A lots been written and discussed regarding how much clubs spend relative to a clubs standing in the League Table. For example Spurs spending of £100m + in the summer against the £80m they received for Bale. There is a lot of speculation at the moment re. the Financial Fair Play rules and how these will impact on the Clubs. At a local level Its now pretty normal for supporters to highlight the difference in spending between certain clubs as ammunition in debate down the pub after the game etc etc. I think a good way to encourage financial prudence amongst Football Clubs is to make matters transparent and visible when looking at the Premier League Table. At the moment The League Table shows basic details like goals scored / conceded wins / defeats etc. My idea is that an extra column could be added to demonstrate net profit or loss of clubs, an extra column showing spending against income. I must admit I'm not quite sure if a simple + or - points could be applied but this sort of info is broadly obtainable and could be provided by clubs. I don't necessarily think this should impact on final points or position but having it set out and being very visible would, I feel, really incentivise clubs to act responsibly in the short and long term. Perhaps extra points could be awarded for good financial policy... Just a thought...
I know it is on the verge of impossible, but it would be interesting to have a financial handicap system. You could spend £100m if you wanted to, but would have to start x number of points down depending on your position in the spending table, will never actually happen though.
My initial thought was that this would be about as exciting as the new "percentage of fuel used" table shown in F1 this season - what a yawn, and a yawn completely juxtaposed to the true essence of the sport. However, the new FFP rules do make your suggestion a valid one. The difficulty lies in the 12-18 month lag in publishing accounts though. Any data shown would relate to the previous season's spending so I'm not sure how relevant it would be to the current year's table.
The F1 table for fuel actually is relatively interesting as it supposedly gives the viewer an idea of how much 'wallop' the drivers may be able to put in at the end of the race. I'd still personally prefer that they were able to give it the full eggs the whole race, but it's a relatively interesting extra piece of information for the viewer.
As if they were in say, a motor race.... I hate what F1 is becoming. Just jump in the cars and go as fast as you can FFS! Anyway, I shan't hijack Jonny's thread with any more non-footie related comments (apart from this one)
F1 is about being the vanguard of road car technology. Energy recovery and fuel efficiency is where road cars are going, so F1 must go the same way.
Yep, after all that effort the thread has been hijacked into a Formula 1 discussion. A lesson for us all.
lol I guess Formula 1 is slightly less boring than talking about finance, what do I know, never had much of it myself.
It makes it more tactical when drivers have to consider fuel which I think makes it more interesting and it means whoever is on pole doesn't just shoot off and win the race ala Vettel last year. Admittedly at least two of the three wins have come from the front row (can't remember where Rosberg was in the grid in the first race, though I think it may have been front row...)
Is it, or is that just what car manufacturers tell us. They are greener and more efficient but engine size goes up.... With regards to the initial post, I think that too many financiers with cunning tricks would find loopholes. The only way I can see it being made fair is limiting the number of transfers a team can have per season e.g. to three.
Think the only way to make this season more interesting will be to force Mercedes into giving everyone else a lap head start. As for the football, you can request clubs to submit financial information on a monthly basis. The trouble with FFP is whilst it encourages good practice for clubs, it's still not a level playing field because of the vastly different turnovers.
Was never 100% sure why Nicola opposed it. Part of me thought that perhaps our owner wanted to make a huge investment and would be prevented from doing so, but there was also a niggling thought that we couldn't comply and our books weren't balancing. At the time, I shoved the latter thought to the back of my mind, but not sure now. There is no doubt that any rules wouldn't hit rich clubs as much as teams setting out in the EPL. Our investment in the Academy and intention of bringing a core of players through our own system makes sense under the new rules.
