Financial fair play

[lovejoy]

This was originally brought in to stop the English teams dominating the European cup, which we no longer do. Shortly after PSG got a sugar daddy so they whole dynamic changed. What you want to avoid is someone putting money in they pulling out making clubs go bust which you can manage by requiring them to gift the money rather than loaning it, or setting funds aside against future wage payments.

But as it stands FFP is defunct.

[Risso]

The liquidity measures in League 1 and League 2 seem a bit more sensible, where they effectively can only spend a proportion of their turnover on wages.

[Ad@m]

The liquidity measures in League 1 and League 2 seem a bit more sensible, where they effectively can only spend a proportion of their turnover on wages.

It depends what the objective is.

If it's to maintain the status quo, sure.

If it's to enhance competition then a cost cap of some description is much more effective.

[Risso]

The liquidity measures in League 1 and League 2 seem a bit more sensible, where they effectively can only spend a proportion of their turnover on wages.

It depends what the objective is.

If it's to maintain the status quo, sure.

If it's to enhance competition then a cost cap of some description is much more effective.

On the whole though, (but obviously not when you have the odd "big club" like Sunderland or Leeds down there for a couple of years), most of the clubs are much of a muchness in terms of size, and average crowd etc, so I think it probably doesn't make that much difference.  Certainly not as wide a differential between doing well in the Champions League etc.

[paul_e]

FFP as it was is dead after the Man City ruling.

If the real aim is to stop clubs over-reaching then they need to replace it which allows owners to fund clubs but requires guarantees for those funds, some sort of escrow system would probably be the simplest way to handle it.

[lovejoy]

FFP as it was is dead after the Man City ruling.

If the real aim is to stop clubs over-reaching then they need to replace it which allows owners to fund clubs but requires guarantees for those funds, some sort of escrow system would probably be the simplest way to handle it.

Thats whereI'm at with this too.

[ChicagoLion]

FFP as it was is dead after the Man City ruling.

If the real aim is to stop clubs over-reaching then they need to replace it which allows owners to fund clubs but requires guarantees for those funds, some sort of escrow system would probably be the simplest way to handle it.

Simple? Explain how that would work
Then how you could get agreement

[paul_e]

FFP as it was is dead after the Man City ruling.

If the real aim is to stop clubs over-reaching then they need to replace it which allows owners to fund clubs but requires guarantees for those funds, some sort of escrow system would probably be the simplest way to handle it.

Simple? Explain how that would work
Then how you could get agreement

I never said simple, I said simplest. Something like you have a % of turnover that can be user for wages and anything over that has to be guaranteed in escrow by the owner for the length of the contract. It allows owners to put their own money in but stops them running away and leaving the club to suffer if it doesn't work. How you handle breeches, etc would need to be worked out but it removes the 'ladder pulling' aspect of the current solution without encouraging clubs to gamble with their future.


There's probably issues but I literally thought of it in 10minutes over lunch as I was reading the Man City story.

[ChicagoLion]

So a wage cap based on revenue and the owners have to put the equivelant of 1 years wages in escrow?
I still can not see how that can work, literally.

[PeterWithe]

Shame this didn't happen yesterday before Leicester played.

[PeterWithesShin]

I still think the basic idea of FFP is sound, stopping clubs spending money they don't have isn't a bad thing. But what about clubs/owners that do have the money, there has to be a way for them to invest the money. Whether it involves money going into escrow or what i'm not sure but stopping people spending their own money seems as bonkers as letting clubs spend money they didn't have.

I said similar at the beginning of the year, not allowing someone to spend their money on something they own remains a bonkers scenario.

[Mister E]

The first the leagues can do is put in place a much more robust and effective "fit and proper person" model: too many clubs / fans get rolled over by wanky owners.

[paul_e]

I still think the basic idea of FFP is sound, stopping clubs spending money they don't have isn't a bad thing. But what about clubs/owners that do have the money, there has to be a way for them to invest the money. Whether it involves money going into escrow or what i'm not sure but stopping people spending their own money seems as bonkers as letting clubs spend money they didn't have.

I said similar at the beginning of the year, not allowing someone to spend their money on something they own remains a bonkers scenario.

It's far from perfect but it is the best option I can see available that protects clubs without solidifying the top teams and encouraging dodgy workarounds.

[eamonn]

At home though. They're alright at home. Away they're woeful.

Home and away makes little odds in these coviddays.

[Villafirst]

If Man Citeh have been exonerated why have they still been fined 10 million euros? FFP is a joke. Perhaps our owners can flex their financial muscle now?