West Bromwich Albion chairman Jeremy Peace has explained why he's against Financial Fair Play.
Itâ€™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: â€˜You can only lose Â£35m a year. We think keeping it like that is the way to go.
"The sub-text to that was â€˜We donâ€™t want another Manchester City coming in here, threatening us. We want to keep the status quo.
"Our stance was â€˜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 wonâ€™t be able to do it any more because they cannot lose more than Â£105m in any three-year cycle.
"Of course, thatâ€™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 donâ€™t want to spend it all. How can we cap it?
"So, for example, a manager goes to his board and says: â€˜I want this player.â€™ The response is: â€˜Sorry, canâ€™t have him, the wages have been capped.â€™
"Basically, they did a trade. The clubs at the top and those at the bottom.
"We said: â€˜Hang on, we are profitable. Why should we have this FFP cap on us?â€™
"If someone comes into the industry and wants to plough Â£500m into West Bromwich Albion, in my view, as long as they guarantee it - why shouldnâ€™t they do it?
"I think itâ€™s anti-competitive. Jean-Marc Bosmanâ€™s lawyer is now planning to challenge this via restrictive practices. Itâ€™s going to be very interesting to see what happens in a couple of years.
"Itâ€™s like the dream factor has been eradicated from the game."
For the big stories and the banter follow us on Twitter: @tribalfootball