financial fair play

just read that the championship have voted to approve the financial fair play system, not sure off the ins and outs, but at first reading would appear to be good news for us, mght curb some of the crazy spending of some clubs, and help prevent more liquidations, any views,

 

In the short term is bad news for us as we are one of the clubs spending far beyond our means. But if/when new stadium arrives with increased revenue streams we'll be in a stronger position. As the finacial rules, at first glance excludes money spent on academy upkeep then I can see us focusing more on youth in the future which can only be a good thing.

 

I still think they should have kept 7 subs but make it that 3 of them have to be under 18 which would help bring young players through.

The rules will favour the teams that will get relegated from the prem as they usually get more tv money and their payments for getting relegated so i have my doubts if it is fair but might cost the number of teams going bust

 

If you had 7 subs with 3 HAVING to be U18 you would just get 3 U18 kids sat on the bench each week never getting on..

 

It's called shutting the stable door after the horses and everything else in the barn have bolted. How on earth can the people who are supposed to oversee our leagues not have seen financial meltdown coming is beyond my comprehension and if they administer this politically correct farce as well as they did the one that was supposed to vet new owners for suitability then heaven help us.

Financial fair play is a wonderful phrase and I suggest they try to sell it to the players that are earning 100,000+ quid a week and see what they have to say, but don't hold your breath expecting them to say that they are earning too much and that they feel a sense of guilt taking that kind of money and then expect the likes of you and I to fork out to watch them play.

Financial fair play my a**.

 

The big prize in football is to achieve Premiership status where the TV money flows and financial common sense disappears out of the window.
Football clubs should not be permitted to commit themselves to expenditure which is not earned through sources which are directly related to funds raised through gate money or hire of facilities to external users etc.. The normal way any business conducts its affairs. Finance from sources which are not directly under the clubs control such cash donated from the supporters clubs or rich uncles should only be included in the club's financial budget after such funds have been deposited in the football clubs's bank account. Any wage contracts with players should not be permitted to exceed the limits of the club's resources obtained in this way.
The clubs who risk financial disaster by spending money they don't have to achieve success are cheating. They are not putting themselves on a honest level playing field with those who are competing against them.
It is useless to dictate that the naughty boys shouldn't do it. The rules should make it clear that if you cheat you will be severely penalised. Not just a 10 point deduction but relegation to the foot of the system. Every other club in the system raised one place.
All the clubs that have cheated this year would be sitting at the bottom of league four.
Bristol City cheated and were given a soft option in 1982. OK they fell to the bottom of league four fairly quickly thereafter. But what might have happened to football in Bristol if the Rovers had taken up the optiion to buy Ashton Gate when it was offered to them?
If the rules are tightened to prevent cheating then we might see a completely different set of league tables.

 

If Rovers had bought ashton gate u would have had a bigger stadium more money and u may be in a higher league than the basement of the football league

 

No - they would have gone out of business because they wouldn't have enough fans to cover the cost of wages for the Groundmans & the cleaners!

 

Sorry guys!

I thought this was a serious thread.

 

I think it's a good thing, and think that it will prevent clubs, LIKE OURS, from turning into Portsmouth. We live way above our means at Bristol City and we haven't brought a single talented player through the youth ranks that holds down a regular starting 11 place since Cole Skuse! Yes it's not perfect yet, but its a step in the right direction and I think they should have started at the top, or at least put this into place across the entire spectrum of football.

Just because we MIGHT be getting a new stadium, far from solves all our financial woes in my view. We won't suddenly find another 15,000 regular fans turning up. So it means more money the club owe to Mr Lansdown.

But like I said, for me, our biggest concern is the youth policy and the overall running of the club. Colin Sexstone seems just as unaccountable for his job performance as the fooball league chiefs and that should change. If managers are up for as much scrutiny as they are these days, why not the people the people that put them in that role, or operate the club at a MASSIVE loss 3 years running?

 

The rules are a step in the right direction. It's long overdue to review the ridiculous sums of money that players earn for kicking a ball. The players and their greedy agents shoulder a lot of responsibility for the state the game is in financially but unfortunately so do the owners. There is no other business where seemingly well educated men will throw money out of the window. It just makes no sense.

The rules still favor the bigger clubs though. Personally I would like to see an overall salary "cap" similar to that adopted by the NFL over here. Every team can only spend so much money on player wages. It gives complete parity across the league and any team can therefore win the title. Small teams (Green Bay Packers from a town with barely 100,000 residents) can play and better the New York Giants (population 10 million). It's all down to coaching and player management. Makes for really good competition.

At least by offloading Calamity we will start to get ourselves in line!

 

We need to bring more young players through the club and it isn't a case of the players coming through are rubbish just most of the time those players are not given the chance. Ryan Harley for example wasnt given a chance and has since now played in the championship with both Swansea and now Brighton.
Unfortunatlely we have had managers like Johnson who didn't care for youth and instead loved his journey men and brought in many players over the age of 30 like, Trundle, Byfield Stern John etc etc all players who were once good but we were paying high wages to players past their best. All three of the mentioned strikers didn't score goal goals for the game time and wages they had.

Ribs and Wilson are two very talented players that if it wasnt for injuries prob would be playing first team football.

I would like to see both Joe Edwards and Bobby Reid get more games as both I believe could be good players for us.

 

Very good points andy...
McInnes will now have to show us another side to his management skills. He will need to have enough ex Academy youngsters in a squad, but without (a) having an oversized squad again like the last three years (b) having too few experienced players to get the results (c) denying the youngsters enough game time and possibly weakening the side if too many are played at the same time.
And for the younger ones it will be important that they get a little run but not to keep them in too long. 3 or 4 games three or four times a season will be more use to the younger squad members than going on loan to League Two or Conference sides.
As for youngsters, I feel Joe Bryan could make the breakthrough quicker than anyone else, but I would also be very chuffed if Ribs and Wilson were to become regulars as I think when fit, they are real quality.

 

Financially factual it may be but I've never honestly known Bristol City cheat....Individuals involved with the club maybe but not the actual club.[/QUOTE]

The football club is the whole of its parts. If that part of the club which administrates the finances of the club, mis-manages by spending beyond its means to achieve an elevated status by such unfair means, then that is cheating and as such the club as a whole guilty of cheating.

 

The football club is the whole of its parts. If that part of the club which administrates the finances of the club, mis-manages by spending beyond its means to achieve an elevated status by such unfair means, then that is cheating and as such the club as a whole guilty of cheating.[/QUOTE]

Saphire - I think using the word cheat is the issue with your post.
However, I do take your point about clubs either spending they have not got or over-extending themselves but finding themselves in a lower league with lower revenue streams.
I think going into Administration should mean an automatic relegation at the end of the season.
I would love to know who the 3 clubs were that voted against - West Ham?

 

I see where you are coming from with reference to the definition of cheating.

In your amateur cricket days, did you walk when you nicked it to the wicket keeper? I know most professionals don't, but I remember several instances in club games when a batsman quite clearly got an edge and didn't walk, resulting in quite heated exchanges at the post match drinking session.

Another local example of unfair play was at AG last year against Palace. Ball hits the back stantion and rebounds back into play. Did anyone from the red team own up? Is it cheating or a more modern version of 'its up to the officials'. OK its down to the spur of the moment to make one's decision.

In football administration, it is not a spur of the moment decision to overspend. It is a calculated risk that by cheating the club might attain a better status at which point the overspend will disappear.

It is my view that if unfair tactics are employed then that is cheating.

 

wiz, your examples highlight the difference between the clubs responsibility and misdemeanors of the individual. Were Rovers aware that the individual who accepted a bribe incident to throw matches? Of course not! Nor were Sheffield Wednesday or Bradford.
The idiot who got drunk and committed GBH was summarily dealt with by the club.

These are misdemeanors by individuals. Sitting in the Boardroom discussing financial overspend is a cold calculated long term process. Ergo club is guilty