This post is dedicated to an article by Stephen.
There was kind of a debate on the set up of a table Stephen referred to. On that regard I have no problem conceding that the "FFP table" by Stephen is correctly calculated. My aim here will be to argue that using the "FFP table" as a tool of comparison for financial decisions is a mistake.
Something general on CFC and money (feel free to skip this part):
Money counts, no sane person goes out and throws money he earned around without benefiting somehow. Other than that, the club has stated more than once that the goal is to break even in the future etc. so assuming without FFP we would just spend whatever we want whenever we want is a bit far fetched.
Some characteristics of investments:
Any buy can be assumed to be evaluated therefore any amount spent is seen as an investment one deems to be worth. For any investment the length component (time aspect) is a very important, just ask somebody with a mortgage.
The advantage of choosing an investment approach when taking decisions lies in investments enabling us to make comparisons. We are able to compare any number of different investments and choose which one is the best. In other words we can evaluate certain situations and base our decision on this evaluation.
Some characteristics of FFP indications:
FFP constraints like the 18million we must go with through the purchase of Torres force us simply to make sure we are in accordance with the rules. That means in either case, keep Torres or selling Torres and maybe purchasing Cavani - to the conditions brought forward in the "FFP table" - we will go by the rules.
Other than that, I claim the "FFP table" does not bear any information on how we should decide as it does not provide ground for comparison!
This is the intriguing part of the article, as it states what other situations we could be in while keeping the same FFP constraints (18 million). This leads us somehow to believe that these other situations of FFP allegiance are better as we assume things will remain financially the same. The fundamental mistake this chain of thought has is that it makes believe that FFP indications allow comparison and therefore enable us to evaluate financial decisions. This is wrong as for evaluation of finacial decisions one must compare investments not FFP compliance. FFP indications just make statements on the compliance with a rule they do not imply any information on the merits of buying or selling a player. This is also the reason that one does not have to take account for contract length differences when looking at FFP constraints but one has to do so very much when evaluating financial decisions.
Food for thought I hope.
Any objections are very welcome. I see this as a platform for you to convince me that FFP indications actually do bear ground for comparison.