Premiere League & World Soccer Thread

#7,539
#7,539
Help me understand FFP. I believe it was created on the basis of preventing teams from overspending and going bankrupt. Below is a chart of transfer balances over the past 5 seasons. What I find interesting is that Transfermarkt (a German site) decided to splice out City's U21's from their numbers. If you research City's U21's over the past 5 years, they have generated an additional 114m in profit which would make their balance -51m over 5 years and a profit of 63m over the past 4 years. I post this to make a case. If FFP is created to prevent bad business and clubs from going insolvent, why are there not major charges against Chelsea, United, PSG, Arsenal, and Spurs? They are -100m average per year for the past 5 years. Chelsea is on another level, but they also went years without spending from sanctions and were catching up. One could make the argument that at least PSG and Arsenal have spent wisely. Their spend has let to successful results and more value to their clubs in terms of TV, tickets, and merchandise. I could also make that same argument for Newcastle, Liverpool, Aston Villa, AC Milan, and Bayern. The same cannot be said for most others here.

FFP to me is a socialist system that mimics modern day Western Europe and ultimately keeps those that are already established as rich, rich, and keeps the rest out. The success of Chelsea in the 2000's followed by City recently have made the red teams angry. They are not supposed to be there. It wasn't part of the deal. My thoughts are quite different. If a new owner purchases a club, they should be able to invest what they want for 3 years. It's their money and their risk. Post 3-years, there should be evaluation of results both on the pitch and financially. If no value is being created, the league should assist and provide guardrails.

Smart and effective owners and businesspeople should not be lumped with non-savvy actors. What City has done is amazing. The success they have had, the brand they have created, the elevation of the league, and now profit being produced should be a model for success, not a scourge. I know the Irish and English suffer from scarcity mindset, and like eating their own, but it is preposterous to see people questioning the results. They have won everything and built the East side of Manchester with it. The economic gains from investment outside of City's football club has propelled an entire half of a metropolis to new heights. England would be wise to encourage Newcastle and Villa to keep trending in this direction also. It will revitalize those communities and make for an even more exciting league. I was in East Manchester back in 2003 when the City project wasn't even started. It was an absolute sh^&hole of a town. Now, it is beautiful and thriving. This is what a business is supposed to do. I find when discussing this subject with other fans that they only bring up City's spending when their project was starting. Well duh, it takes investment when building a business. I think if City had won the one trophy on Aguero's late goal that they would not be facing any charges. Their success has made them an easy target. Regardless, from a business and brand standpoint, no one has done it better than City. Prove me wrong.

1724922464053.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nash_Vol97 and Grey_pilgrim
#7,540
#7,540
Outofmyvolcanmind said:
Help me understand FFP. I believe it was created on the basis of preventing teams from overspending and going bankrupt. Below is a chart of transfer balances over the past 5 seasons. What I find interesting is that Transfermarkt (a German site) decided to splice out City's U21's from their numbers. If you research City's U21's over the past 5 years, they have generated an additional 114m in profit which would make their balance -51m over 5 years and a profit of 63m over the past 4 years. I post this to make a case. If FFP is created to prevent bad business and clubs from going insolvent, why are there not major charges against Chelsea, United, PSG, Arsenal, and Spurs? They are -100m average per year for the past 5 years. Chelsea is on another level, but they also went years without spending from sanctions and were catching up. One could make the argument that at least PSG and Arsenal have spent wisely. Their spend has let to successful results and more value to their clubs in terms of TV, tickets, and merchandise. I could also make that same argument for Newcastle, Liverpool, Aston Villa, AC Milan, and Bayern. The same cannot be said for most others here.

FFP to me is a socialist system that mimics modern day Western Europe and ultimately keeps those that are already established as rich, rich, and keeps the rest out. The success of Chelsea in the 2000's followed by City recently have made the red teams angry. They are not supposed to be there. It wasn't part of the deal. My thoughts are quite different. If a new owner purchases a club, they should be able to invest what they want for 3 years. It's their money and their risk. Post 3-years, there should be evaluation of results both on the pitch and financially. If no value is being created, the league should assist and provide guardrails.

Smart and effective owners and businesspeople should not be lumped with non-savvy actors. What City has done is amazing. The success they have had, the brand they have created, the elevation of the league, and now profit being produced should be a model for success, not a scourge. I know the Irish and English suffer from scarcity mindset, and like eating their own, but it is preposterous to see people questioning the results. They have won everything and built the East side of Manchester with it. The economic gains from investment outside of City's football club has propelled an entire half of a metropolis to new heights. England would be wise to encourage Newcastle and Villa to keep trending in this direction also. It will revitalize those communities and make for an even more exciting league. I was in East Manchester back in 2003 when the City project wasn't even started. It was an absolute sh^&hole of a town. Now, it is beautiful and thriving. This is what a business is supposed to do. I find when discussing this subject with other fans that they only bring up City's spending when their project was starting. Well duh, it takes investment when building a business. I think if City had won the one trophy on Aguero's late goal that they would not be facing any charges. Their success has made them an easy target. Regardless, from a business and brand standpoint, no one has done it better than City. Prove me wrong.

View attachment 671391
Click to expand...
I’ve wondered about this as well! If City is in trouble for spending beyond their means, then how the ever loving heck is Chelsea not?
 
#7,541
#7,541
Outofmyvolcanmind said:
Good morning chaps. Chiesa to Liverpool looks like a done deal. I really like the player but wonder if his form will ever return. There are rumors the City decision will come in the next week or so.
Click to expand...

Don't mind the signing, think he's a low risk, potentially high reward player based on the fee they paid. The GK signing, Mamardashvili, also signals to me that Alisson's contract likely won't be extended in two years. A bit sad, but that's the business...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Outofmyvolcanmind
#7,542
#7,542
Through_The_T said:
Don't mind the signing, think he's a low risk, potentially high reward player based on the fee they paid. The GK signing, Mamardashvili, also signals to me that Alisson's contract likely won't be extended in two years. A bit sad, but that's the business...
Click to expand...
Chiesa has to be the signing of the summer for me (with red tinted glasses on). Rumors of Juve turning down $100M for him 2 years ago. Obviously he is a bit of a risk with injuries lately, but $13M for a risk is nothing when you’ve got clubs buying people like Sepp van den Berg for like 25-30M.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Outofmyvolcanmind
#7,544
#7,544
Outofmyvolcanmind said:
Help me understand FFP. I believe it was created on the basis of preventing teams from overspending and going bankrupt. Below is a chart of transfer balances over the past 5 seasons. What I find interesting is that Transfermarkt (a German site) decided to splice out City's U21's from their numbers. If you research City's U21's over the past 5 years, they have generated an additional 114m in profit which would make their balance -51m over 5 years and a profit of 63m over the past 4 years. I post this to make a case. If FFP is created to prevent bad business and clubs from going insolvent, why are there not major charges against Chelsea, United, PSG, Arsenal, and Spurs? They are -100m average per year for the past 5 years. Chelsea is on another level, but they also went years without spending from sanctions and were catching up. One could make the argument that at least PSG and Arsenal have spent wisely. Their spend has let to successful results and more value to their clubs in terms of TV, tickets, and merchandise. I could also make that same argument for Newcastle, Liverpool, Aston Villa, AC Milan, and Bayern. The same cannot be said for most others here.

FFP to me is a socialist system that mimics modern day Western Europe and ultimately keeps those that are already established as rich, rich, and keeps the rest out. The success of Chelsea in the 2000's followed by City recently have made the red teams angry. They are not supposed to be there. It wasn't part of the deal. My thoughts are quite different. If a new owner purchases a club, they should be able to invest what they want for 3 years. It's their money and their risk. Post 3-years, there should be evaluation of results both on the pitch and financially. If no value is being created, the league should assist and provide guardrails.

Smart and effective owners and businesspeople should not be lumped with non-savvy actors. What City has done is amazing. The success they have had, the brand they have created, the elevation of the league, and now profit being produced should be a model for success, not a scourge. I know the Irish and English suffer from scarcity mindset, and like eating their own, but it is preposterous to see people questioning the results. They have won everything and built the East side of Manchester with it. The economic gains from investment outside of City's football club has propelled an entire half of a metropolis to new heights. England would be wise to encourage Newcastle and Villa to keep trending in this direction also. It will revitalize those communities and make for an even more exciting league. I was in East Manchester back in 2003 when the City project wasn't even started. It was an absolute sh^&hole of a town. Now, it is beautiful and thriving. This is what a business is supposed to do. I find when discussing this subject with other fans that they only bring up City's spending when their project was starting. Well duh, it takes investment when building a business. I think if City had won the one trophy on Aguero's late goal that they would not be facing any charges. Their success has made them an easy target. Regardless, from a business and brand standpoint, no one has done it better than City. Prove me wrong.

View attachment 671391
Click to expand...
Agree for almost all of the points about FFP.

I did want to just point out that the numbers involved in FFPs present day set up is a much more complicated calculation than just the pure total money of sales and purchases like Transfermarket is showing. Chelsea’s calculated total expenditure on the players they have purchases this window is 261 Million. Player Purchase fees are allowed to be spread over the length of the contract though and the yearly spend on that contract is what’s calculated each fiscal year. So a team in one transfer window might spend $200 million on 4 new players and then only sell 2 players for $100M, but if all 4 of those player purchases are 5 year contracts than the total net spend on those 4 players would be $40M per year over 5 years. If the 2 players they sold were either academy players or players with a low amount of amortization costs left on their contract than they could very easily come out in the green for that window.

The selling academy players angle has really helped Chelsea the last decade or so. Pure profit is a big deal in book keeping. Sell a couple academy players each window and that’s one way to help level the books for the year. This window alone Chelsea have had over 140M of pure profit from selling academy players. As a supporter, I still am uneasy and think they have gotten themselves dangerously close to the line in regards to a transfer ban or whatever for FFP, but them continuing to spend shows their confidence level in where they are from a book keeping perspective. We will see where the chips end up soon enough.

I’ll get off my soapbox now. Good to see you posting in here again.
 
Last edited:
#7,545
#7,545
Grey_pilgrim said:
I’ve wondered about this as well! If City is in trouble for spending beyond their means, then how the ever loving heck is Chelsea not?
Click to expand...
City isn’t necessarily in trouble for spending above their means. Their charges had more to do with what the PL deemed as City using illegitimate sponsorships and shady book keeping to inflate their income to gain a competitive advantage.
 
#7,546
#7,546
Nash_Vol97 said:
City isn’t necessarily in trouble for spending above their means. Their charges had more to do with what the PL deemed as City using illegitimate sponsorships and shady book keeping to inflate their income to gain a competitive advantage.
Click to expand...
The report of selling other interests not counting (hotel, the women's team) will absolutely destroy Chelsea's FFP plans.
 
#7,548
#7,548
YankeeVol said:
The report of selling other interests not counting (hotel, the women's team) will absolutely destroy Chelsea's FFP plans.
Click to expand...
If Chelsea is banking on those type of asset sales each year then yeah, the chickens will come home to roost at some point. If that was only a short term strategy to be able to flip the roster in a shorter amount of time though then they have nothing to worry about for the future. The PL isn’t going to retroactively punish a club for something that was legal at the time but then the rule was changed. The club owners even looked at this during meetings this summer and had a chance to put an end to it when they voted on it, but the vote didn’t pass. It’ll get voted on again though at some point.
 
Last edited:
#7,549
#7,549
Outofmyvolcanmind said:
Smart and effective owners and businesspeople should not be lumped with non-savvy actors. What City has done is amazing. The success they have had, the brand they have created, the elevation of the league, and now profit being produced should be a model for success, not a scourge. I know the Irish and English suffer from scarcity mindset, and like eating their own, but it is preposterous to see people questioning the results. They have won everything and built the East side of Manchester with it. The economic gains from investment outside of City's football club has propelled an entire half of a metropolis to new heights. England would be wise to encourage Newcastle and Villa to keep trending in this direction also. It will revitalize those communities and make for an even more exciting league. I was in East Manchester back in 2003 when the City project wasn't even started. It was an absolute sh^&hole of a town. Now, it is beautiful and thriving. This is what a business is supposed to do. I find when discussing this subject with other fans that they only bring up City's spending when their project was starting. Well duh, it takes investment when building a business. I think if City had won the one trophy on Aguero's late goal that they would not be facing any charges. Their success has made them an easy target. Regardless, from a business and brand standpoint, no one has done it better than City. Prove me wrong.
Click to expand...
IMO this sort of spending should be almost, if not entirely, outside the realm of FFP. There probably needs to be some equity in what teams are allowed to spend on their actual squads, but if a billionaire owner wants to come in and invest in infrastructure for the club they shouldn’t be hamstrung in their efforts to do so. To massively oversimplify the situation, that’s how Everton ended up getting deducted points last year, because of cost overruns on the stadium. In fairness, it’s not as though we didn’t also spend recklessly over the years.

As you said, the investments City have made over the past 15 years have been nothing but a positive for that community. It’s no wonder United are wanting to upgrade/replace Old Trafford. It’s kind of a holdover from the ****hole era of Manchester you described. Area around it is decent enough, but OT itself sucks. I’m hoping Everton’s new ground will have a similar effect on a smaller scale for the derelict, abandoned area of the Liverpool waterfront that they’ve built it on. Also, unless you’re West Ham and just happen to fall into a free one, stadiums in the UK aren’t publicly funded. That leaves the ownership having to invest their own money if they ever want to improve.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top