The General FFP (Financial Fair Play) Thread

[HanoiVillan]

3 minutes ago, HeyAnty said:

My point is that it protects the established big 6.  Its not a level paying field, how can you increase revenue and become one of them if u can 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

There are 20 teams in the league. We can't all finish in the top 4. If you let everyone spend whatever they want in the hope that they, specifically, make it to become a regular in the Champions League, the vast majority of clubs will fail, and then some of them will go out of business. People don't like this either, because we think of our clubs as 'treasured community assets' and then when they get into trouble chasing pipe dreams we demand that the government and the league do something about it. The 'something' we have now is FFP/PSR. 

[MaVilla]

1 minute ago, Jareth said:

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. 

i would propose thats more the fact that they are ran badly.

Manure being so bad, for so long, unyet still have all that financial muscle which doesnt reflect their poor performance over the last decade, but that financial muscle was built on pre ffp foundations when they could spend big and build big, where as now, even if they spend and recruit badly, their turnover is so huge, that ffp allows then to keep spending, where we for example, cant spend as we are limited.

tbf, i dont think FFP is the answer, i dont think the way it was done pre-FFP is the answer, im just saying that although the big teams can perform badly, all teams are so limited by FFP, that other teams cant catch them financially, due to baked in FFP limitations, so yes, it hinders them to a degree, but it massively hinders teams trying to catch them.

[HanoiVillan]

21 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

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

They never have a problem sharing amongst themselves, it's the workers they don't want to share with

[Keyblade]

9 minutes ago, Jareth said:

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. 

Not quite sure that's true. Going by the last 15 years, these are the amount of times teams have finished in the top 6. Funny thing about going through the years is that (in the last 10 especially), whenever a team would upset the applecart so to speak, the table quickly corrects itself for the next season and said team is usually not seen in the top 6 for many years. None of the "Big 6" is ever shit for more than a season or 2. They just can't be really. They can throw enough money at it to eventually get back up.

Manchester City - 15

Manchester United - 14

Arsenal - 13

Tottenham - 13

Liverpool  - 11

Chelsea - 14

Everton - 3

Leicester City - 3

Aston Villa - 2

Newcastle - 2

West Ham - 1

Southampton - 1

Brighton - 1

Edit: Also if we extend this to "top 4", every team below Chelsea that isn't Leicester or Newcastle would get deleted. And they've only done it once each.

Edited January 12 by Keyblade

[HeyAnty]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

There are 20 teams in the league. We can't all finish in the top 4. If you let everyone spend whatever they want in the hope that they, specifically, make it to become a regular in the Champions League, the vast majority of clubs will fail, and then some of them will go out of business. People don't like this either, because we think of our clubs as 'treasured community assets' and then when they get into trouble chasing pipe dreams we demand that the government and the league do something about it. The 'something' we have now is FFP/PSR. 

Well thats what ffp was brought in for, to stop clubs doing a leeds.  It’s also made the league anti competitive as the clubs who have made hay when the sun shone now won’t be moved.  Yeah we might finish in top 4, for a year or two but we still won’t be near the top 6.

[villa4europe]

15 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

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.

Look at Leicester 

Won the league, got CL, flirted with CL for a few years, won the FA cup

Had a revenue that was a quarter of Spurs and arsenal... They couldn't sustain it

We're 2nd, we're flying... We're also kidding ourselves if we think we've overtaken Chelsea and Utd, they'll be back, just got to hope if we get CL we make all the right moves and stay there because we have to get everything right in order to compete, they don't due to their advantages over us, if they were semi competent they'd be further up the table 

[duke313]

28 minutes ago, Jareth said:

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. 

I love how you’re mad there are FFP rules in place, and then also mad at City for trying to get around those same rules. You can’t really be mad at both  

[Jareth]

13 minutes ago, duke313 said:

I love how you’re mad there are FFP rules in place, and then also mad at City for trying to get around those same rules. You can’t really be mad at both  

I’m content - Villa are 2nd, FFP is stopping our competitors. 

[Pongo Waring]

2 hours ago, Jareth said:

I’m content - Villa are 2nd, FFP is stopping our competitors. 

He's right you know

[GlobalVillan]

7 hours ago, duke313 said:

I love how you’re mad there are FFP rules in place, and then also mad at City for trying to get around those same rules. You can’t really be mad at both  

Er what? Of course you can! 

There are FFP rules put in place that restrict us (which you can easily be mad at) and Man City have said **** those rules, not got punished and restricted us even more. (Which everyone should apoplectic with rage at)

And btw, Man City aren't "trying: to get around the rules, they totally ignored them and have 115 (so far) substantial charges against them for doing so.

[Don_Simon]

FFP only works if all clubs have the same revenue. 

Introducing it when they did, the horse had already bolted. I don't know what the answer is, but it's not FFP.

[VillaJ100]

How did Spurs become this financial powerhouse? 15 years ago we were a shade ahead of them and probably having a higher income? I guess they had some good players like Bale, Modric etc but they still won F all, and still have won F all. They finished in Europe for a few years in a row but how does that make them similar to say Chelsea?

[Zatman]

15 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

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. 

If he wasnt made of glass I think they would have sold James before Gallagher

[CVByrne]

Also I've a question about the Squad Cost rule maybe people can help. According to Swiss Ramble it's calculated over a single calendar year (which from memory is correct). But how is it monitored as it's split between two financial years. How is the income and squad cost calculated? 

[Nicho]

13 hours ago, HeyAnty said:

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

I mentioned this in the on topic villa thread, it’s does protect the top teams but not by design just a happy bi product for them, it stops teams running themselves into the ground chasing teams who are financially better than them. That’s a good thing to stop owners running teams out of existence. 

Like it or not football teams are businesses and they can’t over exert themselves financially or they go bankrupt. Being a business however you could argue the owners should run it how they like and if the business fails then so be it, that’s where football clubs being institutions and a sport muddy the water and FFP is to stop that full failure happening.

With rich owners we view FFP stopping them putting millions into transfers and stopping us competing but that would then get loaned anyway as our debt and if they leave or we get relegated we would be ****.

It’s actually about stopping Leeds, us and Portsmouth spending so much that they can’t pay their bills and go into administration if the owners can’t afford to bail them out.

City State ownership shouldn’t matter as you can’t spend more than you earn, it’s your commercial income that matters which is why City have 115 potential breaches to skew their income/spending, why Newcastle currently can’t spend and ultimately why United have been able to spend millions on absolute crap ever year.

Edit: and to add Chelsea in, they skewed the process by spreading the eroding value and cost of the player over long term contracts, this will eventually diminish the amount they can spend each season as they will have 20 players every season adding an 8th of their value to the negative column. By about 2028 it will be like signing 2 and half players every summer without having done so. 

edit: Levy has set Tottenham up with the new stadium it’s skewed their revenue in the positive massively, that’s the way to do it and to compare to Villa we need to capitalise now to get our revenue up via the champions league but not improving our stadium is short sighted but they know that, we need to get our finances up immediately and that comes through league position and other commercial stuff. 

Long sorry. 

 

Edited January 13 by Nicho

[Nicho]

42 minutes ago, VillaJ100 said:

How did Spurs become this financial powerhouse? 15 years ago we were a shade ahead of them and probably having a higher income? I guess they had some good players like Bale, Modric etc but they still won F all, and still have won F all. They finished in Europe for a few years in a row but how does that make them similar to say Chelsea?

Spurs have bought and sold incredibly well since levy came in, they’ve also finished in Europe for something like 80% of his time there and the champions league like 60% of the time. Striking at the golden time of commercial growth for the premier league. Being decent in the 90s compared to the 2000s 2010s is completely different financially. 

[VillaJ100]

2 minutes ago, Nicho said:

Spurs have bought and sold incredibly well since levy came in, they’ve also finished in Europe for something like 80% of his time there and the champions league like 60% of the time. Striking at the golden time of commercial growth for the premier league. Being decent in the 90s compared to the 2000s 2010s is completely different financially. 

Let's hope they're shit from the 2023's onwards.

Also funny you say that as at the time they got pilloried for 'wasting' the Bale money 

Edited January 13 by VillaJ100

[Nicho]

1 minute ago, VillaJ100 said:

Let's hope they're shit from the 2023's onwards

Nothing to suggest they wont be competing financially. They have financial might through history and now the stadium and Levy is a very good chairman. I argue with a spurs mate that with a much smaller budget they were massively punching above their weight and they’ve turned that into money. Had to tighten while they built the stadium.

They are spending big recently on young good players which is what made Spurs successful in the first place. Van De Ven, Ragusin, Udogie, Johnson, Kulsevski, Porro. Adding in some “older” good players Bentancur, Maddison, Vicario. Let’s just hope for some more trash like Richarlison. 

Spurs for me are the blueprint for how to grow in this league.

[Zatman]

21 hours ago, grantholtgolazo said:

It’s a shame that financial rules incentivize selling on homegrown talent, takes a lot out of the game for me. 

Its pretty disgraceful for me. The local player making it was one of the last probably pure things left in football

[duke313]

3 hours ago, Don_Simon said:

FFP only works if all clubs have the same revenue. 

Introducing it when they did, the horse had already bolted. I don't know what the answer is, but it's not FFP.

The alternative is no FFP and Newcastle spending £6 billion on players with no restrictions. Two oil state runs clubs battling for titles, while the rest of us get into more and more debt trying to keep up.