Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

6 + 2 Point Deductions

Tony’s Carp said:
Maybe, but then I think the sustainability element is more the emphasis than the profit. United are not in any danger of insolvency, their business can sustain a lot more debt than ours can.

The implementation and balance of FFP can be debated but the stated aim is to deter reckless, unsustainable spending that could lead to insolvency. It’s hard to deny that describes the Moshiri years, and here we are genuinely worried about administration if we can’t get a credible buyer.

It’s also the case that if FFP hadn’t constrained us from 21/22 then instead of being on the brink of insolvency we might be there already. The PL would argue that’s the system working.

There’s a lot that needs to change about the system, it needs to move to a Spanish style preventative model rather than a punitive one. But it’s also very arguable that on balance we’d be even worse off than we already are without FFP.
Click to expand...

To me it is and it isn't in its current model (hence they're changing it). It's also a sham in general.

Chelsea spending £1billion and finishing midtable isn't sustainable. That kind of spending upset and is disruptive to the market.

However, they can recoup a lot of that with player sales within the 3 years. Which is basically what all the other clubs outside the top 6 are having to do at some point from spending in general. If they even attempt to spend a little bit over budget to climb a few places, they'll have to look over their shoulders.

The other 6 clubs do not have that worry about. So there's never going to be a real shift in competition.

But the flip side is, even without FFP there was no real disruption apart from the league allowing blood and oil money in.

FFP was also introduced by UeFa when clubs like Monaco, City, and PSG were taken over and decided to go silly spending. Gatecrashing the elite.

I could be wrong but I've not seen evidence of FFP stopping clubs from going insolvent. In the championship and lower leagues, the punishments have actually killed football clubs.

People forget that the fit and proper owner test in English football was brought in to stop clubs from going under, not FFP.
 
Neiler said:
How many points do we think we need to survive lids?

40 or 40+, less?
Click to expand...

Remove the points deduction...we'd need 50 points. Which is a top 10 tally.

Adding the points deduction (let's say we're back with 10)...that would give us 40 and safety.

So the aim is to finish top 10.

Dyche out.
 
Neiler said:
How many points do we think we need to survive lids?

40 or 40+, less?
Click to expand...
I don't like trying to guess, simplify it myself by just thinking we win as many as possible. The good thing is, it currently is in our own hands. We'll have to see if the premier league decide 6points this season isn't enough and hit us again. If we can recapture early season form we'll be fine

Need to start winning games again though and soon. We've let ourselves drop down from a much more promising position, no wins in 9 isn't great and let others gain a on us a bit.
 
maccavennie said:
An update from Chong regarding the points appeal and their satisfaction of getting 4 points back and the hard work all the staff behind the scenes put in.

Waffle, waffle, waffle, waffle.
Click to expand...
More self righteous back patting from Everton - we should never have got to this, with competent leadership, regardless that the rules are a farce and designed to keep the scab6 happy.
 

Neiler said:
The thought crossed my mind that they might use us a pawn, give us a 10 pointer to warn everyone then reduce on appeal - keep the PL in the media in the close season. I dont think fairness comes into it much mate, but weve also left ourselves exposed and thats on us.

In my head 10 points is the worst, i see Luton maybe at best at 35, which means id be aiming for 45 - nothing is ever linear like that though admittedly.

Forest are an anomaly, id love if we were able to put day light between them and us, before the appeals etc - in a weird way they are 6 pointers! lol

In a weird way i wonder how linked our and Forrest's outcomes will be - what would it look like if Forrest got 10 and we got 4 - the PL would be thinking about the optics of that.

Or i may just be a paranoid over thinker.
Click to expand...
Can understand paranoia and distrust of a fair process but when the IC just specifically ruled 10 points was too much I don't think they'd take too kindly to the PL going to them requesting 10 points. Second offence maybe, but surely negated by the close relationship between the first and the second. Most experts agree the second should be less not more due to overlapping periods.

Regarding keeping the PL in the media, it never really leaves the media, and I think they'd prefer the usual transfer chatter to legal battles. Know there's no such thing as bad publicity but having relegation decided in tribunals and possibly courts in the post-season can't be the publicity they crave. It would only further enhance the pressure on their leadership.
 

There's so many absurd aspects to leeds trying to sue us or hold contempt for them being relega but the thing I find humorous is that they had a better contingent of attacking players then we had , they were just atrocious at defense we never had a sporting advantage we were just inept on the books
 
kenada_blue said:
To me it is and it isn't in its current model (hence they're changing it). It's also a sham in general.

Chelsea spending £1billion and finishing midtable isn't sustainable. That kind of spending upset and is disruptive to the market.

However, they can recoup a lot of that with player sales within the 3 years. Which is basically what all the other clubs outside the top 6 are having to do at some point from spending in general. If they even attempt to spend a little bit over budget to climb a few places, they'll have to look over their shoulders.

The other 6 clubs do not have that worry about. So there's never going to be a real shift in competition.

But the flip side is, even without FFP there was no real disruption apart from the league allowing blood and oil money in.

FFP was also introduced by UeFa when clubs like Monaco, City, and PSG were taken over and decided to go silly spending. Gatecrashing the elite.

I could be wrong but I've not seen evidence of FFP stopping clubs from going insolvent. In the championship and lower leagues, the punishments have actually killed football clubs.

People forget that the fit and proper owner test in English football was brought in to stop clubs from going under, not FFP.
Click to expand...

If they wanted to PREVENT clubs from financial peril, the penalties would be removed.

The problems with PSR and FFP are this:

1. The calculation is forward looking (you need to budget against many variables)
2. The punishment is backward looking (it can't possibly be applied in the offending year).

How you remove the uncertainty is to create a hard cap. Use the 70% of revenue as an example.

A club's cap would be determined by the prior year's revenue. An adjustment would be made for the promoted clubs.

Clubs would know how much they could spend on wages and fees on July 1st of each year.

The that calculation is submitted to the league and is updated for each transaction.

Any transactions that fall afoul the cap are not registered. No one can go over their cap, so there can be no punishment.

This would require oversight and strict rules on revenues, which there should be anyway.

But as I said before, none of this is about sustainable, responsible ownership. It's about codifying profitability and certainty for the largest clubs.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top