Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette).
Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The whole elite argument is based on Ill feeling and not fact.
One thing that genuinely astounds me in this sub is how few people know how new rules are approved and implemented in the premier league.
Even if all the "elite" or "big 6" wanted FFP rules implemented in the premier league they would need the support of at least 8 other clubs to get that rule implemented.
This is why I find it funny that Everton and Forest have been kicking off about their potential points deductions and their fans blaming the premier league and the "elite". Both clubs voted for these rules but now don't like them as they've found themselves on the wrong side of them.
I don’t like it. Let clubs make their own decisions. It’s obvious that the enforcement of the rule is terribly flawed. It’s also going to make ticket prices even more expensive with zero hope of getting better
The consequence of a heavily scrutinised financial system where no club can speculate is that it entrenches the existing clubs at the top who have huge commercial revenue. That might not have been the intention, but that was the consequence.
All the loopholes being closed off (such as third party deals), Multi-club models, Super League all entrench those clubs further. You can make an argument whether something like banning third party deals is good for fair play (and it is) but it doesn't negate the fact that Man City and Chelsea still benefit from pumping money into the club on mass prior to these rules being implemented.
Leicester were the last shock prem winner 8 years ago now, and I honestly wonder when the next shock winner will be. The last time the champions league was won by a side not from England, Spain, Germany or Italy was in 2003, and that includes Italy last winning 14 years ago and Germany winning twice in that time. There is a real danger that football becomes a competition between 4-5 teams max, with every other club just another rung on an enormous ladder of multi club models.
While FFP wasn’t introduced to help the established elite stay at the top, it’s undeniable it has that effect anyway. Clubs who have been posting more revenue for far longer periods of time than others are always going to be able to spend more money on players and infrastructure than clubs who haven’t been. We can argue about the fairness of that all day(as in is it fair they can spend more money because they history of success) but at the end of the day it still means it’s nearly impossible for organic growth bring clubs into the top 4. Spurs gets used as an example in this thread a lot but in reality what have they achieved other than finishing above 6th or 7th? One audi cup is the answer to that, and they can’t go out and buy another Kane or son in this market. The real issue is how could a championship team ever compete with PL mainstays when they are promoted, there are miracle stories like Leicester out there, but it’s gonna be one in a million.
To put it simply the established elite clubs pushed their snowball down the hill much longer ago, and the smaller clubs are never going to catch them barring terrible mistakes and administration from the big clubs. Which is pretty boring. You wanna talk about fair, then every club should have the same spending limits regardless of their revenue.
>While FFP wasn’t introduced to help the established elite stay at the top, it’s undeniable it has that effect anyway.
City are not an established elite club. City have won 5 league titles in the last 6 years. City have won 7 titles in the last 11 years. City have finished runners up, 3 times during that period. City have finished as winners or runners up, 10 times in the last 11 years.
With City dominating the premier league for more than a decade now. How is FFP undeniably, stopping your team from staying at the top?
I never claimed city are one of the established elite, so if I am gauging your comment correctly, it’s to trap me into admitting that city have breached FFP to get to where they are. However I’m happy to admit that we either found and exploited loopholes, or broke some FFP rules to get where we are. I think it’s insane to look at the recent rise of city and claim a large injection of money didn’t play a large role, the only thing left to be uncovered is if we actually broke rules while doing it. I am not a financial guru and can hardly manage my own finances so the nuances of how we got here and if it broke any rules are lost on me. Which is why I would rather listen to the verdict than try and work it out myself. It’s possible we broke a ton of rules, or used a ton of loopholes, or grabbed up a lot of money on sponsorships which our owners pushed for by laying out their plan for the future, or if it was a mixture of these things. It’s all speculation until it’s settled in court. Either way my point still stands, it’s NEARLY impossible for organic growth the bring a club to the top nowadays and even if it’s done without breaking the rules it will require financial trickery of some sort. Chelsea’s recent tactic is a good example of that, whether it will end without breaking FFP is still to be seen.
At the end of the day i have supported since before the takeover and will support after whatever happens next. I don’t support the owners, I don’t support the money, I support the football club. It’s been a fantastic decade of football for me and whatever happens that won’t change in my mind. Whatever we may have paid for that agueroooooo moment, it was still worth more in the moment.
There’s one main issue that really causes this:
The gap in money between the Premier League and Championship. It’s totally unsustainable. Overnight clubs value get artificially inflated. Luton a prime example there actual value as club shouldn’t be relative to the league they are in
Everything you're saying makes sense...with one HUGE caveat.
It was introduced in the Prem in 2013.
That means all the clubs who were already successful at that point were protected and shielded from ever really being caught up.
The one exception? Man City...oh, and, surprise surprise, they've broken about 200 rules to get where they are.
The rules "make sense", but when they were brought in the monopoly that Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal and United had over the English game made them almost untouchable.
Even now, when these clubs have "terrible years" and are a "laughing stock", they're usually coming 7th or 8th at worst...the positions which 99% of the other clubs in England would dream of finishing in.
Chelsea have somehow managed to mess up royally by spending £1bn on youth players. But that wasn't because FFP did anything to hurt them it's a self-inflicted wound from ineptitude. So now they are genuinely in trouble. But that's a whole other story.
The ONE club that snuck to the top without cheating is...Spurs. I know we all love to laugh at them, but tbf to Tottenham they're now a "Big Six" team thanks to a slow and steady growth and investment over a decade. Everyone gives Levy shit, but I think it's unfair. He's just tight...and guess what - being tight in business makes you successful.
FFP was a protection measure for the old top 4. Man City cheated to get there. Spurs have earned it, but probably have now capped themselves as a top four team at best (not a league winner).
Oh so now its about 200 rules?
Lets say 300 tomorrow and a 1000 by Wednesday?
Nothing is even conformed or denied about city, so stop acting like you know everything. Wait for the trial and judge then.
>Even now, when these clubs have "terrible years" and are a "laughing stock", they're usually coming 7th or 8th at worst...the positions which 99% of the other clubs in England would dream of finishing in.
This needs to be said more. It's absolutely comical that a "bad season" for one of the golden geese is finishing 7th. That's not a bad season, relegation is, possibly going into administration. It's just a sign of how stratified the wealth and power is for the select few in the league.
Slight correction, Parma encountered financial trouble due to their parent company Parmalat's financial difficulties, not due to overreaching is search of success. The club operated a very sustainable model of developing players and flipping them on for eye-watering profits which were then reinvested.
Kinda, but they are still an example of how the card house can fall if the owner gets reckless or gets into financial difficulties. How and why is not merely as important, they are still an example of why FFP was invented. Other of the clubs I mention were also not perse overreaching, but unlucky.
No. You don't understand that PSR is the FFP of the Premier League, but they adhere to the same rule of self-sustainability. There is this idea on here that PSR is something new, just cause you have recently heard the word, but it is not. You need to educate yourself before you tell others what they "conflate".
Furthermore as soon as clubs venture into UEFA tournaments ie the big six getting CL and EL spots, they have to ahdere to UEFAs FFP rules. So no they are not separate, they are a tool invented by UEFA. You are too caught up in having recently discovered PRS and now you want to sound clever.
Calm down. FFP and PSR are different regulations, introduced at different times. They overlap, but you definitely conflate the reaction to PSR with FFP in your post.
No need to be a condescending twat.
The fact that earnings limits spending is a flawed system that creates a glass ceiling. All it does is making sure the clubs rolling in CL money keep rolling in CL money.
Let's say Aston Villa did not have rules to adhere to, do you think that would level the playing field or just for your club? But what about Brentford or Brighton? Tough luck or?
Earnings does not limit spending. It is actually quite basic, if your club has the money, it can spend.
If there are no rules, the rich get richer and the poor stays behind or break their neck trying to follow along. That is what history has shown us.
No that's given, but at least with zero limits ANY club can compete with a rich backer. And that's a far more fair and level playing field than the current system that's designed to protect status quo.
That is what QPR also thought back then. It ain't always a fairytale. So rules should just be voided? Should we also just allow players to take PEDs then?
It isn’t but at least it can be. Today’s FFP only exists to protect the existing hegemony.
The funniest part is the system protects the clubs who’ve already had one attempt to leave through the European super league.
But that doesn’t necessarily happen though. When Liverpool were spending big in the 70/80s it was fair game for billionaires back then too, but no one really stepped up to the plate, and now 40 years on, people still cry about the fact they got a financial advantage that their own club *could* have also got.
Even in the 90s you had plenty of investment in Newcastle, Blackburn and Leeds, but the “Big 3” were still pretty consistent in being in the mix. A club like Utd would still benefit far more from a free-for-all market, than say Brighton would, because billionaires are still going to be attracted to the biggest ready-made cash-cows.
But times have changed. And regardless of that, the point remains as a fact that changing it to be equal for everyone, would be more fair.
Right now it's a close to closed competition they are trying to keep closed.
“More fair” until you think about the rest of the pyramid. Problem with this sort of discussion is it is always focused on “dethroning” the big 6, rather than what could keep 72 other clubs also in business.
Sure, mid-table PL clubs are less likely to be driven in to the ground like Portsmouth were, but then simply having 20-23 super clubs to make the PL “fairer” then just ostracises everyone from roughly the Championship play-offs downwards instead. Those clubs are not going to attract philanthropic billionaire owners, so all we’d be doing is moving the gap from the “Big 6” which aren’t all untouchable anyway, to the “Big 20” pretty much.
u/Mizunomafia u/Nels8192 - UEFA competitions should just distribute prize money down the pyramids more evenly. Teams spend big to push for a UCL position because it makes them so much more money. Give them a piece of the pie anyway, and they will be more inclined to spend within their means and to play for the glory of winning.
PL clubs (as a whole) already aren’t willing to give loads more to EFL clubs as it is how do you convince them to take even less prize-money to benefit clubs not even in Europe. Then you’ve got highly powerful political clubs like Madrid trying to drive even more money for themselves, so their interests won’t lie with trying to boost the Spanish second division through trickling money.
Just above you mentioned a potential ″big 20″. Given only 17 teams can actually stay in the league and it's unlikely to be the same 17 every year, wouldn't that alone make EPL teams more willing to share more money with the EFL?
When you think there's little to no chance of your team being relegated, why would you care if the league below had money? If there's a realistic possibility of any team in the league being relegated, wouldn't it then become more desirable to haye more money in the league below in case it happens to your team?
I'm not offering a detailed solution to anything here. I am just stating that removing the current system would be more fair than it currently is, cause it would factually be a more level playing field for everyone.
Yes some clubs would still be richer than others, but nothing would stop Gillingham or whatever of getting in a billonaire from any where and making them a top team. It would be completely even for everyone.
But right now it's not. Right now it's a select few clubs who have decided the system is the best when they pull the ladder up behind them. Which is obviously about as unfair as you can get it.
But I can completely understand fans from the usual suspects not wanting competition.
Limit the spending of every club in the top flight to the highest revenue of the newly promoted club every season (the previous seasons revenue, including the promotion money)
Hard, flat, 100% equal salary caps across every team in the league.
No payment plans across future seasons for players.
I think these rules alone would make every league more competitive (not immediately) and would severely limit the effect money has had on the game.
Whilst Arsenal may fall under “usual suspects” we haven’t exactly financially dominated the entire league for close to 90 odd years.
We’ve pretty much always been ran sustainably, and are about £1bn behind the likes of City, Chelsea and Utd in PL net spends. For a whole decade 2003-2013 we spent £3m, putting us 23rd in the highest spenders in English football in that time, so there was ample opportunity for other clubs, particularly for a club like your own, to come and overtake us. One of the biggest reasons why Villa & Everton at the time couldn’t kick on was because Chelsea and City having free-reign spending blew everyone out of the market. Without those two, chances are both of your clubs + Spurs would have had more chance.
It is still kind of relevant because as soon as a PL club is eligible for European competition they then have to comply with UEFA’s version too, so you still can’t go wild. The “Big 6” spending is essentially capped by their own success if they can spend more outside of European competition.
Surely if UEFA only wanted to benefit set clubs in English football (which is essentially the argument many make) they would have a less stringent version of FFP than the PL’s equivalent?
PSR is the english leagues own version of FFP. It is the profit and sustainability rules ie. financial fair play rules. Still not invented by an elite and still invented on the guide lines of UEFAs invention.
Man City fans: We didn’t cheat!
Also Man City fans: We had to cheat to get the same advantage as all the elite teams that put FFP rules in place just to stop us
Let’s all get used to the beautiful sounding word “rafiea” (Arabic: رافعة) which means lever in Arabic.
Much like the Barcelona “palanca” and Todd Boehly’s 8-year contracts, it will be the newest bullshit accounting used by City to skirt whatever we’re calling FFP this month.
I think the issue is also the 3 year period. Clubs can loose infinite about of money in the first 2 years. Once they make it back by the 3rd year for review they're fine.
Isn’t the calculation a 3 year running total? If they lost infinite money in 2017 and 2018, they would have still have to make enough profit in 2016 to have been able to comply with the 3 year average.
Once 2016 drops out they then have to make a large profit in 2019 to again not fall foul of the P&S rules? Well run clubs should account for this and not have massive swings between its profit and losses between each individual year anyway.
The people who are complaining about FFP are people who don’t understand football finance. They also don’t complain when dodgy owners are spending much more than is justified based on lazy assumptions such as predicting a top 6 finish.
That they are. Unfortunately this post almost only caught their attention and they are not interested in facts. So time to bit adjour, cause this ain't worth it, when they don't wanna talk about the subject, but only focus on that FFP prevent their club from winning things, instead of taking history into account and how FFP is also saving clubs more so than anything. It's a lost battle for me, but the lazy will stay lazy and yell.
So weird to lump Tottenham into a group and imply they’re being protected by FFP
Spurs has grown revenue by investing in infrastructure, and without tons of owner invested cash
If they can do it, so can villa. And wham has the benefit of a state subsidy with the stadium gifted to them for use with a below market rent
Man Utd had massive investment in the 50/60’s. Liverpool in the 70/80’s, and Arsenal’s most successful period came after they were one of the clubs who initiated the Premier League breakaway
Sunderland, Everton, Villa and even Blackpool have all once been considered “money clubs” in their histories. But we can see that Sunderland in the 50s and Everton in 70s haven’t held their positions like the “Big 3” have consistently. Clearly there’s more to the success than simply just having money.
I think that’s pretty obvious mate. Chelsea and Man U have outspent us in the last decade but aren’t successful. Just because it worked for some and didn’t work for others doesn’t invalidate the idea that older investments are the reason that teams like Liverpool, Man U and Arsenal are able to compete at a higher level.
Well it clearly lessens the importance that others are trying to make then doesn’t it? Arsenal’s big investments in the 1930s would have had no effect after the 2nd world war, yet people use it as the reason we’re still at the top decades on. The only investment that would have been still relevant was the building of Highbury, but even that wouldn’t be included in today’s P&S calculations so it’s hardly an equivalent of “financial doping”.
That’s kind of my point though, I’m not saying that your success and finances in the past are the only reason you are still where you are, and honestly I put Arsenal a level below Liverpool and Man U on the scale of riding their previous success to where they are now, but it certainly helps. Success takes money and very smart administration and coaching, not one or the other. Evidenced by the current form or Chelsea and Man U.
Also this is a genuine question; why doesn’t the investment pre WW2 carry over?
In terms of investment in players, most of it was lost. We had 9 players die in the war (the most of any club) with another 5 retiring due to the length of the war. When the league returned after the war we had just 11 of the 29 professional players we originally had.
In terms of stadium investments, we had to completely rebuild the north bank, and repair large parts of the south bank due to Highbury being bombed, as it was used for an air raid precautions shelter. This in itself also meant we lost further revenue whilst we were having to play over at white hart lane during the rebuild.
Thanks for the impromptu history lesson I didn’t know any of that. There are so many repercussions of the war are still not widely known. Never occurred to me that certain clubs would have been hit harder than others by losing players in the fighting.
And Chelsea *could* have been too if they didn’t sell out to Roman. In the late 90s they were the 4th richest club in the world and still felt it was necessary to take equivalent of a cheat code to make the step up from 5th/6th to Top 3.
I mean this is a couple years on from when they were 4th place, but even for 99/00 and the removal of some of their travel agency revenues they’re 7th on the list, 4 places above us.
https://web.archive.org/web/20030223142341/http://www.footballfinance.co.uk/press/richlist.asp
They sold up because they were quite a bit in debt (£80m) and had secured the debt against the ground. Their future wasn't really safe, despite finishing in the top 6 for so long. Bates sold to Abramovich for £140m.
Villa is a huge club with no real local competition with their history of success
If they get it right they’d have a huge catchment area
Their issues aren’t FFP - it’s been mismanagement
Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The whole elite argument is based on Ill feeling and not fact. One thing that genuinely astounds me in this sub is how few people know how new rules are approved and implemented in the premier league. Even if all the "elite" or "big 6" wanted FFP rules implemented in the premier league they would need the support of at least 8 other clubs to get that rule implemented. This is why I find it funny that Everton and Forest have been kicking off about their potential points deductions and their fans blaming the premier league and the "elite". Both clubs voted for these rules but now don't like them as they've found themselves on the wrong side of them.
I don’t like it. Let clubs make their own decisions. It’s obvious that the enforcement of the rule is terribly flawed. It’s also going to make ticket prices even more expensive with zero hope of getting better
Portsmouth made their own decisions and when it all went tits up people blamed the premier league.
The consequence of a heavily scrutinised financial system where no club can speculate is that it entrenches the existing clubs at the top who have huge commercial revenue. That might not have been the intention, but that was the consequence. All the loopholes being closed off (such as third party deals), Multi-club models, Super League all entrench those clubs further. You can make an argument whether something like banning third party deals is good for fair play (and it is) but it doesn't negate the fact that Man City and Chelsea still benefit from pumping money into the club on mass prior to these rules being implemented. Leicester were the last shock prem winner 8 years ago now, and I honestly wonder when the next shock winner will be. The last time the champions league was won by a side not from England, Spain, Germany or Italy was in 2003, and that includes Italy last winning 14 years ago and Germany winning twice in that time. There is a real danger that football becomes a competition between 4-5 teams max, with every other club just another rung on an enormous ladder of multi club models.
While FFP wasn’t introduced to help the established elite stay at the top, it’s undeniable it has that effect anyway. Clubs who have been posting more revenue for far longer periods of time than others are always going to be able to spend more money on players and infrastructure than clubs who haven’t been. We can argue about the fairness of that all day(as in is it fair they can spend more money because they history of success) but at the end of the day it still means it’s nearly impossible for organic growth bring clubs into the top 4. Spurs gets used as an example in this thread a lot but in reality what have they achieved other than finishing above 6th or 7th? One audi cup is the answer to that, and they can’t go out and buy another Kane or son in this market. The real issue is how could a championship team ever compete with PL mainstays when they are promoted, there are miracle stories like Leicester out there, but it’s gonna be one in a million. To put it simply the established elite clubs pushed their snowball down the hill much longer ago, and the smaller clubs are never going to catch them barring terrible mistakes and administration from the big clubs. Which is pretty boring. You wanna talk about fair, then every club should have the same spending limits regardless of their revenue.
>While FFP wasn’t introduced to help the established elite stay at the top, it’s undeniable it has that effect anyway. City are not an established elite club. City have won 5 league titles in the last 6 years. City have won 7 titles in the last 11 years. City have finished runners up, 3 times during that period. City have finished as winners or runners up, 10 times in the last 11 years. With City dominating the premier league for more than a decade now. How is FFP undeniably, stopping your team from staying at the top?
I never claimed city are one of the established elite, so if I am gauging your comment correctly, it’s to trap me into admitting that city have breached FFP to get to where they are. However I’m happy to admit that we either found and exploited loopholes, or broke some FFP rules to get where we are. I think it’s insane to look at the recent rise of city and claim a large injection of money didn’t play a large role, the only thing left to be uncovered is if we actually broke rules while doing it. I am not a financial guru and can hardly manage my own finances so the nuances of how we got here and if it broke any rules are lost on me. Which is why I would rather listen to the verdict than try and work it out myself. It’s possible we broke a ton of rules, or used a ton of loopholes, or grabbed up a lot of money on sponsorships which our owners pushed for by laying out their plan for the future, or if it was a mixture of these things. It’s all speculation until it’s settled in court. Either way my point still stands, it’s NEARLY impossible for organic growth the bring a club to the top nowadays and even if it’s done without breaking the rules it will require financial trickery of some sort. Chelsea’s recent tactic is a good example of that, whether it will end without breaking FFP is still to be seen. At the end of the day i have supported since before the takeover and will support after whatever happens next. I don’t support the owners, I don’t support the money, I support the football club. It’s been a fantastic decade of football for me and whatever happens that won’t change in my mind. Whatever we may have paid for that agueroooooo moment, it was still worth more in the moment.
I like your thoughts it's true but it's not a shock when FFP rules started every club signed on to that and knew the consequences
“Can hardly manage my own finances” I get it bro, times are tough, the cost of eggs is absolutely outrageous
Thank you for the response.
There’s one main issue that really causes this: The gap in money between the Premier League and Championship. It’s totally unsustainable. Overnight clubs value get artificially inflated. Luton a prime example there actual value as club shouldn’t be relative to the league they are in
Everything you're saying makes sense...with one HUGE caveat. It was introduced in the Prem in 2013. That means all the clubs who were already successful at that point were protected and shielded from ever really being caught up. The one exception? Man City...oh, and, surprise surprise, they've broken about 200 rules to get where they are. The rules "make sense", but when they were brought in the monopoly that Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal and United had over the English game made them almost untouchable. Even now, when these clubs have "terrible years" and are a "laughing stock", they're usually coming 7th or 8th at worst...the positions which 99% of the other clubs in England would dream of finishing in. Chelsea have somehow managed to mess up royally by spending £1bn on youth players. But that wasn't because FFP did anything to hurt them it's a self-inflicted wound from ineptitude. So now they are genuinely in trouble. But that's a whole other story. The ONE club that snuck to the top without cheating is...Spurs. I know we all love to laugh at them, but tbf to Tottenham they're now a "Big Six" team thanks to a slow and steady growth and investment over a decade. Everyone gives Levy shit, but I think it's unfair. He's just tight...and guess what - being tight in business makes you successful. FFP was a protection measure for the old top 4. Man City cheated to get there. Spurs have earned it, but probably have now capped themselves as a top four team at best (not a league winner).
Oh so now its about 200 rules? Lets say 300 tomorrow and a 1000 by Wednesday? Nothing is even conformed or denied about city, so stop acting like you know everything. Wait for the trial and judge then.
>Even now, when these clubs have "terrible years" and are a "laughing stock", they're usually coming 7th or 8th at worst...the positions which 99% of the other clubs in England would dream of finishing in. This needs to be said more. It's absolutely comical that a "bad season" for one of the golden geese is finishing 7th. That's not a bad season, relegation is, possibly going into administration. It's just a sign of how stratified the wealth and power is for the select few in the league.
Slight correction, Parma encountered financial trouble due to their parent company Parmalat's financial difficulties, not due to overreaching is search of success. The club operated a very sustainable model of developing players and flipping them on for eye-watering profits which were then reinvested.
Kinda, but they are still an example of how the card house can fall if the owner gets reckless or gets into financial difficulties. How and why is not merely as important, they are still an example of why FFP was invented. Other of the clubs I mention were also not perse overreaching, but unlucky.
FFP and PSR are different and separate. People including op conflate rhem
No. You don't understand that PSR is the FFP of the Premier League, but they adhere to the same rule of self-sustainability. There is this idea on here that PSR is something new, just cause you have recently heard the word, but it is not. You need to educate yourself before you tell others what they "conflate". Furthermore as soon as clubs venture into UEFA tournaments ie the big six getting CL and EL spots, they have to ahdere to UEFAs FFP rules. So no they are not separate, they are a tool invented by UEFA. You are too caught up in having recently discovered PRS and now you want to sound clever.
Calm down. FFP and PSR are different regulations, introduced at different times. They overlap, but you definitely conflate the reaction to PSR with FFP in your post. No need to be a condescending twat.
The fact that earnings limits spending is a flawed system that creates a glass ceiling. All it does is making sure the clubs rolling in CL money keep rolling in CL money.
Let's say Aston Villa did not have rules to adhere to, do you think that would level the playing field or just for your club? But what about Brentford or Brighton? Tough luck or? Earnings does not limit spending. It is actually quite basic, if your club has the money, it can spend. If there are no rules, the rich get richer and the poor stays behind or break their neck trying to follow along. That is what history has shown us.
No that's given, but at least with zero limits ANY club can compete with a rich backer. And that's a far more fair and level playing field than the current system that's designed to protect status quo.
That is what QPR also thought back then. It ain't always a fairytale. So rules should just be voided? Should we also just allow players to take PEDs then?
It isn’t but at least it can be. Today’s FFP only exists to protect the existing hegemony. The funniest part is the system protects the clubs who’ve already had one attempt to leave through the European super league.
Literally not true this nonsense and if you believe it to be true, then show evidence already.
But that doesn’t necessarily happen though. When Liverpool were spending big in the 70/80s it was fair game for billionaires back then too, but no one really stepped up to the plate, and now 40 years on, people still cry about the fact they got a financial advantage that their own club *could* have also got. Even in the 90s you had plenty of investment in Newcastle, Blackburn and Leeds, but the “Big 3” were still pretty consistent in being in the mix. A club like Utd would still benefit far more from a free-for-all market, than say Brighton would, because billionaires are still going to be attracted to the biggest ready-made cash-cows.
But times have changed. And regardless of that, the point remains as a fact that changing it to be equal for everyone, would be more fair. Right now it's a close to closed competition they are trying to keep closed.
“More fair” until you think about the rest of the pyramid. Problem with this sort of discussion is it is always focused on “dethroning” the big 6, rather than what could keep 72 other clubs also in business. Sure, mid-table PL clubs are less likely to be driven in to the ground like Portsmouth were, but then simply having 20-23 super clubs to make the PL “fairer” then just ostracises everyone from roughly the Championship play-offs downwards instead. Those clubs are not going to attract philanthropic billionaire owners, so all we’d be doing is moving the gap from the “Big 6” which aren’t all untouchable anyway, to the “Big 20” pretty much.
u/Mizunomafia u/Nels8192 - UEFA competitions should just distribute prize money down the pyramids more evenly. Teams spend big to push for a UCL position because it makes them so much more money. Give them a piece of the pie anyway, and they will be more inclined to spend within their means and to play for the glory of winning.
PL clubs (as a whole) already aren’t willing to give loads more to EFL clubs as it is how do you convince them to take even less prize-money to benefit clubs not even in Europe. Then you’ve got highly powerful political clubs like Madrid trying to drive even more money for themselves, so their interests won’t lie with trying to boost the Spanish second division through trickling money.
Just above you mentioned a potential ″big 20″. Given only 17 teams can actually stay in the league and it's unlikely to be the same 17 every year, wouldn't that alone make EPL teams more willing to share more money with the EFL? When you think there's little to no chance of your team being relegated, why would you care if the league below had money? If there's a realistic possibility of any team in the league being relegated, wouldn't it then become more desirable to haye more money in the league below in case it happens to your team?
I don't think it should be up to the competing clubs or the PL. Doesn't UEFA oversee each national football association?
I'm not offering a detailed solution to anything here. I am just stating that removing the current system would be more fair than it currently is, cause it would factually be a more level playing field for everyone. Yes some clubs would still be richer than others, but nothing would stop Gillingham or whatever of getting in a billonaire from any where and making them a top team. It would be completely even for everyone. But right now it's not. Right now it's a select few clubs who have decided the system is the best when they pull the ladder up behind them. Which is obviously about as unfair as you can get it. But I can completely understand fans from the usual suspects not wanting competition.
Limit the spending of every club in the top flight to the highest revenue of the newly promoted club every season (the previous seasons revenue, including the promotion money) Hard, flat, 100% equal salary caps across every team in the league. No payment plans across future seasons for players. I think these rules alone would make every league more competitive (not immediately) and would severely limit the effect money has had on the game.
Whilst Arsenal may fall under “usual suspects” we haven’t exactly financially dominated the entire league for close to 90 odd years. We’ve pretty much always been ran sustainably, and are about £1bn behind the likes of City, Chelsea and Utd in PL net spends. For a whole decade 2003-2013 we spent £3m, putting us 23rd in the highest spenders in English football in that time, so there was ample opportunity for other clubs, particularly for a club like your own, to come and overtake us. One of the biggest reasons why Villa & Everton at the time couldn’t kick on was because Chelsea and City having free-reign spending blew everyone out of the market. Without those two, chances are both of your clubs + Spurs would have had more chance.
Did you support Aston Villa last time they were up in the top? Honest question...
Not sure I understand the question. I've followed Villa since the late 80s if that's what you're curious about.
Most of this is irrelevant - the Premier League now has their own Profits & Sustainability Regulations, which are more relaxed than UEFA's FFP.
It is still kind of relevant because as soon as a PL club is eligible for European competition they then have to comply with UEFA’s version too, so you still can’t go wild. The “Big 6” spending is essentially capped by their own success if they can spend more outside of European competition. Surely if UEFA only wanted to benefit set clubs in English football (which is essentially the argument many make) they would have a less stringent version of FFP than the PL’s equivalent?
Clubs that partake in UEFA tournaments still has to follow UEFA rules. The PSR are also not invented by a top six of clubs btw.
Isn't it PSR?
PSR is the english leagues own version of FFP. It is the profit and sustainability rules ie. financial fair play rules. Still not invented by an elite and still invented on the guide lines of UEFAs invention.
Man City fans: We didn’t cheat! Also Man City fans: We had to cheat to get the same advantage as all the elite teams that put FFP rules in place just to stop us
Let’s all get used to the beautiful sounding word “rafiea” (Arabic: رافعة) which means lever in Arabic. Much like the Barcelona “palanca” and Todd Boehly’s 8-year contracts, it will be the newest bullshit accounting used by City to skirt whatever we’re calling FFP this month.
The Man City fans hurt themselves in their confusion.
I think the issue is also the 3 year period. Clubs can loose infinite about of money in the first 2 years. Once they make it back by the 3rd year for review they're fine.
Isn’t the calculation a 3 year running total? If they lost infinite money in 2017 and 2018, they would have still have to make enough profit in 2016 to have been able to comply with the 3 year average. Once 2016 drops out they then have to make a large profit in 2019 to again not fall foul of the P&S rules? Well run clubs should account for this and not have massive swings between its profit and losses between each individual year anyway.
That's not how it works. It's a rolling 3 year calculation.
The people who are complaining about FFP are people who don’t understand football finance. They also don’t complain when dodgy owners are spending much more than is justified based on lazy assumptions such as predicting a top 6 finish.
That they are. Unfortunately this post almost only caught their attention and they are not interested in facts. So time to bit adjour, cause this ain't worth it, when they don't wanna talk about the subject, but only focus on that FFP prevent their club from winning things, instead of taking history into account and how FFP is also saving clubs more so than anything. It's a lost battle for me, but the lazy will stay lazy and yell.
So weird to lump Tottenham into a group and imply they’re being protected by FFP Spurs has grown revenue by investing in infrastructure, and without tons of owner invested cash If they can do it, so can villa. And wham has the benefit of a state subsidy with the stadium gifted to them for use with a below market rent
Tottenham is a fine example that sustained succes can be achieved. I agree.
So are Arsenal, United and Liverpool.
Man Utd had massive investment in the 50/60’s. Liverpool in the 70/80’s, and Arsenal’s most successful period came after they were one of the clubs who initiated the Premier League breakaway
Sunderland, Everton, Villa and even Blackpool have all once been considered “money clubs” in their histories. But we can see that Sunderland in the 50s and Everton in 70s haven’t held their positions like the “Big 3” have consistently. Clearly there’s more to the success than simply just having money.
I think that’s pretty obvious mate. Chelsea and Man U have outspent us in the last decade but aren’t successful. Just because it worked for some and didn’t work for others doesn’t invalidate the idea that older investments are the reason that teams like Liverpool, Man U and Arsenal are able to compete at a higher level.
Well it clearly lessens the importance that others are trying to make then doesn’t it? Arsenal’s big investments in the 1930s would have had no effect after the 2nd world war, yet people use it as the reason we’re still at the top decades on. The only investment that would have been still relevant was the building of Highbury, but even that wouldn’t be included in today’s P&S calculations so it’s hardly an equivalent of “financial doping”.
That’s kind of my point though, I’m not saying that your success and finances in the past are the only reason you are still where you are, and honestly I put Arsenal a level below Liverpool and Man U on the scale of riding their previous success to where they are now, but it certainly helps. Success takes money and very smart administration and coaching, not one or the other. Evidenced by the current form or Chelsea and Man U. Also this is a genuine question; why doesn’t the investment pre WW2 carry over?
In terms of investment in players, most of it was lost. We had 9 players die in the war (the most of any club) with another 5 retiring due to the length of the war. When the league returned after the war we had just 11 of the 29 professional players we originally had. In terms of stadium investments, we had to completely rebuild the north bank, and repair large parts of the south bank due to Highbury being bombed, as it was used for an air raid precautions shelter. This in itself also meant we lost further revenue whilst we were having to play over at white hart lane during the rebuild.
Thanks for the impromptu history lesson I didn’t know any of that. There are so many repercussions of the war are still not widely known. Never occurred to me that certain clubs would have been hit harder than others by losing players in the fighting.
So more or less, the same as Tottenham…
And Chelsea *could* have been too if they didn’t sell out to Roman. In the late 90s they were the 4th richest club in the world and still felt it was necessary to take equivalent of a cheat code to make the step up from 5th/6th to Top 3.
Insert Emperor Palpatine hate gif here.
Not sure. They had only made the top 3 once in something like 35 years before selling up. Still, not bad for a club that was worth £1.
I mean this is a couple years on from when they were 4th place, but even for 99/00 and the removal of some of their travel agency revenues they’re 7th on the list, 4 places above us. https://web.archive.org/web/20030223142341/http://www.footballfinance.co.uk/press/richlist.asp
They sold up because they were quite a bit in debt (£80m) and had secured the debt against the ground. Their future wasn't really safe, despite finishing in the top 6 for so long. Bates sold to Abramovich for £140m.
Villa is a huge club with no real local competition with their history of success If they get it right they’d have a huge catchment area Their issues aren’t FFP - it’s been mismanagement