Is FFP working out as planned for the game?

[Fortitude]

Deadest transfer window in history (is it not?) and clubs watching their books first and foremost.

Financial management is paramount, but I don't think things were intended to look like this.

What say you?

 

[WeePat]

Chelsea will spend £300m next summer probably, with half of it on one player, so maybe not?

 

[KeanoMagicHat]

Seems to working better recently, use your resources properly instead of spending for the sake of spending. Chelsea last January was the nadir of scattergun spending. They even bought so many players they couldn't even register them all in the Champions League. It was a shambles.

Football doesn't need constant transfer changes either, an industry that makes agents into multi millionaires and turns Romano etc into far bigger profiles that they deserve. Those guys will suffer if there are fewer transfers, the average football fan won't.

 

[JogaBonitoRooney]

System still broken even if it is enforced properly.

 

[André Dominguez]

Easy to turn around if you create fake sponsorship deals.

 

[Fortitude]

 

[Jimble]

just needs creative accounting -

 

[Smores]

If things carry on like this then transfer fees will come down which can only be a good thing for everyone. I don't think clubs will be able to cheat the regs forever.

 

[Fortitude]

If things carry on like this then transfer fees will come down which can only be a good thing for everyone. I don't think clubs will be able to cheat the regs forever.

I’m thinking there’ll be a really heavy push to develop in-house, which would be amazing for supporters invested in their own, but might see a drop in performance levels if clubs can no longer stack talent relative to their level.

 

[Mb194dc]

The bubble is bursting finally. TV deals have plateaued. Clubs are seriously struggling to get decent sponsors.

Plus most big transfers have been disasterous.

I reckon quite a few clubs go bust before the shake out is over.

 

[duffer]

The bubble is bursting finally. TV deals have plateaued.

Have they?

 

[Mainoonited]

Not really.

January spending is down, I think FFP and whats happening at Forest and Everton has played a part in that, however I think a much bigger role is the ridiculous money being asked for players. Also in the few seasons before, spending has been outrageous. At some point that had to catch up with budgets too, (like it has with us).

FFP won't be a success until Chelsea/City are treated like Forest/Everton.

 

[horsechoker]

The media has pushed this narrative that FFP is bad because it's been a dull transfer window but that's because they haven't had much to report on. FFP has probably prevented a lot of irresponsible spending this month.

I know someone will miss my point and ask me about other unrelated aspects of ffp

 

[Martin(6)Buchan]

If all clubs were equal then maybe

 

[Neil_Buchanan]

It has some flaws that don’t get spoken about enough. The obvious one is that it encourages clubs to sell academy players, the other big issue is with this 30th June deadline that is in danger of almost creating two transfer windows.

 

[711]

The bubble is bursting finally. TV deals have plateaued. Clubs are seriously struggling to get decent sponsors.

Plus most big transfers have been disasterous.

I reckon quite a few clubs go bust before the shake out is over.

I've been hearing 'clubs will go bust' for fifty years. The opposite has happened, we've gained a 5th professional league, or very near, with some others even below the 5th. I get trends can change, but one, secondary, transfer window doesn't look like that to me.

 

[Oldyella]

The media has pushed this narrative that FFP is bad because it's been a dull transfer window but that's because they haven't had much to report on. FFP has probably prevented a lot of irresponsible spending this month.

I know someone will miss my point and ask me about other unrelated aspects of ffp

The media will hate they haven't had their normal deadline day frenzy.

 

[arthurka]

Everybody are skint

 

[Mb194dc]

Have they?

Yes the latest UK one is over an extra year. Check the details on it.

Short term football got problems in the face of kids spending their cash on Vbucks, Robux and other games.

Longer term I reckon we'll see a more nfl like structure.

Did you see the posts about ticket costs at the bridge? £130 for restricted view, be interested to see if full this weekend.

 

[MegadrivePerson]

Have they?

Yes.
Only a 4% rise on the previous deal.
Premier League agrees record £6.7bn domestic TV rights deal - BBC Sport

 

[Bale Bale Bale]

Yes.

Spoiler

 

[90 + 5min]

The bubble is bursting finally. TV deals have plateaued. Clubs are seriously struggling to get decent sponsors.

Plus most big transfers have been disasterous.

I reckon quite a few clubs go bust before the shake out is over.

I would almost love to see that football takes few steps backwards. It would be healthy.

There are some few things pointing to some kind of interesting development when it comes to tv deals, broadcosters and sponsors.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Yes.
Only a 4% rise on the previous deal.
Premier League agrees record £6.7bn domestic TV rights deal - BBC Sport

Aren't we hitting record international revenue numbers though?

 

[Victorian values]

If all clubs were equal then maybe

It was never about a level playing field though

 

[adexkola]

It was never about a level playing field though

Yeah it was about ensuring clubs stayed in their proper place. An aristocracy if you will

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Yeah it was about ensuring clubs stayed in their proper place. An aristocracy if you will

Myth.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

115 Reasons Why (Not)

 

[Red in STL]

Aren't we hitting record international revenue numbers though?

Yes, 2022-2025 raised £10 billion, NBC in the US paid $2.7 billion for 2023-2028

 

[Melbourne Red]

It has some flaws that don’t get spoken about enough. The obvious one is that it encourages clubs to sell academy players, the other big issue is with this 30th June deadline that is in danger of almost creating two transfer windows.

This has given me an 'art attack.

Lololol

 

[adexkola]

Myth.

Possibly, the feck do I know? (Tagline alert)

If it was about "protecting clubs from insolvency", it's real simple. Want to bring De Bruyne over using your own personal funds? Place 100% in casb of the transfer fee + expected salary costs not covered by club revenues in an escrow account. Funds are guaranteed, they MUST be used for earmarked expenses, the club is protected from going insolvent, and now has a greater chance at success.

But that wouldn't be good for the big dogs right? So tie FFP to current revenue. And since revenue (at least on the CAF) is NOT correlated with current success, but is correlated with how many fans you have worldwide, then even if you win or overperform as a small club, you are massively disadvantaged against a United who happens to have a large fan base or a Madrid.

But again, what the feck do I know. Football was great before 2003

 

[didz]

I’m thinking there’ll be a really heavy push to develop in-house, which would be amazing for supporters invested in their own, but might see a drop in performance levels if clubs can no longer stack talent relative to their level.

PSR encourages teams to sell academy talent early in the name of pure profit, so I'm not sure I see this happening.

 

[adexkola]

Rory Smith of the NYTimes has a good breakdown of the reasons behind reduced spending. Here's an excerpt from his newsletter:

There are several reasons for that. One is that received wisdom has long had it that January does not lend itself to value: Most managers and executives now hew to the inverted Groucho Marx logic that anyone clubs are actively selling in January is not worth buying. It is possible to land a carefully-chosen target, of course, but it costs.

Given that most Premier League teams now have some semblance of long-term planning in place — and, indeed, a majority are still operating with the managers they had in the summer, another sign that the competition is getting smarter — only an exceptional opportunity, or an outright emergency, can tempt them to pay that premium.

A second reason is the way the Premier League’s financial might has distorted the market. Most of its teams, understandably, do not want to pay lots of players not to play soccer. They prefer to alter their squads, not bloat them. The problem is that few teams outside England can afford even to shop the pre-loved racks, and that is essentially creating a bottleneck.

The third, and the one that has been credited with having the most profound effect this month, is the sudden and very real specter of punishment for excess. Everton has already been docked 10 points for failing to comply with the Premier League’s financial regulations. A second charge now hangs over it as well, awaiting adjudication. At least on that one, Everton is not alone. Nottingham Forest faces punishment, too.

There is little question that this has had some effect on the rest of the Premier League: The clubs are, it seems, acclimatizing themselves to an environment where there are actual consequences for their actions.

 

[SER19]

Not until city are punished

 

[duffer]

They should've called it something else. It was never about "fair play".

Chelsea voted for its introduction by the way. Maybe I'm wrong amd Roman really wanted everything to be fair.

 

[Hester_manc]

I seems like some clubs are too big and powerful to be punished.

 

[Fortitude]

PSR encourages teams to sell academy talent early in the name of pure profit, so I'm not sure I see this happening.

I thought our window was quite indicative of what we may see more often in the future with clubs sending/selling X amount of players whilst also forcibly bringing others through to fill other slots that would ordinarily be occupied by random squad filler. I think the squad filler will be the biggest fall guy in all of this whilst academies will become more stringent and productive, even for talent that is not stellar.

 

[Von Mistelroum]

The only clubs not affected are the ones who cheat and get away with it.

 

[Victorian values]

Myth.

If you want to create a "level playing field" then pool ALL revenue for the 20 premier league clubs and divide 40% EQUALLY between the 20 clubs, 20% to the championship clubs, 15% to League one, 10% to League two and the rest to the lower parts of the pyramid and grass roots football.
By ALL revenue, I mean ticket sales, sponsorship, TV revenue, corporate lounges, European monies, pre-season tour's etc (might mean pre season games at Bury and Macclesfield etc again instead of Thailand, Singapore or Australia etc).
This would lead to a level playing field in a few short seasons, the current Financial Sustainability and PROFITABILITY rules are designed not to level the field, or enhance the game for the match going fan, but if a club can only spend 70% of the revenue generated by football, on football expenses, who keeps the other 30%?
NO wonder USA hedge funds are looking to take over clubs.
In the Irish League, for generations Linfield and Glentoran had the largest fan bases and won the most trophies, then the owner of a creamery in Portadown invested heavily in his local club, while a wealthy businessman done the same for local rivals Glenavon, result was a very healthy competition for a few years with four sides competing for the shiny things.
Glenavon and Portadown fell away and couldn't maintain the support, but Crusaders and Cliftonville got investment and were able to compete, then Mr Purple Bricks invested heavily in Larne, who won their first ever league title last season.
Since 1992 the English game went global so the money required to challenge those who were getting most TV revenue, and then CHAMPIONS LEAGUE money was no longer possible for a Jack Walker type

 

[Acrobat7]

Less Premier League than usual for sure:

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/tra...s=&altersklasse=&w_s=w&leihe=&intern=0&plus=0

 

[adexkola]

If you want to create a "level playing field" then pool ALL revenue for the 20 premier league clubs and divide 40% EQUALLY between the 20 clubs, 20% to the championship clubs, 15% to League one, 10% to League two and the rest to the lower parts of the pyramid and grass roots football.
By ALL revenue, I mean ticket sales, sponsorship, TV revenue, corporate lounges, European monies, pre-season tour's etc (might mean pre season games at Bury and Macclesfield etc again instead of Thailand, Singapore or Australia etc).
This would lead to a level playing field in a few short seasons, the current Financial Sustainability and PROFITABILITY rules are designed not to level the field, or enhance the game for the match going fan, but if a club can only spend 70% of the revenue generated by football, on football expenses, who keeps the other 30%?
NO wonder USA hedge funds are looking to take over clubs.
In the Irish League, for generations Linfield and Glentoran had the largest fan bases and won the most trophies, then the owner of a creamery in Portadown invested heavily in his local club, while a wealthy businessman done the same for local rivals Glenavon, result was a very healthy competition for a few years with four sides competing for the shiny things.
Glenavon and Portadown fell away and couldn't maintain the support, but Crusaders and Cliftonville got investment and were able to compete, then Mr Purple Bricks invested heavily in Larne, who won their first ever league title last season.
Since 1992 the English game went global so the money required to challenge those who were getting most TV revenue, and then CHAMPIONS LEAGUE money was no longer possible for a Jack Walker type

Away with your common sense