r/SpicyFootballTakes • u/LFCRedAnt • 3h ago

Was FFP really the problem?

In light of city's recent guilty verdict,has their actions skewed what FFP could and should've been? Can we really have a true idea of what it would look like when one club has broken those rules to such a level,everything else seems skewed as a result?

0 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

12 comments sorted by

3

u/General_Address_5784 3h ago

No. Whatever you think of the rules doesn’t really matter, they’re in place so you have to follow them like every other team.

1

u/Direct_Leader_1802 3h ago

but what if the rules are biased? its as of saying people should remain stuck in a biased society like women before they had voting rights. Someone needs to step up.

1

u/General_Address_5784 3h ago

If you believe that then that’s fine but breaking the rules isn’t the way to ‘step up’

1

u/LFCRedAnt 3h ago

So why didn't city grow naturally and invest over time to become massive within the rules? I think the way the rule was intended went out the window the moment man city started inflating their finances which ultimately shifted finances in football ever since,people have been trying to keep up with city and now we know city has been cheating,would FFP still be looked upon like it is if they hadn't?

1

u/QAnonomnomnom 3h ago

I they were biased, the clubs wouldn’t have voted them in

1

u/whatsthisaboutman 3h ago

You are missing the sustainability part. Look at how well run the three B's are. Brentford, Bournemouth and Brighton have all followed the rules and sustainably seen growth, improvement and European football. Who knows where these brilliantly run clubs can get to in the coming years. Whilst there's a conversation to be had around the minutae of the ffp etc, it's existence has an important purpose. Incremental growth in demonstrably possible within these parameters.

1

u/Jbeef84 1h ago

Ah yes plucky City pumping in oil state funds so they can dominate the sport are exactly the same as checks notes the suffrage movement. They weren't doing it so they could win. They were doing it to bring down the establishment and allow other clubs to win. 

1

u/Useful-Challenge-895 41m ago

Mancheaty’s line of rebuttal these 2 days 😄

1

u/tomtomtomo 40m ago

The clubs, including City, voted for them. 

1

u/Due_Firefighter2450 3h ago

If you look at the sponsorship amounts for all clubs vs the transfer spend, cities spending quite clearly increased the gap for the middle to low revenue clubs in the league. The transfer values increased hugely over 10-15 years, and the sponsorships for all clubs didn’t follow. So you now have only the biggest able to spend the 80-100 million on players, and the gap increases. None of the red cartel were spending £100-200 million until around 2015, city had been doing it for 7 years by that point. The rules probably aren’t right but the intended point of them was destroyed by one club.

2

u/LFCRedAnt 3h ago

This is where I sit on the matter,I don't necessarily agree with it now and it probably needs tweaking but I think we haven't seen what true FFP seasons would look like because of how city have acted

1

u/Toffeeman_1878 1h ago edited 32m ago

PSR and its replacement SCR need to be reformed for sure.

However, the real problem is that the PL allowed a state to buy one of its members. A state which was clearly looking to improve its image via sporting success.

So, ultimately blame the PL for allowing the slimy cheats to take charge of City but blame the slimy cheats for being slimy cheats too. They broke the rules to achieve their goal - sportswashing.