What's new

FFP 2.0 impact on Spurs

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
I was going to say haven’t we had this for years but teams like city and psg always seem to find a way around the rules. To me it’s a bit like governments, it’s big business that really call the shots. Or in this case the big clubs with the most money, the very thing this is supposed to stop. Every time they bring in something new there is always a convenient loophole for them to use.

Neymar seemed to change the big clubs thinking.

Before that la liga and seire a realised change was needed to keep the game semi competitive. It's why they got their governments involved to change the rules.

We'll see what happens.
 

C0YS

Just another member
Jul 9, 2007
12,780
13,817
The effect on us will wholly depend on if it’s actually enforced. Man City, PSG, Chelsea, they should have all fallen foul of FFP in its current form. But they found ways to game it.

Well yes and no. FFP has actually penalized both Man city and PSG in the past with fines, transfer restrictions and reduced squad size and it looks certain that Milan are going to be kicked out of the europa league next season.

There are three things to note with FFP. Firstly it looks at club spending for three seasons, if you spend big one season as long as you can rectify it within the three seasons you wont be punished. This is why PSG have not been punished for the Neymar thing yet.

Secondly, FFP does not adequately address the sponsorship loophole.

Thirdly, FFP is far too lenient in terms of punishments, with small fines and squad size penalties providing little incentive for clubs to change their ways. Similarly clubs that do not qualify for europe have basically no incentive to practice good financial habits.

Having said all that it does have some effect. I think Chelsea's recent approach to spending has had something to do with FFP and so has PSG's efforts to quickly sell players for low prices, something we have benefited from, but clubs are still going bust and financial doping is still high.
 

nickspurs

SC Supporter
May 13, 2005
1,608
1,389
I was going to say haven’t we had this for years but teams like city and psg always seem to find a way around the rules. To me it’s a bit like governments, it’s big business that really call the shots. Or in this case the big clubs with the most money, the very thing this is supposed to stop. Every time they bring in something new there is always a convenient loophole for them to use.
These clubs are all over it. I know that when the rules were first proposed Citeh paid BCG (one of the top strategy consulting firms) to do a project purely to develop ways to get around FFP.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
Well yes and no. FFP has actually penalized both Man city and PSG in the past with fines, transfer restrictions and reduced squad size and it looks certain that Milan are going to be kicked out of the europa league next season.

There are three things to note with FFP. Firstly it looks at club spending for three seasons, if you spend big one season as long as you can rectify it within the three seasons you wont be punished. This is why PSG have not been punished for the Neymar thing yet.

Secondly, FFP does not adequately address the sponsorship loophole.

Thirdly, FFP is far too lenient in terms of punishments, with small fines and squad size penalties providing little incentive for clubs to change their ways. Similarly clubs that do not qualify for europe have basically no incentive to practice good financial habits.

Having said all that it does have some effect. I think Chelsea's recent approach to spending has had something to do with FFP and so has PSG's efforts to quickly sell players for low prices, something we have benefited from, but clubs are still going bust and financial doping is still high.

You missed the main thing to note about ffp. It was never intended to tackle the city's and psg's. It was intended to try and stop clubs going bankrupt. Which it hs done. Clubs across europe are in far better financial state now than before it was introduced.
The new rules are intended to tackle the city's and psg's. The neymar deal pissed off the bigger clubs and they have been the ones asking for the changes.
There were always going to be loopholes and the original rules were on shakey legal grounds to begin with. That is why they are asking the eu to help back the new rules to make them legally binding.

There may be loopholes still that clever accountants and lawyers will try and get around but it is something and in a few years they will bring new rules to try and stop them.
 

coys200

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2017
8,436
17,403
At least it appears issues are being confronted and not letting City PSG just run riot like Chelsea did. I’m sure eventually they will get a grip on it and they have to. As a commercial product it will be severely damaged if CL is just a City PSG slug out in future. They have to try and keep CL competitive or it will lose some appeal. Anyway all this bodes well for us if the playing field becomes more level.
 

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
39,837
50,713
Right, but the fact is that a club needs to be financially stable, having external money, be it through rich owner or otherwise, be pumped into a club can lead to total financial collapse of those clubs, just look at leeds and countless other examples across the leagues.

Does it protect the old money clubs? Yes, but frankly if they make large number of money through their own means than that's fair enough. Ultimately, more money from merchandise and TV rights comes from having a larger fan base as long as football is seen as a business thats absolutely fair game. Getting money by other means is fundamentally unbalanced, unsustainable and unfair. Its equivalent to financial doping. The FFP rules at least treat fans, and how much they are willing to pay for their club, as the basis of success not the whims of an oil Barron. Technically any club could increase its support and income and eventually match the big clubs, its not the case if spending power is based on whoever happens to own you.

Look if it were up to me football would be demarketised, there would be wage caps, spending caps and an even distribution of TV money. However, in the current vision of the game having FFP [which contrary to some opinion does have some effect in how clubs approach the market] is much better than not having it. If only to stop clubs going broke, something which is recent history has been surprisingly common with even big clubs getting very close to the brink [Rangers, Leeds, Parma, Fiorentina, Portsmouth, Siena, Oviedo, Racing Santander, Valencia, Aachen, Dortmund, Malaga and now possibly Milan just to name a few have either gone bankrupt or gone dangerously close].

There is a massive difference to what happened with Leeds, through external borrowing, than teams like City or PSG who don’t.

In fact they (ManC/PSG) have less debt than Manchester Utd and Real Madrid.

If their owners want to pump “free” money in, through outlandish sponsorship etc, then that is much less risky than the financial model adopted by the Glazers at Utd, who leveredged their purchase with colossal debt. That is less “their own means” than City doing it through direct purchase without debt and sponsorship.
 

WiganSpur

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
15,974
32,682
Imo there should be net spend regulation as well as yearly wage budget regulation that is in relation to a club's revenue. The punishments need to be far more severe too as that will cause a lot of these clubs to think twice about taking risks to bend the rules. Transfer embargo won't do much, needs to be teams banned from European competition and there needs to be league points deductions. Any suspicion of bending the rules should also be treated with the same punishment. The task for enforcement is to keep closing the loopholes. Eventually it will become too high stakes for these clubs to try to avoid it if the punishments are so severe.

There also needs to be a set limit on loans. Max 10 loan outs per club for example. This will stop clubs stockpiling players to get around FFP like Chelsea have been doing. With strict spending regulations it might help youth players to come through too.
 

C0YS

Just another member
Jul 9, 2007
12,780
13,817
There is a massive difference to what happened with Leeds, through external borrowing, than teams like City or PSG who don’t.

In fact they (ManC/PSG) have less debt than Manchester Utd and Real Madrid.

If their owners want to pump “free” money in, through outlandish sponsorship etc, then that is much less risky than the financial model adopted by the Glazers at Utd, who leveredged their purchase with colossal debt. That is less “their own means” than City doing it through direct purchase without debt and sponsorship.
So what happened at Malaga?

Free money is all well and good, but wages are expenses, rich person leaves how's the club gonna pay them Debt isn't per say a problem or a risk as long as you have the income to cover it. Man utd clearly do so its quite clearly within there means.
 

Yid-ol

Just-outside Edinburgh
Jan 16, 2006
31,097
19,276
Imo there should be net spend regulation as well as yearly wage budget regulation that is in relation to a club's revenue. The punishments need to be far more severe too as that will cause a lot of these clubs to think twice about taking risks to bend the rules. Transfer embargo won't do much, needs to be teams banned from European competition and there needs to be league points deductions. Any suspicion of bending the rules should also be treated with the same punishment. The task for enforcement is to keep closing the loopholes. Eventually it will become too high stakes for these clubs to try to avoid it if the punishments are so severe.

There also needs to be a set limit on loans. Max 10 loan outs per club for example. This will stop clubs stockpiling players to get around FFP like Chelsea have been doing. With strict spending regulations it might help youth players to come through too.

To me a club should have the break even during a 4 year rolling cycle. That means they can spend big during a few of those seasons but would have to sell to make it back up in the 4th, this should include wages and all other revenue. This would stop clubs having stupid wages and transfer fees and make it a fairer playing field.
 

WiganSpur

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
15,974
32,682
To me a club should have the break even during a 4 year rolling cycle. That means they can spend big during a few of those seasons but would have to sell to make it back up in the 4th, this should include wages and all other revenue. This would stop clubs having stupid wages and transfer fees and make it a fairer playing field.
That would certainly make for an interesting dynamic and one that would affect a lot of player and managerial movements.
 

danielneeds

Kick-Ass
May 5, 2004
24,179
48,764
To me a club should have the break even during a 4 year rolling cycle. That means they can spend big during a few of those seasons but would have to sell to make it back up in the 4th, this should include wages and all other revenue. This would stop clubs having stupid wages and transfer fees and make it a fairer playing field.
It wouldn’t really make it a fairer playing field though - it just means the richest clubs would maintain their hegemony, and probably just sweep up the best players from rivals who’ve tried to spend big, but then need to sell.
 

Yid-ol

Just-outside Edinburgh
Jan 16, 2006
31,097
19,276
It wouldn’t really make it a fairer playing field though - it just means the richest clubs would maintain their hegemony, and probably just sweep up the best players from rivals who’ve tried to spend big, but then need to sell.
If a club doesn't have the money coming in, then they shouldn't be spending it on transfers or wages though. We operate where we try and not spend money we don't have so to me it would make it better for us vs the other top clubs. I agree the lower clubs wouldn't get top players joining... But they don't just now also.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
To me a club should have the break even during a 4 year rolling cycle. That means they can spend big during a few of those seasons but would have to sell to make it back up in the 4th, this should include wages and all other revenue. This would stop clubs having stupid wages and transfer fees and make it a fairer
playing field.

We already have a 3 year cycle.
 

Lighty64

I believe
Aug 24, 2010
10,400
12,476
Well yes and no. FFP has actually penalized both Man city and PSG in the past with fines, transfer restrictions and reduced squad size and it looks certain that Milan are going to be kicked out of the europa league next season.

There are three things to note with FFP. Firstly it looks at club spending for three seasons, if you spend big one season as long as you can rectify it within the three seasons you wont be punished. This is why PSG have not been punished for the Neymar thing yet.

Secondly, FFP does not adequately address the sponsorship loophole.

Thirdly, FFP is far too lenient in terms of punishments, with small fines and squad size penalties providing little incentive for clubs to change their ways. Similarly clubs that do not qualify for europe have basically no incentive to practice good financial habits.

Having said all that it does have some effect. I think Chelsea's recent approach to spending has had something to do with FFP and so has PSG's efforts to quickly sell players for low prices, something we have benefited from, but clubs are still going bust and financial doping is still high.

I do believe a few seasons back Man C where punished in the CL, but not sure it was down to financial or the same as us this season in not enough HG players.

Man C got round FFP by the owners buying the stadium, then sponsoring it, for a mega amount to give them a higher ceiling
 

C0YS

Just another member
Jul 9, 2007
12,780
13,817
I do believe a few seasons back Man C where punished in the CL, but not sure it was down to financial or the same as us this season in not enough HG players.

Man C got round FFP by the owners buying the stadium, then sponsoring it, for a mega amount to give them a higher ceiling
nah it was for financial fair play.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/may/16/manchester-city-fine-transfer-cap-uefa-ffp

Not having enough home grown players is not penalized jut means you cant name a full squad.
 

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
39,837
50,713
So what happened at Malaga?
Free money is all well and good, but wages are expenses, rich person leaves how's the club gonna pay them Debt isn't per say a problem or a risk as long as you have the income to cover it. Man utd clearly do so its quite clearly within there means.

With regards to Malaga, it is irrelevant to my point or yours. None of us have a problem with financial regulations designed to enforce good fiscal policy and control debt. Malaga happened after FFP was introduced and could happen to any team and has to many. It was a situation exacerbated by the ruthless monopoly of tv revenues in La Liga by Real/Barca and other factors.

ManU are being allowed to run a very similar risk. Yes they have massive commercial revenue, but as we all know and have seen in places like Italy, it only takes a handful of poor seasons of mismanagement for the financial situation to turn toxic, which is exactly what happened at Leeds.

It is not for football to decide that ManU’s merchandising revenue is more valid, viable or sustainable than ManC’s sponsorship revenue.

That is where I have an issue, because this is purely about a handful of clubs influencing rules to protect their domination, which has invariably been built using risk, leveraged debt, and in some cases, huge levels.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
With regards to Malaga, it is irrelevant to my point or yours. None of us have a problem with financial regulations designed to enforce good fiscal policy and control debt. Malaga happened after FFP was introduced and could happen to any team and has to many. It was a situation exacerbated by the ruthless monopoly of tv revenues in La Liga by Real/Barca and other factors.

ManU are being allowed to run a very similar risk. Yes they have massive commercial revenue, but as we all know and have seen in places like Italy, it only takes a handful of poor seasons of mismanagement for the financial situation to turn toxic, which is exactly what happened at Leeds.

It is not for football to decide that ManU’s merchandising revenue is more valid, viable or sustainable than ManC’s sponsorship revenue.

That is where I have an issue, because this is purely about a handful of clubs influencing rules to protect their domination, which has invariably been built using risk, leveraged debt, and in some cases, huge levels.

The new rules look at debt and is believed to be aimed at stopping a situation like utd's or ac milans from happenning again.
 

Colonel_Klinck

Well-Known Member
May 19, 2004
12,637
23,218
Madrid can’t be this sloppy in possession and expect to win this.

Edit: wtf! Im blaming stupid bong. :wacky::wacky:
 
Last edited:
Top