Even on a day when Storm Pia was battering the city, Everton‘s new stadium on the Bramley-Moore Dock shined like a glittering jewel in the late December gloom.
It is only half built but already looks breathtaking, the outline of the arena rising high over the city’s waterfront.
Yet thanks to Financial Fair Play, it may end up being regarded as an albatross around their necks. It was, after all, interest on the loans Everton took out to pay for their new stadium that ended up landing them with a 10 point deduction that could prove ruinous for the club.
That may yet prove to be the tip of the iceberg. Everton, Nottingham Forest and a couple of other clubs who are believed to be sailing close to the wind will find out on Monday whether they have breached the Premier League’s limit of £105m losses over a three-year period after submitting their latest set of accounts.
There is apparently enough concern at Forest for them to have hired Nick De Marco KC – the man once dubbed the “Lionel Messi of sports law” – to potentially argue their case.
Under new regulations introduced in 2023 any cases brought by the Premier League will be fast-tracked, ruled on and possibly even appealed before the conclusion of this season. That sets up the farcical prospect that what we’ve seen on the pitch so far might be overshadowed by events overseen by teams of KCs and lawyers in airy offices somewhere in London. Brace yourself for multiple asterisks on that final league table.
How long, you wonder, are supporters going to unquestioningly accept this?
As Monday looms large it is time to talk about reforming FFP. Supposedly set up to protect clubs from rogue owners and introduce sustainability into the national sport, instead it has become a means to cement the advantages of the existing heavyweight clubs.
At Everton the backlash arrived in the autumn after their 10 point deduction. But Newcastle’s Bruno Guimaraes predicament is reflective of how FFP potentially punishes ambition.
Here is a player who enhances the Premier League, a full Brazil international who has adapted to English football brilliantly. He learned the language in a few short weeks but is equally fluent in understanding the rhythms and importance of the club who pay his wages. In short, the sort of player you would want to build a sporting project around.
Yet at St James’ Park there is an acknowledgement that one day – in the not too distant future – they may have to contemplate a sale if they are going to continue to transform their squad into one that can challenge for honours in the long-term.
That is because as it stands, with the club believing they are close to their FFP limit, any recruitment will be closely tied to generating more commercial revenue and even with Newcastle working hard on that front it’s not coming in quickly enough to bring in the four or five £50m plus signings they need to bridge the gap.
So the only option is to roll the dice, sell a big hitter and hope to sprinkle some recruitment magic and replace them with two or three new players who can replicate their impact.
If it is not Guimaraes it might be Sean Longstaff or even Lewis Miley because, in the artifical world of FFP, selling academy graduates represents “pure profit”, meaning you can bank the entire transfer fee rather than just the profit.
That is why Chelsea might listen to big offers for Conor Gallagher. This buys you more financial wiggle room but doesn’t do much for clubs, like Newcastle, who believe that a core of local, talented players is a pretty strong foundation to build on.
Given Newcastle’s majority owner is Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund, sympathy will be in short supply among Premier League rivals. But if a sovereign wealth fund with assets worth £538bn can’t break the cartel, who can?
“It’s not the willing from the owners that is preventing us from signing big players in January,” one senior Newcastle source told i recently. “It’s the rules.”
Football finance expert Kieran Maguire puts it even more succinctly.
“FFP is based on an arbitrary version of profit. Businesses go bust due to lack of cash, so it is an inconsistency to say that FFP assists clubs in terms of either achieving profitability or sustainability,” he tells i.
And the upshot of that is that the existing heavyweights will always be able to flex their muscles, as Maguire explains.
“The rules lock in existing financial advantages and gaps so in effect create a glass ceiling designed to minimise the chances of another disrupter club in terms of top four positions, such as Manchester City or Chelsea, being created.”
At St James’ Park there has been another unwelcome knock on effect of FFP – a feeling that the club are prepared to move away from their core support in search of a new set of wealthy fans.
Attracting more corporate clients means more expensive tickets and more of a sold out stadium set aside for posh seats. It has created real tension but the club point out that if they are to generate income to be able to afford the best players, every £400 ticket sold really does count.
As with many of the unintended consequences of FFP it feels like it ends up harming the people it was set up to protect – the supporters.
from Football - inews.co.uk https://ift.tt/hjBJPNT
Post a Comment