If there was no FFP

[eskimo joe]

Ok, we all know the reasoning behind it, and we sll have the thought that it still gives the bigger guys an advantage though that was , so i believe, not its' intent

My question has come about from reading from lots of fans saying that if there were no FFP the playing field would be more level. I tend to disagree. What are your thoughts, and could you come up with a better solution?

[Whiskyman]

You are right in that it protects the status quo, as Newcastle are finding out at the moment. Very basically as I understand it the rules prevent an owner from putting piles of his personal stash into player acquisitions, although he can spend as much as he likes on club infrastructure. So if a wealthy investor buys a club and wants to propel them to the top table he basically can't do it. And in my book that is a disincentive for anyone to invest.

Like any other business there will always be well run companies and badly run ones. Spurs and West Ham are good examples of one goodc and one bad. Historically our attendances have been pretty much even over the years but anyone will agree that Spurs enjoy a far higher profile because they have been run in a far more efficient businesslike manner for many years. Certainly since I've supported West Ham.

I dislike most forms of regulation so I'm not a fan of FFP. But I'm afraid, just as we are now saddled with VAR we are stuck with the bloody thing. Particularly if, as threatened, the government appoints a regulator to oversee football. Imo football is big business now and if a football club goes bust because it overspends, then tough. Why should football clubs be protected from incompetent financial management while the local vehicle repair shop is allowed to go bust with no questions asked?

[eskimo joe]

You are right in that it protects the status quo, as Newcastle are finding out at the moment. Very basically as I understand it the rules prevent an owner from putting piles of his personal stash into player acquisitions, although he can spend as much as he likes on club infrastructure. So if a wealthy investor buys a club and wants to propel them to the top table he basically can't do it. And in my book that is a disincentive for anyone to invest.

Like any other business there will always be well run companies and badly run ones. Spurs and West Ham are good examples of one goodc and one bad. Historically our attendances have been pretty much even over the years but anyone will agree that Spurs enjoy a far higher profile because they have been run in a far more efficient businesslike manner for many years. Certainly since I've supported West Ham.

I dislike most forms of regulation so I'm not a fan of FFP. But I'm afraid, just as we are now saddled with VAR we are stuck with the bloody thing. Particularly if, as threatened, the government appoints a regulator to oversee football. Imo football is big business now and if a football club goes bust because it overspends, then tough. Why should football clubs be protected from incompetent financial management while the local vehicle repair shop is allowed to go bust with no questions asked?

My sentiments also. Having said that though if all cllubs were run owners ability to make ends meet i don't think other clubs would still be on the level of city and such clubs. That is my reasoning for believing that without FFP City et al, as some seem to suggest, would be on equal terms with all other clubs. The big gap, without over stretching finances, between them and others would still exist.

[Whiskyman]

You are right in that it protects the status quo, as Newcastle are finding out at the moment. Very basically as I understand it the rules prevent an owner from putting piles of his personal stash into player acquisitions, although he can spend as much as he likes on club infrastructure. So if a wealthy investor buys a club and wants to propel them to the top table he basically can't do it. And in my book that is a disincentive for anyone to invest.

Like any other business there will always be well run companies and badly run ones. Spurs and West Ham are good examples of one goodc and one bad. Historically our attendances have been pretty much even over the years but anyone will agree that Spurs enjoy a far higher profile because they have been run in a far more efficient businesslike manner for many years. Certainly since I've supported West Ham.

I dislike most forms of regulation so I'm not a fan of FFP. But I'm afraid, just as we are now saddled with VAR we are stuck with the bloody thing. Particularly if, as threatened, the government appoints a regulator to oversee football. Imo football is big business now and if a football club goes bust because it overspends, then tough. Why should football clubs be protected from incompetent financial management while the local vehicle repair shop is allowed to go bust with no questions asked?

My sentiments also. Having said that though if all cllubs were run owners ability to make ends meet i don't think other clubs would still be on the level of city and such clubs. That is my reasoning for believing that without FFP City et al, as some seem to suggest, would be on equal terms with all other clubs. The big gap, without over stretching finances, between them and others would still exist.

Football’s no different to life. There are haves and have nots. And the have nots will always blame everybody else for their plight. Much easier to do that than take a long hard look in the mirror.

[Ibbyham]

With FFP, hopefully after 2027, our Premier League will be more unpredictable, with more balance and hoping to revert to the 1920s to 1970s style. Newcastle cannot spend £400M every transfer windows cos they are cash rich club in the world as the Premier League is having a sharp eyes on their movement. The only difference is that Man City who already spend heavily just before the FFP and got Guardiola so they will dominate for now but once Guardiola leave as he is the World number 1 manager, Man City may end up like Man Utd/Liverpool doing after their dominant years.

I still believe that IF I was FIFA chief, I would demand ALL clubs in the world to have 51% owned by fans as it is the fans who support the clubs and the rest of the % for investors to help funding the clubs but NOT to control it and destroy it. The only club in UK doing so is AFC Wimbledon who have 51% owned by fans Dons Trust and the rest of the % by various investors. This will protect the club and hope all clubs in UK will follows as most of the cash rich owners failed like Sheff Wed, Reading, Wigan, and the list goes on and on.

[Whiskyman]

With FFP, hopefully after 2027, our Premier League will be more unpredictable, with more balance and hoping to revert to the 1920s to 1970s style. Newcastle cannot spend £400M every transfer windows cos they are cash rich club in the world as the Premier League is having a sharp eyes on their movement. The only difference is that Man City who already spend heavily just before the FFP and got Guardiola so they will dominate for now but once Guardiola leave as he is the World number 1 manager, Man City may end up like Man Utd/Liverpool doing after their dominant years.

I still believe that IF I was FIFA chief, I would demand ALL clubs in the world to have 51% owned by fans as it is the fans who support the clubs and the rest of the % for investors to help funding the clubs but NOT to control it and destroy it. The only club in UK doing so is AFC Wimbledon who have 51% owned by fans Dons Trust and the rest of the % by various investors. This will protect the club and hope all clubs in UK will follows as most of the cash rich owners failed like Sheff Wed, Reading, Wigan, and the list goes on and on.

The 51% owned by fans system is the model they have in Germany Ibbs. And it's probably the least competitive major league in the world with Bayern Munich having won it for the last 10 seasons on the spin. There have certainly been some badly run clubs, you've mentioned 3 who are badly run now. But Reading, under John Madjeski) and Wigan (Dave Whelan) had their moments in the sun in the Premier League thanks to good investors who raised the clubs profile and, in the case of Reading and Wigan built the clubs brand new stadiums. Not all investors are incompetent mate, if they were they wouldn't have the money to splash out on a club anyway.

[tassiehammer]

You are right in that it protects the status quo, as Newcastle are finding out at the moment. Very basically as I understand it the rules prevent an owner from putting piles of his personal stash into player acquisitions, although he can spend as much as he likes on club infrastructure. So if a wealthy investor buys a club and wants to propel them to the top table he basically can't do it. And in my book that is a disincentive for anyone to invest.

Like any other business there will always be well run companies and badly run ones. Spurs and West Ham are good examples of one goodc and one bad. Historically our attendances have been pretty much even over the years but anyone will agree that Spurs enjoy a far higher profile because they have been run in a far more efficient businesslike manner for many years. Certainly since I've supported West Ham.

I dislike most forms of regulation so I'm not a fan of FFP. But I'm afraid, just as we are now saddled with VAR we are stuck with the bloody thing. Particularly if, as threatened, the government appoints a regulator to oversee football. Imo football is big business now and if a football club goes bust because it overspends, then tough. Why should football clubs be protected from incompetent financial management while the local vehicle repair shop is allowed to go bust with no questions asked?

Depends on who you're asking about a well run business. Hammers are above spuds for average 2023 attendances and Sullivan and co would say we're run very nicely thank you. But you ask anyone on here and we're run like a 3 legged greyhound.

[Whiskyman]

You are right in that it protects the status quo, as Newcastle are finding out at the moment. Very basically as I understand it the rules prevent an owner from putting piles of his personal stash into player acquisitions, although he can spend as much as he likes on club infrastructure. So if a wealthy investor buys a club and wants to propel them to the top table he basically can't do it. And in my book that is a disincentive for anyone to invest.

Like any other business there will always be well run companies and badly run ones. Spurs and West Ham are good examples of one goodc and one bad. Historically our attendances have been pretty much even over the years but anyone will agree that Spurs enjoy a far higher profile because they have been run in a far more efficient businesslike manner for many years. Certainly since I've supported West Ham.

I dislike most forms of regulation so I'm not a fan of FFP. But I'm afraid, just as we are now saddled with VAR we are stuck with the bloody thing. Particularly if, as threatened, the government appoints a regulator to oversee football. Imo football is big business now and if a football club goes bust because it overspends, then tough. Why should football clubs be protected from incompetent financial management while the local vehicle repair shop is allowed to go bust with no questions asked?

Depends on who you're asking about a well run business. Hammers are above spuds for average 2023 attendances and Sullivan and co would say we're run very nicely thank you. But you ask anyone on here and we're run like a 3 legged greyhound.

Must admit I’m basing my comment on the business, not football, side. But we have to be honest and admit that over the last 30 or 40 years we haven’t been close to the N17 mob, even now despite us having a virtually free stadium and them having to make massive debt repayments on theirs, their revenues outstrip ours comfortably. As do their on field achievements most seasons.

[Ibbyham]

With FFP, hopefully after 2027, our Premier League will be more unpredictable, with more balance and hoping to revert to the 1920s to 1970s style. Newcastle cannot spend £400M every transfer windows cos they are cash rich club in the world as the Premier League is having a sharp eyes on their movement. The only difference is that Man City who already spend heavily just before the FFP and got Guardiola so they will dominate for now but once Guardiola leave as he is the World number 1 manager, Man City may end up like Man Utd/Liverpool doing after their dominant years.

I still believe that IF I was FIFA chief, I would demand ALL clubs in the world to have 51% owned by fans as it is the fans who support the clubs and the rest of the % for investors to help funding the clubs but NOT to control it and destroy it. The only club in UK doing so is AFC Wimbledon who have 51% owned by fans Dons Trust and the rest of the % by various investors. This will protect the club and hope all clubs in UK will follows as most of the cash rich owners failed like Sheff Wed, Reading, Wigan, and the list goes on and on.

The 51% owned by fans system is the model they have in Germany Ibbs. And it's probably the least competitive major league in the world with Bayern Munich having won it for the last 10 seasons on the spin. There have certainly been some badly run clubs, you've mentioned 3 who are badly run now. But Reading, under John Madjeski) and Wigan (Dave Whelan) had their moments in the sun in the Premier League thanks to good investors who raised the clubs profile and, in the case of Reading and Wigan built the clubs brand new stadiums. Not all investors are incompetent mate, if they were they wouldn't have the money to splash out on a club anyway.

I agreed and never easy to have reliable investors willing to help the clubs win things. Now with FFP and 70% of the revenue for spending on transfers will hopefully bridge the gap but the problems that clubs who spend so many years in Champions League get twice the amount of money from entering the CL spots however, other clubs can do their best to reach the CL like what Aston Villa doing and Leicester did a while ago. We will see how the next few seasons goes and see how it will shape up.

[tassiehammer]

Depends on who you're asking about a well run business. Hammers are above spuds for average 2023 attendances and Sullivan and co would say we're run very nicely thank you. But you ask anyone on here and we're run like a 3 legged greyhound.

Must admit I’m basing my comment on the business, not football, side. But we have to be honest and admit that over the last 30 or 40 years we haven’t been close to the N17 mob, even now despite us having a virtually free stadium and them having to make massive debt repayments on theirs, their revenues outstrip ours comfortably. As do their on field achievements most seasons.

That's what I'm saying. As a pure business adventure are those involved as businessmen going ok? As a sporting club mediocre? We've always been a cash cow for those who put their money in. Success on the field comes second. But as a business? They're not stupid.