Financial Fair Play

[indierich06]

Looks like the guidelines for implementation, starting next season have been laid down:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17841566

Some interesting stuff in there:

Three of the 24 clubs voted against new regulations to limit investment from owners and curb total spending

Wonder who they were? I wonder if our owners voted against...

Owners will be allowed to invest £6m next season, £5m the year after, then £3m in the 2014-15 season

I presume that's wages & transfer fees - not taking into account exisiting obligations i.e. the wages we are contracted to pay our existing players.

 

[Lako42]

Looks like the guidelines for implementation, starting next season have been laid down:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17841566

Some interesting stuff in there:



Wonder who they were? I wonder if our owners voted against...



I presume that's wages & transfer fees - not taking into account exisiting obligations i.e. the wages we are contracted to pay our existing players.

So the owners could transfer a quick £60m into the club today and get around the whole thing?

 

[Biffa Bacon]

So the owners could transfer a quick £60m into the club today and get around the whole thing?

If they transfer a lump sum in as a gift or sponsorship rather than a commercial loan I think they could get around it but they've shown little sign of wanting to give money away so far.

 

[indierich06]

I'm certain that there will be loopholes to be exploited - I can't imagine Man City will want to curb their spending when FFP comes into play in the PL.

 

[FryattFox]

I presume that's wages & transfer fees - not taking into account exisiting obligations i.e. the wages we are contracted to pay our existing players.

What? The owner investment is usual invested to cover the loss. So all wages, transfer fees and other costs will all be included, existing or not, in the costs for the club which contribute towards that loss.

 

[FryattFox]

If they transfer a lump sum in as a gift or sponsorship rather than a commercial loan I think they could get around it but they've shown little sign of wanting to give money away so far.

I'm not sure that that would be at all possible, given the sums involved.

The sponsorship by King Power of the stadium will only benefit the financial statements of the club by any additional amount over and above what another party would be willing to pay, which is unlikely to be much more than a £million or so. Compare that to the loss for 2011/12 which, by my calculations, is likely to be £25m-£30m, and there's still quite a large deficit.

 

[Darth Vodka]

i'd say this is GOOD news for us

means shit teams with no support like QPR can't buy thir way up and football gravity will resume

 

[Biffa Bacon]

I'm not sure that that would be at all possible, given the sums involved.

The sponsorship by King Power of the stadium will only benefit the financial statements of the club by any additional amount over and above what another party would be willing to pay, which is unlikely to be much more than a £million or so. Compare that to the loss for 2011/12 which, by my calculations, is likely to be £25m-£30m, and there's still quite a large deficit.

What I was saying was if the owner of any club wanted to get around the rules a massive gift or dodgy sponsorship would be the only real way, our owners have put all their 'investment' in as new loans which throw the balances further out in respect to FFP and I can't see them gifting the club £50m to fix the finances.

 

[RHYDAL]

i'd say this is GOOD news for us

means shit teams with no support like QPR can't buy thir way up and football gravity will resume

Indeed, how very dare teams spend money on players and managers that their fanbase would not normally be able to afford. Rotters.

 

[Biffa Bacon]

i'd say this is GOOD news for us

means shit teams with no support like QPR can't buy thir way up and football gravity will resume

Clubs with less debt loading will be in a better position than teams that have big debts, hardly looks good for us in my opinion.

 

[camberwell fox]

...and why are Premier League clubs not having this imposed on them?...

 

[camberwell fox]

Wham, us and Wolves (Hehehe...)

 

[Jeff]

...and why are Premier League clubs not having this imposed on them?...

The Football League can't tell the Premier League what to do.

But UEFA's rules will affect prem clubs that want to play in Europe.

 

[FryattFox]

...and why are Premier League clubs not having this imposed on them?...

a) The ones that want to play in Europe are, under UEFA FFP
b) There's less risk if you're in the PL, as you get the bumper Sky packets

 

[FryattFox]

What I was saying was if the owner of any club wanted to get around the rules a massive gift or dodgy sponsorship would be the only real way, our owners have put all their 'investment' in as new loans which throw the balances further out in respect to FFP and I can't see them gifting the club £50m to fix the finances.

And as I said, all our sponsorship combined wouldn't come anywhere to covering the current deficit (although this will likely be reduced in future years). Therefore it would either have to be an exorbitant sponsorship deal, which the FL would almost certainly clamp down on (and probably make an example of us for), or a gift, which I doubt would be either allowed by the FL or desired by the Thais.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

Tend to agree with FryattFox on this one. People who think we will be able to get round loopholes or whatever so easily I think are in for a rude awakening.

This is very bad news for the club in the financial state we're currently in and I can't see how there could be any way of kerbing these debts by 2014 if we don't go up either.

 

[Biffa Bacon]

And as I said, all our sponsorship combined wouldn't come anywhere to covering the current deficit (although this will likely be reduced in future years). Therefore it would either have to be an exorbitant sponsorship deal, which the FL would almost certainly clamp down on (and probably make an example of us for), or a gift, which I doubt would be either allowed by the FL or desired by the Thais.

I wasn't saying it was practical I was just pointing out the only real way to get around it, it's not going to happen because no club owner is going to throw away 50 million plus just to clean up the club finances.

 

[homer]

There's a fire sale a-coming down at the KP

And not before time

 

[pork pie fox]

Looks like the guidelines for implementation, starting next season have been laid down:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17841566

Some interesting stuff in there:



Wonder who they were? I wonder if our owners voted against...



I presume that's wages & transfer fees - not taking into account exisiting obligations i.e. the wages we are contracted to pay our existing players.

I think this deserves a thread of its own, but I'm still going to 'scoop' you :icon_wink

 

[M17TT C]

From BBC
.....
Clubs promoted to the Premier League that fail to adhere to the amendments must pay a fair-play tax on their losses, ranging from one per cent on the first £100,000 to 100 per cent on anything over £10m.
......

Couldn't this be seen as a potential loop hole and just go for broke?

So long as it is not too massive a loss (ie. less than the increase in revenue from going up), go out spending again in the hope we get promoted and just take the tax for getting promoted on the chin and pay for it out of the increased TV money but still be quids in overall and be in the Premiership.

I'm not saying we should do this at all as it would be risky as **** but just something that jumped out at me when I read the article.