Fair Financial Play Rules

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
The quality of the PL has declined exactly because of the short term, short sighted thinking of your owner, amongst others. It's all grab grab grab, no long term planning, no attempt to bring through youthful talent. Why bother when you can splash out another £25-30mil on the latest Brazilian sensation?
It's high time some sanity was brought back to the PL. It's time that we took a look at the growing & sustainable model that is the Bundesliga.

If you want to know why PL standards are rapidly declining, look no further than your own club's practices.
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
If FIFA want a sensible, level playing field, then introduce a squad salary cap.
They have one in the NBA and I'm sure that there'd still be some fiddling going on, but the suggested system is just crap and favours a few big clubs at everyone else's expense.
It's not fit for purpose.
Click to expand...


Couple of things here. Firstly FIFA (or UEFA) are, as I understand it, are not introducing FFP to level the playing field. They're doing it to stop clubs going out of business. And it's not just the smaller clubs over-spending trying to keep up that are at risk. Chelsea are one man's whim away from being a totally unsustainable business which would face administration.

Secondly I see a couple of problems with a salary cap. Say the highest wage bill right now is 150m and the lowest is 20m and a club like spurs are at 80m. For it to have any effect it will have to be low enough to affect most clubs. Which would mean something crazy like 30-40m. This would mean mass exodus of top players from the EPL but also mean that the very top clubs now have another 110-120m a year to spend on transfer fees. Meanwhile Swansea (say) have seen no difference since they only had a wage bill of 25m to start with. And obviously if you set the salary cap higher, say as high as 80m, then there'll only be a handful of clubs affected by it.

Trouble is that, unlike sports teams in the US, there is such diversity of club size not just in the professional game but even in the EPL alone! In the US you only have big teams from big cities. People from an entire STATE (size could be bigger than the whole of the UK) will have one team to support.

Plus, of course, the US teams in most sports have the drafting system from the colleges - something that IS specifically designed to level the playing field.

I dunno - I haven't thought about it loads - maybe a salary cap might help but these are my initial reservations. My first thought is "Well instead of having the same salary cap for Wigan as you do for Man Utd why not just make it proportional to the size of the club's revenue?". And then realise that what I'm suggesting are the actual FFP rules!

And the trouble with them (as I see it) is not what they aim to do but the fact that rich clubs will cheat the system. When companies like Vodaphone etc can get away with ripping off the tax system (an act which carries potential prison sentences) then getting a team of accountants to cheat the rules of a game's governing body (with potential punishments being, er, not being able to play your game) should be a doddle. Let's not forget - Abramovich got where he is by getting people killed. A team of accountants from UEFA will not be a daunting prospect.

Nice idea though FFP is, rich men have ways of getting what they want always.
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
If FIFA want a sensible, level playing field, then introduce a squad salary cap.
They have one in the NBA and I'm sure that there'd still be some fiddling going on, but the suggested system is just crap and favours a few big clubs at everyone else's expense.
It's not fit for purpose.
Click to expand...

This is more akin to the preference I would take.
I'd also introduce a cap on transfer spending, so that clubs can't just buy up all the talent each window.
 
The trouble is that's it's never been a level playing field from the 1900's on. Big clubs like Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, Villa, NUFC, Everton, have always been around the top for most of the time. Since the PL was formed this is still the case but more money from abroad has come in lifting clubs like Chelsea and City. Sky has just accelerated the process although in a way atm there is a greater chance of a team being transformed by 'new' money speculation than ever before. In other words we might not like the way City and Chelsea have achieved success but it's not so different from Blackburn and their benefactor or even Gretna and their brief flirtation with the bright lights.

The players have came from being exploited to being the exploiters, neither is fair, but when was fairness ever a factor!

Perhaps the only fairer way was what we had before the FA formed the premier league when money was filtered down from the top in a more generous manner. That of course is why the PL was formed so that the 'big' boys could keep more of the pot themselves.

In reality unless capitalism dies it's impossible to have the 'level playing field' and each time the rules are changed the rich get richer. Football is destined to get bigger and richer until the bubble bursts and when it does it will be because the masses have moved on to something else, like throwing bankers to the lions or rollerball or something beyond our wildest imagination. Sex olympics anyone?
 
District Line said:
Agree with you Spurf but City and Chelsea have always been big clubs
Click to expand...

I'm not going to argue that DL yes they have, just not quite as big as the ones I mentioned until recent years but that is splitting hairs a bit, so yes they have.
 
lennypops said:
Secondly I see a couple of problems with a salary cap. Say the highest wage bill right now is 150m and the lowest is 20m and a club like spurs are at 80m. For it to have any effect it will have to be low enough to affect most clubs. Which would mean something crazy like 30-40m. This would mean mass exodus of top players from the EPL but also mean that the very top clubs now have another 110-120m a year to spend on transfer fees. Meanwhile Swansea (say) have seen no difference since they only had a wage bill of 25m to start with. And obviously if you set the salary cap higher, say as high as 80m, then there'll only be a handful of clubs affected by it.
Click to expand...

I don't see a problem with it only affecting a handful of clubs.
The idea seems to be to stop clubs doing a Chelsea and spending vast amounts to buy the league and this would stop it.
 
As I understand it, though, the idea is not to prevent clubs overspending to win leagues etc. It is to stop clubs spending more than their income. For some at the extreme end this unsustainable spending will win leagues. But clubs' existence being put into doubt can happen if their wage bills are 150m or 5m.

If you put the bar at 80m or something there will be nothing to stop clubs "doing a Pompey" and even going out of business.

Remember that the stated aim of FFP is to make the football financial model sustainable overall, not just stop clubs buying success. There's never been a problem with clubs buying success. The new danger is the huge levels of debt that clubs can be left with if they try to buy success without the footbaling income to cover it. And success might mean finishing seventh in the Prem.
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
Until Roman came along, Chelsea hadn't competed for a title since the 1950s and had a history which didn't match up to the likes of Sunderland, Sheffield Wed, Wolves, Blackburn etc, never mind the recognised top sides. Don't kid yourself.
Click to expand...

When Chelsea played United the bigger crowds always used to come at Stamford Bridge. We've had crowds you could only dream of having and even George Best said Stamford Bridge was his favourite ground.

Your a United "fan" so wouldn't understand but the size of clubs is not always dictated by success because if that's the measure of how big a club is then Villa are the 4th biggest club in England.

United were no more successful than Villa before Sky and Edwards bankrolled you, now I guess since Harding and Roman, it's our turn for a little bit of success.
 
The problem with a salary cap is, it would probably not pass European law.
I cant see FFP working as Platini will not want to see PSG fall flat on its face, but will the other big 18 teams allow this or will they threaten to start there own Euro cup, like they did play to a few years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back