FFP

[Somniloquism]

So they have stated to UEFA we can't make the deficit be €5mil but we can at €10mil (at a guess) we promise and then €5mil the next year. In the meantime we will suffer two years of definite A list restrictions even if we actually don't have a deficit the following reporting period. People seem to have actually interpreted it as removal of all restrictions this year but is actually an extension of them.

[Percy McCarthy]

Here’s something that seems relevant. Interested to read H&Vers interpretation. I’ve been up since 4pm on Friday so I’m not going to apply what’s left of my energy to it.

https://x.com/bisqwit/status/1956840954176172090?s=46&t=GdM6cpVxe5IloByNCRheWA

[Louzie0]

That’s a lot of sums, Percy.

I’m going to need a longer run-up. 👍

[Percy McCarthy]

That’s a lot of sums, Percy.

I’m going to need a longer run-up. 👍

Indeed. Sounds like you’ve got FFP-fatigue like me.

[Louzie0]

I thought I understood it, up to the point where AVU said, ‘let me break it down’.

Then I started seeing flying doughnuts.

[Percy McCarthy]

I wouldn’t be surprised if we’re consulting with UEFA’s financial police after nearly every deal and contract is signed.

Like ‘right, we did this, what can we do now?’

[Toronto Villa]

Unai Emery: "We cannot avoid that the summer has been challenging because the financial rules were conditioning our investment in the squad.

"Financial control rules came to football to avoid bankruptcies and payment defaults with a good purpose."

"But as professionals we should review it,as this good tool will become a limitation for clubs that are doing good management, who'll never be allowed to dream & get higher goals because the revenue, key for these financial rules, needs time to come to reality."

[Smithy]

Was chatting about FFP/PSR in the pub at the weekend, and someone made a point that I'm not entirely sure I have a good argument against.  FFP was brought in to stop clubs going bankrupt (or face the risk of it), which is preventing wealthy owners from investing amounts that they would like to, and closing the shop to those who built commercial juggernaughts in the pre FFP days.

So, if the aim is to stop clubs going bankrupt and spending beyond their means, why not have all financial transactions underwritten by owners and their personal wealth?  A bit like when parents will sometimes underwrite a loan for their kids in the early days of their financial independence.  The money still gets paid by the club, but if at any point they CAN'T pay it, the liability automatically transfers to the club owner in a personal capacity (or their business if a business owns the club).  That liability can be for transfers AND wages.

It removes the possibility of a club being bankrupted by careless spending, or going out of business due to their debts, as at no point would a default on money owed be "owed" by the club itself.

I don't know enough to know why this is a bad idea and why it wouldn't work in practise (aside from the obvious that it would open the purse strings massively for rich clubs and leave the rest behind).  Though I'm sure there are reason why it wouldn't work.  Just thought it is was an interesting thought experiment as an alternative to FFP if the genuine aim is "protect clubs from going bust".

[PaulWinch again]

The problem with the current model is that it constrains the ability of club’s to grow, below the traditional “big 6”. Those clubs either are historically big and have massive revenue streams anyway, or were able to use wealth to propel themselves forward - meaning they artificially created their popularity/commercial draw through their spending and subsequent success.

The model now means no club can get that initial leg up, and therefore it’s incredibly hard to break through. Brighton are a really good example of how to move forward, but they are constrained to a point.

I don’t know what the perfect model is, but a system that essentially incentivises clubs to sell academy players doesn’t feel great.

[andyh]

Those that say, oh well, it’s the rules, we need to stop moaning and get on with it.
Why the fuck should we ?
Clubs like Villa, Newcastle and Forest to an extent, have the financial backing and desire to spend money and push their clubs on.
Why shouldn’t they be allowed to ? The ‘rules’ have been implemented and tweaked and manipulated after the fact. The fact being the ‘big 6’ have already established themselves as just that, the big 6, and so the doors have been closed and they are running scared of their monopoly being threatened.

Let’s not forget how readily they were all prepared to fuck off and start their own league to protect all the wealth they have accumulated.

The club should continue kicking and fighting until they are allowed to operate on a level playing field and not under restrictive practices.
And the fans should continue shouting about the seemingly corrupt way the game is governed to protect the cabal at the top.

[Dave]

So, if the aim is to stop clubs going bankrupt and spending beyond their means, why not have all financial transactions underwritten by owners and their personal wealth?

Presumably because it makes the assumption that all clubs have an owner with personal wealth to underwrite the spending?

How do you write the rules so that overall liability for say, the catering bill falls to Exeter City Supporters Trust, who own Exeter City?

And either way, the above "solution" does nothing to help our current UEFA issues does it?

[andyh]

The problem with the current model is that it constrains the ability of club’s to grow, below the traditional “big 6”. Those clubs either are historically big and have massive revenue streams anyway, or were able to use wealth to propel themselves forward - meaning they artificially created their popularity/commercial draw through their spending and subsequent success.

The model now means no club can get that initial leg up, and therefore it’s incredibly hard to break through. Brighton are a really good example of how to move forward, but they are constrained to a point.

I don’t know what the perfect model is, but a system that essentially incentivises clubs to sell academy players doesn’t feel great.

A bond.

Owners put up a bond to a specific value. If they want to walk away leaving a club in financial trouble or get into trouble through financial mismanagement, the bond is activated/released to help bail out the club whilst the financial issues are improved.

Remember, if Villa or Arsenal or Brighton, or any premier league team gets in trouble, they already have assets worth 100’s and 100’s of millions of pounds (and more).
These clubs aren’t Accrington to Portsmouth - I’m not belittling those clubs by the way.

When Abramovich disappeared out of Chelsea, with all their debt and problems, there were still buyers eager to get into the game.

Make owners put up a bond and then allow them freedom to run their clubs as they want and not under restrictions of operation.

[Smithy]

So, if the aim is to stop clubs going bankrupt and spending beyond their means, why not have all financial transactions underwritten by owners and their personal wealth?

Presumably because it makes the assumption that all clubs have an owner with personal wealth to underwrite the spending?

How do you write the rules so that overall liability for say, the catering bill falls to Exeter City Supporters Trust, who own Exeter City?

And either way, the above "solution" does nothing to help our current UEFA issues does it?

The owners wouldn't HAVE to underwrite spending, only the spending they want to.  Any non-wealthy owner can run a club within its means as they've always done.  But if Exeter happen to get taken over by a billionaire, they can then spend what they like, as long as they personally underwrite the spending and any contracts signed.  And they wouldn't have to underwrite everything, just the amounts that would be in breach of FFP.  "We can't buy a player because of FFP, so I'm going to underwrite our new striker and his contract".

It wouldn't help with UEFA immediately, but again, their own rules were put in place "to ensure the sustainability and financial health of football clubs", so a change like this would meet those criteria as clubs would be protected from debts above the current FFP levels.

Like I said, this is a thought experiment, nothing more.

[aev]

Forest seem to be building a decent squad.

I guess they can do this as they have been sensible with the wages they are offering.

[cdbearsfan]

They've already received one points deduction for breaching the rules so probably not the model we should be following.