[Archived] FFP to be reviewed

[chaddyrovers]

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/news/11079181.Football_League_financial_fair_play_regulations_to_be_reviewed/?ref=var_0

[thenodrog]

Turkeys voting for Christmas?

[booth]

The people who write Telegraph comments are really quite dumb aren't they

[McClarky]

Reassuring to know we have a heavyweight like Mr Shaw in our corner. What could possibly go wrong?

[yoda]

Reassuring to know we have a heavyweight like Mr Shaw in our corner. What could possibly go wrong?

Shaw is an expert, he will get them to shelve it no problem

[Brfcrule1]

The people who write Telegraph comments are really quite dumb aren't they

Booth what do you expect when you have the same person who goes under the aliases of We_Luv_U_Venkys & Look Up Blackburn and whatever other aliases he chooses to come up with

Shaw is an expert, he will get them to shelve it no problem

Well yoda he is after all he is an expert in shelving

Chaddy please don't switch to any other team we will all miss your links like Nicko's 11 O Clockers.

[stanhillrover]

The meeting has taken place and 'improvements' to the regulations have been discussed. It will require 18 out of 24 clubs to agree for the rules to be changed - unlikely when most of them voted in favour in the first place.

Seems that the penny has dropped that these rules are unworkable in their current form (and will probably be challenged legally if they are not altered). As things stand half the division would be subjected to a transfer embargo next year. Not just Rovers but also Bolton, QPR, Wolves, Leeds, Boro, Bournemouth, Forest, Reading and Brighton are losing more money than these rules allow. Astonishing that it has taken so long for it to dawn on them that there is a problem when clubs come down from the Premier League with parachute money and suddenly are required to get wages down to a Championship level virtually overnight.

Got to laugh at Brighton with them taking the high ground over the rules - they've been making massive losses over the last few years bankrolled by Tony Bloom yet know that they will be ultimately the biggest beneficiaries with their 24,000 crowds every week.

[Bucksrover]

The meeting has taken place and 'improvements' to the regulations have been discussed. It will require 18 out of 24 clubs to agree for the rules to be changed - unlikely when most of them voted in favour in the first place.

Seems that the penny has dropped that these rules are unworkable in their current form (and will probably be challenged legally if they are not altered). As things stand half the division would be subjected to a transfer embargo next year. Not just Rovers but also Bolton, QPR, Wolves, Leeds, Boro, Bournemouth, Forest, Reading and Brighton are losing more money than these rules allow. Astonishing that it has taken so long for it to dawn on them that there is a problem when clubs come down from the Premier League with parachute money and suddenly are required to get wages down to a Championship level virtually overnight.

Got to laugh at Brighton with them taking the high ground over the rules - they've been making massive losses over the last few years bankrolled by Tony Bloom yet know that they will be ultimately the biggest beneficiaries with their 24,000 crowds every week.

So in all likelihood we are still going to get clobbered by FFP.

Really worried about this.

[Stuart]

I honestly don't understand how you can have a fair play rule when there is promotion to and relegation from a league where payouts involve an extra zero.

It's like getting the chance to drive in the F1 but only being given a Ford Focus in qualification.

[Baz]

I honestly don't understand how you can have a fair play rule when there is promotion to and relegation from a league where payouts involve an extra zero.

It's like getting the chance to drive in the F1 but only being given a Ford Focus in qualification.

The morality of FFP is good, its just really badly enacted. They should be looking at limiting club debts on the clubs, limiting who can own a club, protect the fans from rogue owners, limiting how much money an owner can take out of a club, and protecting the assets, traditions and history of the clubs. If people want to invest and put real money into a club, personally i see no problem.

The teams who have most to gain are the biggest clubs in Europe, as it becomes increasingly impossible for the other clubs to catch them. These are the exact teams that FFP should be against.

[Stuart]

The morality of FFP is good, its just really badly enacted. They should be looking at limiting club debts on the clubs, limiting who can own a club, protect the fans from rogue owners, limiting how much money an owner can take out of a club, and protecting the assets, traditions and history of the clubs. If people want to invest and put real money into a club, personally i see no problem.

The teams who have most to gain are the biggest clubs in Europe, as it becomes increasingly impossible for the other clubs to catch them. These are the exact teams that FFP should be against.

Exactly.

[Paul]

Great post Baz

[patrickvalery]

Big city clashes week in week out. Its a marketing dream.

FFP is just another attempt to sterilise football. Let the biggest populations reign supreme and the rest of the country can go rot. I appreciate nobody wants to see another Portsmouth situation, but penalising small town clubs will kill the English game. Not many European leagues can boast as many clubs as we do and if FFP in its current format comes into play then it will simply diminish the size of the leagues. Where is the incentive for small clubs if they know they can never compete with the larger neighbouring clubs? Ambition capped by attendances? Its just not right. The English especially love a giant killing but FFP will just give the giants a whopping great arsenal and the minnows a blind fold and a spud gun.

I know Rovers are arguing the toss because we've got ourselves in a mess. But the basic principles of FFP are out of kilter.

[Neal]

What they should be doing is taking proactive steps to having the supporters on the board like in Germany. That's the biggest thing for me and the FA are a disgrace for not following suit.

[longsiders1882]

When/If it gets turned over then, as far as I'm concerned, we cannot allow the staus quo to continue. As such I think the government needs to force the removal of the football creditors rule and the leagues need to not allow the transfer of the golden share to phoenix clubs - the next Portsmouth etc simply disappear because frankly it is unfair that the general public are picking up the bill for companies that are badly (possibly criminally in some cases) run whilst those who run the game continue to get paid in full.

I can understand why you guys are so against FFP but I don't accept that it is wrong at the basic level - in every other industry you have to compete - so if you are running a small burger bar you have to compete with Maccy D's - go bust and investors lose all their money, every creditor gets the same payment ratio as each other - oh and Directors can be charged if they continue to run a business which they know is effectively insolvent!

[Stuart]

Thanks Longsiders, true colours coming out there. Way to kick us when we are down. Why the @#/? should the fans lose their club because of the actions of foreign owners that the 'rules' have allowed to buy and subsequently destroyed their club? Very easy to take the moral high ground in your position. What a shame you are virtually up because after that comment I'd love you miss out and to be in the same position.

Have you learned nothing? A football club isn't like a McDonalds. It's a community club, an association, something people belong to, not consume at. When you are running a restaurant, it's yours, you make your own choices. We have no choice over how it's run. If a restaurant goes bust, does that mean the building should be knocked down and the next owner has to build a new one? Why shouldn't the fans/white knight owner be given the golden share. If it can't be run at the losses being incurred then they will have to cut their cloth. At which point natural relegation will occur until they find a level to rebuild from. You don't just wipe our the heart of a town.

Poor show.

[longsiders1882]

Sorry if it sounds that way, certainly not intended. I've felt the same for years now, not just whilst we are, in theory at least, on the verge of a windfall - including at points when we've been close to suffering from the very thing I'm advocating. Lest you forget we almost went under in the mid 80's, had to get the bank managers permission at one point to buy a pair of football boots so I know how hard it can be for clubs as well. At some point a line has to be drawn and we have to say no more.

I agree clubs SHOULD be community associations - in which case they should not be constituted as companies and should be subject to separate, special rules - but they aren't. Cavalier business people are playing fast and loose with tax payers money and institutions that people care a lot about - and something has to be done to stop it. Take away the football creditors rule and yes allow a fan led group to take the golden share but not just another, or in many cases the same, dodgy people who put the club into that position and I'll be happy. For too long now football has used the special position it holds within the community to allow it to get away with poor management and leadership and it has to be stopped. Rather than the current FFP being wrong the truth is it simply doesn't go far enough. I will concede that if any rich person want to GIFT money to a club (not loans, not debt etc) then it should be allowed but not, via whatever vehicles, loading debt onto clubs.

I guess this appears like opportunism based on the current state of play but it genuinely isn't. Running a club the way Portsmouth etc were is nothing more than cheating, it is bad for the game and worse for the fans in the long run - and something has to happen.

[stanhillrover]

The fundamental problem with these rules as they are at present is that they mean the 'bigger' clubs (those with bigger fanbases or sponsorship deals) are directly benefiting from them. Some clubs are going to be given an advantage, others will be put at a disadvantage.

Clubs are not being treated equally, because those clubs fortunate enough to be based in cities or those who can call upon 20,000 a week crowds will be allowed to spend more than those that can't attract such crowds.

In the past, for as long as football has existed, the advantage that city clubs have had from bigger crowds etc. has often been overcome by way of wealthy businessmen/supporters putting their money into clubs which enables them to compete financially with the big boys. This opportunity will cease to exist, and whilst there might always be one or two exceptions to the rule, such as Burnley this year, the general pattern will inevitably be that the city clubs such as Forest, Leeds, Derby, Leicester, will head to the top of the pile and the town clubs like Barnsley, Doncaster, Bolton, will be pushed down because they won't be able to compete for the same signings as the city clubs. Its just common sense. Those who are allowed to spend more and pay more will attract the better players and managers.

Now some will say that prospect is entirely right, that those clubs with bigger support/backing SHOULD be able to spend more than the smaller clubs, because they 'earn' more. Whilst it all sounds very good from a business perspective, but I believe it will ultimately diminish the competitiveness of the leagues.

Look at Bournemouth. Three years ago they were in administration at the bottom of League Two with a points deduction. Fast forward and they are now chasing promotion to the Premier League. Why? Because of a wealthy foreign owner who has enabled them to sign players that Bournemouth wouldn't have got near without his money. Under FFP this wouldn't be allowed. Dave Whelan would never have got Wigan to the Premier League/Europe/FA Cup winners, Jack Walker would have never seen Rovers win the Premier League.

Another small problem these rules present is that it now means that every penny of income a club generates 'counts' towards what they are allowed to invest in the playing side of the club. This isn't just ticket sales and sponsorship income, it also applies for example to the number of tv games broadcast each season, and income brought in from the use of stadia on non-matchdays.

The problem here is that clubs like Leeds United have been fortunate to have been broadcast live on Sky Sports something like 14 times this season (despite being mid-table). Every time a club is broadcast live on tv they receive a significant cash payment from Sky Sports. So not only are Leeds fortunate enough to have bigger crowds than everyone else, they have also pocketed more tv money than anyone else. Surely the amount of tv money received by each club needs to be levelled out? Otherwise accusations of foul play will soon come if the media darlings Leeds are getting a nice wedge of cash from Sky every year which enables them to spend more than others on players and therefore help their promotion chances.

Likewise some clubs have facilities that are used by the FA for England games. In particular Brighton's Amex Stadium and Bramall Lane have both recently staged England Under 21 fixtures. Presumably this counts as additional revenue for those clubs to reinvest into the playing side? All very well if you have a stadium in a prime location which is popular with the FA. Not very good if your facilities aren't the best or you are based in a poor location.

These are issues which need considering. Legislation which discriminates on the basis of income surely cannot be right.

[Stuart]

Sky wants big city clubs with big fan bases in the PL because they will bring in the most TV revenue.

Sky doesn't love football, Sky loves Sky.

The problem is that the football authorities love Sky too.

£££££

[longsiders1882]

£££££

That about sums up all the problems

[K-Hod]

The idea of FFP is far better than the execution. All we'll see now, is City clubs coining it in, and Town clubs struggling.....

[thenodrog]

'The only constant in life is change'

Since the forming of the football league football has changed. The rules have changed, the financial conditions have changed and society has changed. Football needs to evolve constantly and football clubs need to evolve too. If they can't then like the dinosaurs and like every other entity that isn't equipped to survive change they will die off. Music halls have gone as have seaside hotels, cinema's, pubs, retailers, churches etc etc those that haven't given up the ghost have survived only because they have evolved to suit the trading conditions. 'Adapt to suit' is the only viable way forward.

[yoda]

'The only constant in life is change'

Since the forming of the football league football has changed. The rules have changed, the financial conditions have changed and society has changed. Football needs to evolve constantly and football clubs need to evolve too. If they can't then like the dinosaurs and like every other entity that isn't equipped to survive change they will die off. Music halls have gone as have seaside hotels, cinema's, pubs, retailers, churches etc etc those that haven't given up the ghost have survived only because they have evolved to suit the trading conditions. 'Adapt to suit' is the only viable way forward.

You mean stability is out the window!

[den]

Looks like man city might be met with no more than a fine.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/european/2014/0429/613783-financial-fair-play-struggles-to-make-impact/?

[Guest Norbert]

I'm sure a £100,000 fine would cripple Man City and their owners. All this FFP talk is just that. UEFA would never ban teams from the Champions League or impose salary caps, especially against the teams owned by dodgy Russians or rich Arabs. Or the likes of Bayern or Real Madrid.