Leicester face questions about FFP

Log in to stop seeing adverts
This page may contain links to companies such as eBay and Amazon. As an affiliate of these sites I may earn commission if you click the link and make a purchase

Quote from Enzo …

“And it’s the same about Financial Fair Play - nobody from club mentioned it to me when I signed that it could be a problem and I think it’s not the right thing to do. So it would be a moment to sit and understand why they didn’t mention it to me.”
 
I am sure Leeds could be in deep shit if they do not promote this season, from my understanding they have loaned out a lot of players to stay within FFP. I think the EFL will punish teams far harder than the Prem do, will have to wait and see what transpires with them.
 
Quote from Enzo …

“And it’s the same about Financial Fair Play - nobody from club mentioned it to me when I signed that it could be a problem and I think it’s not the right thing to do. So it would be a moment to sit and understand why they didn’t mention it to me.”
Hmm, that is an interesting quote. Although some due diligence from him might have easily found several articles about why we had stopped spending money over the previous 18 months and it wasn’t rocket science to know relegation wouldn’t help.
 
Quote from Enzo …

“And it’s the same about Financial Fair Play - nobody from club mentioned it to me when I signed that it could be a problem and I think it’s not the right thing to do. So it would be a moment to sit and understand why they didn’t mention it to me.”
Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me given the scale of the incompetence that has lead us here, if the board hadn't git a scooby they'd be in breach of FFP till the EFL pulled it on them a few weeks ago.....
 
Assuming that this can be done “legitimately” then I can see other clubs selling their training facilities to raise extra revenue..
 
What a complete ****ing mess
 
We've already done similar earlier this season:


I believe EFL rules don't allow the transfer of ownership to other companies within the group after Derby and Sheff Wed tried similar with their grounds, hence why we have just done a sponsorship deal.

PL rules are apparently a bit more relaxed on that sort of thing, I'm sure Chelsea have already done it with a hotel or two, so I fully expect us to do the same once we are officially in the PL.

It may not be the right thing to do from a moral point of view but the club seem to know a loophole or 2 in the rules.
 
We've already done similar earlier this season:


I believe EFL rules don't allow the transfer of ownership to other companies within the group after Derby and Sheff Wed tried similar with their grounds, hence why we have just done a sponsorship deal.

PL rules are apparently a bit more relaxed on that sort of thing, I'm sure Chelsea have already done it with a hotel or two, so I fully expect us to do the same once we are officially in the PL.

It may not be the right thing to do from a moral point of view but the club seem to know a loophole or 2 in the rules.
It doesn’t sit comfortably with me BUT I do understand why we are doing it.

Why should 80% of the league have to play with a straight bat when the other 20% are saying “**** you” to the rules?

We shouldn’t be in this position and the contracts handed out were excessive compounded by the fact that BR “sanctioned” some shit buys, but relegation alone cost us £30 million in revenue due to reward money, plus the BR pay off (rumoured to be £20 million), plus some of the other stuff we couldn’t control.

If any club such as ours wishes to break into the Champions League positions and sustain it, then the only way to do this is to pay higher wages and larger transfer fees, as we’ve seen what happens when you win the league out of the blue, we lost three key players pretty quickly.

The unearthing of geeks for £400k is going to get more and more difficult.
 
Why should 80% of the league have to play with a straight bat when the other 20% are saying “**** you” to the rules?
We should be more concerned about the 10% who say it and get away with it.
 

I’ve thought this myself. Let’s take two £50m players, one from each team and transfer them between the two teams. Assuming they’re both academy grown players, each team gets to bank £50m immediately against PSR, whilst a 5 year contract for each player is amortised at £10m per year. Hey presto, mutual £40m boost in PSR workings.
 
It doesn’t sit comfortably with me BUT I do understand why we are doing it.

Why should 80% of the league have to play with a straight bat when the other 20% are saying “**** you” to the rules?

We shouldn’t be in this position and the contracts handed out were excessive compounded by the fact that BR “sanctioned” some shit buys, but relegation alone cost us £30 million in revenue due to reward money, plus the BR pay off (rumoured to be £20 million), plus some of the other stuff we couldn’t control.

If any club such as ours wishes to break into the Champions League positions and sustain it, then the only way to do this is to pay higher wages and larger transfer fees, as we’ve seen what happens when you win the league out of the blue, we lost three key players pretty quickly.

The unearthing of geeks for £400k is going to get more and more difficult.
Or recruit and take risk? I think under BR we moved away from that ethos and we pursued the route of higher wages and transfer fees.
 
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool1536
2Chelsea1634
3Arsenal1733
4Nottm F1731
5Aston Villa1728
6Manchester C  1727
7Newcastle1726
8Bournemouth1625
9Brighton1725
10Fulham1624
11Tottenham 1623
12Brentford1723
13Manchester U1622
14West Ham1720
15Palace1716
16Everton1515
17Leicester1614
18Ipswich1712
19Wolves169
20Southampton165
Back
Top