Brilliant read on FFP

[QPROslo]

I just read this great article on FFP over at LFW - well worth a read. It explains FFP well for those not fully getting it and offers some interesting views on ours and Birmingham's FFP fines/penalties. We were indeed quite fortunate with out FFP fine, getting away with hardly and costs or consequences to the club.

https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/queensparkrangers/news/52009/gambling-with-ffp-–-column

What I find interesting is to learn that Derby sold their ground for £80m, but only pay £1.1m annually to lease it back. This is probably not even enough to cover regular maintenance costs. This is indeed another loophole that needs to be closed. If a club sell its stadium the market costs for leasing it back has to be reflected in the annual FFP calculations, not a symbolic lease fee. If the football authorities accept Derby's symbolic lease fee it will just encourage more clubs to dispose off their stadiums to cover up FFP breaches.

[loftbalcony]

I read it, truth is I am bored of hearing about FFP and all the long winded break downs of it on various posts over the years, I know its serious and we are still shackled to a certain degree but I am sick to death of it.
Another example of how money has ruined the game.
Don't get me started on VAR...........

[Fraggy]

I read it, truth is I am bored of hearing about FFP and all the long winded break downs of it on various posts over the years, I know its serious and we are still shackled to a certain degree but I am sick to death of it.
Another example of how money has ruined the game.
Don't get me started on VAR...........

[davieqpr]

You will still get someone on here in a couple of days asking why we didn't sign Nakhi Wells.

[SheepRanger]

You will still get someone on here in a couple of days asking why we didn't sign Nakhi Wells.

Or why we didnt extend Manning and BOS contracts by 5yrs before they became established in the first team.

[Joe90]

I don't know what's going on at the club, why we didn't sign Wells I'll never know! Les out!

[LoftusRoadLad]

Yes read it yesterday excellent write up.

[CroydonCaptainJack]

Simon Dorset is a good lad. Writes in AJUTRs sometimes as well. He's also in my South London posse

[Del]

The whole concept of FFP - Financial Fair Play is a contradiction in itself. There's nothing "Fair" about restricting opportunity and in essence retain an unlevel playing field where only the super wealthy clubs can compete at the top level, and a staggered structure below where clubs would struggle to make the next step.

Obviously the sentiment used, to prevent clubs risking their financial future is very relevant and to be applauded, but the way it's dictated is wrong because it restricts competition, sensible ambition and growth etc. Obviously irresponsible owners shouldn't be able to create huge debts against the club that are unsustainable and would clearly put the club in jeopardy, but there should be nothing stopping wealthy owners of any business, be it a sports club or company across any industry, from investing in their business to progress it to the next level... the term speculate to accumulate springs to mind.

The situation with City sums this up. I'm not sure of the deeper specific details with the City situation, but use them as an example of what should be allowed if owners are prepared to take accountability for debt if they choose, which I'd expect they would. I do know they are being flagged for the owners investing large sums into the club disguised as marketing deals... the fact they or any other owners should need to do such a thing is laughable, why the f*ck can't owners of a business put their own money into it... it's ridiculous. The owners are the richest in football and although I may not like the fact they, or any club, could effectively buy success, if they or other wealthy owners are happy funding investment with them accountable, or as guarantors to cover spending and set contracts they agree etc, then there shouldn't be any restriction to this as the perceived risk wouldn't be against the club, but be retained by the insanely wealthy owners. In such a situation the club's future is not being risked and therefore shouldn't be applicable for penalty based on FFP's mandate.

Like I say the general focus of FFP is a good one, specifically to prevent risk to a clubs futures, but there are varying factors with any situation and the fundamental one regarding finance and affordability is effectively being disregarded. For example, how can 2 clubs of similar scale, marketing, merchandising and stadium income as a result be limited to the same restrictions when one may have an owner worth say £500m, and the other has an owner worth for arguments sake £50 Billion who is happy to invest what to him is small change and not put any debt against the club.... where's the risk to the club? Instead the club as a brand grow on the back of it to then move up the ladder and start to generate more income through branding, marketing, media etc etc etc. FFP regulations shouldn't be able to prevent this as long as it's done in the right way to protect the club.

[shaggy24]

My main gripe with FFP is that were London based and say our income is on a par with Preston our players are going to demand higher wages as were in London and cost of living is proportionately higher in reality our squad needs to be smaller to allow for having to pay higher wages to individual players. Is this a reason why no London club can get near winning the Premier title or they are just shite ?

[Abseits]

I just fundamentally disagree with it. What club has actually gone bankrupt due to the largesse of a sugar daddy owner? Pretty sure the answer is none. The only time clubs get into trouble is when clubs are run by idiots with no actual money.
The League should give up on FFP and welcome with open arms any owner who wants to splash the cash. Saying, nah mate, you can't spend your money like that is madness...... what other business bans major investment??? BUT, the League should have a robust test and strong mechanisms to ensure the money is real and the money is there. That's where the effort needs to be made. I know they have their Fair and Proper Owner test but that has proven to be pretty darn useless.

[Undecided]

i think rather than robust tests, it must have cast iron guarantees that reckless owners cannot get any of their money out unless they first find someone who will put an equivalent amount in, and has done so beforehand under the same cast iron guarantees.

[Buffalo]

Agree with most of the above. It also strikes me as ludicrous that the punishment for spending too much is to be fined or docked points, both of which threaten the future of the club further anyway.

As already stated, the focus should be on making sure that the owners are able to run the club sensibly and aren't able to do things like sell the clubs main assets (e.g. the stadium). If they want to invest their own money then so be it, as long as they don't just convert it to a loan that the club is then saddled with.