[Archived] FFP to be reviewed

[USABlue]

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.

I only see it one way if I owned a business I could put as much or as little into it as I choose right? Why not football? If the powers that be really want to do something give us salary caps based on league the team is playing in. This wod level the playing field some what. I see what is tryi g to be accomplished but I think this just favours big clubs. At the least it needs a rewrite.

[McClarky]

Don't know much about FFP but seems to me that City getting a meaningless fine is really bad news for us. Top teams being punished legitimises the whole thing and opens up the way to hammer clubs like us. Disgraceful but that's how things work in the murky world of football.

[Baz]

Don't know much about FFP but seems to me that City getting a meaningless fine is really bad news for us. Top teams being punished legitimises the whole thing and opens up the way to hammer clubs like us. Disgraceful but that's how things work in the murky world of football.

Its good news for us in this league, bad news if we go up.

[McClarky]

Its good news for us in this league, bad news if we go up.

Why? I would have thought that the fines legitamise the whole thing and the punishments at our level are more severe. They'll use the likes of us as scapegaots like they always do. As I said earlier though I know very little about FFP so if you have looked into the detail please explain.

[47er]

Bad news for Chaddy though! He's been using it all season to excuse everything the Raos didn't do.

[Bucksrover]

Bournemouth posted a 15 million + loss for last year. Another championship club who would get a transfer ban

[Daniel Louis Grabko (Dan)]

Agreed that hard salary caps regardless of income and based on the division being played in are the only way to achieve what the idea behind FFP was trying to, levelling the playing field.

When you have rich oil nations' economies, Russian oligarchs and Western business tycoons funding single football clubs and multi-billion pound media rights deals flooding the industry with more and more money, you are bound to get into a situation where corruption begins to sink in and the bodies meant to be regulating it all get infected themselves.

You put a hard salary cap in place and what then happens? Suddenly all football clubs are more financially viable, owners actually could dream of taking out dividends for themselves and stadiums, training facilities, and youth academy programs suddenly are updated, upgraded and maintained, because those, along with intangibles like club history, tradition and reputation become the differentiators when wages suddenly are not any more.

Wages and transfer fees are the real reasons for football clubs in legitimate financial trouble.

Now I am not talking about a hard salary cap per player contract, like a £50k/week limit or something, but rather a club-wide cap on first team player and staff salaries, like £20m a year total. Please don't take issue with numbers expressed here, they are just illustrative examples. You don't make it a percentage of income cap, you make it a hard number. A good place to start to find this number is to look at guaranteed competition and media income common amongst all clubs in that league and then use a multiplier based on a number of different variables.

Problem is it won't ever happen until it is too late because the professional players association and the LMA would never agree to it unless the professional game itself was already seriously threatened beyond repair.

[OJRovers]

It all depends on what FFP is meant to achieve.

Is it to stop another Portsmouth or to stop another Man City?

To stop another Portsmouth, you need a cap on debt that clubs can take out.

To stop another City, you need a cap on funds owners can put it or a wage cap.

At the moment we're somewhere between the two which isn't really helping anyone.

[perthblue02]

Salary cap operates in the A league in Aus ($2,5 Million per team roughly 1.5 million GBP) this excludes 1 Marque player, guest player and replacement players. Also restriction on number of foreign players etc more info on how it works at the bottom of the page link

Good system for giving young home grown players a chance, this season 17 year old who debuted just before his 16th birthday for Perth Glory last season has been sold to Roma for a record Australian transfer fee (the previous one was for an ex rover youth player) http://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/daniel-de-silva-of-perth-glory-set-for-rich-move-to-as-roma-20140407-zqrxd.html

Still no guarantee of clubs being financially viable though or having idiots for owners but certainly restricts the sewer rats (agents)

[Majiball]

Sounds a bit upside down to me

[Baz]

Why? I would have thought that the fines legitamise the whole thing and the punishments at our level are more severe. They'll use the likes of us as scapegaots like they always do. As I said earlier though I know very little about FFP so if you have looked into the detail please explain.

In this league we have one of the biggest turnovers (that we spend incredibly badly). If we where to go up, then we would have one of the smallest.

Dans idea is the right way, but I'd have it more as a salary cap for the playing squad rather than individually, with the provisor you can have say 5 players in your squad excluded from the cap if they are a product of your youth system (properly, and not the 'youth systems' employed by the likes of Arsenal of buying kids from across Europe). This would allow clubs to decide if they wanted to prioritise a first 11, an all round squad, or 1 or 2 star players.

And also it should be about not allowing owners using leveraged debt, not allowing them to plunge the clubs into debt, protecting the history and traditions of a club, such as extending the ACV to include the club name, allow the fans to have 1st option to buy the club should the owners want to sell, to not allow a change in club name or home colours unless agreed buy the fans.

[IbizaRover]

http://news.sky.com/story/1256043/man-city-fined-50m-for-breaking-finance-rules

[Bucksrover]

Finding £50 million for City will be as simple as not signing one of their Summer Transfer targets.

It will be clubs on the financial edge like us who will be hit hardest by FFP.

[koi]

Agreed, what's an extra £50m when a few hundred million loss isn't an issue.

[Stuart]

This has to be really, really bad news for Rovers. Hope City win their appeal, a la Barcelona.

[Waggy76]

Lets see if City accept the fine ...My gut feeling is a court case and FFP being thrown out under restraint of trade !

[Bucksrover]

Lets see if City accept the fine ...My gut feeling is a court case and FFP being thrown out under restraint of trade !

Hope you're right!

[Stuart]

City could just pay the fine, thereby setting a precedent, and crucifying the rest of the football world.

[K-Hod]

Good logic from UEFA, clubs living beyond their means,so fine them a large sum...

*facepalm*

[Bucksrover]

It seems they are targetting the rich, high profile clubs first with headline-grabbing fines, which makes sense.

For teams like us you would hope there would be some appreciation that Bowyer and co. are trying to reduce the wage-bill, and that a fine or a transfer embargo would put us at risk rather than teach us a lesson. But I have my doubts.

Uncertain and worrying times ahead.

[Blue n whites]

I'm glad the money issue is being highlighted as fans feel so out of touch nowadays but I'm no sure if FFP will achieve anything,

If a rich owner, a local business man or an Arab/Russian want t invest crazy money then what's wrong with that. It's basically creating leagues within leagues without the possibility of an uncle jack coming along.

I think the first place they should be looking is what's happening at United, how the glaziers are free to move money from the united brand to other sport franchises annoys me.

[K-Hod]

The thing is, such an uneven playing field was created in the sky era, meaning United expanded their fanbase as they were on tv all the time and winning everything in sight, thus creating more revenue.

Fast forward a few years, and for other clubs like Chelsea and City, their only hope in terms of competition is to be bankrolled by a billionaire, due to the massive gap. Hypocrisy at its finest when United fans start bitching and moaning about fairness.

[Rover_Shaun]

Don't forget that, the little clubs friend, United lobbied the authorities to change the rule so the home side took 100% of all home gate receipts.........tossers

[McClarky]

I think City will; wriggle out of any punichment other than a large fine and be quite happy with that. The rules can then be applied on clubs like us with a precedent and we'll be hammered. More reasons to thank the Kean/Anderson?Venkys axis of evil.

[den]

FFP in detail:

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php