[Archived] FFP to be reviewed

[Bucksrover]

There are some chinks of light in that document.

The real punishment seems to be if the club over-spends to get promoted - so we won't be hit with that.

It also says that the transfer ban will be in place until the clubs shows it is working towards making acceptable losses. As Bowyer and co. are trying to reduce the wage bill we may have a case to argue - if the transfer ban stops us trading towards reduced losses then it doesn't fit with the stated aim.

[Blue n whites]

Even thou it's detrimental to my club as we have cheap tickets and little sales, I think a team should keep all the home gate money. I know it's old fashioned view but I still rate the size of a club on there potential and natural resources.

Just to make myself clear I don't like United, I don't hate united, just in the same way I don't have an opinion of say, Barnet. I'm just saying other things need looking at alongside FFP. But they won't, as the glaziers arent legally doing owt wrong even thou IMO morally they are.

I think realistically the only way to bring more clubs into line is by reducing wages, but even then it's a mine field, what are the limits, a certain per cent age of that clubs turnover on a squad or certain players wage. Some clubs have more resources than others so is it fair and is there much difference than now. I know roughly the guidelines but I'm unsure how it's gonna come into play.

There is always going to be leagues within leagues. How can we compete with the London clubs, 5 times more fans who can fit in the stadiums who pay three times more money per game than us. Most of them have more on their season ticket waiting lists than we have fans. Then take into account merchandise, corporate, champs league income etc. NIH But that's always gonna be the case, clubs have bigger/smaller catchment area, some teams are more successful than others, have more romance and history etc..

[Mr. E]

Astonishing, absolutely astonishing. Is it supreme ignorance that has plagued Platini and his fools to have not only come up with these rules, but dared to actually call them "Financial Fair Play" ? Or are they fully aware that they are destroying the smaller clubs and favoring only those with large populations, and doing so on purpose? I much believe the latter - it's not like FIFA are not aware of what Russia and Qatar are about before giving them world cups.

[longsiders1882]

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.

United though did fund their success themselves, like it or not and however much was generated as a result of TV. Was your club not the first with a genuine sugar daddy bankrolling success and as a result did you not also benefit from the uneven playing field created by the the sky era?

I do think people should be allowed to put as much capital as they want into their club though, it is simply the debt that is often loaded onto them that worries me - which is why I can't understand why FFP focuses so much on losses rather than debt. Let owners fund losses if they wish, as equity though not debt.

[K-Hod]

You make some good points about the 'Sugar Daddy', and of course we did well via Jack Walker's money, but he never got us into debt, he put his own money in, to improve the club and its infrastructure. I find the fact that FFP looks down on such an arrangement as laughable.

How much are Man United in debt under the Glazers? I'd wager it's a few hundred mil! Fairness....

[longsiders1882]

Yes but none of that debt is football related - it is money they used to buy the club. In fact the club has had a cost of around 50 million a year paying to service debt used to buy it! I'm no United fan but they made profit year after year and had no debt when the Glazers came in - even now they have no football related debt at all!

No I agree that Jack gifted the money - and I see no reason why that shouldn't be allowed today - it is the heaping of debt onto the club that is an issue. Like I said, lose 50 million a year as long as you are willing to gift that 50 million to the club but don't run up losses then add to the debt burden.

[yoda]

United though did fund their success themselves, like it or not and however much was generated as a result of TV. Was your club not the first with a genuine sugar daddy bankrolling success and as a result did you not also benefit from the uneven playing field created by the the sky era?

I do think people should be allowed to put as much capital as they want into their club though, it is simply the debt that is often loaded onto them that worries me - which is why I can't understand why FFP focuses so much on losses rather than debt. Let owners fund losses if they wish, as equity though not debt.

It was going on well before the Sky era at many clubs, including yours for a while, pastry and meat daddy was it not

[longsiders1882]

I genuinely cannot think of any example comparable to Jack before he spent a couple of hundred million on you lot - which club(s) were you thinking of that got gifted money at anything like a comparable level? I don't understand why you feel so defensive about it, my view is that Jack ploughed money into your club in a way never before seen in football - and pretty much the whole of football sees it the same. Didn't exactly do you any harm did it, propelled you into the top flight and enabled you to win the PL and to ultimately enjoy all the financial benefits that came with you stay up there.

On Bob the Butcher, again I can't be sure but I think the club made a small profit every year he was chairman apart from his last couple so I don't think that accusation is fair on any level

[yoda]

I genuinely cannot think of any example comparable to Jack before he spent a couple of hundred million on you lot - which club(s) were you thinking of that got gifted money at anything like a comparable level? I don't understand why you feel so defensive about it, my view is that Jack ploughed money into your club in a way never before seen in football - and pretty much the whole of football sees it the same. Didn't exactly do you any harm did it, propelled you into the top flight and enabled you to win the PL and to ultimately enjoy all the financial benefits that came with you stay up there.

On Bob the Butcher, again I can't be sure but I think the club made a small profit every year he was chairman apart from his last couple so I don't think that accusation is fair on any level

Not defensive at all, I know you dingles are prone to exaggeration but come on! we spent less than most of the top 4 when we won the PL. Other clubs also spent vast amounts on their facilities before we ever did.

JW's target was to make the club self sustaining and the majority of the funding was geared towards that, just like Bob Lord tried to do.

[longsiders1882]

On fees THAT season perhaps, but on wages and in the seasons leading up to it?

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/profile-money-money-money-man--jack-walker-1540594.html

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/money-men-watching-jacks-legacy-6308022.html

No sniping and no exaggerating, factor in what he spent and the losses in those couple of years after he passed and it's close to 200 million - without factoring in the PL TV revenues. Even the most conservative estimate puts it at 100 million before the losses in subsequent years. Like I say, not an issue but it's no good Rovers fans trying to point the finger at the Chelsea's and Man Cities of this world when you started that particular ball rolling.

[yoda]

On fees THAT season perhaps, but on wages and in the seasons leading up to it?

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/profile-money-money-money-man--jack-walker-1540594.html

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/money-men-watching-jacks-legacy-6308022.html

No sniping and no exaggerating, factor in what he spent and the losses in those couple of years after he passed and it's close to 200 million - without factoring in the PL TV revenues. Even the most conservative estimate puts it at 100 million before the losses in subsequent years. Like I say, not an issue but it's no good Rovers fans trying to point the finger at the Chelsea's and Man Cities of this world when you started that particular ball rolling.

Not sure why you used those 2 articles to try and back up your position, if anything they confirm what I said

The ball was already rolling before JW came along, he just did it a little better for a while

[Jim Royle]

United though did fund their success themselves, like it or not and however much was generated as a result of TV. Was your club not the first with a genuine sugar daddy bankrolling success and as a result did you not also benefit from the uneven playing field created by the the sky era?

I do think people should be allowed to put as much capital as they want into their club though, it is simply the debt that is often loaded onto them that worries me - which is why I can't understand why FFP focuses so much on losses rather than debt. Let owners fund losses if they wish, as equity though not debt.

Are you not, like most do, forgetting the highly expensive experiment your very own little club tried in the mid '80s - entrusting big @#/? John Bond with your money buying Jon Daly and Kevin Reeves to name but a few. All to no avail as you ended up nearly bankrupt.

The problem is, people only tend to remember the money spent when it is followed by success e.g. Derby, Wolves and Boro all spent fortunes in the 90s but to no effect and so nobody remebers them.

Sugar daddies have been littered throughout the history of football and it is was has shaped the our domestic scene - we just used have local sugar daddies rather than the international sucre papas (sorry don't know any arabic!) we get now.

[K-Hod]

I'm certainly not criticising Chelsea and City, I'm sure Burnley fans wouldn't complain if they had their own Jack Walker either....

[longsiders1882]

I didn't say we would complain, didn't say it was wrong merely pointed out that whatever is claimed there was never a sugar daddy like Jack until Jack, changed the game and started the crazy wage spiral which City have taken to a new stratosphere.

[yoda]

I didn't say we would complain, didn't say it was wrong merely pointed out that whatever is claimed there was never a sugar daddy like Jack until Jack, changed the game and started the crazy wage spiral which City have taken to a new stratosphere.

Rubbish, Sky and agents started all that

[longsiders1882]

Aye OK

[yoda]

Aye OK

Glad we sorted that out,

Can we start talking about how quick you will get relegated now

[Baz]

I think Longsiders people are saying that although JWs money made it possible, its not the only ingredient in success.

I'd also say at least JW was a Blackburn man and not someone picking a lucky clubs name from the hat.

FFP is designed by FIFA in the model argued by the biggest European club sides, and guess what, they voted for making it as difficult as possible for an upstart to remove them from their perch.

If people want to invest in football, let them, if they want to "invest" like the Glazers leveraged debt, then don't. Don't allow people to asset strip a club. Protect the assets history and traditions of the clubs for the present and future fans.

[longsiders1882]

I'd argue Baz that JW was the big ingredient along with his money, drive and vision. I've no issue at all. He was a Blackburn lad, loved his club, made good and decided to do something with his club. No issue at all.

In FFP terms I've no issue with benefactors, just as long as clubs are not saddled with debt let then give clubs whatever they want!

And Yoda I'm feeling all positive today so I think you'll need to wait at least another season to see that. I'm feeling so on cloud nine after the promotion I think we'll survive comfortably, maybe 12 th :-) - now how confident are you for your season?

[yoda]

I'd argue Baz that JW was the big ingredient along with his money, drive and vision. I've no issue at all. He was a Blackburn lad, loved his club, made good and decided to do something with his club. No issue at all.

In FFP terms I've no issue with benefactors, just as long as clubs are not saddled with debt let then give clubs whatever they want!

And Yoda I'm feeling all positive today so I think you'll need to wait at least another season to see that. I'm feeling so on cloud nine after the promotion I think we'll survive comfortably, maybe 12 th :-) - now how confident are you for your season?

God help us

[Baz]

He obviously was the big ingredient, but as someone else pointed out, theres been a lot of clubs who have spent big money and won nowt. Pompey, Spurs, Newcastle being examples..

[darrenrover]

I'd argue Baz that JW was the big ingredient along with his money, drive and vision. I've no issue at all. He was a Blackburn lad, loved his club, made good and decided to do something with his club. No issue at all.

In FFP terms I've no issue with benefactors, just as long as clubs are not saddled with debt let then give clubs whatever they want!

And Yoda I'm feeling all positive today so I think you'll need to wait at least another season to see that. I'm feeling so on cloud nine after the promotion I think we'll survive comfortably, maybe 12 th :-) - now how confident are you for your season?

May be a different story Longsiders if some rich benefactor waves a wad of cash in front of Dyche's nose and he leaves for pastures new. He's the real deal based on this season and has made all the difference.

[yoda]

May be a different story Longsiders if some rich benefactor waves a wad of cash in front of Dyche's nose and he leaves for pastures new. He's the real deal based on this season and has made all the difference.

Yep, pity the lunes are clueless

[longsiders1882]

Obviously my feelings are a) based entirely upon euphoria and dependent upon keeping Dyche and they are unlikely to survive the first 3 or 4 games after which point I'll no doubt come crashing back down to earth.

Sorry Baz I don't think I was clear, I meant it was the person with the money that made a big part of the difference rather than just the money, if that's clearer ....

[Stuart]

It's bad enough that Bumley are promoted but do we have to listen to one of their fans bang on about how "Rovers bought the league" 19 years ago - as though we've never had that slung at us before? Presumably it's because Bumley will NEVER ever win it. EVER.

Give it a rest FFS.