Financial Fair Play

[Hazzman]

Why the criticism of FT? Can anyone enlighten me?

They are sitting on a pot of money collected during the adminstration period and as of yet still 12 years on, there is no information over the intention of what will happen to this money. Equally, the FT very rarely answer questions regards their membership numbers and therefore it affects creditability.

My own personal view is that the FT do not take up issues against the club in protection of their own self 'connection' with the club. I never heard of them bringing up concerns such as the piss poor catering, the movement of season tickets with learning difficulties and disabilities into one section of the stadium and the farce surrounding tickets away at Forest/Watford last season. Even the more anal issue of those chains at the end of the stairwells which for me must surely be a restriction of escape in case of a fire. They did get a little uppity about FFP and the Sky fixture changes mind.

My ideology of a supporters trust is an organisation which is open and transparent in it's dealings. They don't necessarily have to own the club (fails in most examples) or have a place on the board but they need to be a voice. Something which the FT loses time and time again when asked about the donation money.

The biggest problem with FFP for me is that at each level competition, it is a different set of rules. The Football League differ from the Premier League and the Premier League differ from the UEFA competitions.

 

[Matt_B]

Quire possibly.

But this won't help the football league clubs. The football league has welcomed the FFP approach and likes it.

If the development you describe takes place then it will just add to the polarisation bewtween the Premier League and the Football League.

In the set up that has applied until now - a club probably has to lose a shed load of money to chase promotion. It's been near impossible to balance the books in the Championship and chase promotion. FFP probably makes the whole system much more sustainable but to someone like me a lot less interesting.

It makes it much more sustainable, but as you pointed out, much harder to get promoted. I believe I read, but don't quote me on this, that there was some sort of ultimatum from the Premier League regarding funding down the divisions if we all didn't sign up to FFP. I may have that completely wrong though.

 

[TommyK]

I would be surprised if FFP was still in play in 5 years. Once it becomes apparent that the top European club's don't really care about it, the big players will stop coming to the Premier League and they will push through its removal.

Surely its the top clubs that will benefit from it the most.

 

[Matt_B]

Surely its the top clubs that will benefit from it the most.

I don't think there are any restrictions on the top European leagues other than those on Champions League clubs?

 

[consty]

They are sitting on a pot of money collected during the adminstration period and as of yet still 12 years on, there is no information over the intention of what will happen to this money. Equally, the FT very rarely answer questions regards their membership numbers and therefore it affects creditability.

My own personal view is that the FT do not take up issues against the club in protection of their own self 'connection' with the club. I never heard of them bringing up concerns such as the piss poor catering, the movement of season tickets with learning difficulties and disabilities into one section of the stadium and the farce surrounding tickets away at Forest/Watford last season. Even the more anal issue of those chains at the end of the stairwells which for me must surely be a restriction of escape in case of a fire. They did get a little uppity about FFP and the Sky fixture changes mind.

My ideology of a supporters trust is an organisation which is open and transparent in it's dealings. They don't necessarily have to own the club (fails in most examples) or have a place on the board but they need to be a voice. Something which the FT loses time and time again when asked about the donation money.

The biggest problem with FFP for me is that at each level competition, it is a different set of rules. The Football League differ from the Premier League and the Premier League differ from the UEFA competitions.

Thanks Hazzman. Id be interested if the FT has a reply to the several issues brought up here - eg the charge that there are many issues that they do not bring up with the club, about the money, transparency etc.

I have no views here, just trying to find out. As stated my default position is to lean slightly towards thinking trusts are a good thing more than anything because their legal status is that of being a 'trust' and a not for profit body. But I really do not know anything more about the FT. Any reply to this post would be of interest.

Btw, anyone else share my concern about the amount the Thais charge the club (management fees + interest), no one else seems to pick up on it. I appreciate that these guys are businessmen, but this is a tidy sum they are charging that could be seen as overcharging. It goes without saying one suspects that for the management and consultancy fees they did not put this work out to competitive tendering(!) Even if one argues it would not be appropriate to do so, £1.2m for this work alone is a high charge it seems & could be charged at far lower...

 

[Scotfox]

I think the Danns tweet about Bristols unwillingness/or inability to meet his wage demands represents the negative aspects of FFP. The lawyer who won what is now termed the 'Bosman Ruling' currently has a motion in the European Court and is using the laws concerning Free Trade and Employment to mount his challenge to these regulations. He argues that these rules are in effect restrictive practices and consequently are illegal under European Law. If Bristol cannot offer Danns at least an equal employment opportunity, because of their need to to comply with FFP, that could be construed as a restrictive practice and the basis of the legal argument being pursued.

The chances of anyone wishing to purchase a football club because of the lucrative financial gains if the club gets to the Premier League will be severely effected by FFP so again possible restrictive practices could be construed from this position. I am not supporting fly by night owners, however proper controls about the purchase of a football club should be introduced by the Football League, the current 'fit and proper persons' criteria is totally inadequate and the FFP does nothing to address this issue accept to make all clubs less attractive to potential investors.

In Leicester case the owners want promotion because of the financial gain, however this is not necessarily the only consideration football in the Far East is potentially an even bigger market and could outweigh by a considerable amount the monies obtained from the Premier League again the FFP could again be construed as a restrictive practice, if such development is blocked because of an owners inability to meet international monetary demands if you prevent that you are effectively stopping the clubs future development.

 

[Hazzman]

Btw, anyone else share my concern about the amount the Thais charge the club (management fees + interest), no one else seems to pick up on it. I appreciate that these guys are businessmen, but this is a tidy sum they are charging that could be seen as overcharging. It goes without saying one suspects that for the management and consultancy fees they did not put this work out to competitive tendering(!) Even if one argues it would not be appropriate to do so, £1.2m for this work alone is a high charge it seems & could be charged at far lower...

Of course but it's naive to believe that it wasn't happening before the Thais, Mandaric is an artist at reclaiming his money back via a football club and therefore avoiding tax on his fortune. My feeling is that if the Thais continue their period of inactivity in regards to spending, the fees and interest will be noticed by more fans.

 

[Jeff]

If Bristol cannot offer Danns at least an equal employment opportunity, because of their need to to comply with FFP,

League 1 and League 2 clubs have different rules. In league one they're only allowed to spend 60% of their income on player salaries.

 

[Biffa Bacon]

Of course but it's naive to believe that it wasn't happening before the Thais, Mandaric is an artist at reclaiming his money back via a football club and therefore avoiding tax on his fortune. My feeling is that if the Thais continue their period of inactivity in regards to spending, the fees and interest will be noticed by more fans.

It's not exactly easy for supporters to do anything about the Thai's using 'management fees' to repay their investment in the club, they own the club and they decide how much they will pay to which people to run the club, it will affect the clubs recruitment of players and ability to compete but if they have decided that promotion is not going to happen quickly whatever they do I expect to see more stripping of assets.

 

[Hazzman]

In Leicester case the owners want promotion because of the financial gain, however this is not necessarily the only consideration football in the Far East is potentially an even bigger market

Foreign ownership isn't about making money nor is it about breaking new markets.

Firstly, there's a great deal of ego stroking which of course isnt restricted by nationality but secondarily, it's about gaining a bigger profile. If you put yourself in the spotlight, it's harder to disappear. So far we've had a collection of war criminals, fraudsters, corrupted politicians all buy into English football; I do believe there's a very good reason for that.

That might just be conspiracy theory but a lot of broadsheet journalists are picking up on it.

All of that is IMO.

 

[Hazzman]

It's not exactly easy for supporters to do anything about the Thai's using 'management fees' to repay their investment in the club, they own the club and they decide how much they will pay to which people to run the club, it will affect the clubs recruitment of players and ability to compete but if they have decided that promotion is not going to happen quickly whatever they do I expect to see more stripping of assets.

I agree. My point was that fans are happy to forgot the details during a period of success but on the reverse get very interested about the finances when the results aren't coming nor is the 'investment'. The Thai's wont be the great saving hope some numpties at City had them down for.

I absolutely hated hearing the Hull Supporters Trust head gushing about how the Allam's had 'saved them from adminstration and liquidation'. He's happy to see away a load of history because someone threw some money towards his club for a couple of seasons.

 

[M17TT C]

Is there anything stopping anyone else setting up another trust?

 

[Biffa Bacon]

Is there anything stopping anyone else setting up another trust?

Yes, supporters direct will only support 1 trust for each team which makes it impossible for a second charitable trust to form.

 

[M17TT C]

Yes, supporters direct will only support 1 trust for each team which makes it impossible for a second charitable trust to form.

Shame as it seems there are lots of good ideas here and with the FT rumoured low members, it seemed it wouldn't take much for another trust to be at the forefront.

 

[pork pie fox]

Foreign ownership isn't about making money nor is it about breaking new markets.

Firstly, there's a great deal of ego stroking which of course isnt restricted by nationality but secondarily, it's about gaining a bigger profile. If you put yourself in the spotlight, it's harder to disappear. So far we've had a collection of war criminals, fraudsters, corrupted politicians all buy into English football; I do believe there's a very good reason for that.

That might just be conspiracy theory but a lot of broadsheet journalists are picking up on it.

All of that is IMO.

Did you see Matthew Syed talking about Abramovich recently Hazz?

 

[Matt_B]

I think the Danns tweet about Bristols unwillingness/or inability to meet his wage demands represents the negative aspects of FFP. The lawyer who won what is now termed the 'Bosman Ruling' currently has a motion in the European Court and is using the laws concerning Free Trade and Employment to mount his challenge to these regulations. He argues that these rules are in effect restrictive practices and consequently are illegal under European Law. If Bristol cannot offer Danns at least an equal employment opportunity, because of their need to to comply with FFP, that could be construed as a restrictive practice and the basis of the legal argument being pursued.

The chances of anyone wishing to purchase a football club because of the lucrative financial gains if the club gets to the Premier League will be severely effected by FFP so again possible restrictive practices could be construed from this position. I am not supporting fly by night owners, however proper controls about the purchase of a football club should be introduced by the Football League, the current 'fit and proper persons' criteria is totally inadequate and the FFP does nothing to address this issue accept to make all clubs less attractive to potential investors.

In Leicester case the owners want promotion because of the financial gain, however this is not necessarily the only consideration football in the Far East is potentially an even bigger market and could outweigh by a considerable amount the monies obtained from the Premier League again the FFP could again be construed as a restrictive practice, if such development is blocked because of an owners inability to meet international monetary demands if you prevent that you are effectively stopping the clubs future development.

They've been asked repeatedly and refused to give any satisfactory answers.

 

[FryattFox]

I don't think there are any restrictions on the top European leagues other than those on Champions League clubs?

And Europa league clubs.

And any club that wants a UEFA license (which tends to be most top flight clubs).

And some restrictions in the local top leagues.

 

[bocadillo]

I don't think there are any restrictions on the top European leagues other than those on Champions League clubs?

The Bundesliga certainly operates in a FFP environment. The majority of German clubs operate within their means and fans pay far less than Premier League fans to follow their teams.

 

[bocadillo]

My own personal view is that the FT do not take up issues against the club in protection of their own self 'connection' with the club. I never heard of them bringing up concerns such as the piss poor catering, the movement of season tickets with learning difficulties and disabilities into one section of the stadium and the farce surrounding tickets away at Forest/Watford last season. Even the more anal issue of those chains at the end of the stairwells which for me must surely be a restriction of escape in case of a fire. They did get a little uppity about FFP and the Sky fixture changes mind.

You identify six issues there; the two about which the FT became 'a little uppity' are outside the purview of the club; the four where you feel the FT failed to act are all completely in the control of the club. It's hardly any surprise that you feel that the FT are protecting their own interests.

 

[Matt_B]

The Bundesliga certainly operates in a FFP environment. The majority of German clubs operate within their means and fans pay far less than Premier League fans to follow their teams.

They do operate within their means, but are they punished if they don't?