Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Iwans Big Toe

QPR & FFP

Recommended Posts

Obviously there is a lot in the national media about QPR breaching Financial Fair Play rules, and honestly I would not be unhappy to see them thrown out of the league as I don''t have much time for them, their owner, their manager of some of their players (one in particular with the initials J.B.). I can, to a certain extent though, see why Fernandes and Redknapp are having a moan about these so called fair rules. In true Orwellian fashion the are actually base on "double speak". There is nothing "fair" about them. It is not often that I find myself agreeing with ''Arry but he does have a point when he says: "To make it fair play we should be able to spend as much as Manchester United have spent before we play them on Sunday".Is it fair that players that earn £250k a week and could afford their to buy their own boots (and the boots of every player in the football league) have them supplied free by the manufacturers and the same manufacturers charge professional footballers earning £1600 a month from the lower leagues £100-£200 to replace the boots they have had stolen?Is it fair that Manchester United are able to spend £125m on transfers, including £60m on a single player without the threat of a fine, yet QPR spend £21m over the same period and are threatened with a fine that is roughly the same size as that which Man Utd spent on Angel Di Maria?Is it fair that Southampton develop a squad that could possibly start to challenge the existing status quo through a combination of shrewd player recruitment and great youth development, only to see a majority of these players poached buy ''bigger'' clubs with in the space of 2 months, putting them back to square one and ending any possibility of them breaking the strangle hold of the top 6 clubs in the Premier League?These FFP rules have been put in place to solidify the hold that the top clubs, with a majority of ''fans'' which are "glory hunters" from places like Singapore or Los Angeles and are never likely to attend a football match in Europe, because these teams provide better publicity for the FA''s and UEFA''s ''global brands'' of the Premier and Champions Leagues.If the powers that run football in Europe, both the continental and national governing bodies, were truly interested in making football "fair" the should look at amending these rules to actually level the playing field. For example, the TV money in the English top flight is at such an obscene level now that they could cap clubs spending on transfer fees and wages to what they get from TV income and prize money alone. To make it even fairer they could flip the prize money so that the team that finishes top get the lowest amount of prize money and the team that comes up through the play offs gets the largest, with the teams that are relegated receiving a years parachute payments, but no prize money at all. Further to this I would suggest that any income that the clubs make from merchandise or player sales would have to be reinvested in their youth development schemes. This would have a two fold effect, one that the bigger teams still get to keep a slight advantage with having the pick of the countries top youngsters (which is of course no guarantee of success) and it would encourage teams to develop young English players which would aid the national side and may be make them competitive.There are many ways to make football ''fairer'', but do not be fooled by the rhetoric spewed forth from UEFA, fairness is not the aim of Michel Platini and European soccer''s top brass. They wish to protect their little nest egg and could careless about the supporters of teams like QPR, Norwich City, Randers F.C or De Graafschap, all they care about is making sure the most people turn on for their flagship tournaments and who in the far reaches of East Asia is going to watch a Champions League final that is contested between HJK Helsinki and Braga?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I agree that the rules that have been put in place do not seem to make football fairer, to some extent it does. Do you think that it is fair that a grubby little club can be bought by a billionaire and then just go deeply into debt to the owner and buy their way to promotion? The main drive of the FFP rules in the football league is to reduce the impact of sugar daddy clubs climbing beyond their means so should the sugar daddy leave they would still be sustainable. For the FL fairness is not therefore the ultimate aim, but rather sustainability and protection of a community asset, if you want an example of exactly what they are there for look no ruther than Gretna, a small club who in the space of about 6 years went from Scotish non-league to the UEFA cup, Brooks Mileson then gets ill and dies and less than a year later they have been liquidated and no longer exist.

If the FFP rules are stuck to then clubs can grow organically and sustainably. The main problem with the FFP rules is the name, not the intention.... Having said all of that, the premier league, in trying not to put off foreign investors and the sugar daddies have actually only put a break on clubs growing organically as well whilst not stopping them get themselves more and more in debt. The UEFA rules could be argued to have the same intention as the FL rules, trying to stop the sort of situation you got with Anzhi, a very similar story to Gretna but with bigger names, more money and a warlord...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no sympathy for Harry or Fernandes, they knew the rules before the season started and flouted them anyway.Crying about the big boys being big boys is a pointless argument. FFP has to start somewhere and of course it means those with most will be able to spend more. The idea is to curb reckless spending not to attempt to put all clubs on the same financial standing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% with Ricardo in that I have zero sympathy with the approach QPR have taken to buy their way out of the champs.  

 

Income is probably the best way to assess which clubs are big and not;  there is a range in size and that will remain;  however what we will slowly stop seeing is clubs growing through a single invester willing to use a club as a short term toy for billionaires - plenty fo good example of that quoted outside of the usual targets of Citeh or Chelsea in recent year or Blackburn before.       I can only applaud the first steps and punishments that UEFA and the FL are taking against PSG, Zenit, Citeh and QPR in flouting rules that they have accepted by entering a competition;  QPR complaining after the fact is simple bully tactics.  

 

Arsenal are managed on a more sustainable basis and it has lead to calls for the managers sacking rather than recognising the job the club is doing.

 

The FFP rules are not perfect but are having an effect and will ensure some stability  - which has to be applauded - and are likely to improve over time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ricardo"]I have no sympathy for Harry or Fernandes, they knew the rules before the season started and flouted them anyway.Crying about the big boys being big boys is a pointless argument. FFP has to start somewhere and of course it means those with most will be able to spend more. The idea is to curb reckless spending not to attempt to put all clubs on the same financial standing.[/quote]I too have no sympathy for them. Like you said they knew the rules and didn''t make any attempt to adhere to them. What I''m saying is that I can understand, to a point, what Redknapp is saying about the fair play rules actually not being fair. Teams such as Chelsea and Man City got their ''sugar daddies'' before the rules came into place and have benefited from being able to spend beyond their means. This has now made them financially sustainable because they are in the Champions League every season, and are considered a ''big'' club because of that exposure, when just 10 or so years ago Man City were in the 3rd flight of English football!! What UEFA have done is to say "sorry, the club is not open any more, you missed your chance to join the big boys and you have two options like it or lump it".I for one think that there is something romantic about a club like Portsmouth (to just pick a team) being able to go from the bottom division of English football, climb the league ladder, finish in the top 6 of the Premier League (or even win the league), qualify for the UEFA cup, win that tournament and play in the top club tournament in Europe the following year. With these "Fair Play" rules it is even more unlikely that will never happen than it has been in the past, because the ''big boys'' have hoarded all of the cash.I just think that there is a better way of making football sustainable in this country and at the same time removing the predictability of it. I for one would love to see a season where Arsenal, Liverpool, Man Utd or Chelsea are battling it out to avoid relegation, whilst a team like QPR, Fulham or Norwich are challenging for the title. Predictability in sport makes it dull. Don''t believe me? Look at Scotland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the other side to Harry''s argument is - if the rules were in place so that QPR and Manchester United had the same amount to spend, it would be ok for United to spend 5 times more than QPR and just refuse to pay any fine or suffer any consequences because they didn''t like the rule.

I would like a system like the NFL, where sponsorship of all teams is pooled and distributed evenly. Every Division would be more competitive then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The NFL doesn''t have relegation and promotion so I would not want English football to be like that.

To answer the OP, yes it''s fair top players get free boots. They''ve earned it. If they hadn''t, the footwear companies wouldn''t be competing to have them wear their brands.

No, it''s not fair, at least the way you put it, but I don''t know the rule or its intent. But your version sounds very unfair.

And yes it is fair for teams to buy talent from other teams who prefer the money to the talent. That''s how Norwich got every player we ever bought. We didn''t buy them from Arsenal or ManU, we bought them mostly from smaller teams. It''s how we got Grabban and how Liverpool got their striker from Soton whose name suddenly escapes me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="FCC"]I think the other side to Harry''s argument is - if the rules were in place so that QPR and Manchester United had the same amount to spend, it would be ok for United to spend 5 times more than QPR and just refuse to pay any fine or suffer any consequences because they didn''t like the rule.

I would like a system like the NFL, where sponsorship of all teams is pooled and distributed evenly. Every Division would be more competitive then.[/quote]This can only work in a closed league where the treat of relegation is removed. OK If you are in but not OK if it means you are permanently excluded.My reason for being against the Premier League when it was first suggested in the 90''s was that a closed league was the obvious end result. I''m just surprised that it hasn''t happened yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" The main drive of the FFP rules in the football league is to reduce the

impact of sugar daddy clubs climbing beyond their means so should the

sugar daddy leave they would still be sustainable."er, noit is to stop the spiralling wages that have almost bankrupted most of the ''pro'' clubs outside of the top half a dozen or so - this is being done by removing the pump that is causing the inflationto complain that the hierarchical natue of football is ''unfair'' is rather absurd, as that would remove it''s core value, and you would simply end up with something as stagnant and meaningless as NFL. which is not a sport in the sense other games are a sport - more a cross between ballet and a pantomime with all thesame  outrageous costumes and the inbuilt choreography

ps did Southampton ever consider the fairness in how they acquired some of those players they recently sold  ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it fair that we and most other clubs have to cut our cloth accordingly and only spend what we earn while clubs like QPR and Leicester could possible spend what they want just because they have rich owners? Of course not.

At least with these rules it should benefit the better supported clubs like us where clubs make money from the fanbase.

Without these restrictions clubs like Leyton Orient could suddenly dwarf us within a few years if they just happened to attract a rich investor because they just happen to be London based.

With these rules it benefits more fans than it discriminates against and as a debt free, relatively well supported club and well run club we''re in the unique position of being among the few greatest beneficiaries of these rules (and rightly so, 24k every week in league 1, we as a collective dragged this club back up, not some shady businessman throwing money at it) so I can''t see why any Norwich fan would have a problem with this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FFP is a misnomer. In the league FFP is primarily stopping clubs spending money they have not got, getting into financial difficulty and not paying the creditors which was unfair and scandalous

Always amazed me the number of people who are so completely ignorant about business, finance and the law that they criticse the clubs prudence with amition policy under Delia. Fortunately most people now get after the recession that spending money you can''t afford is not a sensible long term strategy.

FFP is no panacea but it does make it fairer then previously. The league would be fairer if we shared our parachute payments with Ipswich but don''t see why we should when Delia correctly followed the much criticised prudence with ambition policy when Ipswich didnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m going to have to disagree with you there city 1st, on more than one count.

If it was just spiralling wages that they were trying to stop then why can''t benevolent benefactors spend as much as they like on transfer fees? Also, it''s not like it''s the banks that are loaning the money to these clubs with spiralling cosy''s, it''s the owners. My use of the sugar daddy term might not be quite accurate but it is the owners putting the money in and it is when the owners are unable or unwilling to continue throwing their own money away that the problems start. Spiralling wages were just one symptom of a greater ill.

Also, have you ever actually watched NFL properly? To claim it is not a ''proper sport''s is just down right wrong. I''m not going to get into an sediment about it but just because they wear pads doesn''t make it any less of a sport. On a side note, the draft would be one thing that might make football fairer, totally unworkable I know, but, if we had regional and central academies, not affiliated to a club which there was then a draft from every year with the lowest placed team getting the first pick (or trading or selling it) then it would make for a far fairer competition, stop the hoarding of promising youngsters, put the best youth in a team they were more likely to get game time and ultimately benefit the national team...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The NFL is great entertainment that is different in structure to another great entertainment, the Prem League.

It''s not either or. Prem players where pads too. In fact, they wear them on the one place NFL players don''t: the shin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="cornish sam"]I''m going to have to disagree with you there city 1st, on more than one count.

If it was just spiralling wages that they were trying to stop then why can''t benevolent benefactors spend as much as they like on transfer fees? Also, it''s not like it''s the banks that are loaning the money to these clubs with spiralling cosy''s, it''s the owners. My use of the sugar daddy term might not be quite accurate but it is the owners putting the money in and it is when the owners are unable or unwilling to continue throwing their own money away that the problems start. Spiralling wages were just one symptom of a greater ill.

Also, have you ever actually watched NFL properly? To claim it is not a ''proper sport''s is just down right wrong. I''m not going to get into an sediment about it but just because they wear pads doesn''t make it any less of a sport. On a side note, the draft would be one thing that might make football fairer, totally unworkable I know, but, if we had regional and central academies, not affiliated to a club which there was then a draft from every year with the lowest placed team getting the first pick (or trading or selling it) then it would make for a far fairer competition, stop the hoarding of promising youngsters, put the best youth in a team they were more likely to get game time and ultimately benefit the national team...[/quote]Because transfer fees are not what the usual numpties imagine they are and it would very easy to pay a player a very high signing on fee rather than have it paid as wages. IT IS the spiralling wages which are the concern and which have been inflated by what is often no more than money laundering. Without a brake there is a fear that football would well implode with debt.NFL is not a sport as one of the prequisites of a sport is the way it is an open competition, not a choreographed showpiece designed and ran by the advertisers and sponsors. I''m sure that it provides entertainment for many, especially those with mild aspergers who have a fascination with numbers, but there is a very good reason why it has never spread outside out of the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Ice Cold Pineapple Soda"]The NFL is great entertainment that is different in structure to another great entertainment, the Prem League. [/quote]By structure I presume you mean one is free and open once of the pitch where the other is merely a set of contrived actions organised by the sponsors. One is a sport the other is a performance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...