West Bromwich Albion chairman Jeremy Peace has explained why he's against Financial Fair Play.
It's difficult for a club such as West Brom to move up even further now that Financial Fair Play is in place.
"We took a stance against FFP," Peace told the Daily Mail. "Because at the top end you have the bigger clubs - Manchester United, Arsenal, Tottenham - saying: 'You can only lose £35m a year. We think keeping it like that is the way to go.
"The sub-text to that was 'We don't want another Manchester City coming in here, threatening us. We want to keep the status quo.
"Our stance was 'Hang on a second, if anyone wants to come in and use a club, like an Everton or a West Brom, as a vehicle and pump money in to get established at the top end, they won't be able to do it any more because they cannot lose more than £105m in any three-year cycle.
"Of course, that's exactly what they want to do - ring-fence it. Our point is that this is unfair play.
"The double-whammy is that clubs at the bottom end, who cannot necessarily keep control of their managers, are saying we have this windfall coming up but we don't want to spend it all. How can we cap it?
"So, for example, a manager goes to his board and says: 'I want this player.' The response is: 'Sorry, can't have him, the wages have been capped.'
"Basically, they did a trade. The clubs at the top and those at the bottom.
"We said: 'Hang on, we are profitable. Why should we have this FFP cap on us?'
"If someone comes into the industry and wants to plough £500m into West Bromwich Albion, in my view, as long as they guarantee it - why shouldn't they do it?
"I think it's anti-competitive. Jean-Marc Bosman's lawyer is now planning to challenge this via restrictive practices. It's going to be very interesting to see what happens in a couple of years.
"It's like the dream factor has been eradicated from the game."
For the big stories and the banter follow us on Twitter: @tribalfootball