New spending caps announced (FFP).

[Danwichmann]

This will also mean relegation for us will damage us even further, lower revenue from the championship means if we we go down then come back up, our spending power will be determined by our revenue from the championship?

 

True, but on the other hand I almost just don't want to be part of the Premier League anymore. There is a part of me that wants to see us go down, win the championship then turn around and say "promotion, no thanks, we'd rather stay in this league."

[dudevillaisnice]

This will also mean relegation for us will damage us even further, lower revenue from the championship means if we we go down then come back up, our spending power will be determined by our revenue from the championship?

 

True, but on the other hand I almost just don't want to be part of the Premier League anymore. There is a part of me that wants to see us go down, win the championship then turn around and say "promotion, no thanks, we'd rather stay in this league."

 

hmm I wouldn't go that far

 

That said this further damages the league.

[Danwichmann]

 

This will also mean relegation for us will damage us even further, lower revenue from the championship means if we we go down then come back up, our spending power will be determined by our revenue from the championship?

 

True, but on the other hand I almost just don't want to be part of the Premier League anymore. There is a part of me that wants to see us go down, win the championship then turn around and say "promotion, no thanks, we'd rather stay in this league."

 

hmm I wouldn't go that far

 

That said this further damages the league.

No, I wouldn't ACTUALLY go that far either, but I would really like to find some way, any way, of really being able to stick two fingers up at the PL, Sky, UEFA and the rest of them. 

[colhint]

Isn't ManU'S position not quite so rosy as people think. Where I'm coming from is although the club is worth millions, don't they also owe millions. Whatever the club is worth then almost becomes irrelevant, just the debt. Now their turnover is massive, but the squad is ageing, with Giggs, Scholes and Ferdinand retiring. Add to that Ferguson must retire soon. It means a very big outlay just to keep where they are now. Add in the uncertainty of a new manager, and things would not necessarily go tits up, but I can quite easily see them not winning the title for 2 or 3 years. Now when that happens to most teams (i mean picking up the odd trophy every once in a while) the supporters generally stick with them, but all those lifelong fans across the globe will switch allegiance to dollars city if the carousel of silverware dries up. Then revenue falls. That's my hope anyway. And the sooner Ferguson goes the better, not just for football, but for the whole of mankind. I hope his ears turn into arseholes and he shits all over his shoulders

[VILLAMARV]

if the agenda was saving football and ensuring "portsmouth never happens again" then they could simply add up all the prize money from all competitions and divide it equally between all 92 clubs every year. 

 

if the agenda - as I suspect from reading those leaked arsenal letters - is the big clubs protecting their investments and investability and trying to stop Chelsea or Man City from happening again. It would have meant no investment fuelled pop at the top 4 from Lerner.....

 

this was quite a good take on it i thought:

 

arsenal-financial-fair-play-moans-don-t-add-up

 

Unfortunately though, we only have ourselves to blame. We were part of the group that formed the Premier League running after Skys money with the FA. Then things changed. The Bosman ruling meant clubs lost all the power they had over the players and the ever increasing prize money has now led us to a point where most clubs receive more from prize money than from a whole seasons worth of ticket sales. hence ultimately no control over our largest income stream. 

 

If we took all the money out of it though, there would still be people here. wanting to play football, wanting to watch football. They would be football people though, with the game running through their veins. Not the seagulls that follow the trawler.......

[PussEKatt]

Not sure if this should be in the Villa part as it concernes all the clubs in the PL.

How will the new Financial Fair Play rules effect us ?

Also, how will it effect the big spending clubs, like Chelski and Man $ity ?. 

[TRS-T]

Means that we have no chance of breaking into the Champions League.

 

Means that Man U will win the league every year.

[colhint]

Isn't ManU'S position not quite so rosy as people think. Where I'm coming from is although the club is worth millions, don't they also owe millions. Whatever the club is worth then almost becomes irrelevant, just the debt. Now their turnover is massive, but the squad is ageing, with Giggs, Scholes and Ferdinand retiring. Add to that Ferguson must retire soon. It means a very big outlay just to keep where they are now. Add in the uncertainty of a new manager, and things would not necessarily go tits up, but I can quite easily see them not winning the title for 2 or 3 years. Now when that happens to most teams (i mean picking up the odd trophy every once in a while) the supporters generally stick with them, but all those lifelong fans across the globe will switch allegiance to dollars city if the carousel of silverware dries up. Then revenue falls. That's my hope anyway. And the sooner Ferguson goes the better, not just for football, but for the whole of mankind. I hope his ears turn into arseholes and he shits all over his shoulders

 

 

oooh have I predicted something right at last

[NoelVilla]

FFP is dead and clubs paying attention to it will lose out.

[ThunderPower_14]

How does this get voted in? It's just a massive glass ceiling over the bottom 14 clubs in the league. 

 

It's a rule that "protects clubs from themselves" by stopping them from ever trying to be genuinely successful. 

 

**** FFP. As if the pointy end of the table wasn't already reserved for the rich clubs, now it's been legislated in.

[LondonLax]

How does this get voted in? It's just a massive glass ceiling over the bottom 14 clubs in the league. 

 

It's a rule that "protects clubs from themselves" by stopping them from ever trying to be genuinely successful. 

 

**** FFP. As if the pointy end of the table wasn't already reserved for the rich clubs, now it's been legislated in.

 

I do agree with the notion that clubs should only be able to spend what they actually earn so success is earn't rather than bought though. I think if you had FFP in from the start then Chelsea and Man City wouldn't have blown wages up so much and the clubs at the top would be closer to the clubs at the bottom. 

[ThunderPower_14]

 

How does this get voted in? It's just a massive glass ceiling over the bottom 14 clubs in the league. 

 

It's a rule that "protects clubs from themselves" by stopping them from ever trying to be genuinely successful. 

 

**** FFP. As if the pointy end of the table wasn't already reserved for the rich clubs, now it's been legislated in.

 

I do agree with the notion that clubs should only be able to spend what they actually earn so success is earn't rather than bought though. I think if you had FFP in from the start then Chelsea and Man City wouldn't have blown wages up so much and the clubs at the top would be closer to the clubs at the bottom. 

 

 

 

Agree totally, and it would have been fantastic if this had been brought in 20 years ago when the Premier League first started.

 

As it stands now, the only way to be successful in football is to spend. Now for probably 86 of the 92 teams, winning the premier league isn't even possible if they are bought by a billionaire. The door is closed.

[Rovers13]

How does this get voted in? It's just a massive glass ceiling over the bottom 14 clubs in the league.

It's a rule that "protects clubs from themselves" by stopping them from ever trying to be genuinely successful.

**** FFP. As if the pointy end of the table wasn't already reserved for the rich clubs, now it's been legislated in.

I do agree with the notion that clubs should only be able to spend what they actually earn so success is earn't rather than bought though. I think if you had FFP in from the start then Chelsea and Man City wouldn't have blown wages up so much and the clubs at the top would be closer to the clubs at the bottom.

Not really. Man U, Liverpool and arsenal would just be far above everyone else. Also, earning is a little weird to me. Would you prefer a team to fund their squad through insane ticket prices (arsenal) and gouging their fans or through the owner spending his money and keeping tickets relatively low like city?

[LondonLax]

 

 

How does this get voted in? It's just a massive glass ceiling over the bottom 14 clubs in the league.

It's a rule that "protects clubs from themselves" by stopping them from ever trying to be genuinely successful.

**** FFP. As if the pointy end of the table wasn't already reserved for the rich clubs, now it's been legislated in.

I do agree with the notion that clubs should only be able to spend what they actually earn so success is earnt rather than bought though. I think if you had FFP in from the start then Chelsea and Man City wouldn't have blown wages up so much and the clubs at the top would be closer to the clubs at the bottom.

Not really. Man U, Liverpool and arsenal would just be far above everyone else. Also, earning is a little weird to me. Would you prefer a team to fund their squad through insane ticket prices (arsenal) and gouging their fans or through the owner spending his money and keeping tickets relatively low like city?

 

 

I much prefer the Arsenal model to the Man City one, if Arsenal's tickets are too expensive they won't be able to sell them. Arsenal invested massive money to build their new stadium, they took on a risk to see a reward down the line. Man City were picked out of a hat by an outside investor and had outside money thrown at them. How can you respect that success when they did nothing to earn it?

 

Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal did used to be above the other sides before Abramovich but they would not have been there for ever, everything changes eventually. Arsenal were mid table before Wenger arrived and Man U were bumping along not doing anything either before Ferguson. They were propelled back to the top by getting top managers, not by having millions of pounds thrown at them. The league was also more even back then, a newly promoted team could go on a run and finish in Europe as recently as Ipswich in 2002. Now the promoted teams are just looking to finish 17th. 

 

If all sides were restricted to only spending what they earned from football then the league would be more even. At the moment some clubs spend what they earn but others (including ourselves) spend what they earn plus what they get given by a sugar daddy. Take the sugar daddies out and a number of teams drop back to be closer to the rest of the field. 

[tarjei]

Manchester City & PSG will not be banned from Champions League over FFP, insists Platini

By Stefan Coerts

Apr 24, 2014 11:25:00 AM

The Frenchman has made it clear that there will be tough sanctions for those who don't comply with the rules, but no teams will be excluded from European competitions

Uefa president Michel Platini has insisted that Paris Saint-Germain and Manchester City will not be banned from the Champions League if they are to be found guilty of breaching Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations.

The European governing body’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) met earier this month to investigate a swathe of cases relating to possible breaches, with the two heavyweights believed to be among the total 76 clubs under the spotlight.

CFCB will announce its findings early May, but Platini has already made it clear that PSG and City will not be expelled from European competitions.

"The first decisions will be announced in early May, but you will be disappointed if you are looking for blood and tears. There will be tough sanctions, but no teams will be excluded from European competitions," Platini told Le Parisien.

"It's not my job to talk about individual clubs, but let's say that PSG have a rather unique and atypical economic model. Their contract with QTA is innovative to say the least. It is up to the experts to say whether it is valid, though.

"I don't know whether PSG comply with FFP. I know that there was no problem in France, but the rules are different domestically."

link

[villa89]

Quelle Surprise.

[blandy]

 

Would you prefer a team to fund their squad through insane ticket prices (arsenal) and gouging their fans or through the owner spending his money and keeping tickets relatively low like city?

This season my ticket to watch Villa play at Arsenal was 36 quid. Ticket to Watch Villa play at Man City 47 quid (no, I'm not going, not at that price). Just sayin' like.

[TRS-T]

Man City had to raise their ticket prices because of Financial 'Fair' Play.

[tarjei]

That's an interesting view.

So, clubs have to earn more to be competitive. And they do earn more, but all that happens in the end is the money ends up in the pockets of overpaid players and agents. It's a real shame if tickets become even more expensive.

"Despite the astronomical figures shown in their findings, Uefa said it has seen “positive signs that financial fair play is having an impact on the European club football landscape”, with figures highlighting reduced lending by club owners and a drop of €600 million in losses compared to the previous two years from the 700 clubs reviewed.

One of the least surprising revelations was the 59% increase in wage expenditure between 2007 and 2012, which offset the 42% revenue increase enjoyed by European clubs in the same period."

[villaajax]

Platini in covering up French football dodginess shocker!