• All - as you will understand, the forum is exceptionally busy at this time. The admins and moderators simply don't have time to read every post in every thread. Could you PLEASE use the "Report" option below a post to flag any content that you feel we need to be aware of. We'll review everything reported as a priority and deal with it accordingly. Thank you.

Financial Fair Play (FFP)

B

bearwood red

A. Trialist
congo_red_49 said:
Ultimately, we have reached a point, now where, with appeals and whatnot all out of the way, I think it's appropriate to reflect on the rules themselves.
Does the looming threat of a points deduction actually make any clubs better run? Or less likely to go out of business? Or are they more likely to fall on financial hardship if a points deduction sees them relegated?
Does any of this achieve what the rules were supposed to?
I'm going with 'no'.
Click to expand...
I would start with being clear on what the regulations are trying to achieve. I would argue the main objective should be to ensure that a club and a community is not destroyed by a reckless owner accumulating huge liabilities and walking away when they run out of money. That’s what all this was meant to be about (Portsmouth, Bolton, Wigan, Derby etc.)

I would therefore look at some kind of solvency regulations, similar to the banking industry. Club’s should report their contract-backed sources of revenue (e.g. TV money, sponsorship, deferred transfer income, season tickets) and their contractual liabilities (e.g. salaries, agent fees, transfer fees, loan repayments, interest, tax). They should then be required to maintain sufficient capital to fund the shortfall between future revenue and future costs. Not sure how often they would need to report, but possibly after the close of each transfer window?

The above solvency regulation could be combined with the proposed anchoring mechanism limiting transfer and salary costs to a multiple of the broadcast revenue of the lowest placed team. That would prevent unlimited spending by the wealthiest owners.

A approach along these lines would allow an ambitious owner to invest and make losses, possibly indefinitely, as long as they could fund it and not put the long term future of the club at risk.

Not a fully thought through framework, and I’m sure others can improve on this. But has to be better than the current framework.
 
Quntib Hollox

Quntib Hollox

Jack Armstrong
Redofheaven2 said:
Even if competed won’t Mangala be 1st July - the club are going to need to be creative. There are not usually any transfers before 1st July as contracts run to 30th June.
Click to expand...
But surely if the deal is set in stone from January then how can we dictate when the funds land in our piggy bank?
 
Quntib Hollox

Quntib Hollox

Jack Armstrong
andover red said:
And Chelsea ended the year absolutely bang on the allowable limit? So it just happened that the hotel they sold to their owner was worth EXACTLY the figure they needed to avoid any sanctions? Big coincidence.....

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
According to the bod on talksport yesterday that deal hasn’t been ratified by the EPL yet.
 
M

MaxiRobriguez

Bob McKinlay
bearwood red said:
I would start with being clear on what the regulations are trying to achieve. I would argue the main objective should be to ensure that a club and a community is not destroyed by a reckless owner accumulating huge liabilities and walking away when they run out of money. That’s what all this was meant to be about (Portsmouth, Bolton, Wigan, Derby etc.)

I would therefore look at some kind of solvency regulations, similar to the banking industry. Club’s should report their contract-backed sources of revenue (e.g. TV money, sponsorship, deferred transfer income, season tickets) and their contractual liabilities (e.g. salaries, agent fees, transfer fees, loan repayments, interest, tax). They should then be required to maintain sufficient capital to fund the shortfall between future revenue and future costs. Not sure how often they would need to report, but possibly after the close of each transfer window?

The above solvency regulation could be combined with the proposed anchoring mechanism limiting transfer and salary costs to a multiple of the broadcast revenue of the lowest placed team. That would prevent unlimited spending by the wealthiest owners.

A approach along these lines would allow an ambitious owner to invest and make losses, possibly indefinitely, as long as they could fund it and not put the long term future of the club at risk.

Not a fully thought through framework, and I’m sure others can improve on this. But has to be better than the current framework.
Click to expand...

Interesting idea. Banks are mandated to retain capital to meet short term volatile changes to prevent liquidity crunches, that's not going to apply in the football world where revenues and costs are annual at the shortest timeframes, so I'm not sure a reserve capital requirement helps but there's certainly some merit in the idea of enforcing allocation of future revenue to pre-existing liabilities.
 
L

Louth Red

First Team Squad
PSR for 2022/23 is done and dusted for NFFC

Three key lessons -

1. Understand the financial rules.
2. Listen to your CFO.
3. Comply with the rules.

If you don’t like the rules argue the case at PL meetings.

The consequences this season have resulted in less focus on the playing side and a poor return of points from a squad capable of much better.

If we survive this season DO NOT REPEAT in 2024/25 or ever again.
 
Arsebishop Desmond TwoTwo

Arsebishop Desmond TwoTwo

Touching Cloth
Villa_Fan said:
They were the good old days when binmen were real men, now football in played in a court room with lawyers and accountants. I think it is referred to as progress :)
Click to expand...

I have a friend who - some 25+ years ago - got into a fight with a refuse collector in a pub in Chesterfield just an hour or so after sitting chatting amicably with them at the bar.

Punches were thrown and grappling ensued. In the course of the melee, my friends opponents Chesterfield Borough Council Refuse Collection Team shirt was ripped from their body . . . my friend immediately stopped fighting and stood, still on guard, but unable and unsure of whether he should throw another punch or not, mindful of the fact he'd already been caught by one or two savage blows by his combatant and the scene that had just unfolded in front of him. The landlord - who had been watching proceedings from behind the bar - spoke:

"Jane, tha's got to stop doing this. Tha's a valued regular in here but tha can't keep picking fights with non-regulars who come in for a drink. Please, pick tha's shirt up and mek tha's sen decent"

Jane, standing shirtless, only in her sports bra, work trousers and boots, was incensed. Lurching forward, she threw a fierce right hand at my friend catching him square on the chin and sending him a step or two backwards then sprawling to the floor. He claims this was because he tripped over a bar stool and that he could - if he'd have wanted to and not been socially conditioned that it's wrong for a man to strike a woman (rightly so) . . . even if he's sat there talking to her for an hour, absolutely convinced he was talking to a man - have been the victor in the fight. This is his usual response to the oft touted line that "she may have been a woman, Steve, but she'll always be so much more of a man than you".

After the story was gleefully told in friendship groups stretching from the southern border of Notts/Derbys up to South Yorkshire, it was revealed that it was well known locally that a group of tight knit, hard drinking, fight talking (and, indeed, doing), lesbian females made up a significant number of the Chesterfield 'binmen' department . . . . and that he clearly encountered a particularly vicious one.

"Cool story, bro" . . . I hear you mutter (and, no, I am not the eponymous 'Steve') . . . but the long winded moral of the story is that, back in the good old days, binmen were not always men and that sometimes, in life, all is not what at first it may seem.
 
congo_red_49

congo_red_49

Ale Ape
Louth Red said:
PSR for 2022/23 is done and dusted for NFFC

Three key lessons -

1. Understand the financial rules.
2. Listen to your CFO.
3. Comply with the rules.

If you don’t like the rules argue the case at PL meetings.

The consequences this season have resulted in less focus on the playing side and a poor return of points from a squad capable of much better.

If we survive this season DO NOT REPEAT in 2024/25 or ever again.
Click to expand...
Evangelos Marinakis:
Spend, spend, spend, AMBITION! damn the rules, you say? Got it.
 
Redemption

Redemption

One less gobshite...
Redofheaven2 said:
Even if competed won’t Mangala be 1st July - the club are going to need to be creative. There are not usually any transfers before 1st July as contracts run to 30th June.
Click to expand...
The deal can be done pre July 1st, but the player cannot be registered until July 1st.
 
Robertson

Robertson

Geoff Thomas
Steve B said:
Payday loan
Click to expand...
You joke but I seem to remember reading that we’ve basically done this with the fee for Brennan Johnson. I.e. we’re still due installments from Spurs but have taken a loan already for the full amount so we can put the income on the books this year. I might have got the wrong end of the stick as usual though 😆.
 
I

IdiotTricky

First Team Squad
Notcher said:
Decent people are hard to find because despite the amount of money paid to the footballers the other staff are on shit money. I was offered a position at Barnsley FC last week as a head of operations and it was 35k short of the average salary and 55k short of my expectations considering my experience.

Football clubs seem to have a strange delusion that you should just be grateful and honoured that you work for a professional football club. It's the number one reason that the vast majority of them are an absolute shitshow behind the scenes.
Click to expand...
My limited understanding, from bits of reading, is that the hours backroom staff are also expected to work are pretty shocking.

eyupmeduck said:
Burnley signed 15 players last season, won the championship at a canter and then have added 18 players this season at a cost of another approximately £130m. Bearing in mind that they started with a full squad that had been successful in the championship, not 6 players like us one imagines that them signing 33 players could be described as excessive more than us trying to build a squad from scratch but because its Vincent Kompany somehow this gets unsaid and is fully allowed.
Click to expand...
I did not realise Burnley had signed so many players! Imagine, 33 players consigned to 10 months of torture by a guy with nice trainers but no plan ..!
 
Statto

Statto

Free Kick Specialist
IdiotTricky said:
My limited understanding, from bits of reading, is that the hours backroom staff are also expected to work are pretty shocking.


I did not realise Burnley had signed so many players! Imagine, 33 players consigned to 10 months of torture by a guy with nice trainers but no plan ..!
Click to expand...
Who gave Rowett that money anyway
 
V

Villa_Fan

First Team Squad
eyupmeduck said:
My understanding of this largely comes from Maguire who in fairness to him has been pretty knowledgeable on the subject matter and as he is a better qualified person than me!

I won't trawl through all of the commentary that he has made about psr in general but he has been pretty consistent in saying (I'm sure he has pointed to specific details as well) it used to be the case and isn't now.
b135cbe703169217f826a7ab1c487652.jpg


Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I know Villa had to include promotion bonuses in FFP calculations when we were promoted in 2019. I have never seen anything to suggest they are not included
 
Otis Redding

Otis Redding

Try A Little Tenderness
youreds1986 said:
Pretty well summarised by The Athletic.


theathletic.com

Forest's points deduction upheld: Why appeal failed and what it means for relegation battle

Was this what the club expected? What is the mood of the players and hierarchy? The key questions about Forest's rejected appeal answered
theathletic.com theathletic.com

Appeal was very hopeful and based on us disagreeing with the principles of the rules rather than legitimate dispute/mitigation.
Click to expand...
As it's behind a paywall, I'm happy to take your word for that mate.
 
Statto

Statto

Free Kick Specialist
reading mode in the browser or turning off javascript
 
Redemption

Redemption

One less gobshite...
Otis Redding said:
As it's behind a paywall, I'm happy to take your word for that mate.
Click to expand...
Basically, the appeal rested on two points. Forest argued that the 'near miss' sale of Johnson deserved to be a mitigating factor. They also argued that the commission should have suspended some of the deduction. The appeal panel didn't agree.
 
Red Echo

Red Echo

Youth Team
I've washed my hands of this now. It feels quite nice actually.
Notcher said:
Copy the link

Search for 12ft ladder

Paste link into the search bar in the middle of the webpage
Click to expand...
Ah, nice to see that The Athletic is working on there again. They had disabled access when I last looked about a year ago.
 
PlayedOnGrass

PlayedOnGrass

First Team Squad
Robertson said:
You joke but I seem to remember reading that we’ve basically done this with the fee for Brennan Johnson. I.e. we’re still due installments from Spurs but have taken a loan already for the full amount so we can put the income on the books this year. I might have got the wrong end of the stick as usual though 😆.
Click to expand...
Yes that is factoring and is regularly used in business to aid cash flow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom