|
Post by CalgaryPotter on Aug 10, 2018 18:41:02 GMT
We hear a lot about FFP and my understanding of it was that it was primarily designed to stop clubs buying the European Champions League and create a level playing field.
I look at it and think it has effectively done the opposite. Teams are pissing away exorbitant amounts of money and FFP only seems to be impacting teams in Championship who have fallen from Premier League grace.
Where did it all go wrong or am I missing something blatantly obvious?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2018 18:45:39 GMT
If you can get away with it FAIR PLAY TO YA.
Thems the rules.
|
|
|
Post by miggoscfc on Aug 10, 2018 18:51:46 GMT
We hear a lot about FFP and my understanding of it was that it was primarily designed to stop clubs buying the European Champions League and create a level playing field. I look at it and think it has effectively done the opposite. Teams are pissing away exorbitant amounts of money and FFP only seems to be impacting teams in Championship who have fallen from Premier League grace. Where did it all go wrong or am I missing something blatantly obvious? Tbh i dont think there is an easy answer Villa - gambled big on wages and transfers relying on their big club status alone that they would go up and lost. Fortunately they found investment thanks to that big club status On the other end of the scale Man city - very much like us their owners are also their sponsor so using a loop hole their owners pay way over the odds for sponsorship which then allows them the opportunity to spend more on wages and transfers. Its a bit of a joke really and those that have run foul of the rules get no real punishment. It needs completely reforming with different rules for each league.
|
|
|
Post by CalgaryPotter on Aug 10, 2018 18:58:08 GMT
We hear a lot about FFP and my understanding of it was that it was primarily designed to stop clubs buying the European Champions League and create a level playing field. I look at it and think it has effectively done the opposite. Teams are pissing away exorbitant amounts of money and FFP only seems to be impacting teams in Championship who have fallen from Premier League grace. Where did it all go wrong or am I missing something blatantly obvious? Tbh i dont think there is an easy answer Villa - gambled big on wages and transfers relying on their big club status alone that they would go up and lost. Fortunately they found investment thanks to that big club status On the other end of the scale Man city - very much like us their owners are also their sponsor so using a loop hole their owners pay way over the odds for sponsorship which then allows them the opportunity to spend more on wages and transfers. Its a bit of a joke really and those that have run foul of the rules get no real punishment. It needs completely reforming with different rules for each league. From UEFA website: 5) Are owners allowed to inject money into their club as they like or through sponsorship? If a club's owner injects money into the club through a sponsorship deal with a company to which he is related, then UEFA's competent bodies will investigate and, if necessary, adapt the calculations of the break-even result for the sponsorship revenues to the level which is appropriate ('fair value') according to market prices. Under the updated regulations, any entity that, alone or in aggregate together with other entities which are linked to the same owner or government, represent more than 30% of the club's total revenues is automatically considered a related party. 7) Some clubs have enormous debts or do not pay their debts. Can those clubs still comply with financial fair play? A certain level of debt is part of a normal financing approach for any business. However the build-up of net debt is restricted by the break-even rules, which require owners or investors to recapitalise and cover any losses. In addition, in the future any investors looking to conclude a voluntary agreement with the CFCB will be expected to commit funds in advance, ex ante rather than ex post. Finally certain debts with added importance, such as debts to players or key staff, social/tax authorities and other clubs are monitored on a regular basis by the CFCB. Fair value and break even rules?
|
|
|
Post by miggoscfc on Aug 10, 2018 19:17:41 GMT
Tbh i dont think there is an easy answer Villa - gambled big on wages and transfers relying on their big club status alone that they would go up and lost. Fortunately they found investment thanks to that big club status On the other end of the scale Man city - very much like us their owners are also their sponsor so using a loop hole their owners pay way over the odds for sponsorship which then allows them the opportunity to spend more on wages and transfers. Its a bit of a joke really and those that have run foul of the rules get no real punishment. It needs completely reforming with different rules for each league. From UEFA website: 5) Are owners allowed to inject money into their club as they like or through sponsorship? If a club's owner injects money into the club through a sponsorship deal with a company to which he is related, then UEFA's competent bodies will investigate and, if necessary, adapt the calculations of the break-even result for the sponsorship revenues to the level which is appropriate ('fair value') according to market prices. Under the updated regulations, any entity that, alone or in aggregate together with other entities which are linked to the same owner or government, represent more than 30% of the club's total revenues is automatically considered a related party. 7) Some clubs have enormous debts or do not pay their debts. Can those clubs still comply with financial fair play? A certain level of debt is part of a normal financing approach for any business. However the build-up of net debt is restricted by the break-even rules, which require owners or investors to recapitalise and cover any losses. In addition, in the future any investors looking to conclude a voluntary agreement with the CFCB will be expected to commit funds in advance, ex ante rather than ex post. Finally certain debts with added importance, such as debts to players or key staff, social/tax authorities and other clubs are monitored on a regular basis by the CFCB. Fair value and break even rules? Exactly my point, have man city being looked into.....No. Is anyone at fifa or UEFA or the FA even remotely interested in looking into them.....No. The rules are not even worth the paper they are written on.
|
|
|
Post by santy on Aug 10, 2018 19:39:31 GMT
We hear a lot about FFP and my understanding of it was that it was primarily designed to stop clubs buying the European Champions League and create a level playing field. I look at it and think it has effectively done the opposite. Teams are pissing away exorbitant amounts of money and FFP only seems to be impacting teams in Championship who have fallen from Premier League grace. Where did it all go wrong or am I missing something blatantly obvious? You've misunderstood, there are 3 incarnations of FFP. There's the European version, which UEFA only cares about if you're playing in one of their competitions, if you're not in the champions league or europa league, feel free to spend as much as you want. The Premier League has its own version, which is incredibly hard to break (and by extension based on how things are done in the clubs account in England it would be tough for an English team to break this or the UEFA FFP) just because the Premier League revenues keep going up over time by a considerable amount. Finally there is the football leagues version, which is perhaps the toughest of all the FFP and one that is more stringently checked. It becomes more prominent for the ex-premier league clubs because they're one of the few in the situation of declining revenues but fairly static outgoings.
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Aug 10, 2018 19:49:08 GMT
We hear a lot about FFP and my understanding of it was that it was primarily designed to stop clubs buying the European Champions League and create a level playing field. I look at it and think it has effectively done the opposite. Teams are pissing away exorbitant amounts of money and FFP only seems to be impacting teams in Championship who have fallen from Premier League grace. Where did it all go wrong or am I missing something blatantly obvious? You've misunderstood, there are 3 incarnations of FFP. There's the European version, which UEFA only cares about if you're playing in one of their competitions, if you're not in the champions league or europa league, feel free to spend as much as you want. The Premier League has its own version, which is incredibly hard to break (and by extension based on how things are done in the clubs account in England it would be tough for an English team to break this or the UEFA FFP) just because the Premier League revenues keep going up over time by a considerable amount. Finally there is the football leagues version, which is perhaps the toughest of all the FFP and one that is more stringently checked. It becomes more prominent for the ex-premier league clubs because they're one of the few in the situation of declining revenues but fairly static outgoings. FFP is not the main issue in the Premier League as the Short-term cost control regime is much stricter. This limits wage rises to £7 million a season plus any new nonTV related commercial income. It is the main reason most PL clubs are now profitable
|
|
tribe
Youth Player
Posts: 303
|
Post by tribe on Aug 10, 2018 19:57:53 GMT
It's done absolutely fuck all to curb big club's spending and it's created absolutely 0 parity. Absolute crock of shite.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Aug 10, 2018 21:20:27 GMT
It seems to me that there is an absolutely glaring loophole that would be almost impossible to monitor. Billionaire A owns club A in the Championship. Billionaire B owns club B in the USA. The 2 Billionaires do business with each other outside of sports on a regular basis. Billionaire A agrees to pay Billionaire B $100 Million more than usual for service B. Purely coincidentally, Club B agrees to pay Club A $100 Million more than would be expected for a player(s). The $100 Million is not related to “investment” by Billionaire A and registered as “Operating income”. In addition to the funds flowing in, This increases the amount Billionaires A is allowed to invest directly in the club. Sounds like a plan to me. PC, PR, get talking!
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Aug 10, 2018 21:33:59 GMT
It seems to me that there is an absolutely glaring loophole that would be almost impossible to monitor. Billionaire A owns club A in the Championship. Billionaire B owns club B in the USA. The 2 Billionaires do business with each other outside of sports on a regular basis. Billionaire A agrees to pay Billionaire B $100 Million more than usual for service B. Purely coincidentally, Club B agrees to pay Club A $100 Million more than would be expected for a player(s). The $100 Million is not related to “investment” by Billionaire A and registered as “Operating income”. In addition to the funds flowing in, This increases the amount Billionaires A is allowed to invest directly in the club. Sounds like a plan to me. PC, PR, get talking! You don't even need two billionaires, just two clubs. This is essentially what happened with Harrison in January.
|
|
|
Post by Gob Bluth on Aug 10, 2018 21:41:25 GMT
I'm often wrong but I thought it's main aim was to stop clubs gambling on future revenue. Examples such as Bradford and Portsmouth who had very little infrastructure but invested heavily in players but once relegated were pretty much insolvent. Portsmouth as an example failed to pay oodles of cash to HMRC and spent a couple of years being sold from owner to owner while tumbling down the leagues. FFP expects clubs to balance the books to make sure large holes aren't left in their accounts. In the main I think FFP is a good thing, it's just I want to see the enforcers bare their teeth. Aston Villa have an owner with cash but by rejecting money mean they'll not meet FFP.
|
|