Proposals to Extend FFP to Premier League Itself

[john68]

scum are just greedy bastards fair play bollocks, 78,000 seater stadium, giving only 3,000 or less to away fans, raking in champs league money for decades, the prem league teams shouldnt be allowed to vote on it by themselves, every division should vote, every team aspires to reach the prem league.

Morally you are right Mate but it's never likely to happen. The Prem is an independent company and not likely to allow the turkeys a vote on Christmas.

On a positive note, the UeFA's schedule to introduce the FFP has been known to us for some time and City are making huge efforts to comply with that schedule. As the Prem is only at a discussion/study stage, we can safely assume that if it happens, it will be some way down the road and by that time, due to our EuFA efforts, we may well be compliance anyway.

[john68]

Rag Hater,
That may be morally correct Mate but like UeFA, with the necessary agreement from its shareholders (the clubs themselves) they would have the right to enact these regulations. What I don't know is whether any vote would have to be unanimous or if any club has an effective veto.
In any case, if by the time an FFP regime were to be accepted and we were already in compliance, it could work in our favour by stopping clubs like Newcastle, Villa, Everton etc challenging.

[Scatman]

Rag Hater,
That may be morally correct Mate but like UeFA, with the necessary agreement from its shareholders (the clubs themselves) they would have the right to enact these regulations. What I don't know is whether any vote would have to be unanimous or if any club has an effective veto.
In any case, if by the time an FFP regime were to be accepted and we were already in compliance, it could work in our favour by stopping clubs like Newcastle, Villa, Everton etc challenging.

But would we want that?

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

What a surprising list of clubs in favour. they've been playground bullies for years and now they are squealing like bitches.

The way o fair play is not wage caps or %of turnover. Just share the fucking money more fairly!

[Scatman]

What a surprising list of clubs in favour. they've been playground bullies for years and now they are squealing like bitches.

The way o fair play is not wage caps or %of turnover. Just share the fucking money more fairly!

They can start by limiting entry to the champions league to just the champions

[Ted Hughes]

If the Premier League try to vote this through, they will effectively be making sure most of the world's best players don't come here in the future, & therefore diminishing the value of the product in order to get Utd, Liverpool & Arsenal in the top 4.

[Florida Blue]

What many seem to forget, and this cunt himself either forgot or intentionally ignored even though he mentioned it in his article, is that the accounting measure for FFP does not take into account the overall loss of the club. The club have, through their books shown cash purchases of players, hence the huge losses.

There is effectively a seperat accounting measure for the player transfers whereby regardless of the deal is structured, the club is able to spread that cost over the length of the players contract. Thus, 200m spnt on players since january 2010 will at worst go on the books at 50m a year. The club have and will continue to increase income to match this - last year alone the additional CL income took away a huge chunk of that, even before new sponsorship deals come into it,

Additionally, A reason why the Adebayor deal made so much sense, is that the transfer fee shows as income for FFP, wheras the subsidised wages do not, as he was signed in summer 2009. Ultimately, the same is true of De Jong, Johnson, Bridge, Santa Cruz, etc etc.

Effectively, under amortisation, if we keep a player 3 years before moving him on, the transfer fee received will almost always show a profit in the year they are sold. Bearing in mind we are not signing short term measures any more, and the team is made up of top stars who most clubs would give their right arm for, in the year they are sold, even at a reduced transfer fee, they will show as a huge profit for the club for the purposes of FFP. On the other hand, if the player is good enough to stay beyond the end of his current contract, we have effectively signed a player for free.

Given the age of many of the squad, we can expect that once the transfer fees of Aguero, Nasri, Dzeko, Balotelli, Milner etc have been absorbed via amortisation, when added to the likes of Hart, Kompany, Richards who on an FFP basis cost us nothing, in the next two years we will have a core squad aged 25-26 who are of no significance for FFP calculations. the only things that will, will be a replacement for Yaya, Lescott, and the odd other signing which may be big transfer fees, but much more rare as the core squad will be being topped up as players leave.

Im not overly concerned at all

I am not sure what is more shocking, how well you broke this down or the fact it actually made sense to me (though I am a bit baised). Well worded Sparty.

[Michigan Blue]

@Michigan,
Despite their recent lack of success, Liverpool were still as high as 9th (E203M) in the last Deloitte (European clubs) rich list, covering the 2010-11 season. Though it would allow the rags' hegemony to remain in place, it also protects their position as a massive earner.

Just as long as that is clear to everyone, including Scousers.

Rags so-called fiercest rivals forfeiting any hope of challenging them long-term just to help nail down a top-4 spot.

Pathetic.

[mcfc1632]

To be perfectly honest if City say no to this I doubt highly the league could realistically enforce it.

City is a business and others have absolutely no right to tell you how to run your business. It's anti-competitive and outrageous that laws could be passed under the pretence of FFP when really it is only to protect the established old guards revenue streams, even perhaps give them a financial edge. Disgusting.

It's bad enough we have to stand for UEFA's FFP, I hope City fight this to the end.

I 'do not know' - but thought that the governance in the EPL was a requirement for a vote of 14 clubs from 20 to carry a decision?

Does anyone here not think that the scum will get 13 supporters?

Or another way of asking is - can you see CITY getting 6 supporters?

So it is a question of time - a number of people have been saying that FFP is serious and a number just say things like - "..........the Sheik will sort it......." I think that people are beginning to realise that it is not just a twatini dream - FFS - it never was - he is just the oily rag

[mcfc1632]

What many seem to forget, and this cunt himself either forgot or intentionally ignored even though he mentioned it in his article, is that the accounting measure for FFP does not take into account the overall loss of the club. The club have, through their books shown cash purchases of players, hence the huge losses.

There is effectively a seperat accounting measure for the player transfers whereby regardless of the deal is structured, the club is able to spread that cost over the length of the players contract. Thus, 200m spnt on players since january 2010 will at worst go on the books at 50m a year. The club have and will continue to increase income to match this - last year alone the additional CL income took away a huge chunk of that, even before new sponsorship deals come into it,

Additionally, A reason why the Adebayor deal made so much sense, is that the transfer fee shows as income for FFP, wheras the subsidised wages do not, as he was signed in summer 2009. Ultimately, the same is true of De Jong, Johnson, Bridge, Santa Cruz, etc etc.

Effectively, under amortisation, if we keep a player 3 years before moving him on, the transfer fee received will almost always show a profit in the year they are sold. Bearing in mind we are not signing short term measures any more, and the team is made up of top stars who most clubs would give their right arm for, in the year they are sold, even at a reduced transfer fee, they will show as a huge profit for the club for the purposes of FFP. On the other hand, if the player is good enough to stay beyond the end of his current contract, we have effectively signed a player for free.

Given the age of many of the squad, we can expect that once the transfer fees of Aguero, Nasri, Dzeko, Balotelli, Milner etc have been absorbed via amortisation, when added to the likes of Hart, Kompany, Richards who on an FFP basis cost us nothing, in the next two years we will have a core squad aged 25-26 who are of no significance for FFP calculations. the only things that will, will be a replacement for Yaya, Lescott, and the odd other signing which may be big transfer fees, but much more rare as the core squad will be being topped up as players leave.

Im not overly concerned at all

I am not sure what is more shocking, how well you broke this down or the fact it actually made sense to me (though I am a bit baised). Well worded Sparty.

Fully agree - but this is because (IMO) our management are very very sharp and recognised this FFP stuff for what it is.

Cook (I know some of you think that he is just a beer buying idiot) was on to this early and stated how we were going to address the issue a couple of years ago. You will notice that PSG and Chelsea, irrespective of people saying they are examples of why we can disregard FFP, are in effect copying his approach.

Unless we fuck up on the pitch or get stupid and pay fortunes for players just 'cos fans scream then we will be in good shape a couple of years from now - thanks to Cook and Khaldoon (and Isuspect to a degree Marwood - although I do not want to inflame things - he is just a person to carry out Khaldoon's and previously Cook's policiy)

[Ted Hughes]

The thing is, if Rags got this rule brought in, then the Glazers sold up, they would do exctly what they did (along with Arse, Liverpool etc) last time; they would start spending money & pushing up wages.

Next thing is that we can't afford to either sign or pay the best players anymore because our turnover is much less, so they win the league every year & our expansion grinds almost to a halt.

We cannot allow this shit to go unchallenged. If they get it on the agenda, we need to stop it or reach the same level of income as them very quickly or we need to tie it up in court for ten years.

[Rag_hater]

Deloitte's annual review of football finance shows that the Premier League CHAMPIONS spent more on wages than they earned during 2010-11, which is the last season before rules force clubs playing in Europe to break even.

As wages in the top flight went up by a record 201 million pounds to almost 1.60 billion pounds, City's wages were 14 per cent more than their revenue.

I'm pretty sure that with the success we have enjoyed recently 14% is nowhere near anything for us to worry about as long as Marwood doesn't do a Cook.

[Beefymcfc]

You can imagine Sky's exec team who put the last package together wondering what they are going to get for their money. The top players deserting the league for comparable salaries in other leagues. The Sky viewers having to watch a lesser league than they are used to can't be good.

Think as well, clubs getting less money for their current superstars because they have to sell due to FFP, with only the top earning clubs being able to poach them?

We've enjoyed our football for many years without the restrictions of certain clubs wanting to keep themselves at the top. It's a competition within a competition where the draw is the chance to beat the 'Richest Teams'. Now they want to change it there will be many who will say 'No thanks', you've taken all hope and competition away. And to be truthful, I'll be one of them.

[mcfc1632]

You can imagine Sky's exec team who put the last package together wondering what they are going to get for their money. The top players deserting the league for comparable salaries in other leagues. The Sky viewers having to watch a lesser league than they are used to can't be good.

Think as well, clubs getting less money for their current superstars because they have to sell due to FFP, with only the top earning clubs being able to poach them?

We've enjoyed our football for many years without the restrictions of certain clubs wanting to keep themselves at the top. It's a competition within a competition where the draw is the chance to beat the 'Richest Teams'. Now they want to change it there will be many who will say 'No thanks', you've taken all hope and competition away. And to be truthful, I'll be one of them.

Respect that Beefy - but the 'many' do not matter

It is the voting majority (14?) of the EPL that will decide this and I would expect that is already sorted

[Beefymcfc]

You can imagine Sky's exec team who put the last package together wondering what they are going to get for their money. The top players deserting the league for comparable salaries in other leagues. The Sky viewers having to watch a lesser league than they are used to can't be good.

Think as well, clubs getting less money for their current superstars because they have to sell due to FFP, with only the top earning clubs being able to poach them?

We've enjoyed our football for many years without the restrictions of certain clubs wanting to keep themselves at the top. It's a competition within a competition where the draw is the chance to beat the 'Richest Teams'. Now they want to change it there will be many who will say 'No thanks', you've taken all hope and competition away. And to be truthful, I'll be one of them.

Respect that Beefy - but the 'many' do not matter

It is the voting majority (14?) of the EPL that will decide this and I would expect that is already sorted

I know mate and that's what I don't like.

I'm a City fan but I'm also a football fan. Teams signing up just to be in the Prem doesn't sit right with me. Even though we will be at a point where we'll have no realistic problems when this would be implemented, what's the point in turning up for the match, or watching it on TV for that matter, if they've already given up?

We might as well just go with a Euro Super League as that's where you may actually see some competition. Maybe when Cook said about this he was well in the know and knew what was already in the planning stage; maybe a shot across their bows.

[Risby]

It smells like a load of jealous crap. They can't beat us on the pitch, so they use laws and rulings to slow us down.

[ronk]

This is not especially relevant to us at the moment. We need CL money, and we need to stay in the CL.

FFP is flawed but it will lead in some way to better stability and reduced wage inflation. Those are good things for us, sure we could outlast most others, but why do it that way.

Our spending figures aren't that bad at the moment and have been massively distorted by the expense of Mancini's rebuilding, and a few really highly paid stars. Aside from a few guys, we're not going to see the same wage growth.

Player for player, in terms of the main core of the squad, we're not that far off.

[Socrates]

You can imagine Sky's exec team who put the last package together wondering what they are going to get for their money. The top players deserting the league for comparable salaries in other leagues. The Sky viewers having to watch a lesser league than they are used to can't be good.

Think as well, clubs getting less money for their current superstars because they have to sell due to FFP, with only the top earning clubs being able to poach them?

We've enjoyed our football for many years without the restrictions of certain clubs wanting to keep themselves at the top. It's a competition within a competition where the draw is the chance to beat the 'Richest Teams'. Now they want to change it there will be many who will say 'No thanks', you've taken all hope and competition away. And to be truthful, I'll be one of them.

It doesn't actually mean that though does it Beefy? FFP had been constructed to ensure the established order can spend exactly what they have been spending. It only impacts on us and Chelsea at present and we are moving towards a position where we will be ok. Yes, it limits future investment of smaller clubs that get rich owners but we won't see wages fall as a result of this, we will still be competitive wage wise.

[Ted Hughes]

You can imagine Sky's exec team who put the last package together wondering what they are going to get for their money. The top players deserting the league for comparable salaries in other leagues. The Sky viewers having to watch a lesser league than they are used to can't be good.

Think as well, clubs getting less money for their current superstars because they have to sell due to FFP, with only the top earning clubs being able to poach them?

We've enjoyed our football for many years without the restrictions of certain clubs wanting to keep themselves at the top. It's a competition within a competition where the draw is the chance to beat the 'Richest Teams'. Now they want to change it there will be many who will say 'No thanks', you've taken all hope and competition away. And to be truthful, I'll be one of them.

It doesn't actually mean that though does it Beefy? FFP had been constructed to ensure the established order can spend exactly what they have been spending. It only impacts on us and Chelsea at present and we are moving towards a position where we will be ok. Yes, it limits future investment of smaller clubs that get rich owners but we won't see wages fall as a result of this, we will still be competitive wage wise.

The rags will push wages up if this comes in. It's a deliberate policy they & their cronies have used to destroy the opposition since the advent of the Champion's League. This would allow them to do it again. If our turnover isn't comparable at that point, they & Arsenal plus the top clubs in Spain etc will do to us what we have been doing to Arsenal.

Our bosses will not accept this without either finding a loophole or fighting it. Same with the UEFA one.

It's clear to everyone what this is about & it has nothing to do with fair play. We should counter it with an argument for genuine fair play an equal distribution of CL money throughout the leagues & a draft system, like in the US. See how much fair play they really want.

[Redna]

You can imagine Sky's exec team who put the last package together wondering what they are going to get for their money. The top players deserting the league for comparable salaries in other leagues. The Sky viewers having to watch a lesser league than they are used to can't be good.

Think as well, clubs getting less money for their current superstars because they have to sell due to FFP, with only the top earning clubs being able to poach them?

We've enjoyed our football for many years without the restrictions of certain clubs wanting to keep themselves at the top. It's a competition within a competition where the draw is the chance to beat the 'Richest Teams'. Now they want to change it there will be many who will say 'No thanks', you've taken all hope and competition away. And to be truthful, I'll be one of them.

It doesn't actually mean that though does it Beefy? FFP had been constructed to ensure the established order can spend exactly what they have been spending. It only impacts on us and Chelsea at present and we are moving towards a position where we will be ok. Yes, it limits future investment of smaller clubs that get rich owners but we won't see wages fall as a result of this, we will still be competitive wage wise.

The rags will push wages up if this comes in. It's a deliberate policy they & their cronies have used to destroy the opposition since the advent of the Champion's League. This would allow them to do it again. If our turnover isn't comparable at that point, they & Arsenal plus the top clubs in Spain etc will do to us what we have been doing to Arsenal.

Our bosses will not accept this without either finding a loophole or fighting it. Same with the UEFA one.

It's clear to everyone what this is about & it has nothing to do with fair play. We should counter it with an argument for genuine fair play an equal distribution of CL money throughout the leagues & a draft system, like in the US. See how much fair play they really nt.[/waquote]
This!

We all know the answer to that question but the question should defenitely be asked.
CTID!!