Newcastle FFP

atypical_boro said:
Can they sponsor the stadium naming rights? "The Government of Saudi Arabia Arena" has a nice ring to it. Bet the fans would lap it up this time as well, such is the influence the PIF have over them.
Click to expand...
Not sure but perhaps. Man City get away with Etihad paying for their stadium.
 
I’m sure half of the teams in the Prem should have been demoted to the non league by now had they followed the rules.
 
As much as I dislike Newcastle this shows why FFP should be abolished. It's protecting the teams that have a lot of revenue against any other teams building up that revenue and being able to compete. Being allowed to spend so much more than other teams guarantees champions league money, and income, which makes it very difficult for any team to displace an established champions league team. It's ridiculously anticompetitive and I can't believe any team outside the big few were dumb enough to ever vote for it.
 
Nano said:
As much as I dislike Newcastle this shows why FFP should be abolished. It's protecting the teams that have a lot of revenue against any other teams building up that revenue and being able to compete. Being allowed to spend so much more than other teams guarantees champions league money, and income, which makes it very difficult for any team to displace an established champions league team. It's ridiculously anticompetitive and I can't believe any team outside the big few were dumb enough to ever vote for it.
Click to expand...
Whilst there are no doubt huge flaws in FFP anti-competition would be to allow the Saudi's to just go out and buy anyone and everyone they wanted. It would be a complete disaster for the sport.
 
Mfc79 said:
Whilst there are no doubt huge flaws in FFP anti-competition would be to allow the Saudi's to just go out and buy anyone and everyone they wanted. It would be a complete disaster for the sport.
Click to expand...
It really would, imagine if the Saudis who have zero morals could just stockpile 50 top top players on 500k per week, not even name half of them in the squad but just do it to prevent other clubs having good players? It would be a nightmarish scenario that would destroy football.
 
They'll sell Miley to AL Ettifaq or whatever for 200 Mil and loan him straight back. The premier league clubs had a chance to ban this type of stupid transfer but ridiculously enough clubs voted against it. Nothing in the rules to stop it now.
 
Colgates_shaving_foam said:
It really would, imagine if the Saudis who have zero morals could just stockpile 50 top top players on 500k per week, not even name half of them in the squad but just do it to prevent other clubs having good players? It would be a nightmarish scenario that would destroy football.
Click to expand...
It would just be the same as Man City or Chelsea now.

Colgates_shaving_foam said:
It really would, imagine if the Saudis who have zero morals could just stockpile 50 top top players on 500k per week, not even name half of them in the squad but just do it to prevent other clubs having good players? It would be a nightmarish scenario that would destroy football.
Click to expand...
None of them have morals or care about competition but the only fair options are either unlimited spending or fixed cap. Having a cap relative to revenue benefits the biggest clubs.

Saudi stockpiling would be the best thing that could happen because all the big clubs will realise that they can't compete so would have to implement something that is actually fair. They'd rather take their chances in a fair system than be in a system where they will definitely not come out on top. The big fish think they are invincible until an even bigger fish comes along.
 
The problem with FFP is the people making the rules in football are having to make rules for things that they didn't think would ever happen. The decisions football club owners make are unfathomable to the normal business mind!

For example the 8 year contracts that Boelhy was dishing out to circumvent the amortisation of a players contract for FFP, or the selling the training ground to your self and leasing it back to fudge book keeping (derby sheff wed etc). Or entire nation states owning football clubs!!

There is an element of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted, the Man city fiasco shouldn't have happened, but there weren't rules to prevent it, initially.
 
Hasn't the "Stadium sponsored by the people who own the club for well above the market rate to get around FFP" loophole been closed ?
 
Nano said:
As much as I dislike Newcastle this shows why FFP should be abolished. It's protecting the teams that have a lot of revenue against any other teams building up that revenue and being able to compete. Being allowed to spend so much more than other teams guarantees champions league money, and income, which makes it very difficult for any team to displace an established champions league team. It's ridiculously anticompetitive and I can't believe any team outside the big few were dumb enough to ever vote for it.
Click to expand...
But if you allow clubs in the Prem to just spend what they want then you're just widening the gap between Prem and EFL every year, eventually teams like us would never even be able to compete
 
LaPennaBianca said:
No, but £20m isn't unreasonable and that gives them wiggle room. It's why Chelsea sold Hall and City sold Palmer.
Click to expand...
Not sure a 20m sale gives them wiggle room to invest, it just keeps the FFP bailiff from the door. They will be making big losses again this year, because they fell at the first hurdle in europe, probably budgeted to at least continue in the other european competitions and to return to champs league for a second season. They won't have top 4 finish EPL income this year, they don't have the global brand or fan base for that passive income. I'd guess Man City still earn 2.5x more revenue than Newcastle this year.

They don't really have the youth system with progression like City or Chelsea to keep ticking over income from that either, traditionally Newcastle hasn't produced the volume or quality of players for decades. Many of the players that did make it, did so after being released for peanuts.
 
Nano said:
As much as I dislike Newcastle this shows why FFP should be abolished. It's protecting the teams that have a lot of revenue against any other teams building up that revenue and being able to compete. Being allowed to spend so much more than other teams guarantees champions league money, and income, which makes it very difficult for any team to displace an established champions league team. It's ridiculously anticompetitive and I can't believe any team outside the big few were dumb enough to ever vote for it.
Click to expand...
So maybe the answer is to change the system of revenue distribution, as well as FFP. FFP cannot resolve everything on its own.
 
MickaelDebevePhenomenal said:
There is an element of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted, the Man city fiasco shouldn't have happened, but there weren't rules to prevent it, initially.
Click to expand...
The other issue with this is that Chelsea, then Man City and then PSG over inflated the going rate for transfers and wages. This had the knock on effect that the teams below them are also forced to pay "market rate" which most of them can't afford.

you can see it right through the pyramid as most teams are carrying massive debts and making losses. FFP shouldn't allow any losses really. it should be a break even at minimum. imagine having a business that is allowed to make X amount of loss year on year
 
WTHFBAS said:
But if you allow clubs in the Prem to just spend what they want then you're just widening the gap between Prem and EFL every year, eventually teams like us would never even be able to compete
Click to expand...
Absolutely, there should be financial controls in football, to negate against reckless spending and to maintain a semblance of sporting integrity. Unfortunately that isnt what FFP does. It is a method to allow the established big clubs to spend more than other clubs
 
BoroMart said:
So maybe the answer is to change the system of revenue distribution, as well as FFP. FFP cannot resolve everything on its own.
Click to expand...
The answer is to change the spending limits to a fixed value. Anything else will be gamed but limit what a team can spend as they do in American Sports with salary caps then there is no way to get a competitive advantage through spending. Clubs can earn what they want commercially but they shouldn't be allowed to spend more of it on players than other teams.

Low_Key said:
The other issue with this is that Chelsea, then Man City and then PSG over inflated the going rate for transfers and wages. This had the knock on effect that the teams below them are also forced to pay "market rate" which most of them can't afford.

you can see it right through the pyramid as most teams are carrying massive debts and making losses. FFP shouldn't allow any losses really. it should be a break even at minimum. imagine having a business that is allowed to make X amount of loss year on year
Click to expand...
It's not a problem if the owner is willing to cover the losses though. Newcastle can afford to make a billion pound loss because the owner will give them a billion pound so it isn't a true loss. It's only a loss within a specific criteria. This is what FFP is designed to prevent, rich owners injecting cash into smaller clubs so they can compete with bigger clubs. In the current system a team can make £3bn revenue over 3 years and spend £3.105bn while a team that only generates £0.5bn over 3 years can only spend £0.605bn. The only way for them to compete is to spend more and that means breaching FFP. There is no chance for them to increase revenues without increasing spending so they will never be able to catch up.
 
Colgates_shaving_foam said:
It really would, imagine if the Saudis who have zero morals could just stockpile 50 top top players on 500k per week, not even name half of them in the squad but just do it to prevent other clubs having good players? It would be a nightmarish scenario that would destroy football.
Click to expand...
Bring the pricing down a bit, but isn't that just what the PL clubs do now, so teams like us don't get to sign the best young players?
 
Nano said:
The answer is to change the spending limits to a fixed value. Anything else will be gamed but limit what a team can spend as they do in American Sports with salary caps then there is no way to get a competitive advantage through spending. Clubs can earn what they want commercially but they shouldn't be allowed to spend more of it on players than other teams.
Click to expand...
that can only effectively be done globally, and would take co-ordination and no outliers that simply isn't feasible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top