otfgoon wrote:

[size=x-small][font=arial, sans-serif]Under FFP, clubs cannot spend more than their revenue but one of the new rules allow for clubs who want to invest but fear they could breach the break-even rule to approach Uefa and gain approval for their plan in what is known as a "voluntary settlement".[/font][/size]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33381403

That's a pretty good compromise in my opinion, should appease those who claim FFP stops competition. 

That's how corruption begins...

What does it actually mean though?

It's a "voluntary settlement," so the club probably says to UEFA we're going to illegally spend X amount, what's our fine? Kind of like a tax on spending instead of outright banning it perhaps?

Gazidis explained this decently a couple of weeks ago.

Cool, dont bore me with the details though. Ta.

FFP has actually done its job to a large extent.

How so BW? (genuine question)

It has actually been working on City and Chelsea. Chelsea have been quite public about their compliance with FFP. They're no longer making outrageous purchases. They've turned into the wiliest of buyers, getting guys like Costa and Fabregas for a combined 60m pounds. Old Chelsea would spend 50m on bet like Torres. That's the difference. And you see it with City too. The lavish early days both of these teams enjoyed are long gone. We are on par with them.

The only team that can outspend us significantly now is United, but that's simply because they make 100m pounds more than us in revenue. We stand a chance in this new world

Daz wrote:

How so BW? (genuine question)

Clubs with extremely rich backers have stopped pouring arbitrarily large amounts of money into transfers and wages. We always knew they'd find ways to game it, but even when gamed the FFP rules have slowed them down a great deal.

When FFP came in people said "it'll never work", and I said "it won't completely work, but it will partly work". Vindication, as Squallkid would say.

The Striani case verdict in May was another blow to those hoping to overturn it legally.

I think the most important effect is the handbrake too. Uefa are playing it right by meeting the clubs halfway. It's a longterm project and not a quick fix. The idea was to slow down external investment without discouraging the top clubs.

... And I think at heart most rational people at these clubs realise that something's broken badly in football, and in the spirit of longevity they might want to fix it as long as they're not penalised for it. If it becomes all about the money then only one club will have the richest owner.

Yes, also football as a money-making enterprise is fundamentally a collective project for the clubs. There's always going to be a need for competition, and the leagues and associations are always going to have some sort of authority over individual clubs.

I reckon reforming TV rights distribution is probably now a bigger priority than policing FFP.

FFP isn't a good system.

"spend what you earn" basically means the status quo in football is to remain as is. how can a team like west brom, for instance, ever hope to achieve huge things when they can't spend more than they make? they make a small fraction of what the biggest 4-5 clubs in england make. how do they grow if they can't fully invest?

lets say i win the lottery tomorrow and i can buy a championship club like ipswich town. i buy the team. but i dont want to settle for being in the championship. i clear all the debt off the club's balance sheet and then i determine i want to spend £50m on new players to win promotion to the premier league, and then i want to spend £80m to attract big players and try to establish the club in the upper echelon of premier league teams. portman road only holds 30,000. the club has nowhere near the cache or marketability of established premier league teams or established teams in the other top leagues. im going to break FFP because the club will post big losses, which im willing to cover.

what it essentially did was just keep things where they were. the fines and restrictions on citeh and psg were great, for 1 year, but now its gone. so whats the point? the big teams that generate a ton of revenue can continue to act as talent vacuums.

That is exactly what they have changed though.

It's a nonsense argument either way.

The Premier League allow sugar daddies to make losses of up to 105m over 3 years. That gives you plenty of scope to invest and get to the 'upper echelons'. Once you qualify for Europe, UEFA allow you to make losses of up to 40m over 3 years, not great, but by then you're earning CL revenue, making a load from the PL TV deals and will have better commercial deals. If you're willing to put your money where your mouth is, investment in infrastructure, i.e. increasing the capacity of portman road, you'll be making more money there too. You'll naturally be able to start charging for tickets more. Furthermore, FFP will actually help you to compete against the oil rich clubs who can invest 10x more than you can with their bottomless pit of cash.

All FFP does, even before the revised UEFA ruling, is slow down the process and makes growth a little more organic. Nothing wrong with having to earn your way to the PL title over a 10 year period rather than simply spending half a billion and winning it overnight.

Burnwinter wrote:

Daz wrote:

How so BW? (genuine question)

Clubs with extremely rich backers have stopped pouring arbitrarily large amounts of money into transfers and wages. We always knew they'd find ways to game it, but even when gamed the FFP rules have slowed them down a great deal.

When FFP came in people said "it'll never work", and I said "it won't completely work, but it will partly work". Vindication, as Squallkid would say.

The Striani case verdict in May was another blow to those hoping to overturn it legally.

You mean that the referral of the case to the ECJ was anything but expected from the plaintiff? I think it was completely to be expected, and that the changes emerging at this point is a result of UEFA getting a bit nervous about the whole thing. It would not surprise me if the ECJ found the FFP to be unlawful. They've put down the ground work in case law to be able to intercede in sports cases, if they are sufficiently economic.

shrug Doesn't really matter.

The end result of the current version of FFP being found 'unlawful' would be an adjustment of the rules to meet any legal requirement. There's not a great weight of desire for FFP to be overthrown out there, it's got decent support throughout the FAs and the clubs. Similar structures have been being implemented in the Championship etc.

All power in football will never entirely sit with a single club or an oligarchy of clubs.

Burnwinter wrote:

shrug Doesn't really matter.

The end result of the current version of FFP being found 'unlawful' would be an adjustment of the rules to meet any legal requirement. There's not a great weight of desire for FFP to be overthrown out there, it's got decent support throughout the FAs and the clubs. Similar structures have been being implemented in the Championship etc.

All power in football will never entirely sit with a single club or an oligarchy of clubs.

Sure, most of that is true, but one shouldn't forget about the impact of Bosman, to name one example. 

I would be amazed if UEFA didn't construct the FFP along with some of the best EU law lawyers, and in constant contact with Brussels.