FFP Meeting

[toptoon]

The PL are meeting today and likely to add agree to align their FFP rules with those of UEFA i.e. clubs will be allowed to spend a maximum of 70% of their revenue on player costs (wages, transfer fees and agent fees).

So, basically no change, as the clubs with the largest revenues (the usual suspects) will be allowed to spend more than the rest and outbid the others for the best players.

There’s some crackpot suggestion to include infrastructure investment in this value too which surely won’t be approved (it would be illegal anyway).

It’s all bolox. My view: scrap all FFP rules and then cap wages and transfer fees. This would control the immoral amounts of money being paid, clip the wings of the agents and help reduce the big club bias. Players are still going to want to join Liverpool rather than Wolves but, at least on paper, both clubs would (financially) have the same chance of signing a player.

[toonviking]

The PL are meeting today and likely to add agree to align their FFP rules with those of UEFA i.e. clubs will be allowed to spend a maximum of 70% of their revenue on player costs (wages, transfer fees and agent fees).

So, basically no change, as the clubs with the largest revenues (the usual suspects) will be allowed to spend more than the rest and outbid the others for the best players.

There’s some crackpot suggestion to include infrastructure investment in this value too which surely won’t be approved (it would be illegal anyway).

It’s all bolox. My view: scrap all FFP rules and then cap wages and transfer fees. This would control the immoral amounts of money being paid, clip the wings of the agents and help reduce the big club bias. Players are still going to want to join Liverpool rather than Wolves but, at least on paper, both clubs would (financially) have the same chance of signing a player.

Pointless meeting. Its only to protect the top 6 REVENUE clubs.

Its riddicouls that owners cant put as much money as they like into their business.

The way it should be: if a club have debt or any sort of business loans, they should be restricted up against their revenue. Because that whats REALLY dangerous for a club existance.

No debt, spend as much as you like as long as its not a loan from to owners to the club, so the owners can demand a payback. It must be money put into the club.

Corrupt rules designed to protect top 6 (in revenue), so they get the advantage. These rules will only stop smaller clubs to evolve into something bigger.

Finacial Unfair Play, thats what it is.

[Marat18]

Pointless meeting. Its only to protect the top 6 REVENUE clubs.

Its riddicouls that owners cant put as much money as they like into their business.

The way it should be: if a club have debt or any sort of business loans, they should be restricted up against their revenue. Because that whats REALLY dangerous for a club existance.

No debt, spend as much as you like as long as its not a loan from to owners to the club, so the owners can demand a payback. It must be money put into the club.

Corrupt rules designed to protect top 6 (in revenue), so they get the advantage. These rules will only stop smaller clubs to evolve into something bigger.

Finacial Unfair Play, thats what it is.

Agreed.

Imagine someone buys a business, say old hotel that barely makes the ends meet, and Ritz, Marriot, Hilton etc conglomerate says that you cant renovate it with your own money and should earn it from that exact old hotel first.
Only in football.

I wonder if those rules can be legally protested

[Nufcian]

Got to be some sort of anti competition law that would apply?

[toonozandy]

Pointless meeting. Its only to protect the top 6 REVENUE clubs.

Its riddicouls that owners cant put as much money as they like into their business.

The way it should be: if a club have debt or any sort of business loans, they should be restricted up against their revenue. Because that whats REALLY dangerous for a club existance.

No debt, spend as much as you like as long as its not a loan from to owners to the club, so the owners can demand a payback. It must be money put into the club.

Corrupt rules designed to protect top 6 (in revenue), so they get the advantage. These rules will only stop smaller clubs to evolve into something bigger.

Finacial Unfair Play, thats what it is.

Agree with toonviking's assessment here, the PL are only interested in protecting their darling six, and fu(k the rest of us !!!!!

[Ragatino]

The PL are meeting today and likely to add agree to align their FFP rules with those of UEFA i.e. clubs will be allowed to spend a maximum of 70% of their revenue on player costs (wages, transfer fees and agent fees).

So, basically no change, as the clubs with the largest revenues (the usual suspects) will be allowed to spend more than the rest and outbid the others for the best players.

There’s some crackpot suggestion to include infrastructure investment in this value too which surely won’t be approved (it would be illegal anyway).

It’s all bolox. My view: scrap all FFP rules and then cap wages and transfer fees. This would control the immoral amounts of money being paid, clip the wings of the agents and help reduce the big club bias. Players are still going to want to join Liverpool rather than Wolves but, at least on paper, both clubs would (financially) have the same chance of signing a player.

The whole thing stinks.

It's a charade by the EPL, UEFA bosses to placate the Fraud 6, Real Madrid etc. Funny, how all this came about post Abramovich hoisting the UCL Cup. This in parallel with the Neymar transfer to PSG, brought the whining corrupt old guard Real, Barca, Juve etc threatening to the break away with the Super League.

Like or loath what the Russian did the powers that be couldn't tolerate their cartel being threatened. City's rise to dominance has amplified this issue.

I don't under how PSG still haven't been banned from all competition for their outrageous over spending. In a league that no one watches with 1/5 of the commercial revenues of the EPL. it's total nonsense. However, they're French and UEFA & FIFA are both origins in France.

So to the meat of it.

The financial controls are not to protect clubs. As they don't apply to lower league clubs, Non-League has ZERO financial restrictions. Look at the Hollywood clowns ruining the leagues with Wrexham. The former wrestler turned actor 'The C*ck' is supposed to be buying a club now. No doubt, he'll throw boat loads of cash at whoever he buys.

It's about control.

£105m losses were introduced 15 yrs ago. With inflation, football inflation (not the normal rate) that £105m in todays money is closer to £260-280m.

Going to the 70% UEFA model as everyone has mentioned is more restrictive to clubs progressing up to the UCL. It stinks!

All comments about business owners to invest in their own business are in just nuts. The PSR is literally anti-competitive. However, I guess as the EPL rules are all voted on by the clubs.

How things should work, in my opinion, is that, if a club/club owner has the means they should be allowed to match the spending of the club which spends the most money.

So, Chelsea spends £800m, that allows Newcastle, Villa, Everton, Man United, Liverpool etc any club that can show funds, not debt, actual proof of funds on account in a UK bank, Barclays, HSBC etc to spend the same amount.

That then makes it competitive, a fair and level playing field.

What do you guys think about matching funds?

This really p**sed the Realistas right off!
Attachment 25693

[Guybrush]

If owners have the cash they want to throw at a club let them… by all means look at profit and sustainability rules when it comes to wages vs revenue and maybe look at having that 70% cap in place… not a bad thing as owners come and go, and it proves that the club can be run profitably (excluding transfers).

And, maybe keep the maximum loss model in place, whatever that is (105m over 3 seasons ?) however, as long as the club is not laden with the debt of spending beyond that, I.e any TRANSFER spend taking the club over the limit is squarely funded by the owners and lies with them to cover that cost/ debt and it is not owned by the club.

If the owners wish to repay themselves in the future thought dividends or whatever, then that must not take the club’s losses being that £105m limit.

That way, if the owners do decide to sell up, or withdraw their funding, the club is still operating within the financial regulations of profitability and sustainability.

Basically, meaning the club has secure finances outside of transfer expenditure.

[Magzer]

It doesn't matter what offers get put on the table, we all know the darling clubs will get preferential treatment.
It's up to clubs like ours to challenge anything and everything related to the clear bias by using the best lawyers money can buy, which I'm fairly sure ours will be doing.

It's all about finding loopholes.

[toptoon]

All good posts.

The solution to the problem is written in the posts above. There’s only one reason these f*ckers can’t / won’t see it.

[ex_pat_magpie]

All good posts.

The solution to the problem is written in the posts above. There’s only one reason these f*ckers can’t / won’t see it.

And they won't see it until the likes of ourselves and/or Villa, West Ham replaces the likes of two or three of the so called "big six favourites" on a real permenant basis.