05-11-2011, 06:13 PM
(05-11-2011, 04:58 PM)russo-neri Wrote: The only real good point about the FFP is the requirement that owners can't just lend huge sums of money to clubs, but instead must make a capital investment in the club.
What's the difference? In both cases, clubs still get an infusion of funds that they can spend on players, but when the money is received from a loan, the club has to pay that money back, thereby increasing the debt of the club. The risk for someone like Roman is significantly cut if he lends money as opposed to buying shares because should the club ever go under, whatever assets are available must go to the lenders first.
In other words, let's say 100 of us have 1 million each and we all pool our money together and buy a club for 100 million. We each have equal shares in the company. Now let's say I'm extremely rich and decide I want Messi and you all want him too, so I'll put in 100 million more of my money to get him. But instead of buying 100 more shares, I simply lend the money to the club. We then buy Messi. Now all of a sudden, we realize we can't afford all the expenses of running a club. Nobody has any money left - so we go bankrupt. We sell Messi and stadium and all other assets, and after everything is sold, we have 101 million left. Guess what - I'm getting 100 million and we all get to share that last million.
Forcing owners like Roman to actually invest in equity vs debt will decrease outlandish spending since the investment will be so much riskier.
i thought the FFP was something that would curb borrowing of money and allow clubs to spend only from the revenues that we generate after each season and if that includes the players salary i dont really know. Coz i remember reading this article somewhere bout Galliani complaining of how bad the FFP would be for clubs generating smaller revenues and he gave Real and MU as examples coz they sort of generate twice as much as we do.
