PL Financial Fair Play Rules.

Robbie · January 14

Robbie · January 14

Notts may be in the fourth tier but this FFP rule has consequences for ambitious clubs like ourselves.
The FFP benefits the six biggest clubs and in effect stops them from being challenged by the rest of the clubs in the football pyramid.
I think it is absolutely an unfair system and should be abolished in favour of a simple capping system set for each league to ensure there is fair competition.
The rich clubs won't like it because all their riches won't matter if they are capped to the same amount as the other PL clubs.

There just has to be a fairer system to benefit all clubs. Even the parachute payments to relegated PL teams is unfair to Championship Clubs. Just look at the Championship table. It stares you in the face.

Edited January 18 by Robbie

Robbie · January 15

**True Magpie** · January 16

Unfortunate Forest fans hoped for a point deduction for Everton, only to face one themselves. This was predicted by FourFourTwo on their YouTube channel 10 days ago. Manchester City escaping punishment seems odd. In my view, a 10-point penalty will likely relegate Nottingham Forest. Everton should manage to stay up.

Robbie · January 16

Premier League Profit & Sustainability regulations explained. What restrictions are there on clubs spending what they want?

Premier League profit & sustainability regulations & UEFA profit & sustainability Rules explained with clubs wary of staying within limits in January; why Chelsea have been able to spend £1bn, Man Utd could see budget boosted & Arsenal may need outgoings to fund arrivals

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13041990/premier-league-financial-fair-play-rules-explained-what-restrictions-are-there-on-clubs-spending-what-they-want

JohnTheBost · January 16

Darren Bent thinks Manchester City should be allowed to overspend if their owners promise to provide funding for 5 years. I believe the teams should have a fair chance, and it's still not right for some teams to bend the rules.

liampie · January 16

they need to get stricter with the spending because the overspending is risking clubs long term future, it will be difficult to do when teams want the best players and transfer fees are overinflated. fans need to stop over spending for the short terms, even at our level and try to see how things are improving for the better. i hope man city will be the next to be fined, i think they should have further punishments for their continued floundering of it.

Ohh Tommy Johnson · January 16

13 minutes ago, liampie said:

they need to get stricter with the spending because the overspending is risking clubs long term future, it will be difficult to do when teams want the best players and transfer fees are overinflated. fans need to stop over spending for the short terms, even at our level and try to see how things are improving for the better. i hope man city will be the next to be fined, i think they should have further punishments for their continued floundering of it.

They should have the book thrown at them and relegated out of the league. A player would get a 2 year + ban for doping, this is doping with money and should be treated the same.

Robbie · January 18

Due to the way the FFP rules are structured there are three leagues in one in the Premier League. There are also two leagues in one in the Championship.

At this time League 1 and League 2 are still relatively fair to all clubs in those two leagues, but if what we have seen in the top two leagues is allowed to continue, the same thing will happen with the richer clubs always at the top and the others just making up the numbers in league 1 and 2.

We have seen how Wrexham are benefitting from having rich owners.

Some say that it would be impossible to introduce a turnover Cap, but I don't agree. A Sensible Cap for each league would benefit all the teams, not just a few with the present system.

I also believe the Premier League should filter a lot more money down the Football pyramid than they currently do.

We also need to make sure home grown players are developed to the full, and our national teams remain competitive and this means more home players in the Premier League. Clubs should be encouraged to play more home grown players.

Robbie · January 19

Devastating news for the fans of Nuneaton Borough FC withdrawing from their league and facing liquidation.

The big six in the Premier League get richer by the day, yet football is in crisis with lower tier clubs struggling with their finances.

There has to be changed because there's no such thing as fairness in the footy pyramid.

**Chris** · January 19

It becomes a mockery when any team is able to bypass written rules. It's part of why I have little interest these days in the Premier League; I find the fees and everything just to be too much. The more you read about Manchester City, plus how other teams can spend beyond their means, makes it a joke. Everton and Forest have been punished, but there's little justice when others aren't.

I feel the same with how Derby County were treated by the Football League.

Especially when there's 3 to 4 teams currently who have broken rules but are getting away with it. It's not healthy for football for it to be like this.

Robbie · January 22

If Manchester City are guilty of anywhere the 115 charges they are accused of breaking, the authorities should throw the book at them. Relegation to the conference wouldn't be enough for them. But unfortunately, I don't see them getting any punishment because it would put the Premier League into utter chaos even though they deserve all they should get.

AmericanPie · January 22

Manchester City is only a large club because of their owner; they were never as strong as they are now. The Premier League should begin to consider the Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules for all clubs, so that the league is fairer. It's okay to penalise the smaller ones, but only if the current larger clubs are treated similarly.

Robbie · January 22

@AmericanPie the powers that be seem reluctant to do anything about Man City, because they're probably worried they might leave the Premier League along with the other big six.

Robbie · January 24

Latest on the fallout from Man City charged over allegedly breaking FFP rules.

UEFA chief Aleksander Ceferin on Man City FFP charge: 'We know we were right'

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13054894/uefa-chief-aleksander-ceferin-on-man-city-ffp-charge-we-know-we-were-right

**KB1862** · January 26

I don't fully understand the FFP rules if I'm totally honest. I know just about the basics of it all in terms of over a 3 year period clubs can't exceed £105m losses. But, I do think they need to find some sort of alternative.

The fact that this is going to be one of the quietest transfer windows in the PL we've seen for a long time speaks volumes. Clubs are scared to buy players and even clubs that have the money to buy players can't because they would be breaking FFP rules. Instead, they have to offload big name players in order to make room for others.

Take Newcastle for example. Wealthy owners that people have been critical of saying they're buying their way in but even they can't spend without offloading the likes of Isak and Guimaraes.

The Everton situation is quite baffling the fact they are now facing a separate penalty while they are appealing the previous.

People said that FFP is there for the "big 6" to stay as that but even they aren't safe from FFP. The likes of Arsenal can't spend without offloading.

But, it does make you question the credibility of FFP when Man City have their 115 charges without facing punishment (yet) meanwhile Everton have been punished and Forest are looking likely to as well despite them have far lesser charges against them.

I understand the need for FFP to avoid clubs over spending which could result in a downward spiral to non existence but there has to be a better way to avoid it.

FFP is part of the problem as to why there is such a massive gulf between teams in mid table and lower to the teams that are up near the top season after season. The gap is getting bigger as the seasons go on.

Robbie · January 26

7 minutes ago, KB1862 said:

I don't fully understand the FFP rules if I'm totally honest. I know just about the basics of it all in terms of over a 3 year period clubs can't exceed £105m losses. But, I do think they need to find some sort of alternative.

The fact that this is going to be one of the quietest transfer windows in the PL we've seen for a long time speaks volumes. Clubs are scared to buy players and even clubs that have the money to buy players can't because they would be breaking FFP rules. Instead, they have to offload big name players in order to make room for others.

Take Newcastle for example. Wealthy owners that people have been critical of saying they're buying their way in but even they can't spend without offloading the likes of Isak and Guimaraes.

The Everton situation is quite baffling the fact they are now facing a separate penalty while they are appealing the previous.

People said that FFP is there for the "big 6" to stay as that but even they aren't safe from FFP. The likes of Arsenal can't spend without offloading.

But, it does make you question the credibility of FFP when Man City have their 115 charges without facing punishment (yet) meanwhile Everton have been punished and Forest are looking likely to as well despite them have far lesser charges against them.

I understand the need for FFP to avoid clubs over spending which could result in a downward spiral to non existence but there has to be a better way to avoid it.

FFP is part of the problem as to why there is such a massive gulf between teams in mid table and lower to the teams that are up near the top season after season. The gap is getting bigger as the seasons go on.

The investigations into Man City and Chelsea need to be moved on quickly and a verdict decided. Until that is done many fans won't have confidence that the playing field is fair.

**KB1862** · January 26

See the Chelsea situation is a VERY tricky one for them to punish. They exploited a loophole and to their credit it's very clever of them. Hence why UEFA quickly acted on contract lengths because they knew it was a loophole and it's not really breaking any FFP rulings.

Signing a player on an 8 year deal allows them to spread the costs over that period. In that time, they get revenue from many different things. Ticket sales, Merchandise sales, TV rights, Cup money, Selling players, European Competition Money (if they make it), Winners money (if they win cups).

It's all reliant on whether they can sell players for decent prices, win trophies or have good cup runs.

If all of those come together, they recoup all the losses made but that ain't hard to do when you sign players on 8 year deals worth a total of £85m for example which works out to only just over £10m a season. Plus wage packets over that time that they might not be able to fully pay if they decide to sell players.

What I will say is, I struggle to see how Man City, PSG and Barcelona have managed to keep going without much being mentioned about FFP that has been quickly acted upon with the likes of Everton.

Robbie · January 27

@KB1862 The Man C investigation has been stalling for months and months now. In a few months the authorities are changing the FFP rules, so Man C will probably benefit in a big way from that change.

Why is it that Football fans think things are stacked up so in favour of the top six when clubs like Everton have a verdict decided so quickly, but with Man City, it's delay after delay At least a specimen charge or charges could have been layed against Man C to get a decision quickly, so justice is seen to be being done.

**KB1862** · January 28

@Robbie UEFA also banned Man City from European competitions a few seasons back for FFP breaches. But they were reinstated and since then, they've made 2 Champions League finals winning 1 and losing the other.

When asked about the dates of the hearings, it's funny how they say they can't disclose that sort of information but when it comes to clubs like Everton, as we've mentioned a few times, they have no hesitation but to announce it.

The fact that there is 115 charges, nothing gets done immediately but Everton have a charge that they are punished for immediately with an appeal coming. So why are they penalising Everton for a single charge that may get overturned anyway. Why couldn't the same be applied to Man City? Punish them and let them appeal afterwards. But instead, they're delaying it trying to put off what should be a massive penalty.

There's one of 2 things I can think of that could happen. They'll either delay it and things change, as you suggested, for them to get away with it or there's so much to go over it's genuinely piecing an evidence together to punish them. I don't believe the latter, I think they're trying to do anything to protect them because they're bringing in money. Again as you say protecting the top 6.

Robbie · January 28

@KB1862 I agree. I'm very sceptical that Man C or Chelsea will ever be punished fully, they may finish up with a fine, that they will be able to pay that easily.

Why a specimen charge out of the 115 against Man C can't be decided upon very quickly is beyond me. I believe like you do that the delay is all about the money, such as TV subscriptions, commercial contracts and advertising revenue at home & around the World.Just imagine if Man City and Chelsea were about to be kicked out the league, the establishment wouldn't allow it. And those two clubs would possibly go on to form a Super League with clubs in Europe, if they were under threat of expulsion from the Premier League anyway.

**KB1862** · January 29

@Robbie Precisely. The amount of money the PL could potentially lose if they punish any of the "Big 6" is what worries them rather than treating each team fairly and punishing them equally.

If this was the Man City of days gone by when they had the likes of Dickov, Dunne, Distain, Sun Ji Hai etc. They would have had the book thrown at them but because of them being a, now, well established club the PL don't wanna risk anything.

Just like when they all agreed to the breakaway Super League all they got was, I believe, £2m fine. That's nothing to clubs that can go out and spend £50-£120m on players.

I quite like how they operate in the MLS clubs have same sort of budget with allowances to exceed when importing players but can't go over a certain amount when importing. It gives teams an equal opportunity to keep up and level the playing field.

I'm not saying we should head that way but more needs to be done to cut the divide as teams are struggling to keep up and it's showing season upon season when the same teams pull away.

It's also funny how they tried everything to block the Newcastle takeover. I still believe that they tried preventing this due to them potentially messing with the "big 6" and the PL didn't like the thought of that because it adds more competition potentially.

Robbie · January 30

I agree broadly what you are saying @KB1862

it appears that the top six have now been joined by Newcastle being the party pooper and they don't like it, but that still leaves the Premier League as 3 leagues in one, the top seven, the middle 6, and the bottom 7 that is always struggling to survive.

I think a model similar to the MLS that you mentioned could be the way to go, this could equal the playing field somewhat. And, stop the parachute payments and have a similar budget cap in the Championship too, to foster equal competition in that league.

But of course we know it won't happen because of the power of the clique of clubs at the very top of the game.

**KB1862** · January 30

@Robbie It won't happen, as you say because of the power clique. They'll vote against the proposition that could level the playing field because it means nothings for granted, at least not as much as it is now.

Parachute payments do more harm than the good they're supposed to be. Clubs can fall in to the trap of over spending due to these payments but also it enables clubs to become Yo-Yo clubs as they can spend most in the Championship to easily get promoted but then struggle to meet the financial needs to progress in the Premier League.

But, you're bang on the money with there being 3 leagues inside the Premier League.

I think the MLS works very well due to their financial structure. It's more of a level playing field.

Robbie · January 31

It appears that the UEFA FFP regulations are due to be amended further in 2024 & 2025, for rules that restrict clubs to spending a fixed percentage of their revenue per annum on wages, transfers & agent fees.

This limit currently stands at 90% but will drop to 80% in 2024, before reducing further to 70% from 2025.

it also appears that the FA may adopt these rules in 2025.

So if clubs can spend up to 70% of their revenue to stay within the rules, this favours the big clubs much more than it does the smaller ones. The biggest clubs will be able to buy more expensive players and pay higher wages, continuing to cream off the best available. Is this REALLY FAIR?

As I said before on here, I believe there should be a Cap on a fixed amount, not a percentage of revenue, because a percentage will always stop the less well off clubs from competing.

Sign In

PL Financial Fair Play Rules.

Recommended Posts

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

About PON

Useful Links

Support PON

Meet the Team

Social Media

Articles

Club

Community

Content Feeds

Media

Fans

About

Important Information