The General FFP (Financial Fair Play) Thread

[El Segundo]

20 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

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. 

My suggestion was to base these teams' FFP restrictions on the revenues of clubs of a similar size and stature who did not benefit from doping.  So for example base City's and Chelsea's FFP criteria on the revenues of the likes of Everton, Newcastle or Villa.     

[OutByEaster?]

Coefficients are a protectionist racket - Newcastle making half what Man Utd made from this season Champions league despite the same results is garbage.

 

[HeyAnty]

1 hour 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.

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.

 

That guy is talking bollox.  He’s taking in a short time frame.  Doesn’t mention Arsenal/Man utd/Chelsea spending hundreds of millIons over past 2-3years and have hit their limits.  We spend 10 times less and hit our limit.  

[MrBlack]

23 minutes ago, tomsky_11 said:

Is it not? Costs less to get a high end management team than maybe even one high end player, and likely has a bigger impact on the team overall.

But how many managers like Emery are out there. I'm saying that to compensate for our reduced cash, we have to be better in nearly every other department. Its not "fair", and any notion that FFP is, or that its not protecting the biggest clubs, is wrong. Chelsea's sponsorship deals still dwarf the other clubs, despite them having been rubbish for a season and a half. Its only due to their unprecedented spending that they're in trouble. Even United who have been poorly run will recover to their usual position in na seasons time if they don't continue to waste money. 

[Ceemo]

Thing that gets me is why is it £105 million over 3 years? Why that random figure and not £110 million or £120 million for instance, it just seems like a completely random number.

Perhaps you could do it on a sliding scale from where you finished in the previous season. If you finished top, you can only lose £10 million a year or whatever figure you want to start at and then slide it across the league where the promoted clubs and the clubs that just avoided relegation can make a bigger loss without punishment. Of course this would screw Villa at the moment for instance but you have to look at the whole picture of the game. Results can fluctuate throughout certain seasons and some teams can outperform others but for instance you could be put into a coma for 10 years and you would still have a pretty good chance of predicting the top 6 then, and that's not good.

The reason that these rules were brought in was about protecting clubs, but that has to be balanced with making it more competitive. Perhaps requiring owners to put funds into escrow similar to the NFL can prevent owners putting debt onto their club or using the club's own money can offer protection towards that and then you can start to bring in pro-competitive rules. You don't want oil states dominating the game, but you also don't want a glass ceiling protecting the elite. There surely has to be a balance somewhere.

[HanoiVillan]

43 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

My suggestion was to base these teams' FFP restrictions on the revenues of clubs of a similar size and stature who did not benefit from doping.  So for example base City's and Chelsea's FFP criteria on the revenues of the likes of Everton, Newcastle or Villa.     

I can see why that would be very nice for us, but I'm sure you can see several problems with that as an idea. 

[ChicagoVillan1983]

It's absolutely no coincidence that Arsenal were terrible while they were redoing the stadium and ploughing cash into that.

[HanoiVillan]

43 minutes ago, HeyAnty said:

That guy is talking bollox.  He’s taking in a short time frame.  Doesn’t mention Arsenal/Man utd/Chelsea spending hundreds of millIons over past 2-3years and have hit their limits.  We spend 10 times less and hit our limit.  

They have higher revenues 

I don't get what people are not getting. Tesco can build more supermarkets than Spar, the USA can build more aircraft carriers than Tanzania. Yes, it's obviously better to be richer!

[HanoiVillan]

14 minutes ago, Ceemo said:

The reason that these rules were brought in was about protecting clubs, but that has to be balanced with making it more competitive. Perhaps requiring owners to put funds into escrow similar to the NFL can prevent owners putting debt onto their club or using the club's own money can offer protection towards that and then you can start to bring in pro-competitive rules. You don't want oil states dominating the game, but you also don't want a glass ceiling protecting the elite. There surely has to be a balance somewhere.

This debate always ends up in 'why can't it be more like the NFL' where there are no transfer fees, and there's a salary cap and a supplementary draft, and you're right that would definitely lead to a more competitive league. It's also never ever ever going to happen, and we couldn't get there from here if we tried. 

[ChicagoVillan1983]

5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

They have higher revenues 

I don't get what people are not getting. Tesco can build more supermarkets than Spar, the USA can build more aircraft carriers than Tanzania. Yes, it's obviously better to be richer!

There's no point crying over spilt milk.

FFP is what it is and there is nothing we can do about this.

[Keyblade]

24 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

They have higher revenues 

I don't get what people are not getting. Tesco can build more supermarkets than Spar, the USA can build more aircraft carriers than Tanzania. Yes, it's obviously better to be richer!

While I fully agree with you, I guess the issue people have is that these higher revenues aren't necessarily earned through on-pitch performance, but because of "who they are". Manchester United can finish bottom half for the next decade while we continue on this trajectory and still probably pull in more revenue than us because they're Manchester United Football Club. In order for clubs like us to claw back some of the deficit we have to be exceptional both on the pitch and off it (signing the best manager in the world, having some world class youngsters come through, having to make comparable signings for much less money etc). The amount of effort and luck that is required to do it vs the lack thereof of these "legacy teams" is such a huge discrepancy and hardly feels in the spirit of what FFP is trying to protect. 

[HanoiVillan]

10 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

While I fully agree with you, I guess the issue people have is that these higher revenues aren't necessarily earned through on-pitch performance, but because of "who they are". Manchester United can finish bottom half for the next decade while we continue on this trajectory and still probably pull in more revenue than us because they're Manchester United Football Club. In order for clubs like us to claw back some of the deficit we have to be exceptional both on the pitch and off it (signing the best manager in the world, having some world class youngsters come through, having to make comparable signings for much less money etc). The amount of effort and luck that is required to do it vs the lack thereof of these "legacy teams" is such a huge discrepancy and hardly feels in the spirit of what FFP is trying to protect. 

If that's the issue people have, they don't need the FFP thread, they need to be starting a 'was it a mistake to allow football to professionalise in 1885' thread. 

Apart from N American sports, and maybe some of the cricket leagues (not sure), all professional sport is run on these lines. We live in a capitalist society, so unless you specifically create 'millionaire's socialism' then access to capital will be a big part of determining success. FFP is having the effect of partially *reducing* these disparities in English football, it's not the cause of them. 

Edited January 12 by HanoiVillan

[HeyAnty]

39 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

They have higher revenues 

I don't get what people are not getting. Tesco can build more supermarkets than Spar, the USA can build more aircraft carriers than Tanzania. Yes, it's obviously better to be richer!

I never said they didn’t.  Its rigged towards the big boys.  Never mind being billions in debt, as long as their revenue is bigger, we’ll use that to keep the lower teams in their place, even though they are debt free and have owners who want to spend.

[HeyAnty]

6 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

If that's the issue people have, they don't need the FFP thread, they need to be starting a 'was it a mistake to allow football to professionalise in 1885' thread. 

Apart from N American sports, and maybe some of the cricket leagues (not sure), all professional sport is run on these lines. We live in a capitalist society, so unless you specifically create 'millionaire's socialism' then access to capital will be a big part of determining success. FFP is having the effect of partially *reducing* these disparities in English football, it's not the cause of them. 

So you don’t think the likes of Tesla dont make loses initially to get market share?  Most companies have to spend in first few years to exceed.  That’s capitalism.  Not telling companies they can’t spend to get to where they want to be competing with the likes of Mercedes.

[Jareth]

Not sure if this thread is spilling into a wider FFP discussion - but FFP as the reason the 'big 6' are protected, is a moot point when Villa are 2nd in the league.

[Keyblade]

12 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

If that's the issue people have, they don't need the FFP thread, they need to be starting a 'was it a mistake to allow football to professionalise in 1885' thread. 

Apart from N American sports, and maybe some of the cricket leagues (not sure), all professional sport is run on these lines. We live in a capitalist society, so unless you specifically create 'millionaire's socialism' then access to capital will be a big part of determining success. FFP is having the effect of partially *reducing* these disparities in English football, it's not the cause of them. 

Slightly off topic but it's kind of funny that the most capitalistic country on this earth has the most equitable sporting system. 

Also, this is for older fans but was it always like this? Were the richest teams always the most successful? I'm guessing from the 60's onwards as I believe there was a salary cap in English football, and just judging from the league winners over the years, there's quite a bit more variety in any 10 year stretch than the last 30 years combined.

Edit: I would add that FFP does block certain teams and does favour the establishment in that it forces teams to spend only their revenue. Newcastle is currently the richest team in the land, but their spending can never reflect that unless they cook the books like Manchester City. No matter what they do, they'll never make as much as Manchester United despite technically having access to way more money than them. They just aren't allowed to spend it. 

Edited January 12 by Keyblade

[HanoiVillan]

2 minutes ago, HeyAnty said:

So you don’t think the likes of Tesla dont make loses initially to get market share?  Most companies have to spend in first few years to exceed.  That’s capitalism.  Not telling companies they can’t spend to get to where they want to be competing with the likes of Mercedes.

I'm honestly struggling to follow at this point whether you want *more* rules to prevent City, Chelsea and Newcastle spending as much as they could or *fewer* rules to allow us to spend more, but my suspicion is you basically think both of these things. Unfortunately 'make the rules whatever is most convenient for Aston Villa specifically' is not really an option. 

[MaVilla]

10 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Not sure if this thread is spilling into a wider FFP discussion - but FFP as the reason the 'big 6' are protected, is a moot point when Villa are 2nd in the league.

while i see your point, i dont think thats true.

We, or anyone can sneak in to the top 4 or 6, for weeks, months, a year or more, but even then, the turnover between the teams flirting with top 4 or 6 on an irregular, or even semi regular basis, are even then massively outmatched in terms of turnover, a turnover which was partly set years ago before FFP existed, and it is extremely, extremely difficult for any "non big 6" teams to bridge that gap, unless they "over-perform" for multiple years, possibly a decade or more, to have any real chance of bridging the financial gap present.

the current financial gap between the "big teams" and the "rest", is massively skewed in favour of one set over the other, and even 1, 2 or 3 years of good finishes wont equalise that balance, it would to some degree in the short term, but it wont balance it out compared to the financial might of the "big teams".

Look at Utd, literally a decade, maybe 2 decades of under performance, and their tunrover is still massive, to the point we could finish 2nd in the league for a decade, and probably never get close to their current financial power.

tbf, there were different challenges pre FFP, both pre and post FFP have pro's and con's, but to say FFP isnt in some way protecting the "big 6" financially, in a holistic way, because Villa have been in the top 4 for 3 months of a single season, is kinda missing the point tbh.

Edited January 12 by MaVilla

[HeyAnty]

14 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm honestly struggling to follow at this point whether you want *more* rules to prevent City, Chelsea and Newcastle spending as much as they could or *fewer* rules to allow us to spend more, but my suspicion is you basically think both of these things. Unfortunately 'make the rules whatever is most convenient for Aston Villa specifically' is not really an option. 

My point is that it protects the established big 6.  Its not a level playing field, how can you increase revenue and become one of them if u cant spend initially?  It’s nearly impossible.  No one wants runaway teams, but thats what we have had with city for past 10 years. Same with utd 20 years before and pool 20 before that

Edited January 12 by HeyAnty

[Jareth]

5 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

tbf, there were different challenges pre FFP, both pre and post FFP have pro's and con's, but to say FFP isnt in some way protecting the "big 6" financially, in a holistic way, because Villa have been in the top 4 for 3 months of a single season, is kinda missing the point tbh.

But it's not just us in the top 4 for a bit, it's Man U being shit for ages, Chelsea being midtable. I would remove Citeh from the equation because they have hugely cheated, so the only recent consistent benefactors are the likes of pool or arsenal, maybe spurs but that's pushing it. FFP appears to be obstructive to the traditional big 6.