Financial Fair Play rules?

GeneralBurk

Active Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
910
There are clearly two schools of thought about how wealth is used in football.

I think it's often (as in this case) an abuse of the principle of sport. I know football is a business, that is too obvious to keep repeating, but if it wasn't for the underlying principle it wouldn't even be a business because it couldn't exist, and the more the sporting ethos is undermined and neglected, the less it matters to many of us.

I believe even when the business objectives and practices are perfectly legal, the sporting foundations need to be respected and when they are not, the important question shouldn't be "is it legal" but "is it in keeping with the spirit of the game?"

And then we could argue about what constitutes the spirit of the game. But at least we'd be arguing about the right thing, instead of how to interpret some legal statute designed for other purposes entirely.
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.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
33,294
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.
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:

GeneralBurk

Active Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
910
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.
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.
 

Led's Zeppelin

Flaccid Member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
3,749
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.
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?
 

GeneralBurk

Active Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
910
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.
 

Led's Zeppelin

Flaccid Member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
3,749
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.
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.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
33,294
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.
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?
 

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
39,837
There are clearly two schools of thought about how wealth is used in football.

I think it's often (as in this case) an abuse of the principle of sport. I know football is a business, that is too obvious to keep repeating, but if it wasn't for the underlying principle it wouldn't even be a business because it couldn't exist, and the more the sporting ethos is undermined and neglected, the less it matters to many of us.

I believe even when the business objectives and practices are perfectly legal, the sporting foundations need to be respected and when they are not, the important question shouldn't be "is it legal" but "is it in keeping with the spirit of the game?"

And then we could argue about what constitutes the spirit of the game. But at least we'd be arguing about the right thing, instead of how to interpret some legal statute designed for other purposes entirely.

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.
 
Top