So we're rich, but we're skint

[Brown Nose]

It is today being reported that our owner has somehow added £800m to his personal fortune over the last couple of years despite taking on a horribly loss making business (us), selling a few bits in a few duty free shops and playing polo. Ours is not to reason why.

However, to my point.

Vichai owns Leicester City football club in its entirety. He bought it and can pretty much do what he likes with us. Except, spend his own money on us. Yes, he's banned from spending money on his own business. Now, surely there is something fundamentally wrong with this FFP nonsense that needs to be blown apart by a legal challenge?

Why are we sitting back and taking this stupid rule? It isn't in our best interest and it is downright ridiculous to prevent someone from controlling his business by investing it it. Surely it isn't legal.

Listen to me Vichai old son, screw the FFP. Spend what you like and tell the FL arseholes that you'll see them in court. I'm sick of a summer where all we can hope for is off-loading players to save a few quid. For what? For whom?

 

[Matt_B]

It is today being reported that our owner has somehow added £800m to his personal fortune over the last couple of years despite taking on a horribly loss making business (us), selling a few bits in a few duty free shops and playing polo. Ours is not to reason why.

However, to my point.

Vichai owns Leicester City football club in its entirety. He bought it and can pretty much do what he likes with us. Except, spend his own money on us. Yes, he's banned from spending money on his own business. Now, surely there is something fundamentally wrong with this FFP nonsense that needs to be blown apart by a legal challenge?

Why are we sitting back and taking this stupid rule? It isn't in our best interest and it is downright ridiculous to prevent someone from controlling his business by investing it it. Surely it isn't legal.

Listen to me Vichai old son, screw the FPP. Spend what you like and tell the FL arseholes that you'll see them in court. I'm sick of a summer where all we can hope for is off-loading players to safe a few quid. For what? For whom?

To make sure that the club can survive if he takes his billions elsewhere. It's probably Pearson's faulty anyway.

 

[The Old Fox]

I am a little confused that we are not signing anyone so that we do not break the rules and suffer a transfer ban! :icon_bigg

 

[Biffa Bacon]

To make sure that the club can survive if he takes his billions elsewhere. It's probably Sven's faulty anyway.

Fixed it

 

[bocadillo]

It is today being reported that our owner has somehow added £800m to his personal fortune over the last couple of years despite taking on a horribly loss making business (us), selling a few bits in a few duty free shops and playing polo. Ours is not to reason why.

However, to my point.

Vichai owns Leicester City football club in its entirety. He bought it and can pretty much do what he likes with us. Except, spend his own money on us. Yes, he's banned from spending money on his own business. Now, surely there is something fundamentally wrong with this FFP nonsense that needs to be blown apart by a legal challenge?

Why are we sitting back and taking this stupid rule? It isn't in our best interest and it is downright ridiculous to prevent someone from controlling his business by investing it it. Surely it isn't legal.

Listen to me Vichai old son, screw the FFP. Spend what you like and tell the FL arseholes that you'll see them in court. I'm sick of a summer where all we can hope for is off-loading players to save a few quid. For what? For whom?

You ignore the fact that the Thais are not simply spending their own money. They are effectively lending it to the club and have promised themselves a fantastic rate of interest. When they finally do work out that they know SFA about football and decide they want their money back, the club will be well and truly ****ed.

 

[Scotfox]

I would agree with BN, how can it be wrong for an owner to invest in his own Company, surely any such rule must go against European Law which supports free trade and free work opportunities within the Union. I can see an argument if a club does have limited financial income, but if an owner is prepared to absorb the trading losses within the larger Company in our case 'King Power', surely that his prerogative, especially if the money will be repaid with interest at some point in the future. I disagree with 'Boc', there are no indications that the owners are getting fed up, sure its a possibility, but I think its very remote. Its also interesting that the Premier League, despite the billions of pounds being paid to clubs, have clubs which are massively in debt, Manchester United and the Glaziers spring to mind. They borrowed 300 million+ to buy the club, that debt plus interest is still being paid. How much are Chelsea, Manchester City and Liverpool for example in debt to their owners?
It would appear that FFP, is an extremely divisive set of rules, there is no doubt that had we been promoted we too would have 'opted out' of FFP. As it is we are stuck with it; unless a Chairman with enough financial clout makes a decision to challenge these rules in Court I doubt it will be ours, as I believe the club voted 'for' these proposals.

 

[Blue Maniac]

Why would the family simply gift money to the club?

 

[drew]

Why would the family simply gift money to the club?

An investment to realise the clubs potential and sell on for profit in the premier league?
As a tax write off
Goodwill
Lunacy

 

[dpjfox]

One of the reasons the FFP was introduced was to prevent clubs throwing money into the club with little control/planning or long term plan, and to safeguard a clubs financial future ie prevent administration. We tried and failed with the "lets simply throw money at it" approach. Im confident once the club has got to grips with the rules/penaties/ sidesteps we will spend and operate to the legal limits in order to achieve bigger financial rewards

 

[RHYDAL]

I would agree with BN, how can it be wrong for an owner to invest in his own Company, surely any such rule must go against European Law which supports free trade and free work opportunities within the Union. I can see an argument if a club does have limited financial income, but if an owner is prepared to absorb the trading losses within the larger Company in our case 'King Power', surely that his prerogative, especially if the money will be repaid with interest at some point in the future. I disagree with 'Boc', there are no indications that the owners are getting fed up, sure its a possibility, but I think its very remote. Its also interesting that the Premier League, despite the billions of pounds being paid to clubs, have clubs which are massively in debt, Manchester United and the Glaziers spring to mind. They borrowed 300 million+ to buy the club, that debt plus interest is still being paid. How much are Chelsea, Manchester City and Liverpool for example in debt to their owners?It would appear that FFP, is an extremely divisive set of rules, there is no doubt that had we been promoted we too would have 'opted out' of FFP. As it is we are stuck with it; unless a Chairman with enough financial clout makes a decision to challenge these rules in Court I doubt it will be ours, as I believe the club voted 'for' these proposals.

There are many league rules which restrict the amount of money a team can spend, this is just another. As it's written into a voluntary contract between the team and the league, no laws have been broken, so no legal challenge is likely to succeed.If you don't like it, join the League of Wales.

 

[Mawsley]

FFP does not prevent owners giving money to the club.

FFP prevents wankarse owners "lending" their club money or securing unmeetable loans against it.

FFP is proving a layer of protection against ****s.

 

[Mawsley]

Why would the family simply gift money to the club?

Why do old people leave all their possessions to cats?

 

[bocadillo]

Why do old people leave all their possessions to cats?

Because they're dead and have no better use for it?

 

[step]

I am told that we can only incur dept of £8 million on any one season. Is this correct?????

 

[SJN-Fox]

I am told that we can only incur dept of £8 million on any one season. Is this correct?????

Almost. We can incur a debt of £3million this coming season. That can be increased to £8million if the owners are prepared to give the club the remaining £5million in the form of equity and NOT loans.

These amounts will reduce in subsequent seasons.

 

[Jeff]

There's a good explanation of the FFP rules here: http://www.danielgeey.com/my-top-ten-tips-for-understanding-football-league-financial-fair-play/

 

[Mawsley]

Because they're dead and have no better use for it?

So, what we need to do, is appoint a board consisting mainly of old people's cats.

 

[Brown Nose]

Why would the family simply gift money to the club?

They already have unless they manage to get us into the Premier League and get some half wit to part with over £100m for us. They've spent well beyond anything that is redeemable so they're stuck with us.

In such an environment, surely it is in the owners best interest to layout more in order to increase the chances of a Premier windfall and increase our re-sale value as opposed to stagnate and steadily decline in comparison with those sides relegated from the Premier League who can out spend us every season?

Which is why I go back to the original point. It's his company. It's his money. It's his perfectly valid and sensible decision to invest to give himself a better chance of a return. How can this not be legal or allowed? If he wanted to gift the club £50m he can't do it. He's not allowed. It's insane.

 

[Brown Nose]

FFP does not prevent owners giving money to the club.

Yes it does.

The permitted level of acceptable deviation and shareholder equity investment will reduce over time from £4m and £8m respectively in 2011/12 to £2m and £3m by 2015/16.

 

[Mawsley]

Yes it does.

No it doesn't.

There is nothing to stop them sponsoring the side for £26,000,000 a season for the next five seasons.