Financial Fair Play rules?

Discussion in 'General Football' started by kursaal, Jul 29, 2017.

  1. GeneralBurk

    GeneralBurk Active Member

    Messages:
    883
    Ratings Received:
    +852 / 65 / -24
    Put simply who are you or I to dictate a business model? What's the difference between Southampton buying up young talent and players from Celtic cheaply and selling them on for big profits? It's clearly worked for them.

    If it's sustainable and profitable then the model has simply its fuck all to do with any of us.
     
  2. Lilbaz

    Lilbaz Just call me Baz

    Messages:
    26,513
    Ratings Received:
    +39,474 / 734 / -238
    So we're not allowed to have opinions now?
    Guess if levy sold our first team and replaced them with youth you wouldn't say anything because who are you to dictate a business model, right? Or sold up our ground and moved us to cornwall?

    We have opinions. My opinion is chelsea use the trading of youth in order to get around ffp. Buying youth does not count under ffp, chelsea could spend £300m on u21,s and uefa could not say a word. They then sell them a year or two later and use that money to buy players for the first team again having zero effect on ffp. It is a clever way of cheating and is bad for the young players involved development.

    It also hurts the smaller clubs those players were taken from as they will get little compensation for helping develope them so deters them from investing in youth.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. GeneralBurk

    GeneralBurk Active Member

    Messages:
    883
    Ratings Received:
    +852 / 65 / -24
    Look I don't like the model. However is it bad for youth? Not done Lukaku much harm, what about KDB? Loans out got Prem football and delivered a profit to the selling club. It's simply a revenue stream. The point is if it's sustainable and profitable who are we to impose a model on a business?

    FFP in its currrent guise dissuades investment from a Jack Walker superfan who wants to see his club in the Premier League. It firmly seals in the establishment order.

    Without investment it's very difficult for clubs to generate increased revenue and build success.
     
  4. Led's Zeppelin

    Led's Zeppelin Flaccid Member

    Messages:
    2,670
    Ratings Received:
    +5,452 / 61 / -11
    Really?

    So the supporters who are still the main source of income, whether directly or through their TV subscriptions, who are the only continuing and dependable factor in football, who are the reason football clubs are still called "clubs", who provide the identity of every club, our opinions count for fuck all?

    Is it really fuck all to do with us? No, of course it;s not.

    Do you really believe there's no difference between a fan and a customer?
     
  5. GeneralBurk

    GeneralBurk Active Member

    Messages:
    883
    Ratings Received:
    +852 / 65 / -24
    We are talking about FFP. Ive not heard many Chelsea or City fans complaing about the business model utilised by their clubs owners. FFP was brought in, admirably and naively, to stop a Portsmouth and Leeds from happening again.

    Clubs like Chelsea and City who have rich benefactors have restrictions on them directly investing in their business. As a result don't be surprised when the clubs simply look for an alternative solution. Fake sponsors etc.

    Assuming at least some of the money introduced is used to buy players from clubs in the 92 club pyramid then it is good for football as capital is being introduced that will find its way down to the lower clubs who rely on selling players to balance the books.
     
  6. Led's Zeppelin

    Led's Zeppelin Flaccid Member

    Messages:
    2,670
    Ratings Received:
    +5,452 / 61 / -11
    As I said, there are two schools of though on this.

    I reject the idea that football is the same as pure commerce.. There is a fundamental difference between a sporting club competition, the very existence of which is built on a set of arbitrary rules brought into being solely by the consent of its members, for the mutual enjoyment of all its members, and a commercially competitive environment in which the law is the arbiter and you buy and sell shares purely according to the return opportunities to you (and no one else) as you perceive them, and put your competitors out of business if you legally can, in extremis.

    We've debated some of the reasons for this already in this thread, at considerable length and are starting to repeat it now. It is a complex subject and I believe ultimately one of individual priorities.
     
  7. Lilbaz

    Lilbaz Just call me Baz

    Messages:
    26,513
    Ratings Received:
    +39,474 / 734 / -238
    Ffp was brought in because 40% of clubs in europe were facing financial ruin. Would you scrap ffp if it meant that those clubs would go bankrupt?
     
  8. Bus-Conductor

    Bus-Conductor SC Supporter

    Messages:
    36,999
    Ratings Received:
    +45,380 / 2,085 / -621

    But it's largely the same in many major sports. Look at Athletics, a supposed "amateur" sport. You have the money thrown at it by the US compared to the money spent by most other olympic competitors. The difference in expenditure per head is enormous. Same with most major global sports.

    The bottom line is, no matter how much money you spend it's still only 11 humans you can put on a pitch, and, in fact, the more "wealthy" teams you have the leveller the playing field, because you can't have just 3 or 4 teams hoovering up the very, very best, it's spread out and that means the richest clubs sometimes have to shop on lower shelves, which means next rung down clubs who shop smart (using good scouting and analytics etc) and coach smart can bridge the gap easier - as we have seen with us, Leicester, Monaco, Atletico, Sevilla etc.
     
  9. nailsy

    nailsy SC Supporter

    Messages:
    16,105
    Ratings Received:
    +14,430 / 102 / -45
    It clearly doesn't work if clubs like Leyton Orient still end up facing liquidation.
     

Share This Page