FFP: Financial Fair Play - for it or against it?

[champers]

Personally I'm against it. Can you imagine the same policy in Horse Racing? To all the Middle Eastern and Irish owners:"Excuse me chaps, your horses seem to be winning rather a lot of big races. Could you please cut back on investing in the sport" But that's what has happened in football. FFP is telling club owners not to invest in the sport. If a billionaire chooses to own a football club as a hobby for his own entertainment, why should anybody stop him? There's a real danger of turning owners off the sport and discouraging potential investors.

[Chicog]

Racing has handicapping.

[JacknDanny]

Racing has handicapping.

Only in Handicap races.

The classics, where the best horses run, all carry the same weight.

The point he is making is that the richest guys in the world could buy as many yearlings, 2yr olds, 3 yr olds as they wanted. No conditions.

Anyway talking of handicap................ Arsenal already have a Handicap............. Arsene Wengers short arms

[mrbojangles]

The thing I do like about FFP and I think one of the main reasons for it being introduced, is that it should prevent owners stacking up massive debt against a club and so preventing the club going to the wall should the owner get bored and beggar off. If the owner wants to gift the club money (is it a max of 45m per year?) that's fine and upto him.

Apart from that, I think the rest of it is purely about protectionism of the big boys already at the big table.

[Chicog]

I think it's to stop the Sheikhs and oligarchs driving up costs for everyone else and sending clubs to the wall.

[mjj]

Oh, gawd, Citizen Smith is off again.......'Power to the people!!!'

[StevieH]

"If a billionaire chooses to own a football club as a hobby for his own entertainment, why should anybody stop him? There's a real danger of turning owners off the sport and discouraging potential investors."

good. because it isn't their club. it's the fans' club.

[Chicog]

Oh, gawd, Citizen Smith is off again.......'Power to the people!!!'

Excuse me, the OP asked a question.

If you don't like the answer, foxtrot oscar.

[mjj]

Nah, if I don't like the answer I would rather take the p1ss.

[Chicog]

Nah, if I don't like the answer I would rather take the p1ss.

Do what you like douchebag.

[mjj]

5555555555

[champers]

"If a billionaire chooses to own a football club as a hobby for his own entertainment, why should anybody stop him? There's a real danger of turning owners off the sport and discouraging potential investors."

good. because it isn't their club. it's the fans' club.

But the fans won't / can't invest the amount of money required to keep a football club on an even keel, never mind be successful. Rich owners investing millions and millions probably regard themselves as fans; albeit part-time or temporary. Though we all support our teams with a passion we have a limit on what we would spend or invest on them and we expect something in return for what we do spend. For an owner, they rarely get something back on their investments; donations rather than investments. People like the Glazers and Mike Ashley are disliked by many fans because essentially they aren't as rich as the owners of Chelsea & Man City.

[Chicog]

No... because they see the clubs as a vehicle to make money. Abrahamovich wants a British passport to protect his money. Shaik Yermani is just having fun with some spare pocket change because he wants to stick one up the Al Maktoums and the Al Thanis.

[P45Mustang]

"If a billionaire chooses to own a football club as a hobby for his own entertainment, why should anybody stop him?"

If a billionaire wants to own a global brand football club and make money from the football business, why should anybody stop him?

[P45Mustang]

Nah, if I don't like the answer I would rather take the p1ss.

Do what you like douchebag.

You are the douchebag with an axe to grind.

[NiwPix]

Interesting point of view. However, I don't agree. You say "Excuse me chaps, your horses seem to be winning rather a lot of big races. Could you please cut back on investing in the sport".

I don't think investing can be called throwing huge sums of money at players and buying young talent from "poor" teams, only to let them sit on the bench...just so the "poor" team has it even more difficult to compete. I think this is counter productive. I am all for FFP, however I would change a few things. Somebody who wants to own a football team and throw his money in to it, should be only allowed to do this in form of stadium / infrastructure update and things like that....NOT for Transfers and salaries.

[SantiSuk]

All interference with free markets introduces market distortions, which are undesirable. Trouble is an uninterupted free market results in the most humongous market distortion of all - monopoly, corruption dictatorship call it what you will. some form of regulation is a necessary evil.

[mrbojangles]

All interference with free markets introduces market distortions, which are undesirable. Trouble is an uninterupted free market results in the most humongous market distortion of all - monopoly, corruption dictatorship call it what you will. some form of regulation is a necessary evil.

In the free market you have the Competition & Markets Authority to stop monopolies by the bigger companies. In Football we have FFP to protect the bigger Football Clubs from the smaller ones, as the current rules are too aligned to the clubs earnings. Thus, the big clubs will always be able to outspend the smaller ones. It doesn't allow enough for investment (in particular to the clubs with smaller current turnover) and to be honest, I don't think it is even legal. I'm sure that will be tested one day.

I agree some form of regulation is required but I don't think the current form of FFP is the answer. I don't for one minute think I have the right answer but to me, it should simply be about owners not putting clubs at risk of going bankrupt, should they decide to suddenly walk away.

[Chicog]

All interference with free markets introduces market distortions, which are undesirable. Trouble is an uninterupted free market results in the most humongous market distortion of all - monopoly, corruption dictatorship call it what you will. some form of regulation is a necessary evil.

In the free market you have the Competition & Markets Authority to stop monopolies by the bigger companies. In Football we have FFP to protect the bigger Football Clubs from the smaller ones, as the current rules are too aligned to the clubs earnings. Thus, the big clubs will always be able to outspend the smaller ones. It doesn't allow enough for investment (in particular to the clubs with smaller current turnover) and to be honest, I don't think it is even legal. I'm sure that will be tested one day.

I agree some form of regulation is required but I don't think the current form of FFP is the answer. I don't for one minute think I have the right answer but to me, it should simply be about owners not putting clubs at risk of going bankrupt, should they decide to suddenly walk away.

Or putting other clubs at risk of going bankrupt by artificially inflating wages and transfer fees.

Mind you I actually thought it was funny watching Liverpool pay 35m for Carroll.....

[champers]

All interference with free markets introduces market distortions, which are undesirable. Trouble is an uninterupted free market results in the most humongous market distortion of all - monopoly, corruption dictatorship call it what you will. some form of regulation is a necessary evil.

In the free market you have the Competition & Markets Authority to stop monopolies by the bigger companies. In Football we have FFP to protect the bigger Football Clubs from the smaller ones, as the current rules are too aligned to the clubs earnings. Thus, the big clubs will always be able to outspend the smaller ones. It doesn't allow enough for investment (in particular to the clubs with smaller current turnover) and to be honest, I don't think it is even legal. I'm sure that will be tested one day.

I agree some form of regulation is required but I don't think the current form of FFP is the answer. I don't for one minute think I have the right answer but to me, it should simply be about owners not putting clubs at risk of going bankrupt, should they decide to suddenly walk away.

You raise the question of legality and sometimes football seems to be beyond or outside the law. The Bosman ruling is a case in point. Is FFP legal? Is the transfer window legal or is it a restraint of trade, or a restriction of free movement of labour within the EEC?

[mrbojangles]

All interference with free markets introduces market distortions, which are undesirable. Trouble is an uninterupted free market results in the most humongous market distortion of all - monopoly, corruption dictatorship call it what you will. some form of regulation is a necessary evil.

In the free market you have the Competition & Markets Authority to stop monopolies by the bigger companies. In Football we have FFP to protect the bigger Football Clubs from the smaller ones, as the current rules are too aligned to the clubs earnings. Thus, the big clubs will always be able to outspend the smaller ones. It doesn't allow enough for investment (in particular to the clubs with smaller current turnover) and to be honest, I don't think it is even legal. I'm sure that will be tested one day.

I agree some form of regulation is required but I don't think the current form of FFP is the answer. I don't for one minute think I have the right answer but to me, it should simply be about owners not putting clubs at risk of going bankrupt, should they decide to suddenly walk away.

Or putting other clubs at risk of going bankrupt by artificially inflating wages and transfer fees.

Mind you I actually thought it was funny watching Liverpool pay 35m for Carroll.....

But Real Madrid, Barca, Man Utd etc have been inflating wages and breaking transfer records for years Chicog. And to be fair, I dont think that has had a direct impact on any club actually going bankrupt. A club going bankrupt is usually down to an irresponsible owner having visions of grandeur and a bad business plan, putting unnecessary debt against the club.

That being said, why do you think it should be the responsibility of say Arsenal to ensure that the likes of say Leicester dont go bankrupt?

[Chicog]

But Real Madrid, Barca, Man Utd etc have been inflating wages and breaking transfer records for years Chicog. And to be fair, I dont think that has had a direct impact on any club actually going bankrupt. A club going bankrupt is usually down to an irresponsible owner having visions of grandeur and a bad business plan, putting unnecessary debt against the club.

That being said, why do you think it should be the responsibility of say Arsenal to ensure that the likes of say Leicester dont go bankrupt?

Real Madrid especially are classic examples of living beyond their means; they've only survived through large cash injections and other jiggerypokery from Madrid banks.

Barca fund themselves, Manchester United like it or not fund themselves.

Some rich Arab funds Manchester City.

And Arsenal stay within FFP so are not a threat to the likes of Leicester.

Their presence in the league along with the other big clubs is what draws in the TV money of which Leicester get their share.

But let's cut to the chase: No-one has spent more money on their club than Shaikh Inthatass.

In the short term it benefits a few clubs, but in putting up transfer fees and wage, there can only be on inevitable result:

The bubble bursts for someone.

Much like it did for Leeds United.

[mrbojangles]

Some rich Arab funds Manchester City.

And Arsenal stay within FFP so are not a threat to the likes of Leicester.

Correction. Some rich Arab has invested in Manchester City. He put the money in upfront but he has a clear business plan to get that investment back and make money.

And Arsenal stay within FFP so are not a threat to the likes of Leicester.

So what you are saying is FFP is the right answer?

[Chicog]

Some rich Arab funds Manchester City.

And Arsenal stay within FFP so are not a threat to the likes of Leicester.

Correction. Some rich Arab has invested in Manchester City. He put the money in upfront but he has a clear business plan to get that investment back and make money.

And Arsenal stay within FFP so are not a threat to the likes of Leicester.

So what you are saying is FFP is the right answer?

Maybe not, be it's the best option out there right now.

The idea is to cut the spending to levels where it is reasonably funded from a club's earned income.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Chicog

[mrbojangles]

The idea is to cut the spending to levels where it is reasonably funded from a club's earned income.

And therefore keep the big boys big and the little boys little. And that's the bit I strongly disagree about.

[mjj]

The idea is to cut the spending to levels where it is reasonably funded from a club's earned income.

And therefore keep the big boys big and the little boys little. And that's the bit I strongly disagree about.

Quite ironic that supporters of the 2 biggest clubs to have money thrown at them welcome a challenge of another team having the same treatment. Yet, others that could lose their place amongst the elite fear it. Cowards.

[mrbojangles]

The idea is to cut the spending to levels where it is reasonably funded from a club's earned income.

And therefore keep the big boys big and the little boys little. And that's the bit I strongly disagree about.

Quite ironic that supporters of the 2 biggest clubs to have money thrown at them welcome a challenge of another team having the same treatment. Yet, others that could lose their place amongst the elite fear it. Cowards.

Your quite right mjj. Never thought of it that way.

[Chicog]

The idea is to cut the spending to levels where it is reasonably funded from a club's earned income.

And therefore keep the big boys big and the little boys little. And that's the bit I strongly disagree about.

Well with the millions being banded around to every Premier League team these days, I don't think that's true at all.

Any club that breaks into the premiership and uses common sense has a decent chance of establishing itself with the right manager.

You only have to look at Southampton, sold all their best players (arguably bar one) and are still third in the league.

There is nothing to stop any club trying to transit from "little" to "big", but just remember what it did to Leeds.

So you either accept that letting it continue to get out of hand will result in more and more teams gambling their financial future to try and stay at the top table (or get to the head) competing wiht people who simply don't care what they spend as they have plenty of other billions to pish away; or you accept a limit on unfettered spending that affects every club.

Sorry squire, scratched your record... sorry squire, scratched your record....

[Chicog]

The idea is to cut the spending to levels where it is reasonably funded from a club's earned income.

And therefore keep the big boys big and the little boys little. And that's the bit I strongly disagree about.

Quite ironic that supporters of the 2 biggest clubs to have money thrown at them welcome a challenge of another team having the same treatment. Yet, others that could lose their place amongst the elite fear it. Cowards.

What a load of tosh.

I wouldn't welcome my own club receiving such treatment, even it meant us spending half a billion on players.

We have one of the world's richest as a shareholder in Jabba the Uzbek and most Arsenal fans can't stand the bloke, let alone want him treating our club like a plaything, or using it to get a passport so he can hide his money from the people he nicked it from.

So you can <deleted> off with your "cowards" <deleted> mate.

[mjj]

You completely missed the point of my post...........