Derby (3 Viewers)

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Again so what? Are you honestly saying if people had to name football clubs in the80’s they wouldn’t mention them before us? Deluded

No you’re right the billionaire cash did nothing to impact on the top flight

 

---

[Grendel]

No you’re right the billionaire cash did nothing to impact on the top flight

Biggest spending clubs do well and largely it’s always been the same

Leicester in comparison to the wealth that exists were when they won it not in the top six spenders

Football also as a spectacle now is much better than in tbe 80’s when players were receiving poor wages

 

[South West Sky Blue]

I don't actually agree.

Even clubs like Nottingham Forest who incur huge losses season after season have owners who are more than willing to write blank cheques with little to no interest rates attached.

If Championship club owners moved on and sold their club I suspect most would likely write off any debt as they'd know full well that they'd never get it back.

SISU definitely wouldn't do that which makes any outstanding debt owed to them hugely problematic.

I actually agree with you. Not sure if I clarified myself well enough as was making a few smaller points on a wider issue so can't see where we disagree.

My point was how other clubs have gambled big on transfers and wages - far more than is reasonable or affordable. This is often, but not always done in the knowledge that an owner will happily write off the debt. You're right - our owners wouldn't do that. That's where FFP is supposed to level the playing field. Tycoons exacerbate the issue.

I respect Fulham, Rotherham, Barnsley, Norwich.......more than Villa, Man City, Derby......

 

[SBAndy]

Grendel in “arguing for uber-capitalism” shocker.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I actually agree with you. Not sure if I clarified myself well enough as was making a few smaller points on a wider issue so can't see where we disagree.

My point was how other clubs have gambled big on transfers and wages - far more than is reasonable or affordable. This is often, but not always done in the knowledge that an owner will happily write off the debt. You're right - our owners wouldn't do that. That's where FFP is supposed to level the playing field. Tycoons exacerbate the issue.

I respect Fulham, Rotherham, Barnsley, Norwich.......more than Villa, Man City, Derby......

Fulham? Bumped up by Al-Fayed beyond their standing?

 

[Grendel]

Fulham? Bumped up by Al-Fayed beyond their standing?

And Barnsley have a very dodgy set up

 

[Deleted member 5849]

And Barnsley have a very dodgy set up

Their old chairman was indeed a good model to follow, until he died.

I do find the whole complaint about teams bumped up by a rich owner somewhat bizarre however - it's what's always happened! I mean, if somebody pumps in £billions to Bradford Park Avenue, should we resent it? They finished above Man Utd in 1933-1934 after all, so they're just restoring the status quo as of that moment... Where's the love for Bootle, who were effectively flushed out of existence by a wealthy egotist wanting to flash his money around Liverpool? Preston were dominant because of their owner, so surely somebody would be entitled to put them back on top of the football pyramid?

The issue has never been rich owners, it's been rich owners doing things in a self-serving exploitative way, and ffp doesn't fix that in fact it exacerbates that at times.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

Their old chairman was indeed a good model to follow, until he died.

I do find the whole complaint about teams bumped up by a rich owner somewhat bizarre however - it's what's always happened! I mean, if somebody pumps in £billions to Bradford Park Avenue, should we resent it? They finished above Man Utd in 1933-1934 after all, so they're just restoring the status quo as of that moment... Where's the love for Bootle, who were effectively flushed out of existence by a wealthy egotist wanting to flash his money around Liverpool? Preston were dominant because of their owner, so surely somebody would be entitled to put them back on top of the football pyramid?

The issue has never been rich owners, it's been rich owners doing things in a self-serving exploitative way, and ffp doesn't fix that in fact it exacerbates that at times.

Agreed. FFP is actually a terrible deterrent as rogue owners either just openly ignore the various frameworks of the regulations throughout the pyramid or just attempt at finding loopholes in order to bypass them.

A new system of financial control which will give clubs more freedom over their spending which is far less draconian and more collaborative is needed as the current framework just doesn't work - as much as people try to convince themselves otherwise - and as you say is actually a detriment to most football clubs.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Agreed. FFP is actually a terrible deterrent as rogue owners either just openly ignore the various frameworks of the regulations throughout the pyramid or just attempt at finding loopholes in order to bypass them.

A new system of financial control which will give clubs more freedom over their spending which is far less draconian and more collaborative is needed as the current framework just doesn't work - as much as people try to convince themselves otherwise - and as you say is actually a detriment to most football clubs.

The rules were brought in because it was getting silly and clubs were at risk because of the ridiculousness of it all. Either don't spend and go down or do spend and risk going bankrupt if you go down anyway. Big clubs solely reliant on their sugar daddy not getting bored and stopping funding or else they'll go bust.

Giving them more freedom because they're trying to get around the rules anyway is a ridiculous argument. Even if you put in a new system of financial control they'd just try and circumvent that too. It's what they do. No matter how much you give them they want more. It's like giving a kid sweets because you've caught them trying to steal a cookie from the cookie jar.

More spending freedom would see clubs go to the wall.We've already got a fair few far closer to going under with these spending restrictions in place. What the hell do you think it'd be like if they weren't?

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

The rules were brought in because it was getting silly and clubs were at risk because of the ridiculousness of it all. Either don't spend and go down or do spend and risk going bankrupt if you go down anyway. Big clubs solely reliant on their sugar daddy not getting bored and stopping funding or else they'll go bust.

Giving them more freedom because they're trying to get around the rules anyway is a ridiculous argument. Even if you put in a new system of financial control they'd just try and circumvent that too. It's what they do. No matter how much you give them they want more. It's like giving a kid sweets because you've caught them trying to steal a cookie from the cookie jar.

More spending freedom would see clubs go to the wall.We've already got a fair few far closer to going under with these spending restrictions in place. What the hell do you think it'd be like if they weren't?

It's not a ridiculous arguement at all.

The support for FFP is weirdly naive for the reasons I've already stated. Rogue owners either constantly look at ways (more often than not successfully) of bypassing the regulations or outright ignore them and overspend anyway. As a preventative measure it's ridiculously weak and personally I think it actually encourages owners to put their own clubs at financial risk - see Sheffield Wednesday as an example.

Increased positive collaboration between governing bodies and leagues and clubs (which is currently non-existant) and greater use financial monitoring/reporting technology (which is currently not used) along with a set of regulations that works with clubs/owners rather than against them will generate a far more sustainable and positive future for football.

Arguing that the current framework is working is frankly idiotic.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

It's not a ridiculous arguement at all.

The support for FFP is weirdly naive for the reasons I've already stated. Rogue owners either constantly look at ways (more often than not successfully) of bypassing the regulations or outright ignore them and overspend anyway. As a preventative measure it's ridiculously weak and personally I think it actually encourages owners to put their own clubs at financial risk - see Sheffield Wednesday as an example.

Increased positive collaboration between governing bodies and leagues and clubs (which is currently non-existant) and greater use financial monitoring/reporting technology (which is currently not used) along with a set of regulations that works with clubs/owners rather than against them will generate a far more sustainable and positive future for football.

Arguing that the current framework is working is frankly idiotic.

I'm not arguing that the FFP is weak or that it's not working.

I'm arguing that anything else will be any more effective.

Owners will look for ways around anything new that was brought in just as much as they do with FFP. Playerz gonna play. Same shit, different name. To think otherwise is just naive. They'll pay lip service to playing along while behind the scenes doing everything they can to avoid them. Just like they do now with FFP.

Problem isn't necessarily with the FFP rules, it's the lack of will to enforce them and let owners get away with whatever they want. That lack of balls isn't going to disappear just because you change the system. Whatever they brought in the league would just let owners get away with way too much just like they do now.

What you're suggesting is a similar argument that financial services use for deregulation of their industry. And everytime it happens it ends in tears because someone has been taking the piss and they end up having to reimpose stricter rules.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

I'm not arguing that the FFP is weak or that it's not working.

I'm arguing that anything else will be any more effective.

Owners will look for ways around anything new that was brought in just as much as they do with FFP. Playerz gonna play. Same shit, different name. To think otherwise is just naive. They'll pay lip service to playing along while behind the scenes doing everything they can to avoid them. Just like they do now with FFP.

Problem isn't necessarily with the FFP rules, it's the lack of will to enforce them and let owners get away with whatever they want. That lack of balls isn't going to disappear just because you change the system. Whatever they brought in the league would just let owners get away with way too much just like they do now.

What you're suggesting is a similar argument that financial services use for deregulation of their industry. And everytime it happens it ends in tears because someone has been taking the piss and they end up having to reimpose stricter rules.

That in itself is a ridiculous arguement.

Owners will always look at ways at bypassing rules. Stamping out rogue owners altogether from the game is a near-on impossibility. However, you can minimise the amount of rogue owners, or owners that dangerously overspend year on year.

Your logic is based on the framework becoming more draconian, which I simply can't agree with, nor do I think it's possible as football clubs have grown to such an extent that governing bodies such as the EFL are wary of being too punitive with football clubs who have breached the regulations in part due to fears of legal backlash.

Most governing bodies are broke and have a relatively modest staff count therefore they're hardly going to risk going toe to toe in a legal battle with a very much pissed off billionaire are they? Hence why positive collaboration between governing bodies and their respective leagues/clubs, along the implementation of financial technology - which will be voted in by league members - would work far better.

Also, IMO the punishments given for overspending don't work either - i.e points deductions - as they only drive the receiving clubs further into the abyss. So, even if they did decide to become stricter and take owners on, I actually think that would be even more detrimental to clubs.

You're more than entitled to disagree but I'm currently working with financial reporting and benchmarking tech start-ups who are working with footballing leagues in the UK and throughout the world who seem to think it'll work without the need for gestapo-esque policing.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

That in itself is a ridiculous arguement.

Owners will always look at ways at bypassing rules. Stamping out rogue owners altogether from the game is a near-on impossibility. However, you can minimise the amount of rogue owners, or owners that dangerously overspend year on year.

Your logic is based on the framework becoming more draconian, which I simply can't agree with, nor do I think it's possible as football clubs have grown to such an extent that governing bodies such as the EFL are wary of being too punitive with football clubs who have breached the regulations in part due to fears of legal backlash.

Most governing bodies are broke and have a relatively modest staff count therefore they're hardly going to risk going toe to toe in a legal battle with a very much pissed off billionaire are they? Hence why positive collaboration between governing bodies and their respective leagues/clubs, along the implementation of financial technology - which will be voted in by league members - would work far better.

Also, IMO the punishments given for overspending don't work either - i.e points deductions - as they only drive the receiving clubs further into the abyss. So, even if they did decide to become stricter and take owners on, I actually think that would be even more detrimental to clubs.

You're more than entitled to disagree but I'm currently working with financial reporting and benchmarking tech start-ups who are working with footballing leagues in the UK and throughout the world who seem to think it'll work without the need for gestapo-esque policing.

If you're playing Monopoly you wouldn't give up colour sets that might give someone else a better chance of winning. What's clear from how they operate is that the mega tycoons running Man City and PSG almost want to 'buy football'. I don't see how you convince them to collaborate without them seeing it as an attack on their position

 

[Grendel]

If you're playing Monopoly you wouldn't give up colour sets that might give someone else a better chance of winning. What's clear from how they operate is that the mega tycoons running Man City and PSG almost want to 'buy football'. I don't see how you convince them to collaborate without them seeing it as an attack on their position

how would you set FFP rules?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

how would you set FFP rules?

My personal preference is for absolute spending caps across the major European leagues

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

If you're playing Monopoly you wouldn't give up colour sets that might give someone else a better chance of winning. What's clear from how they operate is that the mega tycoons running Man City and PSG almost want to 'buy football'. I don't see how you convince them to collaborate without them seeing it as an attack on their position

I'm not really referencing the PL.

As I've previously mentioned PL spending has grown to a point of no return. It's everyone else that's in need of assistance and the current framework isn't providing that.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

That in itself is a ridiculous arguement.

Owners will always look at ways at bypassing rules. Stamping out rogue owners altogether from the game is a near-on impossibility. However, you can minimise the amount of rogue owners, or owners that dangerously overspend year on year.

Your logic is based on the framework becoming more draconian, which I simply can't agree with, nor do I think it's possible as football clubs have grown to such an extent that governing bodies such as the EFL are wary of being too punitive with football clubs who have breached the regulations in part due to fears of legal backlash.

Most governing bodies are broke and have a relatively modest staff count therefore they're hardly going to risk going toe to toe in a legal battle with a very much pissed off billionaire are they? Hence why positive collaboration between governing bodies and their respective leagues/clubs, along the implementation of financial technology - which will be voted in by league members - would work far better.

Also, IMO the punishments given for overspending don't work either - i.e points deductions - as they only drive the receiving clubs further into the abyss. So, even if they did decide to become stricter and take owners on, I actually think that would be even more detrimental to clubs.

You're more than entitled to disagree but I'm currently working with financial reporting and benchmarking tech start-ups who are working with footballing leagues in the UK and throughout the world who seem to think it'll work without the need for gestapo-esque policing.

Easiest way to make sure people aren't breaking the rules is not give them any rules to break. We could solve crime overnight if we just repealed all the laws.

I never said anything about more draconian. I'm just pointing out giving them more leeway will just make the situation worse. If you give them an inch they'll take a mile.

You do realise that the reason almost all rules, esp the convulted ones like tax, only exist because people were exploiting a situation before the rule existed and so it had to be introduced to stop them. Why was FFP introduced in the first place? Because owners/management were being reckless with spending putting club's future's in jeopardy. If they hadn't been doing that FFP would never have been put in because it wouldn't have been needed.

History is on my side. It's been the same cycle for centuries.

People/businesses exploit a situation - authorities bring in rules to try and stop them - people/businesses try and get around those rules - they argue rules should be removed because they are burdensome and is costly to both them and the authorities - industry gets deregulated - someone takes the piss and exploits it - authorities bring in rules to stop them....and so on ad infinitum

If you really think giving them almost free reign to do as they like will improve matters then you're naive.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I'm not really referencing the PL.

As I've previously mentioned PL spending has grown to a point of no return. It's everyone else that's in need of assistance and the current framework isn't providing that.

You don't think the rich, powerful clubs will complain at smaller clubs being give assistance? Literally just last summer we had the ESL proposals put forward by a few powerful clubs because they didn't feel they were getting enough of the pie in their domestic leagues.

 

[Grendel]

Easiest way to make sure people aren't breaking the rules is not give them any rules to break. We could solve crime overnight if we just repealed all the laws.

I never said anything about more draconian. I'm just pointing out giving them more leeway will just make the situation worse. If you give them an inch they'll take a mile.

You do realise that the reason almost all rules, esp the convulted ones like tax, only exist because people were exploiting a situation before the rule existed and so it had to be introduced to stop them. Why was FFP introduced in the first place? Because owners/management were being reckless with spending putting club's future's in jeopardy. If they hadn't been doing that FFP would never have been put in because it wouldn't have been needed.

History is on my side. It's been the same cycle for centuries.

People/businesses exploit a situation - authorities bring in rules to try and stop them - people/businesses try and get around those rules - they argue rules should be removed because they are burdensome and is costly to both them and the authorities - industry gets deregulated - someone takes the piss and exploits it - authorities bring in rules to stop them....and so on ad infinitum

If you really think giving them almost free reign to do as they like will improve matters then you're naive.

You are literally clueless about everything I can’t even be bothered to pick this drivel apart

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

You are literally clueless about everything I can’t even be bothered to pick this drivel apart

The problem with your preferred approach is when clubs go to the wall as a consequence. Surely you do see that the era we are in now is substantially different to the pre 2000s, or pre 90s if you want to take Sky out of it?

 

[Grendel]

The problem with your preferred approach is when clubs go to the wall as a consequence. Surely you do see that the era we are in now is substantially different to the pre 2000s, or pre 90s if you want to take Sky out of it?

Dead right - far more clubs went bankrupt pre Sky than post Sky

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

You don't think the rich, powerful clubs will complain at smaller clubs being give assistance? Literally just last summer we had the ESL proposals put forward by a few powerful clubs because they didn't feel they were getting enough of the pie in their domestic leagues.

Why would PL clubs complain about the lower divisions receiving a more proactive approach from the EFL - a completely separate competition I might add - to become more financially sustainable?

Random arguement.

With respect SBD and I apologise if this sounds condescending but you don't really know what you're on about and frankly I can't be bothered to repeat the same points.

 

[Grendel]

Why would PL clubs complain about the lower divisions receiving a more proactive approach from the EFL - a completely separate competition I might add - to become more financially sustainable?

Random arguement.

With respect SBD and I apologise if this sounds condescending but you don't really know what you're on about and frankly I can't be bothered to repeat the same points.

give up he’s an idiot

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Why would PL clubs complain about the lower divisions receiving a more proactive approach from the EFL - a completely separate competition I might add - to become more financially sustainable?

Random arguement.

With respect SBD and I apologise if this sounds condescending but you don't really know what you're on about and frankly I can't be bothered to repeat the same points.

The trend has been for the top flight to offer financial help to the EFL but with ever more tight strings attached as conditions. They aren’t quite completely separate though perhaps not for long as increasingly we are just seeing the relegated sides miles ahead of the rest of the league.

I thought the proposal that came through last year wasn’t actually that bad in terms of a rejig, at least.

 

[Grendel]

The trend has been for the top flight to offer financial help to the EFL but with ever more tight strings attached as conditions. They aren’t quite completely separate though perhaps not for long as increasingly we are just seeing the relegated sides miles ahead of the rest of the league.

I thought the proposal that came through last year wasn’t actually that bad in terms of a rejig, at least.

how many clubs across the leagues have been liquidated and when?

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

The trend has been for the top flight to offer financial help to the EFL but with ever more tight strings attached as conditions. They aren’t quite completely separate though perhaps not for long as increasingly we are just seeing the relegated sides miles ahead of the rest of the league.

I thought the proposal that came through last year wasn’t actually that bad in terms of a rejig, at least.

When have they ever offered financial help?

They made a huge deal about refusing to help the EFL with a bail out until they were essentially forced to as PL owners believed the Championship especially had got themselves into their own mess and didn't deserve assistance. It was also a crap deal. The PL offered up £15 million to cover the arrangement fees and the interest and the EFL had to go out into the market to source the money.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

When have they ever offered financial help?

They made a huge deal about refusing to help the EFL with a bail out until they were essentially forced to as PL owners believed the Championship especially had got themselves into their own mess and didn't deserve assistance. It was also a crap deal. The PL offered up £15 million to cover the arrangement fees and the interest and the EFL had to go out into the market to source the money.

I am referring to solidarity payments.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Why would PL clubs complain about the lower divisions receiving a more proactive approach from the EFL - a completely separate competition I might add - to become more financially sustainable?

Random arguement.

With respect SBD and I apologise if this sounds condescending but you don't really know what you're on about and frankly I can't be bothered to repeat the same points.

What is financial sustainability? Spending within your means.

Clubs could have chosen to operate sustainably by their own free will in the past. Had they done so FFP would never have been created. It was put in place purely because clubs chose not to spend within their means. Even with rules now in place saying they have to operate sustainably the clubs do their best to ignore them so why on earth do you think they'd choose to spend within their means of their own free will? Especially as the past has already shown us they choose not to.

What you appear to be suggesting is basically trust clubs and give them advice on how to operate sustainably. NEWSFLASH. That approach was tried before FFP and was a monumental failure. FFP was the thing brought in as a response to that failure. It's hardly been a success either and owners are trying to get around the rules but they'd do that with any replacement system too and it'd have a limited effect. But I don't see how going back to the thing that failed before is going to improve things? What's that adage of doing the same things over and over and expecting different results?

I'm sure all the clubs would like to be run sustainably. Owners would prefer them to be making profit than having to delve into their pockets (even though a number of owners make a tidy sum from the interest on loans). But once once one club decides to start splashing the cash to be successful others have to follow or they'll end up being left behind. And so it cascades down as clubs spend more trying to match those around them, with the spending getting ever higher as each club tries to outdo the others. It only takes one club to decide to overspend and the rest are pretty much forced to follow as the club spending recklessly aren't going to be stopped from doing so by the authorities who take a hands-off approach to the whole situation. However, if that club were prevented from overspending, say with some sort of system that looked to limit how much they could spend compared to how much they earn and would see them reprimanded for doing so, then that whole domino effect could be prevented...

Compared to spending restrictions in US sport FFP is pretty much a hands off approach to get clubs to spend sustainably. It doesn't set absolute spending limits. If you earn more than a competitor you can spend more than them. It doesn't set absolute wage/spending caps. It doesn't limit the amount any player can earn. It doesn't set a maximum transfer fee a club can pay out. It doesn't set squad limits. They can spend their money pretty much however they please. Only stipulation is they can't spend more than they can afford. Y'know - be sustainable. If clubs are being run sustainably then they don't need to worry about sanctions or penalties. It's a redundant thing until you're doing something you shouldn't. I could go to prison if I went and robbed people. But I'm not going to rob people so I don't need to worry about it.

But I'll give you a chance. Maybe I've misunderstood what you're actually suggesting (in essence getting rid of sanctions and trusting clubs to be sustainable by their own choice by offering them expert advice on how to do so). So let's hear your concrete proposals for what the EFL could do as a 'proactive approach to help clubs become more financially sustainable' that would definitely work and wouldn't just result in clubs trying to find ways to get around them like they have with FFP. Maybe you've got some amazing foolproof alternative and if so I'd love to hear what it is.

 

[SBAndy]

That in itself is a ridiculous arguement.

Owners will always look at ways at bypassing rules. Stamping out rogue owners altogether from the game is a near-on impossibility. However, you can minimise the amount of rogue owners, or owners that dangerously overspend year on year.

Your logic is based on the framework becoming more draconian, which I simply can't agree with, nor do I think it's possible as football clubs have grown to such an extent that governing bodies such as the EFL are wary of being too punitive with football clubs who have breached the regulations in part due to fears of legal backlash.

Most governing bodies are broke and have a relatively modest staff count therefore they're hardly going to risk going toe to toe in a legal battle with a very much pissed off billionaire are they? Hence why positive collaboration between governing bodies and their respective leagues/clubs, along the implementation of financial technology - which will be voted in by league members - would work far better.

Also, IMO the punishments given for overspending don't work either - i.e points deductions - as they only drive the receiving clubs further into the abyss. So, even if they did decide to become stricter and take owners on, I actually think that would be even more detrimental to clubs.

You're more than entitled to disagree but I'm currently working with financial reporting and benchmarking tech start-ups who are working with footballing leagues in the UK and throughout the world who seem to think it'll work without the need for gestapo-esque policing.

Few things to unpack here:

1. People/businesses have tried to exploit tax loopholes before and I’ve never once seen a suggestion that maybe we should do away with tax altogether. Measures like that don’t make the problem go away, they exacerbate the problem.

2. Staying on tax as an example, you could be subject to fines or prison if you are found to evade tax. Again, the fact that it worsens the individual’s (or business’) financial position is of their own doing - not to do with the laws/regulations.

3. More should be done from a football governance perspective to ensure governing bodies are sufficiently capitalised to cope with legal challenge. I’d even suggest a flat-fee contribution from each club to essentially cover their membership.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

Few things to unpack here:

1. People/businesses have tried to exploit tax loopholes before and I’ve never once seen a suggestion that maybe we should do away with tax altogether. Measures like that don’t make the problem go away, they exacerbate the problem.

2. Staying on tax as an example, you could be subject to fines or prison if you are found to evade tax. Again, the fact that it worsens the individual’s (or business’) financial position is of their own doing - not to do with the laws/regulations.

3. More should be done from a football governance perspective to ensure governing bodies are sufficiently capitalised to cope with legal challenge. I’d even suggest a flat-fee contribution from each club to essentially cover their membership.

You, as SBD is, are completely misreading my post and failing to understand so you aren't really 'unpacking' anything. Yes FFP should be scrapped as the framework itself is actually causing more problems than it solves and the vast majority, in the Championship especially, are increasingly bypassing the rules season after season making them utterly pointless. Surely if the same applied to tax on such a grand scale that the framework would be updated and evolved? Yes or no?

This is why another system needs to be established that works with clubs rather than against. Financial regulation will still be in place, however it will work with clubs rather than against them to allow each club to spend freely each within their own bespoke means. This is where the advancement in financial reporting and benchmarking tech is also needed in the game as does further collaboration with governing bodies is required. Checks and balances will still be in place as will financial control and spending will still be monitored, but in a more proactive way that allows issues to be identified quickly and will help those that are spending way beyond their means. It's a big part of the issue around why clubs continuously overspend as there's no real-time monitoring system in place.

Finances are only monitored once a year when the accounts are submitted and usually if there are glaring issues it's usually too late to do anything about it. The only thing governing bodies such as the EFL, as it's probably the best example to use, do is rather than do anything to help, just punish. How does that benefit their member? Yes punishments will still need to be in place but is points deductions really the answer? Why not a strict cap on spending for instance for a full year to help the club at least get back on track then put the club on a probationary period where they have to keep to a certain threshold for the year after? Points deductions solve absolutely nothing and is hugely detrimental to a clubs future - as has been proven many a time.

Arguing that governing bodies should get more funding from clubs is a laughable solution. Their members just won't agree to that.

Fair enough if you don't agree that FFP should be scrapped, but these ideas are openly being discussed within the game as we speak and many will probably be brought in within the next 3-5 years.

 

[Grendel]

What is financial sustainability? Spending within your means.

Clubs could have chosen to operate sustainably by their own free will in the past. Had they done so FFP would never have been created. It was put in place purely because clubs chose not to spend within their means. Even with rules now in place saying they have to operate sustainably the clubs do their best to ignore them so why on earth do you think they'd choose to spend within their means of their own free will? Especially as the past has already shown us they choose not to.

What you appear to be suggesting is basically trust clubs and give them advice on how to operate sustainably. NEWSFLASH. That approach was tried before FFP and was a monumental failure. FFP was the thing brought in as a response to that failure. It's hardly been a success either and owners are trying to get around the rules but they'd do that with any replacement system too and it'd have a limited effect. But I don't see how going back to the thing that failed before is going to improve things? What's that adage of doing the same things over and over and expecting different results?

I'm sure all the clubs would like to be run sustainably. Owners would prefer them to be making profit than having to delve into their pockets (even though a number of owners make a tidy sum from the interest on loans). But once once one club decides to start splashing the cash to be successful others have to follow or they'll end up being left behind. And so it cascades down as clubs spend more trying to match those around them, with the spending getting ever higher as each club tries to outdo the others. It only takes one club to decide to overspend and the rest are pretty much forced to follow as the club spending recklessly aren't going to be stopped from doing so by the authorities who take a hands-off approach to the whole situation. However, if that club were prevented from overspending, say with some sort of system that looked to limit how much they could spend compared to how much they earn and would see them reprimanded for doing so, then that whole domino effect could be prevented...

Compared to spending restrictions in US sport FFP is pretty much a hands off approach to get clubs to spend sustainably. It doesn't set absolute spending limits. If you earn more than a competitor you can spend more than them. It doesn't set absolute wage/spending caps. It doesn't limit the amount any player can earn. It doesn't set a maximum transfer fee a club can pay out. It doesn't set squad limits. They can spend their money pretty much however they please. Only stipulation is they can't spend more than they can afford. Y'know - be sustainable. If clubs are being run sustainably then they don't need to worry about sanctions or penalties. It's a redundant thing until you're doing something you shouldn't. I could go to prison if I went and robbed people. But I'm not going to rob people so I don't need to worry about it.

But I'll give you a chance. Maybe I've misunderstood what you're actually suggesting (in essence getting rid of sanctions and trusting clubs to be sustainable by their own choice by offering them expert advice on how to do so). So let's hear your concrete proposals for what the EFL could do as a 'proactive approach to help clubs become more financially sustainable' that would definitely work and wouldn't just result in clubs trying to find ways to get around them like they have with FFP. Maybe you've got some amazing foolproof alternative and if so I'd love to hear what it is.

Drivel

 

[SBAndy]

Yes FFP should be scrapped as the framework itself is actually causing more problems than it solves and the vast majority, in the Championship especially, are increasingly bypassing the rules season after season making them utterly pointless. Surely if the same applied to tax on such a grand scale that the framework would be updated and evolved? Yes or no?

You seem to be making a case firstly for scrapping, then for updating or evolving? I’m all on board for tweaking it to make it more effective so don’t think that I believe the current setup to be sufficient - it’s proven not to be.

This is why another system needs to be established that works with clubs rather than against. Financial regulation will still be in place, however it will work with clubs rather than against them to allow each club to spend freely each within their own bespoke means. This is where the advancement in financial reporting and benchmarking tech is also needed in the game as does further collaboration with governing bodies is required. Checks and balances will still be in place as will financial control and spending will still be monitored, but in a more proactive way that allows issues to be identified quickly and will help those that are spending way beyond their means. It's a big part of the issue around why clubs continuously overspend as there's no real-time monitoring system in place.

As it stands, clubs are free to spend within their own means. Problem is, a portion of them refuse to. If a club offers a 3 year contract @ £40k per week to a player who ultimately flops, that is their responsibility. I also concede that the Championship’s blanket “you can lose £X per year” is nonsense as it doesn’t promote sustainability. When it comes to live reporting tech you clearly know more than me and it does sound like a good idea, more so to keep a check on the general malpractice taking place than anything else.

Finances are only monitored once a year when the accounts are submitted and usually if there are glaring issues it's usually too late to do anything about it. The only thing governing bodies such as the EFL, as it's probably the best example to use, do is rather than do anything to help, just punish. How does that benefit their member? Yes punishments will still need to be in place but is points deductions really the answer? Why not a strict cap on spending for instance for a full year to help the club at least get back on track then put the club on a probationary period where they have to keep to a certain threshold for the year after? Points deductions solve absolutely nothing and is hugely detrimental to a clubs future - as has been proven many a time.

But there’s already caps in place? Enforcing said cap is the problem to begin with, in my view. Yes points deductions exacerbate it to an extent (and only ever seem to be levied on teams already close to the bottom of the league) but that’s why it’s meant to be a deterrent. Clearly it isn’t working; partially because CAS reduce them constantly.

Arguing that governing bodies should get more funding from clubs is a laughable solution. Their members just won't agree to that.

I know the members won’t agree but therein lies the problem. Governance is fucked if they can just run rampant over any decision reached by the governing body, knowing that their pockets are deeper. Formal legislation is the only option here. Football is officially big business, and it needs to become regulated as a result.

As I say, I’m not against the idea of amending the current frameworks and bringing in more frequent reporting tools, but equally the clubs themselves can’t be absolved of responsibility if they wank all their money up the wall and face consequences for it.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

You, as SBD is, are completely misreading my post and failing to understand so you aren't really 'unpacking' anything. Yes FFP should be scrapped as the framework itself is actually causing more problems than it solves and the vast majority, in the Championship especially, are increasingly bypassing the rules season after season making them utterly pointless. Surely if the same applied to tax on such a grand scale that the framework would be updated and evolved? Yes or no?

This is why another system needs to be established that works with clubs rather than against. Financial regulation will still be in place, however it will work with clubs rather than against them to allow each club to spend freely each within their own bespoke means. This is where the advancement in financial reporting and benchmarking tech is also needed in the game as does further collaboration with governing bodies is required. Checks and balances will still be in place as will financial control and spending will still be monitored, but in a more proactive way that allows issues to be identified quickly and will help those that are spending way beyond their means. It's a big part of the issue around why clubs continuously overspend as there's no real-time monitoring system in place.

Finances are only monitored once a year when the accounts are submitted and usually if there are glaring issues it's usually too late to do anything about it. The only thing governing bodies such as the EFL, as it's probably the best example to use, do is rather than do anything to help, just punish. How does that benefit their member? Yes punishments will still need to be in place but is points deductions really the answer? Why not a strict cap on spending for instance for a full year to help the club at least get back on track then put the club on a probationary period where they have to keep to a certain threshold for the year after? Points deductions solve absolutely nothing and is hugely detrimental to a clubs future - as has been proven many a time.

Arguing that governing bodies should get more funding from clubs is a laughable solution. Their members just won't agree to that.

Fair enough if you don't agree that FFP should be scrapped, but these ideas are openly being discussed within the game as we speak and many will probably be brought in within the next 3-5 years.

I had slightly misunderstood what you were suggesting.

You previously were on about how onerous FFP is yet you seem to be saying something about having real time monitoring of spending. How would that not be onerous to a club and costly for the EFL to maintain?

You talk about scrapping FFP because the framework doesn't work then say the tax system should change and evolve when that doesn't work. This is exactly my point. We don't scrap the entire tax system because some people are not playing fair and have found ways around it. We update it, add in clauses to close loopholes. It's a constantly evolving system and forever will be because there will always be someone trying to find a way to avoid following the rules. So why should we not do the same practice with FFP? The fundamentals of what it's trying to achieve are correct. Owners have tried to find loopholes to avoid that, so we update and change the way FFP is applied to prevent that happening.

You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The point I'm saying is what is it you actually propose as an alternative? There's lots of business speak and vague stuff about 'new systems', 'working with clubs', 'spending freely with the system' (which is what FFP does) in there, but I don't see any actual proposal as to what this alternative would be or look like. Why would it not suffer from the same problems of being avoided by clubs?

 

[SBAndy]

I had slightly misunderstood what you were suggesting.

You previously were on about how onerous FFP is yet you seem to be saying something about having real time monitoring of spending. How would that not be onerous to a club and costly for the EFL to maintain?

You talk about scrapping FFP because the framework doesn't work then say the tax system should change and evolve when that doesn't work. This is exactly my point. We don't scrap the entire tax system because some people are not playing fair and have found ways around it. We update it, add in clauses to close loopholes. It's a constantly evolving system and forever will be because there will always be someone trying to find a way to avoid following the rules. So why should we not do the same practice with FFP? The fundamentals of what it's trying to achieve are correct. Owners have tried to find loopholes to avoid that, so we update and change the way FFP is applied to prevent that happening.

You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The point I'm saying is what is it you actually propose as an alternative? There's lots of business speak and vague stuff about 'new systems', 'working with clubs', 'spending freely with the system' (which is what FFP does) in there, but I don't see any actual proposal as to what this alternative would be or look like. Why would it not suffer from the same problems of being avoided by clubs?

In fairness, given his clear knowledge on the subject, he probably knows exactly what the ‘proposed alternative’ is and can’t really speak about too much. That would be my guess.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

You seem to be making a case firstly for scrapping, then for updating or evolving? I’m all on board for tweaking it to make it more effective so don’t think that I believe the current setup to be sufficient - it’s proven not to be.



As it stands, clubs are free to spend within their own means. Problem is, a portion of them refuse to. If a club offers a 3 year contract @ £40k per week to a player who ultimately flops, that is their responsibility. I also concede that the Championship’s blanket “you can lose £X per year” is nonsense as it doesn’t promote sustainability. When it comes to live reporting tech you clearly know more than me and it does sound like a good idea, more so to keep a check on the general malpractice taking place than anything else.



But there’s already caps in place? Enforcing said cap is the problem to begin with, in my view. Yes points deductions exacerbate it to an extent (and only ever seem to be levied on teams already close to the bottom of the league) but that’s why it’s meant to be a deterrent. Clearly it isn’t working; partially because CAS reduce them constantly.



I know the members won’t agree but therein lies the problem. Governance is fucked if they can just run rampant over any decision reached by the governing body, knowing that their pockets are deeper. Formal legislation is the only option here. Football is officially big business, and it needs to become regulated as a result.

As I say, I’m not against the idea of amending the current frameworks and bringing in more frequent reporting tools, but equally the clubs themselves can’t be absolved of responsibility if they wank all their money up the wall and face consequences for it.

You seem to think scrapping FFP and no financial regulation are synonymous? Regulation will always be needed in the game, as without it all hell would break lose. Cheques and balances will always be required to stop rogue owners from crippling clubs.

But the current format is quite clearly fundamentally broken as clubs continue to go bust or struggle financially especially in the lower divisions of the English pyramid and I think around half of the clubs in the Championship would be penalised tomorrow if investigated - again using that as an example.

For now, but talks regarding clubs being hogtied over spending are building pace. As shown with the attempted introduction of salary caps last season which again in their current format were ridiculous as they weren't bespoke to clubs but rather painted every club with the same brush, completely ignoring vital variables such as % of turnover. Introduction of a cap in the Championship was also ridiculous as it would've increased the already significant gap between the PL and the EFL to the point where we'd end up with a Rugby Union system whereby it's near-on impossible for promoted clubs to remain in the Premiership. Agreed r.e the P&S rules. All they really do is encourage owners to overspend as they're not really penalised for overspending for 3 years.

It's not always issued to teams towards the bottom of the league. Using Wigan as an example. Slightly different circumstances but was it really necessary to issue them with a points deduction and ultimately relegate them (to the point where they were almost relegated again from League One) - for entering administration? They were in and around mid-table at the time. The issue is there's no time given to clubs to rectify the issue - regardless of whether you think they're willing to or not which is a completely separate arguement - and punishment via point deduction which usually leads to relegation isn't a solution, it's a loaded gun that completes works against their ethos in terms of safeguarding their own members.

So you can't enforce a spending cap for an individual club as punishment but you can issue a substantial points deduction? Why? It's far more favourable to the club and actually gives them an opportunity over the season to halt further overspending and to look at bringing down their overheads rather than having them scramble around, potentially in a lower division with less revenue to play with. It's a far more sustainable solution.