Financial Fair Play sounds like one of those concepts that you couldn't fail to support. It's a bit like when a political party says 'we'll save the NHS' - of course we support that, right until the moment when you realise that their idea to save the thing is to get rid. Maybe I'm a cynic but I can't help feeling the reality of 'FFP' (as if the world needed another acronym) might be as grim as that of the electioneering politician.
Uefa's website says: Financial fair play is about improving the overall financial health of European club football. Again, you'd struggle to argue with that. But how has that panned out so far?
The only thing I have to go on with any real certainty is the impact on Forest - and you have to say that in a couple of instances the effect has been a little perverse.
Firstly, we saw the sale of Jamaal Lascelles and Karl Darlow to Newcastle United at the start of the season. The departures were against the wishes of the manager but, it seemed, entirely understandable. Why? Well the £7 million recouped from the sales paid for Michail Antonio and Britt Assombalonga - our two most potent attacking threats this season. Given that we got the duo back on loan you may think it was a smart bit of business and, in truth, it probably was making their pruchases 'cost netural'. But was this an example of FFP encouraging us to think within our means? Perhaps, but then consider the fact that we've 'cashed in' on two of our most highly rated young assets earlier than we may otherwise have done to buy in players from elsewhere. Is that what FFP is for? To encourage you to move on players sooner that you would like to try to meet the rules?
The second case comes with the current situation facing the selection of Stephen McLaughlin. If selected on Saturday he will become an 'established' player in the eyes of the rules. Under our current FFP-induced transfer embargo (I'll return to that in a moment) we can have 24 such 'established' players. It means Stuart Pearce now has to weigh up more than just form and talent when he decides on giving the ex-Derry City man a go. Instead he needs to think about the fact that McLaughlin's selection would mean he's left with just one potential signing available (unless anyone else is shipped out). It could be a risk to trust him over a loanee.
Paul Taylor's excellent piece today highlights how this may not be too much of an issue since we can only legitimately squeeze one other on-loan player into the matchday squad. He's right but it's still a perverse situation in which an up and coming talent could, in theory, be dropped to make way for a short-term signing. Again, does this do anything to encourage a healthy financial outlook or does it just encourage forking out loan fees and wages on temporary options.
Beyond Forest (yes, such a world does exist apparently) you hear tales of Premier League clubs hoarding young players much longer than they otherwise would just in case they might need to hit a quota. Does this help youngsters or just delay the necessary process of them heading down the leagues to get a club and make a career?
I suppose it could be argued that I'm just a bitter fan who is upset at his club being 'caught out' by the regulations. Maybe there's some truth in that. As a fan you can't ever be happy to be under an embargo (one which will seemingly last for at least three transfer windows) but you have to accept that our short termist policy has completely and utterly failed. We're still only just throwing off the excesses of the McLaren era when, seemingly in panic, he was allowed to throw money at Ishmael Miller, Matt Derbyshire and Jonathan Greening after missing out on Dutch imports. I'd happily leave that era behind and give more of a chance to our youth teamers who are now, at least, integrated much better into the club's structure post-Billy Davies. But, as we've seen, the rules don't necessarily encourage that. Cash in on young stars and be wary of wasting squad places on relatively untested rookies. That's the message we've had.
And questions still linger. Would this not just stop a Jack Walker-esque home town hero bankrolling his club as high as possible? If so, why do we want to do that? Who sets the figure for 'acceptable' losses? Will this not just entrench the supremacy of the top clubs - those who make enough money to be able to spend more under FFP already, thus pulling the ladder up on those who want to break that up?
Again, forgive me for being cynical but I can't help but feel the better financial health promised by Uefa might be about as forthcoming as a genuine promise on our actual health in election year.
No comments:
Post a Comment