Loco, sorry if I have caused confusion in my thread.
I am not saying the academy has to perform within FFP, what I am saying is the club, all clubs will have to adhere to spending within their budgets when bringing in new players or risk possible financial penalties! Therefore, surely it is better to grow existing academy product within 1st team -nil cost to club, recent example Callum Harriott, who will provide better service and return in the long run than spend unnecessarily bringing in loan players -for fear of playing academy players- who really only provide a temporary solution and realistically probably do not have same commitment.
No need to be sorry it was a very good post to which I wanted to add that bit.
For any collective decision to be made it needs to be in the best interests of the majority. I see the loan system as benefitting the same group of teams that were happy to sell out on the academies.
In the end I suspect it will split between those clubs that genuinely aspire to get into the Premier League and those that accept that they survive on handouts from it and don't ever expect to get a real slice of the pie. This financially weaker (but larger in terms of numbers of clubs) group will continue to sell out to the Premier League. They are closing their academies as the EPL will pay them more to not bother than they will for the star player they unearth once a decade. They will continue to loan three, or more, players each season to save on transfer fees, wages (they only pay a percentage) and costs when players are injured - as they can send them back.
We seem to benefit both sides of the loan market. We get players in and we allow our players experience lower down the league.
I think as time goes on the EPL will be so much richer than the rest that they will find a way to strangle the life out of the lower leagues and those smaller clubs will learn to be grateful from smaller and smaller scraps to fight off starvation.
kings hill addick - an interesting argument except that it is built on the premise that only a minority of Championship clubs want to "genuinely" get promoted into the EPL. Of all the clubs last season only Peterborough are running a break even model selling top players to keep going and they have paid the price with relegation. The league was so tight that many, many clubs are overspending to try and push themselves ahead of the pack to win the prize... hence Trust News images of Casinos!
There are clubs in L1 &2 whose ambition is to get to the championship but I honestly think that most of the Championship would like to challenge for the playoffs. I don't know who has academies and who has closed them but I do know that loaning players from the EPL is not cheap. Mr Slater has stated more than once the costs of bringing in the various players before Christmas to strengthen the squad and cover for injuries.
The EPL has always been richer and before that the Moores family funded Everton and Liverpool and before that etc. As Richard Murray stated in the 90s CAFC is never competing with Man Utd. But we and all the other clubs of our size do aspire for promotion and to compete with the likes of West Ham, Villa etc. And we saw that for 7 years we could do it!
My only caveat to this is that the latest increase in parachute payments may be one increase too far... As Prague and others have pointed out... If we get to the point where there are permanent yo-yo clubs and it becomes impossible for clubs like Charlton to reach the play-offs then rules will need to be re-written ... and that is why one of core missions of the Trust is to work with other groups to lobby for change where needed.
The thing is, you need a certain infrastructure to stay in the Premier league and clubs that get promoted usually create it, maybe not in the first season but soon after. The parachute payment system and more importantly the waving of FFP rules for the first two seasons (I think it's two) for relegated clubs may create an elite however, it may also create more defaults as teams use this time to gamble on promotion. As we have seen this season with Birmingham and Wolves both have carried on spending and if we look back a little further I think we did that too, just with the wrong man in charge
Agreed! It is when relegated clubs start taking up 2/3 promotion slots that it's a worry. At the moment many clubs coming down from the Premier League are in such freefall that they take between 12 and 24 months to try relegation again.
I expect the supporters trust will be focussing on all aspects of this over the coming months and years mainly because the fans have stated very loudly on the survey that this is a priority.
kings hill addick - an interesting argument except that it is built on the premise that only a minority of Championship clubs want to "genuinely" get promoted into the EPL. Of all the clubs last season only Peterborough are running a break even model selling top players to keep going and they have paid the price with relegation. The league was so tight that many, many clubs are overspending to try and push themselves ahead of the pack to win the prize... hence Trust News images of Casinos!
I was referring to all the FL clubs of which only a third are in the Championship. Thus the voting is going to favour an agreement of handouts, rather than a real chance to make the EPL.
Good piece from Brighton on FFP. They are hoping that the League come down hard on those who are ignoring the new rules in the hope of getting promoted, or that the FL will be toothless when it comes to punishments. It'll be November 2014, when clubs start releasing their figures, before we start to find out.
why didn't the rules just change so that they make 60% of turnover the wages and transfers and if anyone goes over that they are placed under embargo with the sanctions harshening each time. man citeh are allowed a 190m loss and then they make a 90m loss and they say they have made progress however swindon stepped over the mark by about 4% and were placed under embargo for 2 months. ridiculous. man city should have not been allowed the sponsorship, everyone knows its a phony. man city will be powerless soon.
I still don't understand how FFP can be legal. If I owned a business and saw value by investing in new equipment in the belief that it would allow me to take my business forward to greater rewards and profitability then I would be claiming restraint of trade against some external body that would not allow me to run my business as I thought best. In football terms the investment in new equipment would of course be players who I believed would take me to a promotion and therefore greater reward and profitability.
I just wonder if this will be challenged in the courts.
Perhaps we should also see more challenges then as to why football gets paid out in full while creditors, often local businesses, are left to flounder and lucky to get a couple of pence in the pound.
I see FFP as the first step in reigning in the power of players and agents and making club owners realise that they have a duty to the fans and local communities to run clubs as a business - one run properly and, eventually, profitable - with a sustainable future.
It will take a few years to adjust, but I really don't see FFP as a bad thing for the game, or us as fans, in the long run. So long as the authorities back up their rules/words with the promised actions.
It isn't as though the EU or UN has insisted on this - it is a UEFA driven initiative of which the clubs are affiliated via their national FAs. I doubt it could be legally challenged.
Unfortunately given the amount of financial stupidity and mismanagement in the game FFP is long overdue.
I still don't understand how FFP can be legal. If I owned a business and saw value by investing in new equipment in the belief that it would allow me to take my business forward to greater rewards and profitability then I would be claiming restraint of trade against some external body that would not allow me to run my business as I thought best. In football terms the investment in new equipment would of course be players who I believed would take me to a promotion and therefore greater reward and profitability.
I just wonder if this will be challenged in the courts.
Lots of industries are regulated by governing bodies who can fine/suspend or punish in some other way people who don't follow the rules. These aren't really laws but more simply if you don't follow them you can't be in the club !
I still don't understand how FFP can be legal. If I owned a business and saw value by investing in new equipment in the belief that it would allow me to take my business forward to greater rewards and profitability then I would be claiming restraint of trade against some external body that would not allow me to run my business as I thought best. In football terms the investment in new equipment would of course be players who I believed would take me to a promotion and therefore greater reward and profitability.
I just wonder if this will be challenged in the courts.
Lots of industries are regulated by governing bodies who can fine/suspend or punish in some other way people who don't follow the rules. These aren't really laws but more simply if you don't follow them you can't be in the club !
Wouldn't this still fall under restraint of trade ?
I still don't understand how FFP can be legal. If I owned a business and saw value by investing in new equipment in the belief that it would allow me to take my business forward to greater rewards and profitability then I would be claiming restraint of trade against some external body that would not allow me to run my business as I thought best. In football terms the investment in new equipment would of course be players who I believed would take me to a promotion and therefore greater reward and profitability.
I just wonder if this will be challenged in the courts.
Lots of industries are regulated by governing bodies who can fine/suspend or punish in some other way people who don't follow the rules. These aren't really laws but more simply if you don't follow them you can't be in the club !
Wouldn't this still fall under restraint of trade ?
I'm not sure, it's not stopping you "trading" only that you have to do so within pre-defined perimeters. If you choose to break those guidelines there are pre-defined penalties. There's still the opportunity for a mega rich sheikh to come in and buy your club and blow £100m getting you to the Prem, these rules simply try to create a more level playing field (by distributing the fine which the sheikh owned club would incur on reaching the Premier League) which I wouldn't say amounts to a restraint.
The biggest issue for me is that after thinking about this for a while the rules actually reinforce the gap between the clubs that have parachute payments and those that don't.
At the end of the day, the Premiership and Football League is a club to which 92 individual clubs are invited. They have rules, which now include FFP, which have to be adhered to and if you don't like it you can always take a walk.
It's hardly a restraint of trade if everyone is asked to play by the same set of rules.
As I said earlier, it may take a few years and it will almost certainly be tough for many, but I don't see FFP as a bad thing for the sustainability of football. I suspect a good few Pompey fans wish it had been in place a few years ago!
Not usually in favour of a more rules approach but football, the industry and culture, might as well be on Mars it is so removed from everyday goings on here on planet Earth. This can only be the first step in an attempt to re-address imbalancies that have arisen over decades and been accelerated by our friends at Sky. Whether such rules will be fairly and equitably administered is the key I think. We will have to wait and see.
At the end of the day, the Premiership and Football League is a club to which 92 individual clubs are invited. They have rules, which now include FFP, which have to be adhered to and if you don't like it you can always take a walk.
It's hardly a restraint of trade if everyone is asked to play by the same set of rules.
As I said earlier, it may take a few years and it will almost certainly be tough for many, but I don't see FFP as a bad thing for the sustainability of football. I suspect a good few Pompey fans wish it had been in place a few years ago!
I don't think it will take a few years. It is happening already because several Championship clubs will either not comply or make savage cuts to get under the limits. AND the limits come down again next season. I expect we will see more and more 1 year contracts and players will have to compete to get renewed.
At the end of the day, the Premiership and Football League is a club to which 92 individual clubs are invited. They have rules, which now include FFP, which have to be adhered to and if you don't like it you can always take a walk.
It's hardly a restraint of trade if everyone is asked to play by the same set of rules.
As I said earlier, it may take a few years and it will almost certainly be tough for many, but I don't see FFP as a bad thing for the sustainability of football. I suspect a good few Pompey fans wish it had been in place a few years ago!
I don't think it will take a few years. It is happening already because several Championship clubs will either not comply or make savage cuts to get under the limits. AND the limits come down again next season. I expect we will see more and more 1 year contracts and players will have to compete to get renewed.
I could have worded that better. It will take a few years to come to fruition as there are requirements to further reduce the deficits in successive seasons. I think fans also need to adjust their expectations, certainly in the short-term, but it should level the playing field eventually, at least a little bit.
The situation then though will be that clubs who have sustained, higher attendances as well as excellent marketing and affiliated sales will have the higher turnovers and therefore the spending powers.
Not really too much difference, but it should stop the reckless ones who tried to buy (with nothing behind them) success.
I still don't understand how FFP can be legal. If I owned a business and saw value by investing in new equipment in the belief that it would allow me to take my business forward to greater rewards and profitability then I would be claiming restraint of trade against some external body that would not allow me to run my business as I thought best. In football terms the investment in new equipment would of course be players who I believed would take me to a promotion and therefore greater reward and profitability.
I just wonder if this will be challenged in the courts.
I think perhaps the argument is the opposite. I don't understand how so many football clubs are allowed to trade effectively insolvent. This ruling is essential to bring some proper financial control back into the game, but also for the sake of competition.
For the second time in a few weeks, the Belgian lawyer who helped change the face of European football has warned that UEFA's Financial Fair Play system may not stand up in court if challenged.
But this time, Jean-Louis Dupont, who helped win the landmark Bosman case in the mid-1990s, has lodged a complaint with the European Commission.
Financial Fair Play, designed to ensure clubs break even over a rolling three-year period, comes fully into effect next season but Dupont claims that the rules breach European competition law. "A club owner is prohibited from overspending even if such overspending aims at growing the club," he charges.
In December 1995, journeyman Belgian midfielder Jean-Marc Bosman, 31 at the time, successfully challenged football's transfer rules at the European Court on the basis of restraint of trade. The ruling suddenly allowed players to move clubs without a transfer fee at the end of their contracts.
Dupont was not only part of the legal team acting for Bosman but later also won a case forcing the authorities to compensate clubs for players injured on international duty.
He is now representing a Belgian players' agent, Daniel Striani, and is trying to stop FFP from being introduced.
Last year, EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia backed UEFA's initiative saying it was imperative "for clubs to have a solid financial foundation". Although UEFA always anticipated legal challenges, Dupont's success in this field could potentially seriously undermine the process.
UEFA re-iterated in a statement however that financial fair play is "fully in line with EU law" and that it was "confident that the European Commission will reject this complaint".
Contact the writer of this story at andrew.warshaw@insideworldfootball.com
Comments
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2329745/Martin-Samuel-meets-Michel-Platini--read-FULL-transcript-interview-UEFA-president.html
In the end I suspect it will split between those clubs that genuinely aspire to get into the Premier League and those that accept that they survive on handouts from it and don't ever expect to get a real slice of the pie. This financially weaker (but larger in terms of numbers of clubs) group will continue to sell out to the Premier League. They are closing their academies as the EPL will pay them more to not bother than they will for the star player they unearth once a decade. They will continue to loan three, or more, players each season to save on transfer fees, wages (they only pay a percentage) and costs when players are injured - as they can send them back.
We seem to benefit both sides of the loan market. We get players in and we allow our players experience lower down the league.
I think as time goes on the EPL will be so much richer than the rest that they will find a way to strangle the life out of the lower leagues and those smaller clubs will learn to be grateful from smaller and smaller scraps to fight off starvation.
Sad, but all too predictable.
There are clubs in L1 &2 whose ambition is to get to the championship but I honestly think that most of the Championship would like to challenge for the playoffs. I don't know who has academies and who has closed them but I do know that loaning players from the EPL is not cheap. Mr Slater has stated more than once the costs of bringing in the various players before Christmas to strengthen the squad and cover for injuries.
The EPL has always been richer and before that the Moores family funded Everton and Liverpool and before that etc. As Richard Murray stated in the 90s CAFC is never competing with Man Utd. But we and all the other clubs of our size do aspire for promotion and to compete with the likes of West Ham, Villa etc. And we saw that for 7 years we could do it!
My only caveat to this is that the latest increase in parachute payments may be one increase too far... As Prague and others have pointed out... If we get to the point where there are permanent yo-yo clubs and it becomes impossible for clubs like Charlton to reach the play-offs then rules will need to be re-written ... and that is why one of core missions of the Trust is to work with other groups to lobby for change where needed.
I expect the supporters trust will be focussing on all aspects of this over the coming months and years mainly because the fans have stated very loudly on the survey that this is a priority.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24024109
man city will be powerless soon.
I just wonder if this will be challenged in the courts.
I see FFP as the first step in reigning in the power of players and agents and making club owners realise that they have a duty to the fans and local communities to run clubs as a business - one run properly and, eventually, profitable - with a sustainable future.
It will take a few years to adjust, but I really don't see FFP as a bad thing for the game, or us as fans, in the long run. So long as the authorities back up their rules/words with the promised actions.
It isn't as though the EU or UN has insisted on this - it is a UEFA driven initiative of which the clubs are affiliated via their national FAs. I doubt it could be legally challenged.
Unfortunately given the amount of financial stupidity and mismanagement in the game FFP is long overdue.
The biggest issue for me is that after thinking about this for a while the rules actually reinforce the gap between the clubs that have parachute payments and those that don't.
It's hardly a restraint of trade if everyone is asked to play by the same set of rules.
As I said earlier, it may take a few years and it will almost certainly be tough for many, but I don't see FFP as a bad thing for the sustainability of football. I suspect a good few Pompey fans wish it had been in place a few years ago!
The situation then though will be that clubs who have sustained, higher attendances as well as excellent marketing and affiliated sales will have the higher turnovers and therefore the spending powers.
Not really too much difference, but it should stop the reckless ones who tried to buy (with nothing behind them) success.
For the second time in a few weeks, the Belgian lawyer who helped change the face of European football has warned that UEFA's Financial Fair Play system may not stand up in court if challenged.
But this time, Jean-Louis Dupont, who helped win the landmark Bosman case in the mid-1990s, has lodged a complaint with the European Commission.
Financial Fair Play, designed to ensure clubs break even over a rolling three-year period, comes fully into effect next season but Dupont claims that the rules breach European competition law. "A club owner is prohibited from overspending even if such overspending aims at growing the club," he charges.
In December 1995, journeyman Belgian midfielder Jean-Marc Bosman, 31 at the time, successfully challenged football's transfer rules at the European Court on the basis of restraint of trade. The ruling suddenly allowed players to move clubs without a transfer fee at the end of their contracts.
Dupont was not only part of the legal team acting for Bosman but later also won a case forcing the authorities to compensate clubs for players injured on international duty.
He is now representing a Belgian players' agent, Daniel Striani, and is trying to stop FFP from being introduced.
Last year, EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia backed UEFA's initiative saying it was imperative "for clubs to have a solid financial foundation". Although UEFA always anticipated legal challenges, Dupont's success in this field could potentially seriously undermine the process.
UEFA re-iterated in a statement however that financial fair play is "fully in line with EU law" and that it was "confident that the European Commission will reject this complaint".
Contact the writer of this story at andrew.warshaw@insideworldfootball.com
Just an excuse for the rich to keep it a closed boys club - Man City were just lucky they snuck in before they closed ranks