Why is this being introduced into football? Is it to have as level a playing field as possible? Or to ensure that the âHavesâ are never joined at the top of the pile by the âHave Notsâ. If, as I strongly suspect, it is the latter statement, then the days of smaller clubs living the dream are forever gone. Two clubs over the last thirty years have achieved the impossible if one looks at their roots, supporter base and how far up the League ladder they climbed. Firstly the original Wimbledon and secondly Wigan Athletic. Under the FFP it will now be impossible for clubs such as Wigan playing in front of 2,500 in the 4th tier to invest enough money from their football revenue to take them in 4/5 years from the bottom league into the top league. Because under FFP, Dave Whelan would not have been allowed to invest in the playing structure of the club to the extent that he must have. So if my thinking is correct, then the Championship clubs who will benefit most from FFP are those which have a much greater income from attendances, sponsorship, corporate facilities. Leeds, Forest, Leicester, Middlesboro, Palace, Wolves, Birmingham So what benefit will FFP have for Bristol City? In my opinion absolutely none because even if Steve Lansdown wanted to put £25 million or more a year into a transfer / wages pot, he will not be allowed so to do. In fact he will probably be prevented from putting in his current £11 million per season! The futureâs bright? NO
Not true cider, why do you think Arsenal, Newcastle, Man City and so many more are signing lucrative stadium sponsorship deals as currently at least, these count towards the clubs turnover. If SL were so inclined, we could become the Hargreaves Lansdown stadium for £25m a year and this would allow us to do what we like within this boundary. There are ways and means around anything if the will is there....
Thanks for the clarity on the subject prem because I was tending to agree with ciderred and I must confess thar I think the smaller clubs will, or could suffer, under these new laws. When I hear that a Chelsea is prepared to give up on 50 million Torres and other clubs are spending money on players like there is no tomorrow it makes me weep for teams like Bristol City and the many other that may go to the wall. The days have long since vanished when basically any team in the top tier was capable of winning the title. Despite the so called reining in of unsuitable owners and investors we have seen the curse of incorrect persons being in charge ruining many teams around the country and indeed further north. Unscrupulous owners will abound even more in the coming years and the plight of the lower echelons could suffer even more. The greed in the game from both owners and players is a thing I greatly despise because it mocks the days when team commitment was what it was all about and the rise of any team from the lower levels was always a posibility and brought a smile from other supporters who cheered on their success. Are those heady days gone forever - I think so but there it is.
Record losses for you last year.. http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Bris...14-4-million/story-17501918-detail/story.html Staff costs up £2m, matchday takings and season ticket sales down. Looks like some serious belt tightening on the way!
Hopefully this will explain to some fans why we had trouble securing some of the defenders/midfielders touted about at the beginning of the season. Shame we haven't gone on a good cup run for a number of years as that would boost income.Bit of a chicken and egg situation, desparately need more fans at the gate but attendance will continue to drop until performance improves, which will be hard without bringing in top quality players.
Wimbledons spending was miniscule and would have adhered to future rulings, so would Blackpools. A counter argument would be why should clubs be allowed to spend far beyond their means, put their futures at risk v clubs which do not? Which is better for the long term good of football? So what benefit will FFP have for Bristol City? Well it will be an incentive to put the financial house in order. It does not have to be a retrogressive step either. Millwalls playing budget is eight million pounds below BCFC's. Check the summaries of accounts e.g there are concerns over the viabilty of the business. The club has gone from stable to **** street in five years. Wages have increased by somewhere in the region of eleven million in a similar timescale, while the club has gone south on and off the pitch.
I did wonder if such investment would be allowed so while the club is sensibly trying to reduce the salary bill, it may seem reasonable to expect the renaming of Ashton Gate or some other major sponsorship deal in the near future to wipe off an amount of the current total debt. Plus if the new stadium does get to go ahead, the sale of Ashton Gate to Sainsbury's would wipe out the rest?
Well done Cider, first one to get it. Got to be quick though because I think that they are trying to shut down the naming loop hole....
