Fairness - yes, I agree. Sport is inherently unfair (someone's always going to be taller, faster, stronger) and I consider that to be expected. As you suggest, sport is about unfairness and, to an extent, rewarding it. It's undeniable that clubs attempt to, and sometimes succeed in, buying success.
People talk about 'leveling the playing field' but that is, imho, a romantic, utopian notion when one considers the inherent unfairness. And I think that's where FFP goes wrong. It tries to impose a version of fairness by stopping rich owners buying the best, and buying wins. That's why I think the rules are ill-thought. I get the intention (to stop clubs going to the wall) but it also stops clubs investing for the longer term, by a using a clumsy calculation. I think TV money (or the uneven distribution of it) distorts that calculation because those revenues can be short term.
I get the argument about sustainability. Clubs with smaller catchment areas (if I can use that expression) will always struggle to generate the revenues from gate receipts. They get as creative as they can but are dependant on additional streams and TV money is the big one. (I'm a Leicester supporter so know well the folly of budgeting on non-guaranteed sources of income, particularly CL receipts) To be sustainable, I feel clubs need a little more leeway than current rules allow. The 3 year floating, or whatever it is, is insufficient - consider players' contract durations for starters.
Forest took a risk that paid off but it could have all gone horribly wrong for them. Everton too to a lesser degree.
Clubs may well be critised for over ambition, for trying to run before they can walk etc etc but the I reckon they've been prevented from even jogging. It's particularly gauling when a club like Man City have (allegedly?) broken rules for years and bought success on and off the pitch.
People talk about 'leveling the playing field' but that is, imho, a romantic, utopian notion when one considers the inherent unfairness. And I think that's where FFP goes wrong. It tries to impose a version of fairness by stopping rich owners buying the best, and buying wins. That's why I think the rules are ill-thought. I get the intention (to stop clubs going to the wall) but it also stops clubs investing for the longer term, by a using a clumsy calculation. I think TV money (or the uneven distribution of it) distorts that calculation because those revenues can be short term.
I get the argument about sustainability. Clubs with smaller catchment areas (if I can use that expression) will always struggle to generate the revenues from gate receipts. They get as creative as they can but are dependant on additional streams and TV money is the big one. (I'm a Leicester supporter so know well the folly of budgeting on non-guaranteed sources of income, particularly CL receipts) To be sustainable, I feel clubs need a little more leeway than current rules allow. The 3 year floating, or whatever it is, is insufficient - consider players' contract durations for starters.
Forest took a risk that paid off but it could have all gone horribly wrong for them. Everton too to a lesser degree.
Clubs may well be critised for over ambition, for trying to run before they can walk etc etc but the I reckon they've been prevented from even jogging. It's particularly gauling when a club like Man City have (allegedly?) broken rules for years and bought success on and off the pitch.
