Financial (Un)Fair Play.

[matty1878]

we need this swerving

to compete ffs

 

[Cmonefcsortitout!]

Some clubs will always have more cash to spend on players than others. It has always been this way. Imo, that is fair enough. I think it is extremely unfair if a rich owner isn’t allowed to invest as much as they can afford. If they put this cash down to start with, the club isn’t at risk. So why not make this the rule? And introduce a wage cap, so the richest club can’t buy all the best players, unless they can convince them to play for low wages. (they won’t) This won’t happen though. The clubs at the top now want to stay there forever. That’s why they wanted a super league! FFP is nothing more than a smokescreen to keep the top clubs as the top clubs. If that wasn’t the case, certain clubs would never have been punished, or gone out of existence!

 

[johnjoeefc]

Everton have a higher net spend over the last 10 years than Chelsea do so if we'd have spent that money better we could have had a team competing on the same level as Chelsea. Getting in to the so called top 6 isn't just about being able to spend the most money, it's about spending your money correctly. Everton have just had a relegation battle and huge financial losses because they spend lots of money very, very poorly.

This is poor perspective. Chelsea were already in a position where they had hoarded 30-40 reserve players that they could sell for massive fees. Lukaku, zouma, bachuayi. These types of players they just signed for cheap and sold to make a profit. Everton never had anything near such a luxury. We didn't have any assets to sell.

 

[Villa_Fan]

This is poor perspective. Chelsea were already in a position where they had hoarded 30-40 reserve players that they could sell for massive fees. Lukaku, zouma, bachuayi. These types of players they just signed for cheap and sold to make a profit. Everton never had anything near such a luxury. We didn't have any assets to sell.

Sounds like a good decision by the Chelsea management team to develop youth players and buy young up and coming players that they could sell at a profit. By managing the club well they put themselves in a strong position. There was nothing stopping other clubs from doing similar other than the decision of the management team to either invest or not invest in youth and young players

 

[aglee]

FA Rule E20
That no spectators or unauthorised persons are permitted to encroach onto the pitch area, save for reasons of crowd safety

View attachment 173406

Up there with Space Corp Directive 34124 - No officer with false teeth should attempt oral sex in zero gravity

 

[Micky_T]

This is poor perspective. Chelsea were already in a position where they had hoarded 30-40 reserve players that they could sell for massive fees. Lukaku, zouma, bachuayi. These types of players they just signed for cheap and sold to make a profit. Everton never had anything near such a luxury. We didn't have any assets to sell.

Look at the first line of my post. "over the past 10 years". Even if Chelsea had a head start do you not think 10 years of spending is long enough to try and replicate a business model that seems to be working for one of the top 6?
If buying cheap young talent then selling them for huge profits is a successful business model then Everton have had as long as any other club to implement that strategy.
The reality is that they've over paid for established players, over paid on wages and rarely sold for a profit.

 

[Bkk Andy]

follow the American model where all teams pool in their annual revenues in order to redistribute it equally, which means that all teams receive revenue that equals the current salary cap.

So American's are communists?

 

[Bkk Andy]

I'd prefer to see a hard salary cap based upon club revenue. Say 70%. Spending on transfers should be left to the owners but all fees should be paid up front to avoid creating a finance gap should the owners get bored. Debt itself is fine if it's being financed. It's similar to a mortgage.

We're only having this conversation because we've been run so badly though. I doubt City fans are worried about the fairness of it all and I doubt we'd care if we were winning stuff.

 

[WA Toffee]

Can someone who is knowledgeable about this ease shed some light.

I get the basics and I understand the revolving losses over 3 years. I also understand it's based on commercial revenues and young player sales that acts as a multiplier for spending limits.

But what does transfer fees and wages have to do with it? Is it both that needs to be considered

I thought we have just let go a few players on some pretty high wages, delph and Voldemort. So before there is any sales whatsoever. Are not immediately in a better place in terms of wage bills? Therefore room to spend/sign? I know not by alot but surely the conclusion of those contracts means something

Very basically, you are only allowed what to spend what you earn. However it gets much more complicated very quickly because there are a lot of things which don't count in expenditure, either wholly or partly such as academies, womens teams, infastructure, and most complicated of all - Covid losses.

While us releasing some players should in theory allow us to spend similar amounts on new players, we were already spending a lot more than we should, therefore do have to either reduce our outgoings or increase our incomings. By a lot.

 

[WA Toffee]

follow the American model where all teams pool in their annual revenues in order to redistribute it equally, which means that all teams receive revenue that equals the current salary cap.

Nice in theory, but would the money go to a relegated team or the newly promoted team? And should all 4 divisions pool revenues or all be separate? If it goes to the promoted team, how would the relegated team manage next years payments?

And how would it stop clubs falling behind Barca, Real, Juve etc, unless you go for Europe wide equal redistribution, but that would bugger up smaller leagues like Estonia or Malta.

In a single tier, single country league it works good, just can't see how it could fit European football

 

[johnjoeefc]

Look at the first line of my post. "over the past 10 years". Even if Chelsea had a head start do you not think 10 years of spending is long enough to try and replicate a business model that seems to be working for one of the top 6?
If buying cheap young talent then selling them for huge profits is a successful business model then Everton have had as long as any other club to implement that strategy.
The reality is that they've over paid for established players, over paid on wages and rarely sold for a profit.

I agree to some extent that it could have been done better by the club with a different model. But with that Chelsea example the point your not getting is that Chelsea when they were taken over by abramovich were allowed to spend and spend and spend and they instantly bought the best world talent. City found it a bit harder but inevitably were allowed to spend until they got it right. We had no such luxury.

And if we did go down the route your suggesting of buying young talent. While that would have been a more sustainable route, I still believe it wouldn't have necessarily propelled us into the top 4. As the likes of Chelsea were still signing players like Havertz which were considered the real wonder kids and we would have had to sign the likes Keane Lewis Potter and the margin for error with our signings would be higher and wouldn't guarantee success. They already have the advantage of the club growth that they managed to achieve pre ffp as do city and that puts them at an unfair advantage.

Really before something like ffp is implemented there should have been some sort ot reset but of course that would never happen because it would have upset the beloved super 6.

 

[RomanReigns]

Top 6 v the rest lol

So unfair