|
|
Post by Stanley75 on Feb 28, 2023 14:19:22 GMT
In light of the club's latest published accounts, would you be in favour of FFP regulations being abolished?
Pros: The intention of regulations to prevent clubs from going bust.
Cons: Over regulation hinders smaller clubs from financially competing with larger ones, making it less of a level playing field.
Potential solution to abolition: Make 'fit and proper' tests for prospective buyers more stringent.
Discuss and vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rangers77 on Feb 28, 2023 14:21:12 GMT
I'm against everything the rotten powers that be propose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hitman34 on Feb 28, 2023 14:51:33 GMT
I’m for ffp but I’m against parachute money.
|
|
|
|
Post by alanwycombe on Feb 28, 2023 14:54:18 GMT
Can see pros and cons - all about closing loopholes, then you get fair play. If you don’t close loopholes then abolish it.
|
|
|
|
Post by The General on Feb 28, 2023 15:32:13 GMT
FFP is stopping us being in the Prem League
Until its scapped we are knackered
However not sayin itsxa bad thing
Just bad for us as we cannot spend any money
|
|
|
|
Post by Corbray on Feb 28, 2023 15:56:49 GMT
no but it needs to undergo some drastic change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stanley75 on Feb 28, 2023 16:17:36 GMT
Can see pros and cons - all about closing loopholes, then you get fair play. If you don’t close loopholes then abolish it. no but it needs to undergo some drastic change. Fair points. IOW reform as opposed to scrap. Which for the purposes of the poll would fall under the "Don't know" category. Granted that could have been worded better. |
|
|
|
Post by acricketer on Feb 28, 2023 16:24:48 GMT
FFP limits ability to compete. Parachute payments create a gap with those clubs limited by FFP making it harder and harder to get close to being promoted in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by sparks on Feb 28, 2023 16:32:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gtleighsr3 on Feb 28, 2023 16:45:32 GMT
FFP is stopping us being in the Prem League Until its scapped we are knackered However not sayin itsxa bad thing Just bad for us as we cannot spend any money Shit manager and shit players stopping us being in the prem |
|
|
|
Post by 2Loftus on Feb 28, 2023 18:19:33 GMT
Footballing reasons aside, to some extent, FFP protects local small traders who trade with clubs.
So many times in the past I've read of local businesses getting shafted by clubs who've not paid them for services - landscapers, builders, office equipment suppliers and so on. FFP at least limits clubs' exposure to massive and unsustainable debt.
Not having FFP will bring back the 'Wild West' feel with clubs existing at the whim of some vain, rich individual or dodgy organisation who may support the club until they get bored with their shiny new plaything. Too often they walk away, protected by limited liability while local community businesses suffer.
|
|
|
|
Post by hal9thou on Feb 28, 2023 18:37:01 GMT
Footballing reasons aside, to some extent, FFP protects local small traders who trade with clubs. So many times in the past I've read of local businesses getting shafted by clubs who've not paid them for services - landscapers, builders, office equipment suppliers and so on. FFP at least limits clubs' exposure to massive and unsustainable debt. Not having FFP will bring back the 'Wild West' feel with clubs existing at the whim of some vain, rich individual or dodgy organisation who may support the club until they get bored with their shiny new plaything. Too often they walk away, protected by limited liability while local community businesses suffer. What FFP actually does is maintain the status quo. Ask any of the top six. FFP is a restrictive practice and should be anathema in a free market economy. |
|
|
|
Post by Stanley75 on Feb 28, 2023 18:45:57 GMT
Footballing reasons aside, to some extent, FFP protects local small traders who trade with clubs. So many times in the past I've read of local businesses getting shafted by clubs who've not paid them for services - landscapers, builders, office equipment suppliers and so on. FFP at least limits clubs' exposure to massive and unsustainable debt. Not having FFP will bring back the 'Wild West' feel with clubs existing at the whim of some vain, rich individual or dodgy organisation who may support the club until they get bored with their shiny new plaything. Too often they walk away, protected by limited liability while local community businesses suffer. What FFP actually does is maintain the status quo. Ask any of the top six. FFP is a restrictive practice and should be anathema in a free market economy. Sounds closer to a protection racket IOW. The road to hell can be paved with good intention. |
|
|
|
Post by stainrodisalegend on Feb 28, 2023 19:51:40 GMT
A good and timely thread.
I voted abolition as think the current system just entrenches the status quo, and there is nothing "fair" about the current status quo.
Chelsea and Man City haven't grown to that size organically, they just got their crazy spend in early.
It also distorts the Prem as the big clubs know they won't go down so they can spend what they like, but smaller clubs have to play with an eye over their shoulder.
But accept we probably need something in place. A salary/ transfer cap? X per cent of spend over y amount going to the FA/ EFL to be re-distributed to the lower leagues? Probably better ideas out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill on Mar 1, 2023 11:03:44 GMT
Really poor rule.
Not given enough thought.
At every level the rules are rotten to the core.
|
|
|
|
Post by shepherdsmush on Mar 1, 2023 12:07:12 GMT
Only thing I've got a problem with is the ludicrous fine we incurred, which I think they changed the rules on the following year ??
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg1882 on Mar 1, 2023 22:01:33 GMT
Think the whole ffp needs looking at again and if we must abide by it at least realign it. The 39m over 3 years was bought in a few years ago now and as we all know the cost of everything has rocketed in recent years. Surely that must mean the amount of loss needs adjusting to suit. The championship is one of the best if not the best second tier comp in world football yet all clubs bar the parachute payment clubs can’t spend a bean. All operating at losses. The model is broken and that’s surely not right. Measures need to be in place to stop another Wimbledon but ffs football is an entertainment business and fans are being short changed. The sole aim of loads of fantastic football clubs is simply to survive a winding up order. Surely that’s wrong? Really think this needs more weight behind it.
|
|
|
|
Post by MattyRangers on Mar 2, 2023 7:40:11 GMT
Whilst I admit I don't have an in-depth knowledge of it all, at a fundamental level (whilst appreciating why it was brought in) I think it is totally flawed & needs abolishing.
The way I see it is that having your spending bound by your revenue simply lets the already established 'big' clubs (with the bigger stadiums etc) spend more than the 'small clubs'. In essence retaining the status quo. I am personally all for a club getting a loaded investor in and splashing some cash to try & get them up the hierarchy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rangers77 on Mar 2, 2023 9:28:07 GMT
This. The NFL requires bigger clubs to subsidise smaller one. We should do that here. Charge the Manchester and London Blues and Reds to play other teams too.
|
|
|
|
Post by alanwycombe on Mar 2, 2023 9:35:06 GMT
Years ago I used to think it would be a good idea for a larger club to adopt a smaller one - in those days I thought we could adopt Brentford 😂
|
|
|
|
Post by hal9thou on Mar 2, 2023 12:58:39 GMT
Years ago I used to think it would be a good idea for a larger club to adopt a smaller one - in those days I thought we could adopt Brentford 😂 Yup, I remember that being discussed, Brentford were struggling. In those days we had a chairman who understood the game. |
|
|
|
Post by gtleighsr3 on Mar 2, 2023 14:54:45 GMT
We could adopt at lgbt Ukrainian team
|
|
|
|
Post by Stanley75 on Jun 12, 2023 10:09:23 GMT
Looks a belter and it is quite something that we can lay pitches at a reported 2 million a pop yet are rummaging around the bins looking for players. This football lark really is a joke when you look at the teams at the top and how they spend facilities and academies are excempt from FFP so the owners are able to dip into their pockets to pay for it Which makes a total farce of FFP rules because it only serves to widen the divide between the bigger and smaller clubs, and therefore damaging to competition and creates elite monopolies. Thus the "FAIR" in FFP really becomes a total misnomer and makes it a completely misguided and failed system. FFP and P&S should be abolished and replaced by much more stringent 'fit and proper person' rules. That IMO would result in a far fairer and more egalitarian system. |
|
|
|
Post by gtleighsr3 on Jun 12, 2023 11:20:30 GMT
Think they should drop the fair play bit
|
|
|
|
Post by alanwycombe on Jun 12, 2023 13:50:28 GMT
We could adopt at lgbt Ukrainian team Probably best if you don’t email Hoos with that one, 77 will be straight off to Dignitas. |
|
|
|
Post by Rangers77 on Jun 12, 2023 19:20:28 GMT
We could adopt at lgbt Ukrainian team Probably best if you don’t email Hoos with that one, 77 will be straight off to Dignitas. 🤣😂🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by Tarbie on Jun 13, 2023 4:01:50 GMT
Can see pros and cons - all about closing loopholes, then you get fair play. If you don’t close loopholes then abolish it. 100% this! Either needs to be an even playing field or it needs abolished. Too many larger clubs finding ways to work the system. |
|
|
|
Post by Stanley75 on Aug 9, 2024 15:34:43 GMT
It's not. A highly flawed system that does more harm than good to the clubs it is supposed to be protecting. Allowing the rich clubs to get richer, the poor clubs to get poorer, diluting competitiveness further and making less of a level playing field. With Sky and the player's parasitic agents laughing all the way to the bank, haemorrhaging yet more millions out of the sport and its grass roots. In summary, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. |
|
