|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 1, 2023 9:03:15 GMT
I couldn't think of anything worse than clubs all being the same with "competitive ballance" it's competitive football is peaks and troughs ffp is pathetic and restricts a club to trade as the owners see fit. Now granted if stoke were broke I may well have a different opinion but I've been there decades ago and for decades too so why the fuck should some no marks tell the owners what they can spend its ridiculous. All I can say if why the hell doesn't some of these wealthy owners take action to fuck ffp off. Of yeah and I genuinely don't get emotional when a club goes bust that's life and that possible occurrence is not enough for me to limit a clubs spending if they can and want to. At least that's consistent. If FFP were scrapped a good number of reckless/incompetent owners would pump millions in loans into their clubs and load them with debt in a manic scramble to either get into the Premier League or break into the top six. The existing Premier League teams and top six would just spend more in order to create a cost spiral that will burn out those who can't sustain it - the big boys would literally kill off their rivals by outspending them knowing that the majority of clubs will go bust because not every club can break into the top or the Premier League. Within two or three years of scrapping FFP the majority of clubs who joined in the free for all will have gone bust leaving pretty much the same set of clubs in their current positions but even more secure and untouchable than they were when FFP was in place. The idea that FFP is there to maintain the big boys is laughable. The ones who would love FFP to be scrapped are the big boys because they know full well if it was scrapped they would be the one's to survive in any fight to the death - and anyone thinking it wouldn't be a fight to the death is a fool. That's how an an unregulated free market works - the big boys kill off the opposition and end up creating a cartel - look at every major industry to see how it works. The reason scrapping FFP is so popular on here is because people think our rich owners could buy us a place in the Premier League by ploughing their money into the club. It's pure self interest - those moaning about the untouchable big clubs aren't really interested in making football more competitive they just want to be one of the big boys through financial muscle and would quite happily maintain the status quo once they have got there. Once we are one of the big boys all the talk about fairness would be about it being fair that wealthy Stoke can lord it over others. We don't hate the big boys - we just hate the fact that we aren't one of them. At the end of the day we just want to be one of those wankers as well. Those behind the new regulator know full well that if FFP were scrapped and football was run on free market principles this is exactly what would happen - clubs would go bust in droves. Anyone who actually understands how free markets operate knows this. As you say why shed a tear when ultimately the game is to eradicate the opposition?
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Apr 1, 2023 9:28:16 GMT
Mentioning FFP today is perfectly apt.
Had it been an April Fool, no one would have given it a second’s credence.
|
|
|
Post by citynickscfc on Apr 1, 2023 12:34:23 GMT
You talk about these things as if these clubs are criminals and breaking laws and rules that make sense. The rules are bullshit, they don't work, they are injust and incorrectly implemented and do not apply to all. If this was a law it would be implemented by force by a dictatorship on the basis of maintaining an iron fist. You should be directing your thoughts and injustices towards the system that is inherently unjustified and anti-capitalist, anti-competitive, risk invoking and in itself destroys the competitive nature of football. I'm all for limits, implemented justifiably. This form is not, and prys on clubs who don't have owners able to or willing to invest, and thus bands then together with the elite in a complete con to make them think they will remain relevant within their tiny ponds, rather than others interfering with the monopoly of power that is evident in the top quarter of the premier League every single year. I believe the FFP rules should be tighter if anything. Good for competitive balance although the Parachute Payments system needs huge reform. You're just saying it as you're a Stoke fan and you would like to spend £100m on transfers next year if your club felt like it. I'd argue allowing unlimited expenditure would destroy competitive balance. Yeah let's let Sovereign Backed clubs spend without limit. Clubs don't exist in a bubble, unsure what the best answer is if I'm honest. They shouldn't be called Ffp if they are inherently unfair. Tighter for who? And what tiered system to account for competitiveness across leagues? How can you apply this to commercial competition and make sure the English League stay competitive and relevent on the world stage??? You say things without any consideration of what you want to be implemented, and I'm guessing what you are pointing at looks nothing like the current system. Therefore, your arguments and opinions are completely invalid and drenched in resent. Right now you have a system of relative unlimited expenditure for a select few, excessive expenditure for only those in the prem, yet Stoke could sustainably invest their owners money to compete with even the top 7, yet you are somehow against sustainable investment? Yet man United can reach debts of billions and you are criticising Stoke, Rotherham, and god knows who else for suggesting the current system does not encourage competition, rather degrades the league's to the absolute farce it is today! Your resent is completely misguided, and based on the principle that the corner shop should remain relevant even without investment. It's anti-capitalist. I would suggest staggered wage and transfer limitations which consider things like sponsorships and bonuses, but we are already in very sketchy waters as how do you account for that? That would be real competition but capitalism promotes competitive investments inherently, so what can we do? Tell Haaland he can't have his castle built by the Coates family? What business is that if the FA? The league system is broken, but advocating the current system as worthwhile and as working towards competitiveness is buying into the entire charade. The future will look interesting however. When we go longer rely on oil, what will the Saudis do with Newcastle? Same with Man city? Or if we ban betting, China and their respective clubs? Stoke? (But this is for another conversation).
|
|
|
Post by nottsover60 on Apr 1, 2023 13:01:31 GMT
Unless they get relegated they won't get punished in the Premier and the EFL have no jurisdiction over them while they are a Premier team. One of the biggest faults with FFP alongside not allowing owners to invest(not loan) money in their club. Gamble on getting promoted to the Promised Land breaking FFP, get there and it is so important to stay there to avoid punishment on relegation that you overspend again like Forest have done this season. How does that make a club more sustainable? Isn't that the aim of FFP? QPR and Leicester set the precedent coming to an agreement on a financial compensation with the EFL so they wouldn't be punished retrospectively on relegation. Ridiculous system! New rules are supposed to allow it to follow a side up. I'm questioning Fulham as well. Bournemouth or did they just scrape compliance? Mind you Stoke are no innocents in the sense of their Covid claims are...interesting in that the allocation of them etc. The compensation plan was the old rules, unsure if Aston Villa did, no idea about others. QPR actually didn't agree anything, Leicester in 2014 but eventually 2018 was settled and Bournemouth in 2015 or 2017 did. Well nobody seems to have put Forest under a transfer embargo or threatened punishment for breaking EFL ffp rules so the new rules don't seem to be working.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 1, 2023 14:02:07 GMT
I believe the FFP rules should be tighter if anything. Good for competitive balance although the Parachute Payments system needs huge reform. You're just saying it as you're a Stoke fan and you would like to spend £100m on transfers next year if your club felt like it. I'd argue allowing unlimited expenditure would destroy competitive balance. Yeah let's let Sovereign Backed clubs spend without limit. Clubs don't exist in a bubble, unsure what the best answer is if I'm honest. They shouldn't be called Ffp if they are inherently unfair. Tighter for who? And what tiered system to account for competitiveness across leagues? How can you apply this to commercial competition and make sure the English League stay competitive and relevent on the world stage??? You say things without any consideration of what you want to be implemented, and I'm guessing what you are pointing at looks nothing like the current system. Therefore, your arguments and opinions are completely invalid and drenched in resent. Right now you have a system of relative unlimited expenditure for a select few, excessive expenditure for only those in the prem, yet Stoke could sustainably invest their owners money to compete with even the top 7, yet you are somehow against sustainable investment? Yet man United can reach debts of billions and you are criticising Stoke, Rotherham, and god knows who else for suggesting the current system does not encourage competition, rather degrades the league's to the absolute farce it is today! Your resent is completely misguided, and based on the principle that the corner shop should remain relevant even without investment. It's anti-capitalist. I would suggest staggered wage and transfer limitations which consider things like sponsorships and bonuses, but we are already in very sketchy waters as how do you account for that? That would be real competition but capitalism promotes competitive investments inherently, so what can we do? Tell Haaland he can't have his castle built by the Coates family? What business is that if the FA? The league system is broken, but advocating the current system as worthwhile and as working towards competitiveness is buying into the entire charade. The future will look interesting however. When we go longer rely on oil, what will the Saudis do with Newcastle? Same with Man city? Or if we ban betting, China and their respective clubs? Stoke? (But this is for another conversation). Stoke and the rest of the teams in the Championship are working under the same set of FFP rules based around the income generated in the Championship. The teams in the Premiership are working under a separate set of rules based around the income generated in the Premiership which is way more than that generated in the Championship. You can't compare Stoke with Man Utd and claim FFP is unfair because that comparison isn't a valid. A valid comparison would be Stoke v Sheffield United or Southampton v Man Utd. You final paragraph isn't a separate issue for another time - it's the core of the reason for FFP. If clubs are dependant on a source of funding that one day might run out (which is a possibility for any form of funding) what happens to the club? Short answer - they go bust, especially if the owners have pump funded the investment in the form of debt in order to protect their personal wealth (which is what the vast majority of owners do). The core principle of FFP is that clubs should be able to sustain themselves on the money available within the game so if the money runs out or they get relegated they can carry on trading. Take away those constraints owners will simply pile more debt, costs would spiral out of control and those that lose out in the death spiral will go out of business. If anything the rules around debt should be tightened - which means FFP having more teeth not less.
|
|
|
Post by citynickscfc on Apr 1, 2023 15:03:06 GMT
They shouldn't be called Ffp if they are inherently unfair. Tighter for who? And what tiered system to account for competitiveness across leagues? How can you apply this to commercial competition and make sure the English League stay competitive and relevent on the world stage??? You say things without any consideration of what you want to be implemented, and I'm guessing what you are pointing at looks nothing like the current system. Therefore, your arguments and opinions are completely invalid and drenched in resent. Right now you have a system of relative unlimited expenditure for a select few, excessive expenditure for only those in the prem, yet Stoke could sustainably invest their owners money to compete with even the top 7, yet you are somehow against sustainable investment? Yet man United can reach debts of billions and you are criticising Stoke, Rotherham, and god knows who else for suggesting the current system does not encourage competition, rather degrades the league's to the absolute farce it is today! Your resent is completely misguided, and based on the principle that the corner shop should remain relevant even without investment. It's anti-capitalist. I would suggest staggered wage and transfer limitations which consider things like sponsorships and bonuses, but we are already in very sketchy waters as how do you account for that? That would be real competition but capitalism promotes competitive investments inherently, so what can we do? Tell Haaland he can't have his castle built by the Coates family? What business is that if the FA? The league system is broken, but advocating the current system as worthwhile and as working towards competitiveness is buying into the entire charade. The future will look interesting however. When we go longer rely on oil, what will the Saudis do with Newcastle? Same with Man city? Or if we ban betting, China and their respective clubs? Stoke? (But this is for another conversation). Stoke and the rest of the teams in the Championship are working under the same set of FFP rules based around the income generated in the Championship. The teams in the Premiership are working under a separate set of rules based around the income generated in the Premiership which is way more than that generated in the Championship. You can't compare Stoke with Man Utd and claim FFP is unfair because that comparison isn't a valid. A valid comparison would be Stoke v Sheffield United or Southampton v Man Utd. You final paragraph isn't a separate issue for another time - it's the core of the reason for FFP. If clubs are dependant on a source of funding that one day might run out (which is a possibility for any form of funding) what happens to the club? Short answer - they go bust, especially if the owners have pump funded the investment in the form of debt in order to protect their personal wealth (which is what the vast majority of owners do). The core principle of FFP is that clubs should be able to sustain themselves on the money available within the game so if the money runs out or they get relegated they can carry on trading. Take away those constraints owners will simply pile more debt, costs would spiral out of control and those that lose out in the death spiral will go out of business. If anything the rules around debt should be tightened - which means FFP having more teeth not less. How can you not suggest that the premier League and championships financial issues and thus regulations are not one and the same???? FFP as an idea isn't a bad one, but at present the standard of the entire football league is degrading, regulators are handing out sanctions and points deductions galore as they cannot be followed or implemented, and clubs are risking it all to remain relevant and get into the only place that matters, the premier League, because there they can invest the money they ALREADY HAVE, instead of the restriction of INVESTMENT that they can use to GROW THEIR BUSINESS. FFP is another mechanism to maintain the status quo of control of the top cons, not ensure competitiveness or maintain integrity within clubs ownerships. That is very very evident and there are so many examples of such, especially this season. Having one rule for one and a different rule for another is against competitive principles and unjustified. If we want to take Ffp seriously we need realistic limitations throughout the entire football league.... And that includes the premier League and the transitions between leagues
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 1, 2023 16:37:35 GMT
Stoke and the rest of the teams in the Championship are working under the same set of FFP rules based around the income generated in the Championship. The teams in the Premiership are working under a separate set of rules based around the income generated in the Premiership which is way more than that generated in the Championship. You can't compare Stoke with Man Utd and claim FFP is unfair because that comparison isn't a valid. A valid comparison would be Stoke v Sheffield United or Southampton v Man Utd. You final paragraph isn't a separate issue for another time - it's the core of the reason for FFP. If clubs are dependant on a source of funding that one day might run out (which is a possibility for any form of funding) what happens to the club? Short answer - they go bust, especially if the owners have pump funded the investment in the form of debt in order to protect their personal wealth (which is what the vast majority of owners do). The core principle of FFP is that clubs should be able to sustain themselves on the money available within the game so if the money runs out or they get relegated they can carry on trading. Take away those constraints owners will simply pile more debt, costs would spiral out of control and those that lose out in the death spiral will go out of business. If anything the rules around debt should be tightened - which means FFP having more teeth not less. How can you not suggest that the premier League and championships financial issues and thus regulations are not one and the same???? FFP as an idea isn't a bad one, but at present the standard of the entire football league is degrading, regulators are handing out sanctions and points deductions galore as they cannot be followed or implemented, and clubs are risking it all to remain relevant and get into the only place that matters, the premier League, because there they can invest the money they ALREADY HAVE, instead of the restriction of INVESTMENT that they can use to GROW THEIR BUSINESS. FFP is another mechanism to maintain the status quo of control of the top cons, not ensure competitiveness or maintain integrity within clubs ownerships. That is very very evident and there are so many examples of such, especially this season. Having one rule for one and a different rule for another is against competitive principles and unjustified. If we want to take Ffp seriously we need realistic limitations throughout the entire football league.... And that includes the premier League and the transitions between leagues The Premier League and the EFL are completely separate organizations - they follow the same rules on the pitch but in terms of what happens off the pitch they make their own rules. That's why teams who break EFL rules can't be touched when they get promoted. Don't you get that? The new regulator has the authority to set the rules for both the Premier League and the EFL but that isn't in place yet. They are charged with ensuring that the money on football is shared more fairly. The only way that will happen is through a regulator - not by relying on the free market which will have exactly the opposite effect. And guess who are kicking off about the regulator having that authority? Yes - the Premier League clubs - the one who would benefit most from scrapping FFP and regulation. When an owner invests in their business they are growing their business in order to increase their personal wealth. Football clubs don't make their owners wealthy. Some owners (like ours) throw money at their club knowing full well they are throwing it away. The majority of owners invest in their clubs by loading debt on their clubs so that if it goes bust they walk away with their wealth in tact. On the whole owners of football clubs do not suffer when clubs go bust. To a large extent FFP is there to protect clubs from the knobheads, charlatans and idiots who run them and at the end of the day won't suffer when they fuck up their clubs. The idea tha owners are benevolent sugar daddies being held back from pouring millions of pounds into their money into their clubs by evil FFP is utter bollocks. Most of the "investment" in football is debt that will sink the club when things go wrong.
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Apr 1, 2023 21:21:04 GMT
How can you not suggest that the premier League and championships financial issues and thus regulations are not one and the same???? FFP as an idea isn't a bad one, but at present the standard of the entire football league is degrading, regulators are handing out sanctions and points deductions galore as they cannot be followed or implemented, and clubs are risking it all to remain relevant and get into the only place that matters, the premier League, because there they can invest the money they ALREADY HAVE, instead of the restriction of INVESTMENT that they can use to GROW THEIR BUSINESS. FFP is another mechanism to maintain the status quo of control of the top cons, not ensure competitiveness or maintain integrity within clubs ownerships. That is very very evident and there are so many examples of such, especially this season. Having one rule for one and a different rule for another is against competitive principles and unjustified. If we want to take Ffp seriously we need realistic limitations throughout the entire football league.... And that includes the premier League and the transitions between leagues The Premier League and the EFL are completely separate organizations - they follow the same rules on the pitch but in terms of what happens off the pitch they make their own rules. That's why teams who break EFL rules can't be touched when they get promoted. Don't you get that? The new regulator has the authority to set the rules for both the Premier League and the EFL but that isn't in place yet. They are charged with ensuring that the money on football is shared more fairly. The only way that will happen is through a regulator - not by relying on the free market which will have exactly the opposite effect. And guess who are kicking off about the regulator having that authority? Yes - the Premier League clubs - the one who would benefit most from scrapping FFP and regulation. When an owner invests in their business they are growing their business in order to increase their personal wealth. Football clubs don't make their owners wealthy. Some owners (like ours) throw money at their club knowing full well they are throwing it away. The majority of owners invest in their clubs by loading debt on their clubs so that if it goes bust they walk away with their wealth in tact. On the whole owners of football clubs do not suffer when clubs go bust. To a large extent FFP is there to protect clubs from the knobheads, charlatans and idiots who run them and at the end of the day won't suffer when they fuck up their clubs. The idea tha owners are benevolent sugar daddies being held back from pouring millions of pounds into their money into their clubs by evil FFP is utter bollocks. Most of the "investment" in football is debt that will sink the club when things go wrong. So much wrong with this. Just a few The PL and EFL are joined at the hip by promotion and relegation. It is the distribution of money in the PL and the higher loss limits (Chelsea has now reached £1 billion of PL losses) that create the incentives for EFL owners to take risk while driving up wage costs across the game. The distribution of PL revenue is not driven by the free market. If it was (by allowing each club to sell their own TV rights), there would be a much more skewed distribution in favour of the big 6. Currently clubs outside the big 6 are subsidised by about £40 million a season. Owners can increase their wealth - the Glazers, Fenway, Joe Lewis and many owners across the EFL (pretty much every club is currently receiving bids from US investment) could sell for a profit today. In Stoke’s case the owners are happy to invest without any requirement for repayment. Why should this not be allowed? What other market based industry would stop it?
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Apr 1, 2023 21:24:40 GMT
They shouldn't be called Ffp if they are inherently unfair. Tighter for who? And what tiered system to account for competitiveness across leagues? How can you apply this to commercial competition and make sure the English League stay competitive and relevent on the world stage??? You say things without any consideration of what you want to be implemented, and I'm guessing what you are pointing at looks nothing like the current system. Therefore, your arguments and opinions are completely invalid and drenched in resent. Right now you have a system of relative unlimited expenditure for a select few, excessive expenditure for only those in the prem, yet Stoke could sustainably invest their owners money to compete with even the top 7, yet you are somehow against sustainable investment? Yet man United can reach debts of billions and you are criticising Stoke, Rotherham, and god knows who else for suggesting the current system does not encourage competition, rather degrades the league's to the absolute farce it is today! Your resent is completely misguided, and based on the principle that the corner shop should remain relevant even without investment. It's anti-capitalist. I would suggest staggered wage and transfer limitations which consider things like sponsorships and bonuses, but we are already in very sketchy waters as how do you account for that? That would be real competition but capitalism promotes competitive investments inherently, so what can we do? Tell Haaland he can't have his castle built by the Coates family? What business is that if the FA? The league system is broken, but advocating the current system as worthwhile and as working towards competitiveness is buying into the entire charade. The future will look interesting however. When we go longer rely on oil, what will the Saudis do with Newcastle? Same with Man city? Or if we ban betting, China and their respective clubs? Stoke? (But this is for another conversation). Stoke and the rest of the teams in the Championship are working under the same set of FFP rules based around the income generated in the Championship. The teams in the Premiership are working under a separate set of rules based around the income generated in the Premiership which is way more than that generated in the Championship. You can't compare Stoke with Man Utd and claim FFP is unfair because that comparison isn't a valid. A valid comparison would be Stoke v Sheffield United or Southampton v Man Utd. You final paragraph isn't a separate issue for another time - it's the core of the reason for FFP. If clubs are dependant on a source of funding that one day might run out (which is a possibility for any form of funding) what happens to the club? Short answer - they go bust, especially if the owners have pump funded the investment in the form of debt in order to protect their personal wealth (which is what the vast majority of owners do). The core principle of FFP is that clubs should be able to sustain themselves on the money available within the game so if the money runs out or they get relegated they can carry on trading. Take away those constraints owners will simply pile more debt, costs would spiral out of control and those that lose out in the death spiral will go out of business. If anything the rules around debt should be tightened - which means FFP having more teeth not less. It should be scrapped immediately. It is a joke.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 1, 2023 22:00:11 GMT
Stoke and the rest of the teams in the Championship are working under the same set of FFP rules based around the income generated in the Championship. The teams in the Premiership are working under a separate set of rules based around the income generated in the Premiership which is way more than that generated in the Championship. You can't compare Stoke with Man Utd and claim FFP is unfair because that comparison isn't a valid. A valid comparison would be Stoke v Sheffield United or Southampton v Man Utd. You final paragraph isn't a separate issue for another time - it's the core of the reason for FFP. If clubs are dependant on a source of funding that one day might run out (which is a possibility for any form of funding) what happens to the club? Short answer - they go bust, especially if the owners have pump funded the investment in the form of debt in order to protect their personal wealth (which is what the vast majority of owners do). The core principle of FFP is that clubs should be able to sustain themselves on the money available within the game so if the money runs out or they get relegated they can carry on trading. Take away those constraints owners will simply pile more debt, costs would spiral out of control and those that lose out in the death spiral will go out of business. If anything the rules around debt should be tightened - which means FFP having more teeth not less. It should be scrapped immediately. It is a joke. Ok - describe for me what would happen if FFP is scrapped.
|
|
|
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Apr 1, 2023 22:32:31 GMT
You really should stop worrying about Stoke. After 2 seasons of having to scrimp and save to meet FFP limits, we are going to be in robust financial health next year. Good chance we will have a big punt with our £13 million allowable loss, £10 million Souttar money and turnover boosted by our Bet365 sponsorship. Sit back and enjoy the ride I suspect the Harry money won't be going back into the squad build. I suppose I should temper my comments a little. Stoke have done good work to bring in fees and the wage bill down and this means they have earned the right to give it a go in 2023-24. However that doesn't take away the question mark about the period ending 2021- present compliance juxtapositioned with relatively historic question marks. Is one reading of it but if there was e.g. a charge or a dispute over the period to 2021 or 2022 it wouldn't affect the spending power to 2024 or if it did, it wouldn't be material. By the way I still think that Aston Villa need referral for their accounts in the 3 year period ending 2018-19 so..technically if the £56m for the stadium was a current asset and it was due within 12 months or less why does it still show on the Balance Sheet as a Debtor years later??
|
|
|
Post by SuperRickyFuller on Apr 1, 2023 22:40:07 GMT
I suspect the Harry money won't be going back into the squad build. I suppose I should temper my comments a little. Stoke have done good work to bring in fees and the wage bill down and this means they have earned the right to give it a go in 2023-24. However that doesn't take away the question mark about the period ending 2021- present compliance juxtapositioned with relatively historic question marks. Is one reading of it but if there was e.g. a charge or a dispute over the period to 2021 or 2022 it wouldn't affect the spending power to 2024 or if it did, it wouldn't be material. By the way I still think that Aston Villa need referral for their accounts in the 3 year period ending 2018-19 so..technically if the £56m for the stadium was a current asset and it was due within 12 months or less why does it still show on the Balance Sheet asa Debtor years later??
|
|
|
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Apr 1, 2023 22:45:57 GMT
I suppose I should temper my comments a little. Stoke have done good work to bring in fees and the wage bill down and this means they have earned the right to give it a go in 2023-24. However that doesn't take away the question mark about the period ending 2021- present compliance juxtapositioned with relatively historic question marks. Is one reading of it but if there was e.g. a charge or a dispute over the period to 2021 or 2022 it wouldn't affect the spending power to 2024 or if it did, it wouldn't be material. By the way I still think that Aston Villa need referral for their accounts in the 3 year period ending 2018-19 so..technically if the £56m for the stadium was a current asset and it was due within 12 months or less why does it still show on the Balance Sheet asa Debtor years later?? Grow up. Fuller was a skilful player though,a rare dash of perfume on the turd that was Pulisball you might say. Yes I remember Pulis as Bristol City manager, godawful mostly.
|
|
|
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Apr 2, 2023 11:13:50 GMT
I couldn't think of anything worse than clubs all being the same with "competitive ballance" it's competitive football is peaks and troughs ffp is pathetic and restricts a club to trade as the owners see fit. Now granted if stoke were broke I may well have a different opinion but I've been there decades ago and for decades too so why the fuck should some no marks tell the owners what they can spend its ridiculous. All I can say if why the hell doesn't some of these wealthy owners take action to fuck ffp off. Of yeah and I genuinely don't get emotional when a club goes bust that's life and that possible occurrence is not enough for me to limit a clubs spending if they can and want to. At least that's consistent. If FFP were scrapped a good number of reckless/incompetent owners would pump millions in loans into their clubs and load them with debt in a manic scramble to either get into the Premier League or break into the top six. The existing Premier League teams and top six would just spend more in order to create a cost spiral that will burn out those who can't sustain it - the big boys would literally kill off their rivals by outspending them knowing that the majority of clubs will go bust because not every club can break into the top or the Premier League. Within two or three years of scrapping FFP the majority of clubs who joined in the free for all will have gone bust leaving pretty much the same set of clubs in their current positions but even more secure and untouchable than they were when FFP was in place. The idea that FFP is there to maintain the big boys is laughable. The ones who would love FFP to be scrapped are the big boys because they know full well if it was scrapped they would be the one's to survive in any fight to the death - and anyone thinking it wouldn't be a fight to the death is a fool. That's how an an unregulated free market works - the big boys kill off the opposition and end up creating a cartel - look at every major industry to see how it works. The reason scrapping FFP is so popular on here is because people think our rich owners could buy us a place in the Premier League by ploughing their money into the club. It's pure self interest - those moaning about the untouchable big clubs aren't really interested in making football more competitive they just want to be one of the big boys through financial muscle and would quite happily maintain the status quo once they have got there. Once we are one of the big boys all the talk about fairness would be about it being fair that wealthy Stoke can lord it over others. We don't hate the big boys - we just hate the fact that we aren't one of them. At the end of the day we just want to be one of those wankers as well. Those behind the new regulator know full well that if FFP were scrapped and football was run on free market principles this is exactly what would happen - clubs would go bust in droves. Anyone who actually understands how free markets operate knows this. As you say why shed a tear when ultimately the game is to eradicate the opposition? I believe that this nails it, good post. In fairness I dare say that a majority of fans of all clubs would say much the same- but scrap FFP for the good of the game, makes me curious when people say that.
|
|
|
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Apr 2, 2023 11:16:22 GMT
I couldn't think of anything worse than clubs all being the same with "competitive ballance" it's competitive football is peaks and troughs ffp is pathetic and restricts a club to trade as the owners see fit. Now granted if stoke were broke I may well have a different opinion but I've been there decades ago and for decades too so why the fuck should some no marks tell the owners what they can spend its ridiculous. All I can say if why the hell doesn't some of these wealthy owners take action to fuck ffp off. Of yeah and I genuinely don't get emotional when a club goes bust that's life and that possible occurrence is not enough for me to limit a clubs spending if they can and want to. At least you're honest and consistent about it. I expect a new Regulator will have other ideas but time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Apr 2, 2023 11:32:10 GMT
New rules are supposed to allow it to follow a side up. I'm questioning Fulham as well. Bournemouth or did they just scrape compliance? Mind you Stoke are no innocents in the sense of their Covid claims are...interesting in that the allocation of them etc. The compensation plan was the old rules, unsure if Aston Villa did, no idea about others. QPR actually didn't agree anything, Leicester in 2014 but eventually 2018 was settled and Bournemouth in 2015 or 2017 did. Well nobody seems to have put Forest under a transfer embargo or threatened punishment for breaking EFL ffp rules so the new rules don't seem to be working. These things can take time, the CFRP (Club Financial Review Panel) only came into being in December 2022. EFL have outsourced various powers to them which the clubs unanimously agreed to last summer. In theory if an issue is raised then should be passed over to the Premier League, as per the relevant section(s) of the regulations- the new body pass it to the Premier League and the club can't object to this. I found it of interest in the Nottingham Forest accounts that they stated that compliance with the PL FFP/P&S was the priority. Clearly they intend to stay up but perhaps the EFL haven't given them the all clear. I'd like to see them go back years and assess clubs on the 3 year rule.
|
|
|
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Apr 2, 2023 11:42:21 GMT
You have an FSA guy on here right?
Much still to be decided but perhaps a Regulator will be more along the lines of natural income. Albeit with the relevant and necessary changes to distribution mechanism.
Time will tell but could be the 90-80-70 the final number being the benchmark of turnover being allocated on player/football wages, amortisation and agents fees be the new gold standard? Many clubs would fall foul.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Apr 6, 2023 10:40:34 GMT
WBA don't appear to have got lucky with their ownership
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on Apr 6, 2023 10:57:10 GMT
WBA don't appear to have got lucky with their ownership All of which suggests the EFL would be far better off spending their time and resources ensuring ‘fit and proper ownership’ rather than preventing legitimate owners putting money into the system.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Apr 6, 2023 11:01:51 GMT
WBA don't appear to have got lucky with their ownership All of which suggests the EFL would be far better off spending their time and resources ensuring ‘fit and proper ownership’ rather than preventing legitimate owners putting money into the system. fuck all the EFL can do re that s they don't have the authority do so why? because the clubs voted for the EFL to be setup that way, essentially hey are a trade body one of many reason why an Independent Football Regulator (with 'teeth') quango is essential
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 7, 2023 12:06:07 GMT
The Premier League and the EFL are completely separate organizations - they follow the same rules on the pitch but in terms of what happens off the pitch they make their own rules. That's why teams who break EFL rules can't be touched when they get promoted. Don't you get that? The new regulator has the authority to set the rules for both the Premier League and the EFL but that isn't in place yet. They are charged with ensuring that the money on football is shared more fairly. The only way that will happen is through a regulator - not by relying on the free market which will have exactly the opposite effect. And guess who are kicking off about the regulator having that authority? Yes - the Premier League clubs - the one who would benefit most from scrapping FFP and regulation. When an owner invests in their business they are growing their business in order to increase their personal wealth. Football clubs don't make their owners wealthy. Some owners (like ours) throw money at their club knowing full well they are throwing it away. The majority of owners invest in their clubs by loading debt on their clubs so that if it goes bust they walk away with their wealth in tact. On the whole owners of football clubs do not suffer when clubs go bust. To a large extent FFP is there to protect clubs from the knobheads, charlatans and idiots who run them and at the end of the day won't suffer when they fuck up their clubs. The idea tha owners are benevolent sugar daddies being held back from pouring millions of pounds into their money into their clubs by evil FFP is utter bollocks. Most of the "investment" in football is debt that will sink the club when things go wrong. So much wrong with this. Just a few The PL and EFL are joined at the hip by promotion and relegation. It is the distribution of money in the PL and the higher loss limits (Chelsea has now reached £1 billion of PL losses) that create the incentives for EFL owners to take risk while driving up wage costs across the game. The distribution of PL revenue is not driven by the free market. If it was (by allowing each club to sell their own TV rights), there would be a much more skewed distribution in favour of the big 6. Currently clubs outside the big 6 are subsidised by about £40 million a season. Owners can increase their wealth - the Glazers, Fenway, Joe Lewis and many owners across the EFL (pretty much every club is currently receiving bids from US investment) could sell for a profit today. In Stoke’s case the owners are happy to invest without any requirement for repayment. Why should this not be allowed? What other market based industry would stop it? 1 The rules of participation in the Premier League are set by the Premier League and the rules of participation in the Championship are set by the EFL. They are separate organisations - they are not joined at the hip. The new regulator has the authority to set rules across both organisations - this is something new. I agree the higher loss limits in the Premier League (as set by the Premier League) incentivises Championship clubs to overspend. The answer isn't to scrap FFP (which will only make Championship clubs do it more) but to tighten up FFP in the Premier League - more regulation, not less. Football finances aren't subject to a completely free market and you are right that without some form of regulation/redistribution the situation would be far worse. That's exactly my point. The owners may well make money from shares and sell for a profit but that doesn't mean the clubs will make a profit. They may well get some more investment but that is very likely to come in the form of debt. Football itself does not generate enough money to sustain itself. The owners of football clubs make money outside the game itself. Football only stays afloat because money pours in from the outside - as it stands it is not a sustainable business. Remove the influx of external money and the whole thing would collapse. In other market places businesses take on debt to position themselves to become profitable. The owners are willing to take on the debt because they will make money when the business becomes profitable - their personal wealth is contracted to the generated with the business. In football at the moment this isn't what happens. Football clubs don't make a profit - the income generated does not cover the costs. Owners pouring money into a club to keep it going is the problem. If football scrapped all regulation the situation would just get worse and clubs would go bust in a futile attempt to outspend each other. Ultimately football has to get it's act together and make itself profitable and not stop relying on money from outside to prop it up.
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Apr 7, 2023 16:14:42 GMT
So much wrong with this. Just a few The PL and EFL are joined at the hip by promotion and relegation. It is the distribution of money in the PL and the higher loss limits (Chelsea has now reached £1 billion of PL losses) that create the incentives for EFL owners to take risk while driving up wage costs across the game. The distribution of PL revenue is not driven by the free market. If it was (by allowing each club to sell their own TV rights), there would be a much more skewed distribution in favour of the big 6. Currently clubs outside the big 6 are subsidised by about £40 million a season. Owners can increase their wealth - the Glazers, Fenway, Joe Lewis and many owners across the EFL (pretty much every club is currently receiving bids from US investment) could sell for a profit today. In Stoke’s case the owners are happy to invest without any requirement for repayment. Why should this not be allowed? What other market based industry would stop it? 1 The rules of participation in the Premier League are set by the Premier League and the rules of participation in the Championship are set by the EFL. They are separate organisations - they are not joined at the hip. The new regulator has the authority to set rules across both organisations - this is something new. I agree the higher loss limits in the Premier League (as set by the Premier League) incentivises Championship clubs to overspend. The answer isn't to scrap FFP (which will only make Championship clubs do it more) but to tighten up FFP in the Premier League - more regulation, not less. Football finances aren't subject to a completely free market and you are right that without some form of regulation/redistribution the situation would be far worse. That's exactly my point. The owners may well make money from shares and sell for a profit but that doesn't mean the clubs will make a profit. They may well get some more investment but that is very likely to come in the form of debt. Football itself does not generate enough money to sustain itself. The owners of football clubs make money outside the game itself. Football only stays afloat because money pours in from the outside - as it stands it is not a sustainable business. Remove the influx of external money and the whole thing would collapse. In other market places businesses take on debt to position themselves to become profitable. The owners are willing to take on the debt because they will make money when the business becomes profitable - their personal wealth is contracted to the generated with the business. In football at the moment this isn't what happens. Football clubs don't make a profit - the income generated does not cover the costs. Owners pouring money into a club to keep it going is the problem. If football scrapped all regulation the situation would just get worse and clubs would go bust in a futile attempt to outspend each other. Ultimately football has to get it's act together and make itself profitable and not stop relying on money from outside to prop it up. You should think more about how the relationship between the PL and the EFL works. Relegation helps drive TV revenue, new blood is provided by the EFL, more than 40% of EFL revenue derives from the PL and wage levels in the EFL are driven by actions of PL clubs. The two are joined at the hip. Yes the rule setting is different but together the PL and EFL shape the economics of English football. To claim they operate independently flies in the face of reality. Of course football generates enough money to sustain itself, otherwise how does it keep going? I don’t see football going out of business when people are competing to invest £5 billion into Manchester United. And that is with refusing to take money over owners who are willing to spend more. The problem is the economic model set by the interaction between the PL and EFL is unstable because it has elements of oligopoly and misaligned incentives that create the current financial performance. If the PL had European wage levels for example, it would be profitable. The situation be changed by regulation, shifts in the competitive model and better governance. The US shows how value generative professional sport can be.
|
|
|
Post by independent on Apr 7, 2023 20:49:08 GMT
Yes, let's go back to the "Maximum Wage". Why do you think Sir Stan got into trouble at Port Vale. Of course American Football is profitable with one team for every 10 million people in the country. You can imagine football in England with only 5 clubs to support. The premier league is not just destabilising the championship, it is also affecting European clubs. Do you think that the likes of Benefica will ever win the Champions League again, never mind 3 in a row. "Of course football generates enough money to sustain itself," Please explain how almost all clubs are deep in debt. People may be queueing up to buy Man. Utd. but there was nobody ready to buy Bury. Nor will there be a rush to buy all the clubs who are teethering on the edge of bankruptcy. The interest in Man. Utd. should serve as a warning of what is to come. American investors especially, expect to to take money out of their club, not put cash in. You only have to see what the Glaziers did with Utd. to see what they wish to do. The Super League was based on an American model that does make enormous profits. One club per 10 million population and no relegation.
|
|
|
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Apr 9, 2023 13:49:41 GMT
The model of football finance I dunno. It's just problematic isn't it.
Some clubs are fortunate enough to have fans who are owners and are highly wealthy. Obviously there is the sovereign state ownership or ostensibly owned by then anyway, again cash flow no issue.
Burnley were fantastically run and then they got brought out and a Leveraged Buyout dumped onto them. Mad! I very much doubt they have breached FFP ie loss limits but could there be some nasty hidden issue in their Balance sheet post buyout. On paper no what with Parachute Payments, the exodus on relegation including major player sales, the wage reduction clauses built in and their Cash Reserves- it sounds hard to believe.
West Brom who hardly have been great extravagant spenders down the years and in Receipt of Parachute Payments or PL cash every year from 2002-03 to present have had to take out a £20m loan at 13-14 pct interest from MSD!
Mad- although their owner borrowing £4.95m with £50k interest from the club, their former owner borrowing £3.7m not repaid and the loan of £2m given to them from a connected company at 5 pct interest compounded monthly barely helps.
In layman's terms, someone lends £100 and no fixed repayment date as such. After 1 month it's £105, after month 2 it's £110.25 and so on...Kieran Maguire says after a year it's 79.6 pct interest annualised??
Sheffield United, two big profits and not exactly a huge cost base in the PL which will have fallen on relegation. Extended accounts and missing transfer instalments. Either way they shouldn't be in that position, sold Ramsdale too, Parachute Payments.
Huddersfield likewise although perhaps Covid wrecked them a bit as their debt repayment schedule to Hoyle seemed finely balanced but I wouldn't say that they should have been in a position whereby this season they were touted for administration.
Wigan administration, near disaster. Out of administration, supposed to he under EFL monitoring as per regs...allowed to spend 156 pct of turnover in League One on waves in promotion season but still manageable if no great growth with higher TV money- but no 2-3 wage payments late this season.
The model...
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Apr 9, 2023 14:01:34 GMT
Perhaps one sensible addition to FFP would be that owners can invest an unlimited amount of money into a club to cover costs, so long as it is immediately written off as a debt.
Wealthy owners can support their club without the possibility of them going to the wall. Isn’t that the point, rather than punishing clubs who are at no serious risk of going bankrupt?
|
|
|
Post by theonlooker on Apr 9, 2023 14:06:53 GMT
Perhaps one sensible addition to FFP would be that owners can invest an unlimited amount of money into a club to cover costs, so long as it is immediately written off as a debt. Wealthy owners can support their club without the possibility of them going to the wall. Isn’t that the point, rather than punishing clubs who are at no serious risk of going bankrupt? Wages would still be an issue for some clubs though, especially if owners had enough and walked away. Ultimately change has to come from the top down but there is no chance of that happening. Too much self interest. I can't see the regulator making much difference short or long term. Again, too much self interest that will see the bigger clubs remain in the money regardless. They'll find a way somehow. They always do.
|
|
|
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Apr 9, 2023 14:32:49 GMT
Perhaps one sensible addition to FFP would be that owners can invest an unlimited amount of money into a club to cover costs, so long as it is immediately written off as a debt. Wealthy owners can support their club without the possibility of them going to the wall. Isn’t that the point, rather than punishing clubs who are at no serious risk of going bankrupt? Wages would still be an issue for some clubs though, especially if owners had enough and walked away. Ultimately change has to come from the top down but there is no chance of that happening. Too much self interest. I can't see the regulator making much difference short or long term. Again, too much self interest that will see the bigger clubs remain in the money regardless. They'll find a way somehow. They always do. Depends how strictly the regulator enforces I suppose. Licensing can be quite a strong tool. On that point I do wonder if in 2018-19, when the stadium sale stuff for several clubs especially Derby, Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday arose if the League at that time under Shaun Harvey were worried about too stringent enforcement at that stage perhaps encouraging said owners to call it a day and sticking the club into administration. I am sure 5jey could have been more stringent with those 3 especially in 5he season itself, they could have insisted for example as Aston Villa had incoming owners on a more strict Business Plan or an Independent valuation of the stadium at time of takeover as the sale and leaseback seemed to happen after Xia managed to attract new investors. My view is that no quarter given and rules enforced the same for all irrespective therefore that is fairness..they certainly did it with Derby belatedly.
|
|
|
Post by theonlooker on Apr 9, 2023 14:45:27 GMT
Wages would still be an issue for some clubs though, especially if owners had enough and walked away. Ultimately change has to come from the top down but there is no chance of that happening. Too much self interest. I can't see the regulator making much difference short or long term. Again, too much self interest that will see the bigger clubs remain in the money regardless. They'll find a way somehow. They always do. Depends how strictly the regulator enforces I suppose. Licensing can be quite a strong tool. On that point I do wonder if in 2018-19, when the stadium sale stuff for several clubs especially Derby, Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday arose if the League at that time under Shaun Harvey were worried about too stringent enforcement at that stage perhaps encouraging said owners to call it a day and sticking the club into administration. I am sure 5jey could have been more stringent with those 3 especially in 5he season itself, they could have insisted for example as Aston Villa had incoming owners on a more strict Business Plan or an Independent valuation of the stadium at time of takeover as the sale and leaseback seemed to happen after Xia managed to attract new investors. My view is that no quarter given and rules enforced the same for all irrespective therefore that is fairness..they certainly did it with Derby belatedly. I've seen your posts on here and your posts as MrPopodopolous on the Bristol City board and my conclusion is that you think way too much on this, outside of your dreadful requests for the EFL to 'go hard' on clubs like Stoke. Without sounding disrespectful to Bristol City, you need to see the PL from the inside for a few seasons with them and I guarantee you'll look at everything totally different. In it's current form, the football pyramid is setup for the privileged few and to maintain their places and no amount of sanctions for the likes of Aston Villa, Sheffield Wednesday, Derby or Stoke will change it, regardless of how good it makes a few fans feel for 5 minutes when they spend hours upon hours poring over the rules.
|
|
|
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Apr 9, 2023 15:35:48 GMT
Depends how strictly the regulator enforces I suppose. Licensing can be quite a strong tool. On that point I do wonder if in 2018-19, when the stadium sale stuff for several clubs especially Derby, Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday arose if the League at that time under Shaun Harvey were worried about too stringent enforcement at that stage perhaps encouraging said owners to call it a day and sticking the club into administration. I am sure 5jey could have been more stringent with those 3 especially in 5he season itself, they could have insisted for example as Aston Villa had incoming owners on a more strict Business Plan or an Independent valuation of the stadium at time of takeover as the sale and leaseback seemed to happen after Xia managed to attract new investors. My view is that no quarter given and rules enforced the same for all irrespective therefore that is fairness..they certainly did it with Derby belatedly. I've seen your posts on here and your posts as MrPopodopolous on the Bristol City board and my conclusion is that you think way too much on this, outside of your dreadful requests for the EFL to 'go hard' on clubs like Stoke. Without sounding disrespectful to Bristol City, you need to see the PL from the inside for a few seasons with them and I guarantee you'll look at everything totally different. In it's current form, the football pyramid is setup for the privileged few and to maintain their places and no amount of sanctions for the likes of Aston Villa, Sheffield Wednesday, Derby or Stoke will change it, regardless of how good it makes a few fans feel for 5 minutes when they spend hours upon hours poring over the rules. Perfectly valid regulatory position to hold. You might habe a point but I'm not pro unfettered free market in football. Those who say FFP is has for the game I wonder is it with a large Stoke bias? FFP can encourage creativity and clever trading, see Brentford and Brighton here. Ajax at times in the last 5-10 years, Benfica. Atalanta and this year Napoli in Italy. Luton especially at our level bat above their average- a few clubs below resources wise! Your PL point is interesting but I'm unsure- I'm also pro stringent enforcement at PL and UEFA level- PSG especially nut also Juventus especially to 2022 have been dealt with too weakly. I hope the Everton case yields the verdict that it deserves and Man City the untouchables well let's see if the PL have the same appetite for a lengthy legal wrangling as the EFL did with Derby especially.
|
|
|
Post by theonlooker on Apr 9, 2023 15:45:40 GMT
I've seen your posts on here and your posts as MrPopodopolous on the Bristol City board and my conclusion is that you think way too much on this, outside of your dreadful requests for the EFL to 'go hard' on clubs like Stoke. Without sounding disrespectful to Bristol City, you need to see the PL from the inside for a few seasons with them and I guarantee you'll look at everything totally different. In it's current form, the football pyramid is setup for the privileged few and to maintain their places and no amount of sanctions for the likes of Aston Villa, Sheffield Wednesday, Derby or Stoke will change it, regardless of how good it makes a few fans feel for 5 minutes when they spend hours upon hours poring over the rules. Perfectly valid regulatory position to hold. You might habe a point but I'm not pro unfettered free market in football. Those who say FFP is has for the game I wonder is it with a large Stoke bias? FFP can encourage creativity and clever trading, see Brentford and Brighton here. Ajax at times in the last 5-10 years, Benfica. Atalanta and this year Napoli in Italy. Luton especially at our level bat above their average- a few clubs below resources wise! Your PL point is interesting but I'm unsure- I'm also pro stringent enforcement at PL and UEFA level- PSG especially nut also Juventus especially to 2022 have been dealt with too weakly. I hope the Everton case yields the verdict that it deserves and Man City the untouchables well let's see if the PL have the same appetite for a lengthy legal wrangling as the EFL did with Derby especially. A large Stoke bias for what? Spend a few quid and have a bit of hope? Yes, I'm all for that for all clubs. Luton have done well but so have Brighton and Brentford in the Premier League - both clubs in a differing amount of debt to their owners. Both clubs operate what is supposed to be a sustainable model. In other words, a model that feeds players to the bigger clubs in the league, just like Southampton a few years ago, and a model that keeps them nicely and conveniently tucked away from the big clubs. My advice to you is to stay away from the rule book and sit back and watch what the real rule book is telling us all before our eyes. I'll tell you now. Man City will eventually get a slap on the wrist and Everton will get slightly more of a punishment but one that allows them to be sustained within the status quo. There is no way to win here until huge changes come in at the top, and the more we argue amongst ourselves down here in the long grass, the further away they get. They are literally laughing at us.
|
|