So you would prefer the battle of the richest owners? At least the traditional elite built themselves up without being state-backed.
What now for FFP? (and UEFA)
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
No, I'd prefer that transfer spending and wages were capped at absolute values, as opposed to relative to revenue. FFP in its current form was actually a step in the wrong direction because it increased the power of money in football as opposed to reducing it.
It’s not just about the fans. They’ve best players in the world and players and coaches who want to be employed by them.
Also there is a lot more fans of City and PSG than there was 10 years ago. There would be an outcry from the media and their fans if they were to be left out.
It’s simply wont happen. I can guarantee you that.
Fair enough, I personally don't have a problem with what FFP was trying to do. Money spent should be linked to the revenue which in turn should be linked to success and history. Investment, however, should be possible and should be able to bridge the gap and also increase the speed of growth but it shouldn't propel you so far ahead of the competition that you have more money than the existing top of the game.
Salary cap is the only thing that will work. Players would never agree though for obv reasons.
invite all past CL/EC winners. Be hilarious seeing Villa and Forest in a Super League and not City/PSG
PSG changed nothing to the average player market and these transfers aren't even the fist instance of average players going for astronomic fees. The PL broke that market by having way more money than the rest and being able to ourbid anyone for average players. Also outside of PL transfers average players don't go for astronomic fees or wages.
The average player market was destroyed by transfers like Sygurdsson, Bolasie, Keane or Pickford to Everon which pre-dates Mbappé.
Last edited:
A salary cap and a transfer fee cap is the only way to go, maybe depending on your club value, tv viewings etc this can be increased by a small fraction but otherwise I don't see how any one can stop Newcastle from spending 1 billion to win EPL within 3 years. With the covid situation, I can see a lot of club agreeing with that. FFP still works fine for small clubs but it is helpless against the super rich state owners.
Putting their motivation aside, at least they putting money into club instead of leeching like some American owners. Idea of FFP is a pushback from clubs like Bayern, while some owners in PL hide behind it.
If FFP will be done away with, surely that means the gold rush begins again? It's not only PSG and City, it's Chelsea, it's smaller clubs with rich owners like Wolves and even Everton (not too clued up on those) where sugar daddies can start swinging their dicks, right?
Just not allow a nation state to own a football club. Give City and PSG a few months to sell their clubs to individuals not connected to the ruling families of the country that ownn them now. If they have not done that by the beginning of summer throw them out of the game.
I dont think anyone gets it. UEFA, FIFA - all of them are now paid off by oil money. Any changes made will be for not against these clubs. I expect them to buy more especially since they are unaffected by Covid. Well they are but the loss is irrelevant
The important distinction for me is when the wealth purchasing clubs is state owned. I don't care what a billionaire does with his own money (and millionaires come and go), but when the almost unlimited wealth of nation-state lavish in natural resources is pumped into a sporting endeavor, it distorts the market in the long term.
I was unsure whether to post or not.
I am not sure I want the abuse that I am going to get, but it is something I feel passionately about
I think a new set of FFP rules need to be put in place focusing on debt not expenditure.
Its the only way to secure footballs future
I am not sure I want the abuse that I am going to get, but it is something I feel passionately about
I think a new set of FFP rules need to be put in place focusing on debt not expenditure.
Its the only way to secure footballs future
Don't be afraid to post. I find that the Caf is a a relatively civilized place to have a discussion. Personal attacks and abuse are not tolerated and the atmosphere doesn't descend into the toxic hell that other similar sites have (well maybe the first couple of hours after we lose a game
. People will have a go at what you write, specially if its not well thought out or can be supported by some form of data.I disagree to some degree in your point about debt. If clubs do not borrow money, how can they compete against nation state funded PR clubs? I agree with limiting unsustainable debt, but clubs have to be able to borrow money.
I assume the reason you are apprehensive, is that you think that would have implications for United?
the reality is that a leveraged buyout of a business, and our debt to value ratio are both normal.
I would need to give some serious thought about what the answer would be.
the biggest issue in football is wage inflation. That’s what needs to be controlled, but not via a wage cap. It’s an interesting challenge.
I disagree, the biggest issue in football is debt.
wage inflation is only a problem when combined with debt.
I wasnt apprehensive because of the implications for united, because I agree it would have little implication for us. I was apprehensive because it would have zero implications for City and PSG etc and that seems to be what some posters think the purpose of FFP should be and that anyone who thinks differently is not really a united fan or is even worse, a city or PSG fan.
not been my experience, hence only 850 posts in 9 years.Don't be afraid to post. I find that the Caf is a a relatively civilized place to have a discussion. Personal attacks and abuse are not tolerated and the atmosphere doesn't descend into the toxic hell that other similar sites have (well maybe the first couple of hours after we lose a game
I disagree to some degree in your point about debt. If clubs do not borrow money, how can they compete against nation state funded PR clubs? I agree with limiting unsustainable debt, but clubs have to be able to borrow money.
Its probably because my opinions are out of step with the vast majority of united fans
To get back to debt, as you say clubs have to borrow money in order to compete with clubs that have a higher income, whatever the source. I just think there needs to be a limited, so that what happened to Portsmouth can be avoided at other clubs. So basically the same as you.
I also dont think you should limit outside investment in football. I realise that means rich owners can come in and build up less successful teams. This has happened throughout the history of football and is overall good for the game as it means that which teams are successful changes over time and this makes football interesting.
sustainable debt is not a problem. So for example Man Utd’s debt is of no concern, and is normal for business. Most football clubs are businesses.
Fans may not like the idea of it, but that’s an aside.
It is however the wage inflation, that causes debt in most cases.
some clubs have 80/90/100% of revenue being spent on wages. That’s the problem. that’s what need to be curbed - clearly there’s not an elegant one stop solution to doing so.
the purpose of FFP should be the sustainability of all football clubs, and set the parameters so that clubs cannot spend beyond their means. Current owners should not be able to risk the long term viability of clubs that are imposter at to the community with 100 years of history by chasing non-sustainable short term success.
the only thing that makes a club not viable is debt.
I agree that having wages at above 80% of turnover is bad, what it is doing is storing up debt for the future, thus future debt making the club not viable.
However wages that are over 80% of turnover but guaranteed by an external source (for example the owner) are not going to make the club not viable in the future as long as there is some mechanism in place to guarantee the owner meets those wage obligations.
What FFP should be targeting is current debt and future debt. Clubs should have to take out insurance or a bond or financial mechanism that the owner cannot revoke, to cover future wages for the term of a players contract so that it will be met no matter what and not bankrupt the club.
Why is wage inflation an issue? Surely the majority of the ever increasing revenue should go to staff, most notably the players, provided the infrastructure is in place/not entirely ignored.
It’s just not possible to guarantee a debt. Personal guarantees from an owner can still mean that debts cannot be paid.
football clubs should be treated in the same way as any other business in that respect.
I think we are in the same ball park in terms of what we believe in, and as I’ve stated in this thread many times, the aim of FFP should not be to just to fix the big clubs in place - and agree it should not be to prevent clubs spending money within their and their owners means to ‘buy’ success.
football should be cyclical, FFP has aimed to prevent that.
football authorities do have at their disposal greater checks on owners - and that could have prevented situations like Portsmouth.
where I think we disagree is that I largely think wages are the problem, where’s you think they are a symptom of the problem (debt).
I’m not in favour of a cap per se, but do think it’s had some good success in the lower leagues, and before Covid, generally club finances had improved as a result.
...we can have sensible conversations on the Caf
Last edited:
perhaps wage inflation is partially the wrong phrase, but clubs are paying players too much as a % of turnover.
with Covid implications to be felt for years, hopefully wages will be curbed.
There's 2 issues at play.
Ensuring small clubs survive.
Ensure clubs with a limitless pot of cash don't ruin the game.
Both need addressed.
Point 2 effect point 1 because it increases player prices and wages etc which puts more pressure on the smaller clubs finances.
It's all Interlinked.
it does appear we can have sensible conversation on the caf.
I think you can guarantee a debt with insurance from a third party.
you might want to change "ethnic" to "think".
thanks for pointing out the predictive text error.
I disagree with point 2
outside investment/financial doping or whatever you want to call it has been a part of the game for 140 years and hasnt ruined it and will not ruin it in the future. It will mean its harder for us to compete but only until the tap is turned off. Think back to Portsmouth and Chelsea in the noughties and Newcastle, Leeds and Blackburn in the 90's etc etc.
That will happen to city, Chelsea and PSG at some point. If they havent actually invested and become self sustaining they will crash and burn.
It does appear that both city and chelseas owners have not put in any money recently (last 5 years) according to their accounts therefore they wont be crashing and burning unless their accounts are being doctored and money is being spent off the books. I know many on the caf think this is whats happening and if they are correct then in some time in the Chelsea and city will crash and burn.
If they are not paying off the books then they are self sustaining and not any sort of threat to football.
both Chelsea and City have invested massively in their infrastructure, and their sustainability. The area around the Etihad had been transformed. I live near Stamford Bridge, and it’s been improved dramatically over the past 20 years. I particularly like the private nightclub under The Bridge.
Anyway... this is good for football, and for competition. As much as I’d love Man Utd to win the league every year, it’s the competition from these clubs that drive everyone else forward.
How?
I dont understand this point tbh. United have spent nearly as much as City.
FFP allows clubs to spend the same (Based upon income)
We've not bought ANY of the most expensive players in the world
We dont have the biggest wage bills
Before Pep we werent as strong, is it really money that has made City what they are?
So how can City be ruining football?
Surely its the amount of debt that will bring it all down. United, Barca, RM are all in serious debt, up to the eyeballs, it feels more like those clubs could collapse rather than City running away with titles.
You’re a City fan, a direct beneficiary of this state of affairs. I don’t expect you to understand how this is distorting the game, no matter how much I flesh it out.
Yep.
My thoughts on FFP has always been it should focus on debt. But as we are seeing it is possible to spend vast sums without creating club debt. But I still think debt based FFP is an improvement over what was before and baby steps are better than nothing. FFP the ultimate aim of it should be to provide lower risk to clubs from going under, rather than been used as a tool to equal the battlefield so to speak.
If we wanted to take it one step further and have financial fairness whilst also reducing risk of club going bust, then it would be a fixed budget per club based on the poorest team's revenue in the league. But for obvious reasons we will never see that kind of FFP implemented so debt based FFP is an improvement that has a chance of been voted in.
And you're a utd fan. I don't expect anything but tribal thoughts. "City cheated", human rights etc. Thats the way it is... But the facts tell a completely different story:
Before Pep (when we had the wealth of a nation behind us) we werent doing what we're doing now. Since our takeover City have spent £1.54b whilst Utd have spent £1.24b (Barca £1.38b Chelsea £1.45b). Does £0.30b really make all that difference?
Pep has basically improved each City player and does seem to have quite a lot of tactical nous, he tends to do well wherever he manages - Surely City's success is about Pep, not money?
And once hes gone City will be back to what they were before, like utd after SAF. So how does money come into it? I maybe missing the point