Does Ffp actually work?

[Andy S]

The idea of ffp was to stop clubs overspending and putting them into hock. I don't think anyone can argue against that but isn't there a better way. It should be fair to all clubs but there was a rumour earlier this week that a. Bid had been made by Man City for Grealish for 100m. How can that be fair that any club should have that sort of money to spend?

[RufusBrevettatemyhamster]

It's based on income and outgoings. Bigger clubs attract more sponsorship, because they're on TV more because they're a big club. It's a vicious cycle really. We're never on TV, regardless of we're in the final of the Champions league, the BBC will still put us last on MOTD.
Until we can get on TV more often, we won't be able to attract the sort of sponsorship the big clubs can, and we won't be able to spend the sort of money they can.

Having said that, Grealish for £100million is a joke. Basically saying he's better than Bale and CR7. He isn't, but he's English, so there's always a premium.

[Andy S]

I understand on what it is based on and I know this won't happen but just supposing there was a seeding process as there is in tennis based on where you finished the previous season. Top clubs would start with minus 10 points so and so forth until the newly promoted clubs would be given 10. It would make life a lot more interesting right across the league

[The Rational Fan]

In theory, FFP is about stopping other clubs' from overspending so that they don't go bankrupt.
In practice, FFP is about stopping other clubs' from overspending so each team maintains its financial position.

QPR could go bankrupt for overspending on good players or spending normally on bad players. FFP only stops overspending and doesn't stop stupid spending even though either can bankrupt a football club.

[RaySmith]

Football success is strongly weighted towards the clubs with the  biggest  crowds and grounds, and global popularity, who  attract the biggest investment - the biggest money spinners for the TV companies who have gained them the global popularity, and the advertisers -  the wealthiest.
These clubs flourish, while most other clubs struggle.

When i began being interested in the game- late 50's , early 60's, English  football was far more of a level playing field.

Yes, you had Man U, who weren't that successful, but always attracted big crowds; and Arsenal, with the famed marble halls of Highbury containing the bust of league founder Herbert Chapman, always a powerful force in the game; and their neighbours, Double winning Spurs; but Fulham also got pretty good crowds, though being a London club they always had a lot of competition, but there wasn't that much difference between them and the 'big' clubs - compared to today anyway.

And even 4th Division Palace, the first club whose games I watched, because  my parents used to follow them, had decent crowds, and seemed to survive well enough.
Football then was cheap, mass entertainment, and there wasn't much competition in those days, and  actually going to games, was the only way to see them and the  stars of the day, like Johnny Haynes and George Cohen, of Fulham, George Best and Dennis Law, of Man U, Dave MacKay and Bobby Smith of Spurs, etc.

Now, most  EFL clubs, and  a lot of Prem clubs, struggle to a greater or lesser extent, and a club like Fulham relies on wealthy owners to keep it afloat.

The point is, that  football, its vast wealth  stemming from  TV money, and the global popularity of of the Prem as product, through TV, isn't a sustainable business model for most clubs now, especially in an unfettered free market economy, as we have in this country.
Yet it's the national sport, with clubs in every town,  and city, all with  strong histories, that people feel a strong link with, even if they  increasingly haven't shown this these days by actually  attending games in great enough numbers, as they used to, for various reasons.

Clubs like Fulham, have to charge the sort of prices that alienate many of their traditional, and potential, fans, and still struggle to make ends meet.

Anyway, FFP is an attempt to deal with this. Yet the problems lie far deeper, and FFP only seems to end up penalising small clubs like Fulham, who always  have a good chance of attracting wealthy owners given their  location, but are now frustrated in gaining the sort of success they had for many years financed by MAF, although they have a present  owner financially capable of doing this.

Football success  these days, is basically to do with how much money you have, but FFP prevents smaller clubs like Fulham from taking advantage of their wealthy owners, while seeming to do little towards providing a more level playing field, or helping those many clubs who are not capable of attracting wealthy owners, prepared to spend big on attaining success.

[The Rational Fan]

Fulham are taking advantage of their wealthy owners, because we will have a 30,000 seater stadium in London and that means we should be in the top 50 teams in England for the next 50 years. Something that I doubt we would have expected just before MAF came along.

[blingo]

Its easy really. All teams are equal, except that some teams are more equal than others. It has to be based on why communism does not work.

[Andy S]

Capitalism doesn't work much better either certainly not for the poor

[The Rational Fan]

Capitalism doesn't work much better either certainly not for the poor

Absolute poverty is extremely low in every country that has been a capitalism democracy for the last 120 years. Almost no one in the UK lives on less than £7 per day, but half the people in the world do. Everyone in the UK is super privelleged.

[Radiowhite]

Personally I think the American way of a salary cap, trades and a draft works much better and it more fair. All teams have the chance of being the best

[Andy S]

Rational fan that is patently not true

[Statto]

Capitalism doesn't work much better either certainly not for the poor

Well it seems they're f***ed either way then, so we may as well not worry about it
:005:

[Somerset Fulham]

The sad thing is that I think you do actually believe that.

Thing with FFP, is aren't we one of the so called big boys of this division? So it actually works in our favour?  Compared to Luton or Barnsley etc, we basically are Manchester City, but on a smaller scale, clearly.

[Deeping_white]

The sad thing is that I think you do actually believe that.

Thing with FFP, is aren't we one of the so called big boys of this division? So it actually works in our favour?  Compared to Luton or Barnsley etc, we basically are Manchester City, but on a smaller scale, clearly.

Not really because we're still capped by spending limits and if we exceed them then the league will bend us over and completely screw us. They're just small clubs and in some cases don't have rich owners (Barnsley do have a seriously rich owner I think) so don't have the money to spend in the first place, whereas our owner is a multi billionaire and should be able to spend what he likes, because he can most definitely afford it.

To answer the OP, it's worked perfectly for the big teams because they're slowly suffocating anyone that isn't part of their clique with regards to capping their spending to compete. Man City don't even get huge crowds (and they're not a really big club either tbf) but are owned by an Oil rich state who can get them huge sponsorship deals and then spend sh*t loads on players like Grealish for £100m when they're already PL champions. It's not really worked for anyone else because it just means that once you unearth a decent player, they'll get pinched by the bigger teams once you develop them because they can bully you financially. The worst thing is that this was done under the guise of stopping clubs from liquidating and making sure they were sustainable but more clubs are closer to going under since the rules came in than ever happened before. If there was a fit and proper "fit and proper owner" test then we could scrap FFP and just allow owners to spend their money that they're proven to have, the rich are getting richer so might as well let them all slug it out for the prestige of owning a successful team because god knows you can't buy a small team and make them big anymore since the irony of City doing the same thing they're now desperate for other teams to not be able to do.