Financial Fair Play

[Matt_B]

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.

What is the punishment if they don't? Is it a fine or dismissal from the cup? I can't really see the Champions League telling Real Madrid or Man Utd "thanks but you're not invited this year."

 

[bocadillo]

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

I've no idea. But the league is a very good advertisement for the concept. The advantages for the fans are well known and they don't have the spectre of a 'top four' or the prospect that the league will be won by one of two clubs season after season.

 

[Jeff]

What is the punishment if they don't? Is it a fine or dismissal from the cup? I can't really see the Champions League telling Real Madrid or Man Utd "thanks but you're not invited this year."

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/protectingthegame/financialfairplay/news/newsid=1954531.html

Rapid Bucureşti have been fined €100,000 and are excluded from participating in the next UEFA competition the club qualify for within the next three seasons (i.e. 2013/14, 2014/15, 2015/16).

• Arsenal Kyiv have been fined €75,000.

 

[consty]

Of course but it's naive to believe that it <owners over-charging their clubs for services/consultancy> 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...

Did you see Matthew Syed talking about Abramovich recently Hazz?

I think Mathew Syed's interview is brilliant (IMO), do take a listen if you can.
His comment that rich owners buy clubs, certainly in the premier league, for political and PR motives rather than for money (which is hard/impossible to make) is interesting and probably correct. Rich owners egos are stoked (as Hazzman says) & enjoy the status and indeed celebrity status they obtain. For Abramovich, Sayeed points out, there was a distinct political incentive. Gaining a foothold & status in the UK was insurance for Abramovich to minimise the risk of Putin going after him.

Sayeed interestingly at one point said that because Abramovich and the other rich premier league investors don't invest to make a profit that they have got behind FFP to reduce their losses. By implication he is saying this is about the fullest extent of their financial objectives... reducing their losses is about the best they can hope to get out of the premier league in financial terms. Thus this comment underlines the point that their objectives are not about making money out of football, The 'profit' for them is political or PR or both.

One irony about Sayeed's critique about the 'corrosive' (his words) influence that the money of people like Abramovich have had on football is that it took place on Sky - it is Sky of course who as much as the Abramoviches' of this world (probably more so) that have corrupted football the most.

 

[FryattFox]

What is the punishment if they don't? Is it a fine or dismissal from the cup?

They have a raft of measures at their disposal. They can reduces squad sizes, exclude clubs from competitions, fine clubs, etc.

I can't really see the Champions League telling Real Madrid or Man Utd "thanks but you're not invited this year."

Probably because UEFA FFP isn't in full effect yet. If they're prepared to ban teams like Malaga, I see no reason why they wouldn't ban other teams in regards to FFP. Although it clearly depends on the severity of the offence, as the UEFA isn't clear on direct sanctions unlike the FL.

 

[Mawsley]

I think the Danns tweet about Bristols unwillingness/or inability to meet his wage demands represents the negative aspects of FFP.

Really?

 

[bocadillo]

This season's Championship is going to be dominated by one major issue – Financial Fair Play. Some clubs face a massive task in complying with the rules and Leicester City are certainly one of those.

 

[st albans fox]

Beginning to worry that we may be forced into making bad decisions to attempt to comply with FFP (and still be unlikely to manage it anyway). Ie. Selling Morgan cos we can't get rid of konch.

And if the sanction is a transfer embargo then maybe that's not such a bad option - we are pretty well in one now anyway.

Would the sanction be imposable in the premier league ?

 

[Mike - True Blue Tinter]

Is Morgan really injured, or is he quietly being rested subject to an offer having been made for him?

 

[Biffa Bacon]

Is Morgan really injured, or is he quietly being rested subject to an offer having been made for him?

The rumour I heard on Saturday was we have bids from Cardiff and forest

 

[Mike - True Blue Tinter]

As good as Moore is becoming, I think we really need to keep Morgan as he is literally the heart of our defence. Please offload Konch, Gally and Danns for smaller amounts but please keep Wes.

 

[Matt_B]

As good as Moore is becoming, I think we really need to keep Morgan as he is literally the heart of our defence. Please offload Konch, Gally and Danns for smaller amounts but please keep Wes.

It's not how much we get for them, but how much people are willing to pay them.

 

[Biffa Bacon]

As good as Moore is becoming, I think we really need to keep Morgan as he is literally the heart of our defence. Please offload Konch, Gally and Danns for smaller amounts but please keep Wes.

I'd agree but with Morgan in the last year of his contract and the club being offered fees in the millions they might take one

 

[Mawsley]

Beginning to worry that we may be forced into making bad decisions to attempt to comply with FFP

Because the club has been a model of good decision making prior to its inception?

 

[st albans fox]

Because the club has been a model of good decision making prior to its inception?

the past is the past and clearly with hindsight the sentiments of your post cannot be argued with - i'm talking about now though and worrying that despite selling players we should be keeping, we will still end up breaking the rules and screwing up not only this seasons chances of promotion but those of the next few seasons also. i would hope that the board have sought assurances from the football league that they would not impose blanket sanctions without examining the validity of any attempts we made to cut our losses.

 

[Mawsley]

the past is the past and clearly with hindsight the sentiments of your post cannot be argued with - i'm talking about now though and worrying that despite selling players we should be keeping, we will still end up breaking the rules and screwing up not only this seasons chances of promotion but those of the next few seasons also. i would hope that the board have sought assurances from the football league that they would not impose blanket sanctions without examining the validity of any attempts we made to cut our losses.

I'd say that rather than bad decisions they would be unpopular decisions which might have a negative effect on the club. I still believe that forcing fiscal prudence on the game is a good thing in the long term despite the obvious problems it will cause in the short term.

 

[st albans fox]

I'd say that rather than bad decisions they would be unpopular decisions which might have a negative effect on the club. I still believe that forcing fiscal prudence on the game is a good thing in the long term despite the obvious problems it will cause in the short term.

if the playing field is level then i would agree with you. does anyone recall if this rule was trailed for a few seasons before being voted in last year ? how many seasons were clubs given to adjust. surely, given that average contracts are three years, it should have been left till 3 seasons after it was voted in or at least had a staggered level of allowable losses over a three year period to help badly run clubs such as ours to comply?

 

[Foxes_Trust]

if the playing field is level then i would agree with you. does anyone recall if this rule was trailed for a few seasons before being voted in last year ? how many seasons were clubs given to adjust. surely, given that average contracts are three years, it should have been left till 3 seasons after it was voted in or at least had a staggered level of allowable losses over a three year period to help badly run clubs such as ours to comply?

The penalties only kick in based on this seasons finances, but the figures have been monitored for seasons 2011/12 & 2012/13 without penalties, so there has been a period of adjustment, and as Alan Young said on the phone in, must people seemed to have missed the point that NP was working on this last season when offloading high earners & bringing in lower paid younger players.

 

[Foxes_Trust]

I'd say that rather than bad decisions they would be unpopular decisions which might have a negative effect on the club. I still believe that forcing fiscal prudence on the game is a good thing in the long term despite the obvious problems it will cause in the short term.

Totally agree with you Mawsley, long term this is good for the game. The main issue that now needs addressing in the Championship is the redistribution of the parachute payments, which with the new TV deal that kicks off at the end of season 2013/14 gives too much income to the relegated clubs.

To do this the Premier League have to be brought into line & stop bullying the Football League as they did over the summer, when the Football League proposed a couple of changes & the Premier threatened to pull all of the money. At this point, the FA should have stepped in, but chose to hid under the table. If the FA continue to do this, the Government will step in with legislation, as all political parties share the same view of the Premiership having too much power.

In terms of LCFC, we said at the beginning of the summer we could see the club handling this in 4 phases:
1) Sell players they don't want with high wages, who can still command a fee (Beckford phase)
2) Clear players off the books they don't want with high wages (Wellens phase)
Then
3) Sell players with high wages, who they would ideally want to keep
4) Sell any players who could command a reasonable fee

Assume Marshall will come under 4), the fear with a week to go to deadline day is if they can't achieved anymore 1) or 2)'s they may have to do 3)

 

[lazzer]

So what about Forest splashing the cash is it because they kept such tight control over finances that they now have some leeway or are they taking a punt ?