The 105m FFP limit needs to be increased massively and soon.

13 comments

1. So as there is more money, losses and deficits have to be increased.

   I don’t know if I can make sense of it, and I hope and pray that you don’t run a business.

2. “not because the clubs are too reckless in their spending”

   These are losses. If any business keeps making losses, it fails. 

3. No it doesn’t

4. The whole point of FFP is to stop clubs spending outside of the revenue they generate. This ensures situations like Leeds and Portsmouth don’t happen. If anything FFP could be tightened for championship sides and lower as they are at the greatest risk. NF would have been sanctioned sooner if they hadn’t been promoted. Villa have risen, Brighton and West Ham cemented themselves, even Bournemouth and Brentford are all safe. The league isn’t solely 6 clubs competing, and Chelsea’s spending with nothing to show for it highlights how more money ≠ success.

5. It would lead to even more spiraling transfer fees and wages. Only the most wealthy clubs would benefit and it would massively hurt European football in general. It would push the hyper commercialisation of football even further. I have no interest in a penalty kick presented by Budweiser.

6. This is such a brain dead take in my opinion. The rules are in place to ensure the viability of all clubs. Let PSG and Saudi spend stupid money and still not be taken seriously.

7. I dunno… Maybe there is a point in this, but at the same time I feel like this will only increase the football inflation more.

   If we look at the clubs who have been penalised so far, they have both been pretty irresponsible. Everton have also had a lot of bad luck, but the harsh reality is that this is bad management of funds.

   Newcastle are at the limit, and they have spent quite a lot, but is this really a huge problem? It’s annoying for me, as a Newcastle fan, as we can’t do much about our current injury situation to try and have a strong end to the season… but I’m just not convinced opening the floodgates more will do anything other than encourage the bar to move further. The problems will be the same, just worse.

   I’d prefer them to keep the potential losses as minimal as possible. There are issues with the size of this snowball rolling down the hill, picking up more snow and they need to figure out how to take control of it… Just don’t think this is the one.

8. Do you know what the acronym FFP stands for ?

9. FFP is about making the clubs sustainable, not many businesses around that could survive losing 35 million year after year., without FFP you end with more teams like Leeds and Portsmouth and no one wants that.

10. Initial reaction: “what?”

    Then I saw the Newcastle flair.

    Makes sense now

11. > They need to adjust to the fact that more clubs have money these days and need to spend money to stay in the league.

    But the entire point of the rules is to stop clubs spending more than they have.

    This is why the rules exist. Because it’s better for a team to be relegated than to go into administration and go bust. Teams will spend themselves into debt just to try to stay competitive and in doing so, will bankrupt themselves. “But we have to spend to stay in the league” isn’t a good counter argument to that point.

12. Flair checks out

13. This is kind of ridiculous. The whole point is to create a limit on losses; increasing the limit on losses is just allowing big spending clubs (with owners willing to eat losses) to keep doing what they’re doing and dragging the less well-off clubs further into trouble by trying to keep up.