Yes or no to FFP/PSR

[wolvesjoe]

The current chaos around FFP/PSR, with possible points deductions extending beyond the end of the season, is making many doubt the workability of restricting spending by clubs. Moreover, most know that the main intent of the regulations is to cement the position of the leading, wealthiest six clubs who have dominated the league over the last 12 years. Many ask why keep a system that undermines competitiveness.

So a poll to see where opinion lies at this moment.

I used to favour the old system, as it at least gave the chance for clubs like Wolves to find a rich backer and have a chance of finishing close to the top of the table.

Somewhat unwillingly, I think I now accept the inevitability of something like the current system, so that the league does not become entirely dependent on finding a rich Benefactor. That scenario, in my view, would be even more unbalanced in terms of competitiveness than the current, highly flawed system.

 

[WolfLing]

No regulation wouldn't work.

Current regulation isn't working.

Spending should be linked to a proportion of turnover, along with a percentage levy of turnover payable to a consolidation fund, to distribute wealth throughout the leagues. Which is similar to what they're trying to do, albeit badly.

Fundamentally, the whole transfer model could be addressed and changed. I'd like a draft system to distribute top young talent!

 

[Timberwolf]

It’s a bit of both for me. Let owners spend what they like but they’re then not allowed to transfer that debt to the their clubs permanently. So yes, for accounting purposes the clubs lose say £100m a year but the debt HAS to be swapped for equity within 12 months. This allows owners to spend their own money and protect clubs from being saddled with debt from unscrupulous owners. And that **** that the Glaziers did, buying a club that the club then had to pay for, should be made illegal.

 

[SteveBullsKnee]

I never quite get the “let the clubs spend what they want” being based that PSR is there to help the big boys stay where they are. Simply it’s the wrong way round. If the lot is scrapped and Villa start spunking big money, their owners don’t have City money so city just spend again to reinstate the gap (and make the gap to the rest of us even bigger). If it’s scrapped altogether these clubs who are backed by sovereign wealth will absolutely squeeze the pips out of it. They make Radcliffe and his ilk look like boys drinking in the spoons.

What they need to do is tweak the FFP / PSR rules, impose proper sanctions on those that fail them and more importantly redistribute the money in football more equally, to make it a more level playing field

 

[Werewolf of Wombourne]

I’d like to see a sliding scale for what you could spend on player wages and transfer fees so that the smaller your income the bigger % you can spend on your squad. So 90% if your income is below £150m 80% £150m to £200m 70% £200-£250m 60% £250-300m and then 50% over £300m

Wouldn’t totally level the playing field but would be more equitable

 

[WickedWolfie]

It’s a bit of both for me. Let owners spend what they like but they’re then not allowed to transfer that debt to the their clubs permanently. So yes, for accounting purposes the clubs lose say £100m a year but the debt HAS to be swapped for equity within 12 months. This allows owners to spend their own money and protect clubs from being saddled with debt from unscrupulous owners. And that **** that the Glaziers did, buying a club that the club then had to pay for, should be made illegal.

Re your last sentence, that is, ridiculously, allowed across the whole business community in the UK (Morrison and Asda are two relatively recent examples). I doubt that football would unilaterally be allowed to ban standard business practice. Perhaps a new Government might change things...

 

[jrpb-3]

Think some regulation is needed, but as well as stopping clubs spending beyond their means the other main aim ought to be within a division to make it more or a level playing field so more than just the richest have a realistic chance of winning. Unfortunately those currently at the top will never vote for that

 

[Jawwfc]

I think maybe something along the lines of spending cap rather than PSR, PSR keeps the big boys where they are across Europe Barcelona, United, Milan are all in terrible financial situations but can still spend money on transfers relatively easily.

I dont think it can be a free for all as what happens when an owner gets bored? Or The gravy train dries up? Or prices increase so much that teams can't compete.

I would like to see proper enforcement of any rules rather than the jokes we have seen so far.

 

[WickedWolfie]

I’d like to see a sliding scale for what you could spend on player wages and transfer fees so that the smaller your income the bigger % you can spend on your squad. So 90% if your income is below £150m 80% £150m to £200m 70% £200-£250m 60% £250-300m and then 50% over £300m

Wouldn’t totally level the playing field but would be more equitable

Your proposal might be equitable on the field but is far from it in terms of good corporate governance. It would be incredibly dangerous for a club with small income to take that risk. A loss of owner interest or a relegation and they would be deeply and completely in the mire.

 

[WickedWolfie]

I think maybe something along the lines of spending cap rather than PSR, PSR keeps the big boys where they are across Europe Barcelona, United, Milan are all in terrible financial situations but can still spend money on transfers relatively easily.

I dont think it can be a free for all as what happens when an owner gets bored? Or The gravy train dries up? Or prices increase so much that teams can't compete.

I would like to see proper enforcement of any rules rather than the jokes we have seen so far.

How to help the Saudis.....

 

[WickedWolfie]

Think some regulation is needed, but as well as stopping clubs spending beyond their means the other main aim ought to be within a division to make it more or a level playing field so more than just the richest have a realistic chance of winning. Unfortunately those currently at the top will never vote for that

Agreed in principle but l am unsure how that circle could be squared in what is a global sport, subject to very different national and international legislation in various places, in practice.

 

[jrpb-3]

Agreed in principle but l am unsure how that circle could be squared in what is a global sport, subject to very different national and international legislation in various places, in practice.

No, not easy , in terms of a level playing the horse has already bolted (years ago)

 

[Jefe]

Though we may rightly complain that FFP allows the status quo to remain unchallenged and essentially pulled up a drawbridge after Man City, there clearly does need to be some form of financial regulation. Clubs like Bury have gone to the wall, Bolton nearly did - it's obvious in a world without oversight, that myopic owners will put clubs into existential danger in an effort to chase the dragon. The death of a football club is a profoundly unique tragedy that can strike at the heart of an entire city.

What FFP / PSR needs to be however is a lot simpler and less opaque, as to not be so inaccessible. When you start adding *******s like amortisation to the mix, it becomes difficult for the average supporter to wrap their heads around. It also needs to be less focused on punishments like points deductions and more on common sense restrictions and collaboration until clubs are out of choppy waters.

 

[glorybox]

Though we may rightly complain that FFP allows the status quo to remain unchallenged and essentially pulled up a drawbridge after Man City, there clearly does need to be some form of financial regulation. Clubs like Bury have gone to the wall, Bolton nearly did - it's obvious in a world without oversight, that myopic owners will put clubs into existential danger in an effort to chase the dragon. The death of a football club is a profoundly unique tragedy that can strike at the heart of an entire city.

What FFP / PSR needs to be however is a lot simpler and less opaque, as to not be so inaccessible. When you start adding *******s like amortisation to the mix, it becomes difficult for the average supporter to wrap their heads around. It also needs to be less focused on punishments like points deductions and more on common sense restrictions and collaboration until clubs are out of choppy waters.

You know that's not what chasing the dragon is, right?

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

Salary cap per team and no transfer window losses.

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

There needs to be a spending cap per season for all clubs so it is level playing field. Max of 100m spend and something similar say 250m on wages. I’d scrap the transfer window to make it more interesting.

Without any restrictions you are just going to make the gap at the top bigger unfortunately

 

[Skrilla]

No regulation wouldn't work.

Current regulation isn't working.

Spending should be linked to a proportion of turnover, along with a percentage levy of turnover payable to a consolidation fund, to distribute wealth throughout the leagues. Which is similar to what they're trying to do, albeit badly.

Fundamentally, the whole transfer model could be addressed and changed. I'd like a draft system to distribute top young talent!

I think this is the only viable solution too. Effectively a soft cap on spending. If you go over it, you pay a percentage tax that gets divided out to the other clubs in the league that remained under that cap.

 

[Timberwolf]

Re your last sentence, that is, ridiculously, allowed across the whole business community in the UK (Morrison and Asda are two relatively recent examples). I doubt that football would unilaterally be allowed to ban standard business practice. Perhaps a new Government might change things...

Christ, I thought it was just the Glazers pulling a fast one.
So theoretically, any old Joe with a business plan but no money, can go and buy a successful brand for multi-millions, and not have to pay a single penny out of his own pocket?

 

[CelebrityWolf]

There needs to be a spending cap per season for all clubs so it is level playing field. Max of 100m spend and something similar say 250m on wages. I’d scrap the transfer window to make it more interesting.

Without any restrictions you are just going to make the gap at the top bigger unfortunately

Yeah, something like this would be far far better. Anything pertaining to level of incoming ends the league as a competition, why would anyone want that??

A cap would end the madness that is the current set up regards spending. Garbage players valued at daft amounts for no reason at all, Fabio Silva a great example of this.

 

[WolfLing]

Christ, I thought it was just the Glazers pulling a fast one.
So theoretically, any old Joe with a business plan but no money, can go and buy a successful brand for multi-millions, and not have to pay a single penny out of his own pocket?

I suppose you need the means to raise the debt in the first place. So without millions/billions of assets to front as collateral, not anyone can do it. But it's very easy to make more money when you already have loads!!

 

[Timberwolf]

I suppose you need the means to raise the debt in the first place. So without millions/billions of assets to front as collateral, not anyone can do it. But it's very easy to make more money when you already have loads!!

Well that’s me ****ed…! I’d already got myself a biro an old fag packet and my solar powered dexel calculator ready too.

 

[Don Corleone]

The current chaos around FFP/PSR, with possible points deductions extending beyond the end of the season, is making many doubt the workability of restricting spending by clubs. Moreover, most know that the main intent of the regulations is to cement the position of the leading, wealthiest six clubs who have dominated the league over the last 12 years. Many ask why keep a system that undermines competitiveness.

So a poll to see where opinion lies at this moment.

I used to favour the old system, as it at least gave the chance for clubs like Wolves to find a rich backer and have a chance of finishing close to the top of the table.

Somewhat unwillingly, I think I now accept the inevitability of something like the current system, so that the league does not become entirely dependent on finding a rich Benefactor. That scenario, in my view, would be even more unbalanced in terms of competitiveness than the current, highly flawed system.

I’m not sure what would work but they need to do something; what’s happening now can’t have been the original intention, surely?…

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

Yeah, something like this would be far far better. Anything pertaining to level of incoming ends the league as a competition, why would anyone want that??

A cap would end the madness that is the current set up regards spending. Garbage players valued at daft amounts for no reason at all, Fabio Silva a great example of this.

Absolutely. Spending cap makes things so easy for everyone to follow…

Profit & sustainability yeah great if you have players you can sell.

I suppose the way around that is to get relegated and promoted like Watford and Norwich used to do then use bits of money here and there. Sell promising players for decentish money. Shame for the fans though.

(Crazy talk) The good thing for Wolves, if we wanted to we could sell 10 players for good money for example.

Cunha £70m
Neto £70m
J.Gomes £60m
Ait-Nouri £60m
Kilman £40m
Hwang £40m
Semedo £15m
B. Traore £15m
H.Bueno £15m
Guedes £10m

Just shy of £400m. Okay we would have to buy a new team for 300m and have 95m left over but it could be done. It’s just rather an extreme way of looking at it. Profit and sustainable gods but what’s the point when the punishment is mostly 6 points. No bother getting into this scenario just an example that we have many sellable assets. (Not an argument on valuations either)

 

[lobodelsur]

We could turn the clock back and revert to dividing gate money between the two competing clubs, rather than the home team taking 100%. We could divide up the TV money equally between all participants in the League, rather than allocate it out on a pro rate basis. We could establish a fund for clubs outside the PL, funded by clubs in the PL, based on payments inverse to their success - the more succesful you are the more you put into the fund.

We could do all of this and much more besides, but vested interests will ensure that any changes to the status quo will be minimal.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

I suppose you need the means to raise the debt in the first place. So without millions/billions of assets to front as collateral, not anyone can do it. But it's very easy to make more money when you already have loads!!

Thing is the Glazers put in £265m and borrowed £525m. All you need to do is convince someone with the money that the asset you want to buy is going to generate the revenue to pay the interest on the debt. This is the problem with a wild west approach to me, it's all very well saying let people spend what they like, but what happens when they spend other people's money and lose? Uually the taxman turns up and decides a nice housing development would be the best way to get the money back!

 

[SteveBullsKnee]

Thing is the Glazers put in £265m and borrowed £525m. All you need to do is convince someone with the money that the asset you want to buy is going to generate the revenue to pay the interest on the debt. This is the problem with a wild west approach to me, it's all very well saying let people spend what they like, but what happens when they spend other people's money and lose? Uually the taxman turns up and decides a nice housing development would be the best way to get the money back!

Exactly the point of it all isn’t it.

Hearing Wolves fans saying “let clubs spend what they want” forget the mid 80s and what having morally broke owners does to you. Every single club in professional football was about before their current owners purchased them and they should be there afterwards as well!!!

 

[WickedWolfie]

There needs to be a spending cap per season for all clubs so it is level playing field. Max of 100m spend and something similar say 250m on wages. I’d scrap the transfer window to make it more interesting.

Without any restrictions you are just going to make the gap at the top bigger unfortunately

Unless you can get global agreement then one country doing that will never work.

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

Unless you can get global agreement then one country doing that will never work.

Will never happen they want the bigger boys ahead of everyone else

 

[Ironfistedmonk]

Regulations should bring in a level playing field, if not then **** it let teams spend whatever they want

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Thing is for me there are the extremes. US style sport of franchises designed to level out and make competition as even as possible, nobody in football really wants that, we want a pyramid, where teams can fight their way up, that's how it always was. Huddersfield, Wolves, Ipswich - teams could make it to the top with smart decisions, good coaches.

However then the gap became crazy, both because the money became crazy and because of Bosman and the best foreign talent was imported. So now we have to find a way to let clubs have a chance of making it to the top, without just creating a sort of artificial level playing field with stuff like a wage cap.

Sadly I have no idea how to do that!

 

[Pagey]

Scrap the lot, and let owners invest in their club if they underwrite the debt, with cash in an account, only allowed to be accessed by the FA and owners, simultaneously?

 

[WickedWolfie]

Will never happen they want the bigger boys ahead of everyone else

Yup

 

[WickedWolfie]

Christ, I thought it was just the Glazers pulling a fast one.
So theoretically, any old Joe with a business plan but no money, can go and buy a successful brand for multi-millions, and not have to pay a single penny out of his own pocket?

Yup.... Just look at how many recentish high profile administration/liquidations involved a takeover adding massive debt, asset stripping (including stopping pension contributions), then either walking away from the non-viable remains or a pre-pack administration taking the remaining assets and leaving the debts behind....

 

[WickedWolfie]

We could turn the clock back and revert to dividing gate money between the two competing clubs, rather than the home team taking 100%. We could divide up the TV money equally between all participants in the League, rather than allocate it out on a pro rate basis. We could establish a fund for clubs outside the PL, funded by clubs in the PL, based on payments inverse to their success - the more succesful you are the more you put into the fund.

We could do all of this and much more besides, but vested interests will ensure that any changes to the status quo will be minimal.

All of that might work in England (and Wales) but would kill PL team competitiveness in Europe.

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

All of that might work in England (and Wales) but would kill PL team competitiveness in Europe.

Who cares

Be for the greater good of the fans. See Germany

 

[JadeWolf]

There has to be some sort of regulation. But it should be far, far more transparent. I still can’t get my head round Everton being deducted 10 points, then having 4 back, then Forest having 6 deducted but then having 2 back for being helpful.

 

[Woburn Wolf]

No, no and no for me. In any other industry if a Company is mismanaged it goes belly up, end of. FFP and PSR are designed to keep the established big clubs at the top. Even Newcastle who have extremely wealthy owners will find it hard to break into the top echelons.

 

[glorybox]

Looks more and more likely now that Villa and Newcastle following us will have to shed their best players to meet requirement of PSR. No doubt these stars will join Super6 clubs further strengthening the divide between them and the rest of us. What a shambles of a system. It’s anti competitive but I don’t see a way back. I guess this was always the way it was headed with the salaries players earn. Something fundamental needs to change at the very top of the game.

 

[Wolf316]

Not sure where I read it but someone had the suggestion of everyone being allowed to spend the same as the club with biggest spending allowance. Not sure if it would work bur at least there’d be a bit more competition.

 

[WorcesterWanderer]

I'm sick of all this rules crap lol... They don't work and they aren't enforced properly so let club owners spend what they want as long as they won't harm the club they own in the process.