twitter saying it isnt protecting them is wrong. It does protect them and creates a glass ceiling for the rest of us. It's not a very good 'closed shop' if Newcastle can finish in the top 4 last season, and we could still finish in the top 4 this season. The effective 'distance' between the biggest clubs in the league and the 'mid-ranking' clubs like ourselves, West Ham, Newcastle has been declining not growing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Segundo Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 37 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Newcastle had lots of FFP headroom because Ashley had managed them conservatively. They are now limited because they haven't been able to grow their revenue at the pace they would need to to match any further spending. That's the rules working as they are supposed to. The reason 'big 6' clubs can spend more is because they have higher revenues; of course it is true that 'having more money' is beneficial, but it would be beneficial under any plausible rules. The one club who genuinely could simply run at a massive loss forever without ever having to consider increasing revenue is of course Newcastle, but it's an argument in *favour* of FFP (as you acknowledge) that it has prevented a nation state from buying a football club and then never having any financial restriction at all. That's because they make lots of money. See above; clubs that make more money will be able to spend more money under any plausible rules you can think of. FFP/PSR makes no judgement about whether clubs spend the money wisely or not, so that's not very relevant to the discussion. The second sentence disproves the first, that *is* the system working as intended, because 'regularly qualifying for the Champions League' = greater revenue. As I've said on the transfer thread though, certain clubs only have higher revenues and regular CL qualifications (which perpetuate each other) because they were allowed to financially dope prior to FFP. So while FFP is sort of working as intended, some clubs - PSG, Chelsea, City - were allowed to slip through the owner investment net and gain a massive unfair advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 2 minutes ago, El Segundo said: As I've said on the transfer thread though, certain clubs only have higher revenues and regular CL qualifications (which perpetuate each other) because they were allowed to financially dope prior to FFP. So while FFP is sort of working as intended, some clubs - PSG, Chelsea, City - were allowed to slip through the owner investment net and gain a massive unfair advantage. Yes, that's absolutely true. But like, what can be done about it? Unfortunately we can't travel back through time and do it differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said: It's not a very good 'closed shop' if Newcastle can finish in the top 4 last season, and we could still finish in the top 4 this season. The effective 'distance' between the biggest clubs in the league and the 'mid-ranking' clubs like ourselves, West Ham, Newcastle has been declining not growing. One off seasons dont make a trend. The rules haven't changed for a long time, and for nearly all that time the usual suspects finish in the top 6, with the occasional interloper (Leicester, West Ham, Newcastle, us ) Newcastle look miles off qualifying again this season. Leicester disappeared, West Ham nearly got relegated last season. They couldnt push on and establish themselves because of the deals those clubs have made, as a result of their decades of domination, and their almost ever presence in Europe. Maybe the gap is reducing as the TV deal is making up a bigger portion of clubs income and hence all PL clubs are now getting a lot, but it's still levels below those historic scum 6 clubs. Let's see how we cope next season. We might be the exception to the rule, but the effort required to breach the monopoly will have been heavily predicated on us getting one of if not the, best manager in the world. That's hardly a model for other clubs to follow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts