But it's not though, he's even using revenue incorrectly.
Is FFP working out as planned for the game?
- Thread starter Fortitude
- Start date
Sounds perfect, but I’m afraid it might have the same issues as communism. Human nature means people at certain clubs will make terrible business decisions because no matter their stupid decisions they’ll get equally the amount of money. Star players and state of the art youth academies would probably be gone in no time as well. Because with no guarantee of investment in youth academies boosting your clubs revenue growth nobody would do those investments anymore.
Revenue does not equal profit. You can have a trillion of revenue and make billions of losses. Chelsea spent the better part of a billion last year but also earned a lot. Say they earned 1 billion as well (don’t have the numbers, just as an example). If they were to spend equal to 100% of their revenue it would be 2 billion. Say their income continually stays at 1 billion, that brings revenue to 3 billion. So they could spend 3 billion the year after with an income of 1 billion. Then they could spend 4 billion and so forth. Within a few years they have made 5-10 billion of losses. That’s why the spending on the revenue is capped.
You have more patience than I do.
Yes FFP is working as intended, and hopefully it leads to clubs investing more into their academy.
Yours sums it up just fine tbf
The gist is clear, and the standard has been set in other sports where their top leagues are way more egalitarian.
Argue with the minute details but you know what he meant. If you don't agree with the idea of a level playing field then that's fine.
Well a level playing field doesn't exist, the ones described are nonsense.
If you think this just means owners get more of the profit then there is a lack of understanding towards competition.
If anything, random squad filler X is less likely to be shifted than an academy graduate, as there's no incentive to take a financial hit moving on an unsuccessful purchase, whereas selling a moderately successful academy graduate can change your whole transfer budget.
You only really have to look at Chelsea trying to get shot of Broja and Chalobah, ahead of anyone else, and being more than willing to discuss Gallagher, despite him being arguably their best player this season, to see what PSR is likely to encourage.
The way to get clubs focusing on in house talent is by registration rules, and that clearly does work to some degree.
You are more talking about in the now whilst I am projecting a bit to when the squads as we know them, come to the end of their life cycle - they will be renewed in-house a lot more often at that time and the outlay that was reserved for buffing squads with expensive understudies will be forcibly diminished.
Academies will be used to farm, both as you say, for pure profit, but also to not interfere with the allocated budget for significant incoming buys. Clubs will no longer be able to afford to pad out their squads in the manner we’re accustomed to.
I don’t necessarily think it’s good for the quality of the football we’ll see, but in terms of affinity, it’ll be a huge boon.
Fair enough. I think I'm just missing whatever the basis of your projection is, and I can't for the life of me see it on my own.
I find it hard to judge. You have to disregard a few teams and assume their punishment will come at some point.
I think the premier league has a pretty good level of competition at the moment but i'm not sure how much of that is down to ffp, tv deals or just dumb luck. I think the gap between spurs and villa in 4th / 5th and chelsea and brighton in 10th is pretty thin really. Couple of injuries or extra european games and it'll swing back to the other side.
I dont think Arsenal and Liverpool are that far ahead of any of them teams and wouldn't take that much to bridge the gap. Ignore the elephant in the room and the league is in a pretty good state.
Wider european football seems pretty damaged. And probably getting worse. Dont see FFP hurting it. Maybe it prevents other leagues getting investment to close the gap and makes it harder to compete with growing leagues in china / usa / saudi arabia? Hard to say, and hard to apply it across drastically different leagues.
I dont think it hurts the premier league.
I think the premier league has a pretty good level of competition at the moment but i'm not sure how much of that is down to ffp, tv deals or just dumb luck. I think the gap between spurs and villa in 4th / 5th and chelsea and brighton in 10th is pretty thin really. Couple of injuries or extra european games and it'll swing back to the other side.
I dont think Arsenal and Liverpool are that far ahead of any of them teams and wouldn't take that much to bridge the gap. Ignore the elephant in the room and the league is in a pretty good state.
Wider european football seems pretty damaged. And probably getting worse. Dont see FFP hurting it. Maybe it prevents other leagues getting investment to close the gap and makes it harder to compete with growing leagues in china / usa / saudi arabia? Hard to say, and hard to apply it across drastically different leagues.
I dont think it hurts the premier league.
I don't think anyone is saying FFP is doing the PL harm. It's just having a noticeable impact on some things (competitiveness isn't one of them)
I mean a lot of that is kind of invisible to me if i don't see it on the pitch or in the league table.
People spending less this january might have an impact if there were specific clubs not spending but it seems a league wide adjustment. I'm not that attached to premier league clubs spending hundreds of millions every january in itself. I presume even this year the fee's spent were probably multiples of what was spent in other leagues so in that sense it probably wont hurt.