FFP RIP?

[degsy]

Does that include the Etisalat sponsorship that was time barred? And is Cities excuse for their obstructive behaviour a trustworthy and unbiased narrative and not used by their media team?

Not overly bothered about FFP and if a clubs owners want to pump billions in then I don't see why they shouldn't be able to as long as it's not leveraged on the club but I don't buy the "City were victims of a conspiracy and innocent of all wrongdoing" spiel.

The emails that got leaked to Der Spiel may not have been admissible but they were pretty damning.

Citys lawyers earned the 50 mill getting them ruled as in admissable then

 

[PaulPowersTash]

that's right, its slowed down the movement of clubs to a glacial pace, clubs at the top would have to have a series of say 5 or 6 disastrous seasons to fall out of the reckoning, possible (Arsenal) but unlikely, and clubs on the up would have to outperform the super sky 6 for 5 or 6 seasons without the financial backup to sustain it. Not a chance. FFP is a horrific fixing of the status quo.

Exactly this.
That's why it was designed and implemented the way it was.
Just why the majority of PL Chairmen voted for it is still beyond me.
How to kill any ambition or upward mobility for your club at a stroke.

 

[Jacko93]

that's right, its slowed down the movement of clubs to a glacial pace, clubs at the top would have to have a series of say 5 or 6 disastrous seasons to fall out of the reckoning, possible (Arsenal) but unlikely, and clubs on the up would have to outperform the super sky 6 for 5 or 6 seasons without the financial backup to sustain it. Not a chance. FFP is a horrific fixing of the status quo.

I think they knew that this would all eventually fall down and that is why they are looking at fixing CL entry with historic Euro performances spanning a 5 year period. Its essentially the same thing, but without stopping the money flushing around the game. It does in fact encourage it.

 

[barneygumble]

Exactly this.
That's why it was designed and implemented the way it was.
Just why the majority of PL Chairmen voted for it is still beyond me.
How to kill any ambition or upward mobility for your club at a stroke.

I seem to recall it being widely received as a positive mate.

No one could possibly have envisaged booming of PL money etc... and people didn't want "City running away with it", it was treated as if it would balance the league out, which it has to an extent, but yeah, the top 6 (up until this season), have been pretty much a lock for the last few seasons, haven't they?

 

[Mikey_Fitzgerald]

No love for FFP as it was flawed from the beginning

Rather than levelling the playing field it merely entrenched the existing status quo by not letting other clubs join the party

About time it went away

 

[Yarrgh]

Exactly this.
That's why it was designed and implemented the way it was.
Just why the majority of PL Chairmen voted for it is still beyond me.
How to kill any ambition or upward mobility for your club at a stroke.

Because the majority of PL Chairmen were happy to sit on their club's not inconsiderable income and protect themselves from the team below them in the Championship. Ambition to improve be damned.

 

[PaulPowersTash]

I seem to recall it being widely received as a positive mate.

No one could possibly have envisaged booming of PL money etc... and people didn't want "City running away with it", it was treated as if it would balance the league out, which it has to an extent, but yeah, the top 6 (up until this season), have been pretty much a lock for the last few seasons, haven't they?

 

[PaulPowersTash]

I seem to recall it being widely received as a positive mate.

No one could possibly have envisaged booming of PL money etc... and people didn't want "City running away with it", it was treated as if it would balance the league out, which it has to an extent, but yeah, the top 6 (up until this season), have been pretty much a lock for the last few seasons, haven't they?

It was obviously introduced to curtail / stop the likes of City any other ambitious club joining the top table and hoovering up the vast amounts of money being swilled by the self styled 'European Royalty' clubs. But chairmen like Kenwright and that total bell end Dave Whelan at Wigan who's only exit out of the club was to sell it - so 'let's stop any wealthy, ambitious potential owners buying us' type of thinking. Maybe I'm missing something but it was as clear as daylight from day 1 what FFP was and was all about, so why block off any real future possibility of selling your club? As I say, I just don't get it?

 

[Tipp blue]

It was obviously introduced to curtail / stop the likes of City any other ambitious club joining the top table and hoovering up the vast amounts of money being swilled by the self styled 'European Royalty' clubs. But chairmen like Kenwright and that total bell end Dave Whelan at Wigan who's only exit out of the club was to sell it - so 'let's stop any wealthy, ambitious potential owners buying us' type of thinking. Maybe I'm missing something but it was as clear as daylight from day 1 what FFP was and was all about, so why block off any real future possibility of selling your club? As I say, I just don't get it?

You do get it, your very first sentence let's us know that you get it.
They called it Financial Fair Play and what they ended up with was possibly one of the most unfair set of rules ever. It punished investment and ignored debt, which was a crazy thing to have done, Barcelona are basically on the verge of going bankrupt, the biggest club in the world with massive debt even with financial rules in place and not a word about it..

Barcelona on the verge of bankruptcy: €1,173m in debt, €730m in short-term - Football España

The financial figures at the heart of Barcelona news are increasingly alarming and a report in El Mundo has given more context to the numbers, claiming that the club are on the verge of bankruptcy. The club are €1,173m in debt, with €730m of that sum due in the short term while €266m is owed …

www.google.com

 

[PaulPowersTash]

You do get it, your very first sentence let's us know that you get it.
They called it Financial Fair Play and what they ended up with was possibly one of the most unfair set of rules ever. It punished investment and ignored debt, which was a crazy thing to have done, Barcelona are basically on the verge of going bankrupt, the biggest club in the world with massive debt even with financial rules in place and not a word about it..

Barcelona on the verge of bankruptcy: €1,173m in debt, €730m in short-term - Football España

The financial figures at the heart of Barcelona news are increasingly alarming and a report in El Mundo has given more context to the numbers, claiming that the club are on the verge of bankruptcy. The club are €1,173m in debt, with €730m of that sum due in the short term while €266m is owed …

www.google.com

Exactly this.
And what do they do?
Sort the problem out? No chance
Let's introduce a new set or rules that will sweep all of that under the carpet.
European football is totally corrupt and has been for years. It really is.

 

[barneygumble]

It was obviously introduced to curtail / stop the likes of City any other ambitious club joining the top table and hoovering up the vast amounts of money being swilled by the self styled 'European Royalty' clubs. But chairmen like Kenwright and that total bell end Dave Whelan at Wigan who's only exit out of the club was to sell it - so 'let's stop any wealthy, ambitious potential owners buying us' type of thinking. Maybe I'm missing something but it was as clear as daylight from day 1 what FFP was and was all about, so why block off any real future possibility of selling your club? As I say, I just don't get it?

I think it was sold as a way to bring clubs closer, which I think a fair few people liked the idea of.

I think at this stage we'd endured the "Top 4" for a big period, and then it was a case of making it more "interesting", I think Chairman quickly realised their mistakes, and it took for the Empire to start to crumble to finally make away.

Again, can't believe there can be restrictions on people spending money on their business to improve it. Ridiculous.

Oh, and Platini was in charge, don't tell me he didn't get a few back handers throughout that period.

 

[Quadvod]

It was always a bit crackers - they need rules that stop the leveraged buy outs such as utd and now burnley but i never accepted the rationale of preventing genuine investment in a club to build them up to try and challenge.

if it goes through expect a lot of noise from the likes of utd/RS re separate tv deals etc.... can’t have them being usurped by the nouveau riche!

 

[catcherintherye]

It was obviously introduced to curtail / stop the likes of City any other ambitious club joining the top table and hoovering up the vast amounts of money being swilled by the self styled 'European Royalty' clubs. But chairmen like Kenwright and that total bell end Dave Whelan at Wigan who's only exit out of the club was to sell it - so 'let's stop any wealthy, ambitious potential owners buying us' type of thinking. Maybe I'm missing something but it was as clear as daylight from day 1 what FFP was and was all about, so why block off any real future possibility of selling your club? As I say, I just don't get it?

I think you know me well enough, and have hopefully seen my numerous defences of City re FFP to know I am not anti-City. My defences are not based on being pro City either, more they just reflect that it looks and feels anti-competitive.

However I do understand the thinking behind why some chairman wanted some action. While in general my view is shareholder investment and money into the game is a good thing, it has created a prolonged bull market in the PL. You can understand why certain owners wanted to try and limit the inflationary pressures that had followed Chelsea's takeover.

I also think, with Everton we were in quite a unique situation. We had sort of fought our way to being 5th in the league, the "best of the rest" which had taken 5+ years of steady work. The summer you signed Lescott from us, after he was our best player and had formed a very solid partnership with Jagielka, having finished about 12th or whatever the previous year was quite painful. It wasn't really City's fault, it was more a reflection of a number of factors but it seemed symbolic of everything that seemed wrong for ourselves. We had fought our way up, wut next to no money, developed this team and players, and you could sense City were just going to take what seemed like "our" spot. I don't really think Hughes helped with some of his comments and carrying on as if City were somehow ahead of Everton.

The reality is though, I'm not sure you can legislate to prevent such occurences. I also think as a football club, however painful it was, selling better players for a decent premium (as we did with Lescott, Fellaini and Rodwell, and what we should have done with Rooney and Arteta) was a great opportunity for us. The signings of Heitinga and Distin covered what Lescott gave us, and we kicked on again.

The other point is that I'm not sure anyone can legislate to prevent that sort of move from a club. However, even though legislation worked, you also felt it was a particularly badly drafted peice of legislation. It offered clubs like Everton hope, but in honesty they had little interest in protecting us, and soon people fell out of love with it. Lots of people painted what they wanted onto FFP, but no single peice of legislation can be all things to all people.

 

[catcherintherye]

It was always a bit crackers - they need rules that stop the leveraged buy outs such as utd and now burnley but i never accepted the rationale of preventing genuine investment in a club to build them up to try and challenge.

if it goes through expect a lot of noise from the likes of utd/RS re separate tv deals etc.... can’t have them being usurped by the nouveau riche!

I think they will make a lot of noise, but what you realise is, they are negotiating from a position of weakness.

 

[PaulPowersTash]

I think you know me well enough, and have hopefully seen my numerous defences of City re FFP to know I am not anti-City. My defences are not based on being pro City either, more they just reflect that it looks and feels anti-competitive.

However I do understand the thinking behind why some chairman wanted some action. While in general my view is shareholder investment and money into the game is a good thing, it has created a prolonged bull market in the PL. You can understand why certain owners wanted to try and limit the inflationary pressures that had followed Chelsea's takeover.

I also think, with Everton we were in quite a unique situation. We had sort of fought our way to being 5th in the league, the "best of the rest" which had taken 5+ years of steady work. The summer you signed Lescott from us, after he was our best player and had formed a very solid partnership with Jagielka, having finished about 12th or whatever the previous year was quite painful. It wasn't really City's fault, it was more a reflection of a number of factors but it seemed symbolic of everything that seemed wrong for ourselves. We had fought our way up, wut next to no money, developed this team and players, and you could sense City were just going to take what seemed like "our" spot. I don't really think Hughes helped with some of his comments and carrying on as if City were somehow ahead of Everton.

The reality is though, I'm not sure you can legislate to prevent such occurences. I also think as a football club, however painful it was, selling better players for a decent premium (as we did with Lescott, Fellaini and Rodwell, and what we should have done with Rooney and Arteta) was a great opportunity for us. The signings of Heitinga and Distin covered what Lescott gave us, and we kicked on again.

The other point is that I'm not sure anyone can legislate to prevent that sort of move from a club. However, even though legislation worked, you also felt it was a particularly badly drafted peice of legislation. It offered clubs like Everton hope, but in honesty they had little interest in protecting us, and soon people fell out of love with it. Lots of people painted what they wanted onto FFP, but no single peice of legislation can be all things to all people.

Good post and solid reasoning. I actually thought FFP in it's original format to stop debt was a good idea and was actually needed to stop some clubs ruining themselves. The minute it was changed by Platini (no doubt under severe pressure from the usual culprits) to a turnover based scheme it was stitch up. Sooner or later City, PSG or someone else was going to take it on and bring it down. As we know, revenue / turnover is not profit and profit is not cash. Which is why a lot of profitable businesses fold and go to the wall. Whilst a certain level of debt can be a good thing which allows businesses to borrow and then invest to grow, FFP simply chose to ignore this and debt was allowed on an unlimited basis. A framework which was a turnover based system maybe would have been acceptable, if it also limited the amount of debt a club could carry as well. Hence being a robust framework to allow spending based on revenue growth from a more solid financial position. However, I guess the thinking was that the well established gravy train would never dry up and to be fair, at the time why should it? I know hindsight is precise, but what UEFA should have done is allowed City to come into the club, then pull up the drawbridge instead of trying to pull it up just as we had reached the other side. Whilst they would have had what they thought as an interloper at their party, the party would have continued. But greed and I would also think jealousy and fear (as I have said before) stopped any rational, long term thinking. They also decided to take on an organisation that literally had unlimited funds if it chose to use them. I did hear that City reluctantly agreed with UEFA to take the first hit on FFP in 2014 (I think) on the understanding that it would be done and dusted and everyone could just move on. But UEFA reneaged on that agreement and came back for a second bite of the cherry. At that stage City told them they would go all the way legally and spend as much money as it needed on legal services to do so and City would dig in for a 5 year legal battle with a view to bringing down FFP completely. Again, due to either arrogance or incompetance or probaly both they still decided to pursue it. As I said previously, the whole case by UEFA was built on the leaked emails by Der Spiegal. They were completely discredited and a few of them had actually been cut & pasted to form other entirely fictitious emails. But the UEFA legal Beagles didn't even check them beforehand. Apparently the City top brass started celebrating after the first days hearing as they knew it was a done deal. What on earth they are going to come up with next only god knows. But what we do know is that it will be framed to protect the establishment clubs at the expense of any other clubs. History usually repeats if its allowed, and in another 10 years or so we will back to where we are again today.