Football club finances / FFP

[moomba]

Don't mind the idea of a luxury tax.

 

[moomba]

All this could all be true.

So far I've only seen you make suggestions that diminish competitive integrity.
Those that earn to give to those that don't.

If you have a suggestion that doesn't do that I'll be more receptive.

And all I see from you is suggestions that diminish competitiveness in the league.

The AFL has diminished competitive integrity through the salary cap and draft, MLB does, NFL does, NBA does.

If diminished competitive integrity is what is needed to avoid a situation where only two or three clubs have a chance to ever win something then I see that as a good thing.

 

[moomba]

That may be true. And I don't think PSR works.
Not being able to spend profits from further back than the 3 year rolling window is BS. Those clubs aren't going broke.

They're making an accounting loss, not trading insolvent.
But I also don't agree with redistributing prizemoney from European competitions to those not competing.

I think the PL should provide funds to the EFL and below.
Fostering amateur grassroots lower tier pro football invests in the future players of the EPL.

So you don't want champions league money redistributed to those not in the champions league, but you want premier league money redistributed to those not in the Premier league.

Do you not see the inconsistency in your position?

For me both "diminish competitive integrity" (whatever that is) but both would be good for the game.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

And all I see from you is suggestions that diminish competitiveness in the league.

The AFL has diminished competitive integrity through the salary cap and draft, MLB does, NFL does, NBA does.

If diminished competitive integrity is what is needed to avoid a situation where only two or three clubs have a chance to ever win something then I see that as a good thing.

That works as the AFL/NFL/NBA have draft systems as well.
Draft, salary cap and harder fixtures equalise the competition.

It wouldn't work in football because every other nation in Europe would still be operating under the free market principles.
In transfer windows you buy who you want having agreed a price and wages with club and player.

England going to a salary cap without the draft measures will only result in the best footballing talent overlooking Chelsea, Liverpool etc and choosing Madrid, Milan, Juve, Atletico etc. Diminishing the English game. Lesser performances in European competition leading to lower coefficients, less places. More diminished returns.

All leading to lower TV revenue with networks less inclined to pay for the rights to a diminished product that less people are engaged with. It has nothing but negatives with no obvious positives.

So you don't want champions league money redistributed to those not in the champions league, but you want premier league money redistributed to those not in the Premier league.

Do you not see the inconsistency in your position?

For me both "diminish competitive integrity" (whatever that is) but both would be good for the game.

Completely different. One gives revenue you have earned as a club for excelling at a higher level than others, and for competing against Europe's best clubs and gives it to teams you are competing against who haven't earned that money.

The other is giving to lower tiers in the pyramid to invest in the future of the game.
Kyle Walker isn't City captain if he wasn't able to develop with 4 loans, 3 of which were to lower tiers. Kane isn't England captain without developing with lower league loans. You get the gist.

 

[moomba]

That works as the AFL/NFL/NBA have draft systems as well.
Draft, salary cap and harder fixtures equalise the competition.

It wouldn't work in football because every other nation in Europe would still be operating under the free market principles.
In transfer windows you buy who you want having agreed a price and wages with club and player.

England going to a salary cap without the draft measures will only result in the best footballing talent overlooking Chelsea, Liverpool etc and choosing Madrid, Milan, Juve, Atletico etc. Diminishing the English game. Lesser performances in European competition leading to lower coefficients, less places. More diminished returns.

All leading to lower TV revenue with networks less inclined to pay for the rights to a diminished product that less people are engaged with. It has nothing but negatives with no obvious positives.

No negatives apart from making the league more even and competitive. That's a pretty huge positive right there.

I don't see a salary cap working, but I think there are other measures that could take place without the sky falling in. A more equal redistribution of champions league money is a great start. Those clubs with the privilege to play in the champions league still get increased exposure, and extra gate and commercial money. But a bit less of the windfall that gives them an unfair competitive advantage against those clubs not currently in the comp.

Completely different. One gives revenue you have earned as a club for excelling at a higher level than others, and for competing against Europe's best clubs and gives it to teams you are competing against who haven't earned that money.

The other is giving to lower tiers in the pyramid to invest in the future of the game.
Kyle Walker isn't City captain if he wasn't able to develop with 4 loans, 3 of which were to lower tiers. Kane isn't England captain without developing with lower league loans. You get the gist.

Giving the revenue you get from qualifying and competing in the Premier league to those clubs that aren't currently good enough to compete in it.

They are the same thing. And both good for the game imo.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

No negatives apart from making the league more even and competitive. That's a pretty huge positive right there.

It would make it more competitive.
But the accumulative cost would make it a negative in the long run.

Any measure that leads to the likely outcome of lowering the standard of English football for the sake of making it closer is not an outcome that is plausible.

Giving the revenue you get from qualifying and competing in the Premier league to those clubs that aren't currently good enough to compete in it.

They are the same thing. And both good for the game imo.

If you cannot see the difference I cannot help you.

Premier League clubs can sustain themselves without CL money. The lower divisions need the consolidation funds that English football provides, and need more than what they currently get.

The football pyramid from level 2 down needs some of the EPL TV revenue to ensure clubs continue survive, and thus allow the English game to continue. UCL/UEL/UECL competitors wouldn't be giving for the same reason. ALL clubs in the EPL should be financially solid, and it only is taking off 6-7 clubs. The deal for the EFL would take out of the communal pot, so all EPL clubs.

One is a pyramid made out of cards that could easily fall over, the other is made out of bricks and mortar.

Explained: The Premier League's 'new deal for football' and what it means for the EFL

The Athletic dissects the Premier League's "new deal for football", proposed to the 72 EFL clubs, which has provoked a mixed response

theathletic.com

If you add up all the money the Premier League distributes to clubs and organisations outside the Premier League, you get to about 16 per cent of the more than £3billion a year it earns in media-rights income every year. But do not forget that about half goes into payments designed to encourage promoted clubs to invest in talent when they join the league — the idea being that parachute payments act as a relegation-insurance scheme.

The EFL wants to scrap them, put that money in the solidarity pot, combine the four leagues’ media-rights incomes and share 25 per cent of that much bigger number with the EFL’s 72 clubs.

This, it claims, would reduce the current “cliff edge” between the Premier League and the Championship. In 2019, for example, the Premier League’s bottom club, Huddersfield Town, had central receipts of £96million, while Norwich City, top of the Championship, earned £8million.

The EFL believes if you share 25 per cent of the leagues’ combined media wealth, you halve that gap, thereby removing the need for parachute payments, which only force non-recipient clubs to spend unsustainable amounts of money simply to compete.

The Premier League, however, does not want to give up its parachute payments or share quite that much of its broadcast income. It points out that no league on the planet is that generous and giving so much away would threaten its position as the world’s most successful domestic football competition. And if you do that, there would be less money for the rest of the pyramid anyway.

We're in the midst of losing our collective minds over N.Forest and Everton reporting PSR breaches when in reality neither are presently operating in a position where they could go broke. They have the EPL cash cow for now, and if that remains they'll be all good.

Meanwhile in the Championship and below.



In that season 2/19 (not everyone published results) made a pre-tax profit. 2. Over 80% of the league and 2 could say they were running at a profit. And you're worried about 14th, 15th in the EPL getting a little bit of the European pie...

The clubs knocking on the door to get into the league. That should be the first hint. It's that lucrative financially. That they are literally - in some cases - sending themselves broke gambling on the promotion to the promised land. And why. Because parachute payments see relegated clubs favoured heavily so those without it have to spend recklessly to 'gamble'. Those that get promoted can spend recklessly on players in the knowledge that if they get relegated they'll go down with a better squad than they started out with and will have more money than the rest of the league to regain promotion.

To quote EFL Chairman Rick Parry - “The Championship [second tier] is a financial basket case. Pre-Covid it was spending 106 per cent of turnover and had debt of £1.7bn. That’s the most expensive lottery ticket on the planet and it’s led by irresponsible behaviour chasing the dream.”

“One of the biggest contributors to the distortion are the parachute payments. The £1.6bn coming down over three years is correct but £850,000,000 is in parachute payments,” he added.

“They’re not parachute payments. They’re trampoline payments because those clubs are three times more likely to be promoted again.

“That’s not healthy for the Premier League. What it needs, frankly, is more Brentfords and Brightons. It’s about the sustainability of clubs throughout the pyramid.”

Bostonian


Hence why in the last decade 60% of automatically promoted clubs have come from those with parachute payments. 3 of the top 4 so far this campaign have such payments as last seasons relegated clubs.

Annual Review of Football Finance: Football League Clubs

As fans returned to stadia in 2021/22, EFL clubs reported total revenue of over £1 billion.

www2.deloitte.com

Absolute chalk and cheese compared to wanting to give already rich clubs with hundred's of millions of pounds in revenue more cash.

 

[moomba]

Top 4 clubs would love more Brighton and Brentfords.

No threat to their position at the top of the tree earning the big money.

For the league to be competitive, big clubs need to give up some of their advantage by being in the position they're currently in.

We'll earn probably £500m+ from broadcasting revenue next season (league, champions league, club world cup). How is a Brighton or a Brentford ever going to compete with that?

No matter how canny they are in the market, no matter how good their development and coaching is.

Do we really want a league where the best you can hope for is 7-10 (at which stage the rich clubs with champions league money will come after your players/staff).

FWIW, I fully support premier league clubs giving up their revenue to the lower leagues as well. Its exactly the same principle.

 

[joop]

So deduct Everton & Forest points but bring in a luxury tax before rulings are made on City & Chelsea…. How convenient.

 

[moomba]

So deduct Everton & Forest points but bring in a luxury tax before rulings are made on City & Chelsea…. How convenient.

Conspiracy theory. And a stupid one.

We'll be subject to the rules that were in place relevant to when charges (if any) are proven.

 

[Jatz]

So deduct Everton & Forest points but bring in a luxury tax before rulings are made on City & Chelsea…. How convenient.

If they could bring that in within the next month, that'd be great

 

[moomba]

Some good detail here.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68713522

 

[Bradesmaen]

Some good detail here.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68713522

The haves and have nots.

 

[moomba]

The haves and have nots.

Footballs biggest challenge imo is to redress that imbalance in a way that enhances competitiveness, not the other way around.

 

[jd2010]

Weird to not include a graph operating profit in there

 

[jd2010]

A luxury tax is good in theory, but how it gets redistributed across the Premier League or football pyramid, and who actually has to pay it, will determine if it helps or improves the current situation.

 

[Zidane98]

 

[moomba]

Ha ha.

 

[Zidane98]

Ha ha.

I had a 1.01 bet you'd be the first to respond.

Never a more guaranteed bet in my life.

 

[moomba]

I had a 1.01 bet you'd be the first to respond.

Never a more guaranteed bet in my life.

That's because other than you and me, no-one cares. You were nailed on to post the results and make out they meant anything. I was nailed on to laugh at your stupidity.

 

[Zidane98]

That's because other than you and me, no-one cares. You were nailed on to post the results and make out they meant anything. I was nailed on to laugh at your stupidity.

What was the topic of this thread again?

 

[moomba]

LOL

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Multi club model serves two primary purposes.
1. Get around Brexit
2. Moving income and expenses between entities in a group to get around FFP variants.

 

[moomba]

Multi club model serves two primary purposes.
1. Get around Brexit
2. Moving income and expenses between entities in a group to get around FFP variants.

3. Winds up people that like conspiracy theories.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Maybe in your head

 

[moomba]

You think that owning Montevideo Torque and Mumbai City helps us get around Brexit and FFP

Not too worried about where my head is at thanks.