FFP 2.0 impact on Spurs

[coys200]

It’s definitely being driven by Madrid as they are feeling vulnerable to PL teams. Also I think it just makes it all much simpler which tbh it does. Can’t quite work out how it would effect transfer fees if they would actually start dropping or not.

 

[Lilbaz]

Seems stupid

Manure can easily net spend 150m + as they bring in that kind of money. Or would football prefer the glazers take out 50m in dividends each year. They bring in 600m a year and just about spend 300m on wages after debt etc they can still afford way more than 100m.

It's an effort to try to keep the game competitive. Or at least limit the mega clubs.

 

[Lilbaz]

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.

Uefa are trying to get backing from the eu so that it would be fully legal and binding.

 

[quackers]

It's an effort to try to keep the game competitive. Or at least limit the mega clubs.

But all it does is ensure rich owners take massive dividends out of football.

 

[Lilbaz]

But all it does is ensure rich owners take massive dividends out of football.

Since only city, united and psg would have been effected last season. The glazers would have been the only one's to really benefit. But with the rules on sustainable debt that would have probably gone to paying off the banks.

 

[coys200]

But all it does is ensure rich owners take massive dividends out of football.

Will probably have impact on wages as more players will run down contracts, as may be only way they can move to a big club.

 

[Westmorlandspur]

From what I remember from a few months ago The squad rules are the same and you can have unlimited loans for under 21 but only limited over 21 I think 4 was quoted.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

It's an effort to try to keep the game competitive. Or at least limit the mega clubs.

It's actually the complete reverse of that. It's the old money uber clubs trying to maintain their hegemony over upstarts like City, PSG, Chelsea, Monaco etc.

The very last thing they want is competition for the domination they've spent decades building.

I think you and I have discussed this previously. I have no problem with much of FFP, making things more transparent, forcing clubs to be run properly fiscally, keeping proper accounts, making sure clubs act honourably to their employees etc.

But this whole notion that it's somehow more morally acceptable for the likes of ManU, Real and Barca to have uncompetitive sporting advantage by fleecing their punters through merchandise revenue or by unfair and inequitable distribution of TV rights, or through the benefit of geographical advantage than it is for other clubs to seek advantage through other, perfectly legal revenue streams.

I would have no problem with FFP calling itself "the pursuit of sporting fairness" if it was any way genuinely attempting to achieve that, but it isn't, it's just a blatant attempt by the big old money clubs to maintain their fiscal advantage.

It would be a piece of piss to level the sporting playing field. You could cap salaries, cap spending so that no club could wield an advantage. But the big old money clubs don't want it to be that sporting.

 

[Saoirse]

Unfortunately what was passed yesterday isn't FFP 2.0, just some new transparency rules. FFP 2.0 is still being talked about, and would likely need to be negotiated with the EU as well as it would normally fall foul of various rules on free movement of labour and capital, monopolies and the like (essentially being protectionism for the existing elite from new investors elsewhere).

 

[Lilbaz]

Unfortunately what was passed yesterday isn't FFP 2.0, just some new transparency rules. FFP 2.0 is still being talked about, and would likely need to be negotiated with the EU as well as it would normally fall foul of various rules on free movement of labour and capital, monopolies and the like (essentially being protectionism for the existing elite from new investors elsewhere).

Thought that might be the case.

 

[Gaz_Gammon]

I wouldn't worry about Levy sailing anywhere close to the wind on that number....

 

[alexis]

Apparently there’s a squad limit of 25 players over 21 yrs. which would royally screw Chelsea loan model.

About time

 

[spursfan77]

The 25 will include players over 21 on loan.
Also a lot of it seems to be making accounts a lot clearer ,standard across europe and produced at the end of the season in order to close the loopholes and make it far quicker to investigate (it took up to 18 months previously).
One of the main loopholes was that you could only get 1/3 of your revenue counting towards ffp from a single sponsor. State run clubs had multiple related sponsors. Psg for example have about 10 sponsors all owned by the government. These will be effected.

These should be clamped down on as a general point of common sense. It’s financial doping and should be the first thing that’s illegal.

 

[Lilbaz]

These should be clamped down on as a general point of common sense. It’s financial doping and should be the first thing that’s illegal.

It's why they need backing by the eu, otherwise they'd just be going to court.

 

[coys200]

Chelsea could be really stuffed if this did come in. What with still having a 41k stadium ,if their loan model implodes as well they will be seriously behind the eight ball unless Roman stumps up,if he even can get back in country.

 

[Pauleta01]

Something is clearly needed. It took me years to get my head round the way American sports traded players and the drama of the draft. But the end result is healthier competition and good coaching and player recruitment strategy means you can win championships. Football is a modern day aristocracy where the fat stay fat, its not really competitive sport! If FFP 2.0 can go even 1/10 of the way to implementing caps like US sports we could at least be on a pathway to better competition. I think the intentions of FFP is correct its just difficult to adhere where multiple geographies collide unlike the closed scenarios of the NFL, NBA etc. In theory the concept of a transfer fee is dated and US model of draft picks and trades is much more modern and would see less money leaving the game to agents! No idea how this could be achieved though!

 

[Dillspur]

I don't see how putting a cap on spending is going to work without some sort of tribunal on player transfer fees, if the max that is being talked about is 100m, then clubs could just put unrealistic (I know) values on their players.

 

[WexfordTownSpur]

squad size part won’t impact Chelsea as there’s already a squad size limit in the prem (25 of which 8 must be ‘homegrown’).

FFP is also not worth the paper it’s written in as there are so many loop-holes around amortisation and costs being spread over many years

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.

 

[Cravenspurs]

There needs to be more financial constraints on the game so glad to see some adjustments being made to a system that was looked at like a joke for so long.

The purer clubs can be (i.e. building a true identity and not just a “buy a title model”) the better the sport will be.

 

[C0YS]

It's actually the complete reverse of that. It's the old money uber clubs trying to maintain their hegemony over upstarts like City, PSG, Chelsea, Monaco etc.

The very last thing they want is competition for the domination they've spent decades building.

I think you and I have discussed this previously. I have no problem with much of FFP, making things more transparent, forcing clubs to be run properly fiscally, keeping proper accounts, making sure clubs act honourably to their employees etc.

But this whole notion that it's somehow more morally acceptable for the likes of ManU, Real and Barca to have uncompetitive sporting advantage by fleecing their punters through merchandise revenue or by unfair and inequitable distribution of TV rights, or through the benefit of geographical advantage than it is for other clubs to seek advantage through other, perfectly legal revenue streams.

I would have no problem with FFP calling itself "the pursuit of sporting fairness" if it was any way genuinely attempting to achieve that, but it isn't, it's just a blatant attempt by the big old money clubs to maintain their fiscal advantage.

It would be a piece of piss to level the sporting playing field. You could cap salaries, cap spending so that no club could wield an advantage. But the big old money clubs don't want it to be that sporting.

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].