|
Post by a on Mar 28, 2023 21:11:16 GMT
Exactly. Max allowed loss £105m. Everton loss £350m But they’ll get away with it guaranteed My guess is a fine, which will mean very little to a PL club, plus a points deduction suspended for two years, ie no consequences at all. Not disagreeing with you as I’m sure they’ll come out of it fine unfortunately, but how does a fine make sense? Club overspent/incurred losses more than £200m of what they were allowed, but they’ll be fine as long as they stay up. Makes more sense to deduct enough points to send them down or make them pay back the amount they were overspent by, but again seems like an easy way out.
|
|
|
Post by whatsashig on Mar 28, 2023 21:18:51 GMT
It’s not sport, it’s more like this
|
|
|
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Mar 28, 2023 21:50:21 GMT
We are beginning to see the consequences of FFP from our side of the fence, and some stories from the other. I think some where along the line they was all set up with best intentions. Unless the intention creators was being subsidised, that will take a long time to find out, who has the best lawyer£ , everyone wants y to o do well and to do well you don’t need money, to do well over a long period of time you do, generally I guess football started in that way, bigger cities had more income, so therefore ended up having more success, I do believe however the ‘just football’ aspect has been taken over by more than the liquidity of gate receipts? It’s like really how money has been controlled for a long time beyond football🤷♂️ Basically when formed, the following were deemed as *good* expenditure hence unlimited. 1) Infrastructure- Stadium, Training Ground, Depreciation and Impairment etc. They also adjusted out Profit on Disposal of Tangible Fixed Assets although the Football League reopened it for some reason, luckily for Stoke and others. Closed again 2021-22 onwards. 2) Youth Academy. The Buildings come under 1 and the expenditure on the Academy itself under this. 3) Community Scheme 4) Women's Football Team All seen as positive, all encouraged. More likely to encourage sustainable growth than £100m on players. Plus Goodwill and other Intangible Assets excluding Player Registrations and similar all excluded when amortised or impaired.
|
|
|
FFP (again)
Mar 28, 2023 21:51:59 GMT
via mobile
a likes this
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Mar 28, 2023 21:51:59 GMT
My guess is a fine, which will mean very little to a PL club, plus a points deduction suspended for two years, ie no consequences at all. Not disagreeing with you as I’m sure they’ll come out of it fine unfortunately, but how does a fine make sense? Club overspent/incurred losses more than £200m of what they were allowed, but they’ll be fine as long as they stay up. Makes more sense to deduct enough points to send them down or make them pay back the amount they were overspent by, but again seems like an easy way out. A points deduction and transfer restrictions seems best. Fine only applicable if a) It counts in full towards FFP or b) Perhaps deduct from source from TV or Parachute Payments but expect them to comply anyway which reduces headroom to spend or forced more wage cuts etc.
|
|
|
Post by pottersrule on Mar 28, 2023 22:01:27 GMT
It’s not sport, it’s more like this Still makes me chuckle.Incredible to think the film is nearly 50 years old.
|
|
|
Post by whatsashig on Mar 28, 2023 22:51:13 GMT
We are beginning to see the consequences of FFP from our side of the fence, and some stories from the other. I think some where along the line they was all set up with best intentions. Unless the intention creators was being subsidised, that will take a long time to find out, who has the best lawyer£ , everyone wants y to o do well and to do well you don’t need money, to do well over a long period of time you do, generally I guess football started in that way, bigger cities had more income, so therefore ended up having more success, I do believe however the ‘just football’ aspect has been taken over by more than the liquidity of gate receipts? It’s like really how money has been controlled for a long time beyond football🤷♂️ Basically when formed, the following were deemed as *good* expenditure hence unlimited. 1) Infrastructure- Stadium, Training Ground, Depreciation and Impairment etc. They also adjusted out Profit on Disposal of Tangible Fixed Assets although the Football League reopened it for some reason, luckily for Stoke and others. Closed again 2021-22 onwards. 2) Youth Academy. The Buildings come under 1 and the expenditure on the Academy itself under this. 3) Community Scheme 4) Women's Football Team All seen as positive, all encouraged. More likely to encourage sustainable growth than £100m on players. Plus Goodwill and other Intangible Assets excluding Player Registrations and similar all excluded when amortised or impaired. So the original motives was right then, that’s my thoughts, but see if at not least through comments on this thread wasn’t thought out thoughtfully, it’s why law takes ages to change cus it’s complicated, but really the folks in control control that, not in some pure independent manner though.
|
|
|
Post by whatsashig on Mar 28, 2023 22:53:36 GMT
It’s not sport, it’s more like this Still makes me chuckle.Incredible to think the film is nearly 50 years old. An amazing post hippy if you like take on control. Around them times that was set or however hundreds years before only 12 people where land owners 🤷♂️
|
|
|
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Mar 28, 2023 23:00:03 GMT
Basically when formed, the following were deemed as *good* expenditure hence unlimited. 1) Infrastructure- Stadium, Training Ground, Depreciation and Impairment etc. They also adjusted out Profit on Disposal of Tangible Fixed Assets although the Football League reopened it for some reason, luckily for Stoke and others. Closed again 2021-22 onwards. 2) Youth Academy. The Buildings come under 1 and the expenditure on the Academy itself under this. 3) Community Scheme 4) Women's Football Team All seen as positive, all encouraged. More likely to encourage sustainable growth than £100m on players. Plus Goodwill and other Intangible Assets excluding Player Registrations and similar all excluded when amortised or impaired. So the original motives was right then, that’s my thoughts, but see if at not least through comments on this thread wasn’t thought out thoughtfully, it’s why law takes ages to change cus it’s complicated, but really the folks in control control that, not in some pure independent manner though. There are alternative views, ie that it was founded to protect say 10-20 clubs across England and Europe, or that it should be about debt as opposed to losses but Platini when he came up with it had other big ideas ie trying to reform the European Cup but this was slapped down. He was a bit of a dreamer I reckon, Platini. Certainly read it a while ago, cannot find now. Saw signs of it when he had the idea to host the Euros across many countries/cities as indeed he did. Euro 2021...some sort of anniversary so he decided to spread it around.
|
|
|
Post by whatsashig on Mar 28, 2023 23:03:29 GMT
So the original motives was right then, that’s my thoughts, but see if at not least through comments on this thread wasn’t thought out thoughtfully, it’s why law takes ages to change cus it’s complicated, but really the folks in control control that, not in some pure independent manner though. There are alternative views, ie that it was founded to protect say 10-20 clubs across England and Europe, or that it should be about debt as opposed to losses but Platini when he came up with it had other big ideas ie trying to reform the European Cup but this was slapped down. He was a bit of a dreamer I reckon, Platini. Directly or indirectly it’s seams that’s the out come.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Mar 28, 2023 23:13:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Mar 29, 2023 8:15:33 GMT
We are beginning to see the consequences of FFP from our side of the fence, and some stories from the other. I think some where along the line they was all set up with best intentions. Unless the intention creators was being subsidised, that will take a long time to find out, who has the best lawyer£ , everyone wants y to o do well and to do well you don’t need money, to do well over a long period of time you do, generally I guess football started in that way, bigger cities had more income, so therefore ended up having more success, I do believe however the ‘just football’ aspect has been taken over by more than the liquidity of gate receipts? It’s like really how money has been controlled for a long time beyond football🤷♂️ Basically when formed, the following were deemed as *good* expenditure hence unlimited. 1) Infrastructure- Stadium, Training Ground, Depreciation and Impairment etc. They also adjusted out Profit on Disposal of Tangible Fixed Assets although the Football League reopened it for some reason, luckily for Stoke and others. Closed again 2021-22 onwards. 2) Youth Academy. The Buildings come under 1 and the expenditure on the Academy itself under this. 3) Community Scheme 4) Women's Football Team All seen as positive, all encouraged. More likely to encourage sustainable growth than £100m on players. Plus Goodwill and other Intangible Assets excluding Player Registrations and similar all excluded when amortised or impaired. Interesting that last night there was a veiled announcement by John Coates that the £20m earmarked for the stadium/training ground has just been increased. 27:43 Nothing has changed on P&S yet. 29:11 - 30:00 £20m 5 year investment to be increased
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 29, 2023 9:21:59 GMT
So basically you want to not only keep Stoke City afloat but also chuck their money at any club stupid enough to try and break the rules and risk the future of their club in an attempt to cheat themselves to promotion? This idea of some clubs being run by feckless wastrels being constantly bailed out by the benevolence of a few financially incontinent sugar daddies at clubs that bother to stick by the rules is just ridiculous. Why would anyone bail out someone who has done their best to cheat you? I get the angst, but the bigger angst for me is owners of clubs at our level being pushed into the long grass by clubs with much smaller resources, who vote for stupid rules because they get a few crumbs from the big pie. Also and more obviously those clubs further up the chain who are pushing those rule votes in exchange for a small amount of cash, keeping the status quo. We are very unusual in having filthy rich owners who take their responsibility for the club seriously. The rules aren't there to stop our owners from investing - they are there to prevent unscrupulous and incompetent owners from ruining their clubs and to a lesser degree to keep football competitive. A side effect has been to stop our owners from investing to the extent they would like but that is being addressed in the new rules. The fundamental principle behind FFP is that a club should not be completely dependent on their owner's money because if that money runs dry for whatever reason the club is screwed. FFP is an early alarm system to ensure clubs live within their means and to ensure that dodgy owners don't jeopardise a clubs existence by loading them with debt they can't afford if the gamble doesn't pay off. In the case of Sheffield Utd their owners decided to (literally) go for broke and their gamble might fail - not at their expense but at the expense of the club and it's fans. They must have heard the FFP alarm bells but (unlike us) decided to ignore them. Sheffield United's situation has nothing to do with the big clubs maintaing their position at the top table and everything to do with greed, recklessness, financial incompetence and cheating. The idea that the owners who actually play by the rules should bail out the cheats and the incompetent is nonsense - why should they? If they did the cheats and the incompetent would just carry on knowing some idiot will bail them out when the screw up again.
|
|
|
Post by LGH87 on Mar 29, 2023 9:41:53 GMT
I get the angst, but the bigger angst for me is owners of clubs at our level being pushed into the long grass by clubs with much smaller resources, who vote for stupid rules because they get a few crumbs from the big pie. Also and more obviously those clubs further up the chain who are pushing those rule votes in exchange for a small amount of cash, keeping the status quo. We are very unusual in having filthy rich owners who take their responsibility for the club seriously. The rules aren't there to stop our owners from investing - they are there to prevent unscrupulous and incompetent owners from ruining their clubs and to a lesser degree to keep football competitive. A side effect has been to stop our owners from investing to the extent they would like but that is being addressed in the new rules. The fundamental principle behind FFP is that a club should not be completely dependent on their owner's money because if that money runs dry for whatever reason the club is screwed. FFP is an early alarm system to ensure clubs live within their means and to ensure that dodgy owners don't jeopardise a clubs existence by loading them with debt they can't afford if the gamble doesn't pay off. In the case of Sheffield Utd their owners decided to (literally) go for broke and their gamble might fail - not at their expense but at the expense of the club and it's fans. They must have heard the FFP alarm bells but (unlike us) decided to ignore them. Sheffield United's situation has nothing to do with the big clubs maintaing their position at the top table and everything to do with greed, recklessness, financial incompetence and cheating. The idea that the owners who actually play by the rules should bail out the cheats and the incompetent is nonsense - why should they? If they did the cheats and the incompetent would just carry on knowing some idiot will bail them out when the screw up again. The Sheffield United situation has passed me by somewhat, what exactly have they done? I didn't think they were necessarily big spenders and with two recent stints in the premier league assumed they'd be nowhere near breaching FFP rules?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 29, 2023 10:28:04 GMT
We are very unusual in having filthy rich owners who take their responsibility for the club seriously. The rules aren't there to stop our owners from investing - they are there to prevent unscrupulous and incompetent owners from ruining their clubs and to a lesser degree to keep football competitive. A side effect has been to stop our owners from investing to the extent they would like but that is being addressed in the new rules. The fundamental principle behind FFP is that a club should not be completely dependent on their owner's money because if that money runs dry for whatever reason the club is screwed. FFP is an early alarm system to ensure clubs live within their means and to ensure that dodgy owners don't jeopardise a clubs existence by loading them with debt they can't afford if the gamble doesn't pay off. In the case of Sheffield Utd their owners decided to (literally) go for broke and their gamble might fail - not at their expense but at the expense of the club and it's fans. They must have heard the FFP alarm bells but (unlike us) decided to ignore them. Sheffield United's situation has nothing to do with the big clubs maintaing their position at the top table and everything to do with greed, recklessness, financial incompetence and cheating. The idea that the owners who actually play by the rules should bail out the cheats and the incompetent is nonsense - why should they? If they did the cheats and the incompetent would just carry on knowing some idiot will bail them out when the screw up again. The Sheffield United situation has passed me by somewhat, what exactly have they done? I didn't think they were necessarily big spenders and with two recent stints in the premier league assumed they'd be nowhere near breaching FFP rules? As far as I can make out they are on the brink of going into administration - they are having to do things like not switch on the undersoil heating because they might not be able to pay their players. The situation is way past an FFP issue - they are on the verge of going out of existence. At the start of our first season after relegation we tried to do what Sheffield Utd are doing - retain the core of their Premiership side and buy in players in an attempt to make an instant return to the Premiership. Before Xmas it was apparent that wasn't going to happen and the owners saw the writing in the wall, sacked Rowett and started to downsize. We played by the rules and by sticking to FFP constraints haven't come anywhere near going into administration. Sheffield Utd's have done the exact opposite - ignored the warning signs and gone for broke, jeopardizing the club's existence. FFP hasn't done this - Sheffield Utd's owners have done this by ignoring FFP and not living within their means.
|
|
|
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Mar 29, 2023 10:29:55 GMT
We are very unusual in having filthy rich owners who take their responsibility for the club seriously. The rules aren't there to stop our owners from investing - they are there to prevent unscrupulous and incompetent owners from ruining their clubs and to a lesser degree to keep football competitive. A side effect has been to stop our owners from investing to the extent they would like but that is being addressed in the new rules. The fundamental principle behind FFP is that a club should not be completely dependent on their owner's money because if that money runs dry for whatever reason the club is screwed. FFP is an early alarm system to ensure clubs live within their means and to ensure that dodgy owners don't jeopardise a clubs existence by loading them with debt they can't afford if the gamble doesn't pay off. In the case of Sheffield Utd their owners decided to (literally) go for broke and their gamble might fail - not at their expense but at the expense of the club and it's fans. They must have heard the FFP alarm bells but (unlike us) decided to ignore them. Sheffield United's situation has nothing to do with the big clubs maintaing their position at the top table and everything to do with greed, recklessness, financial incompetence and cheating. The idea that the owners who actually play by the rules should bail out the cheats and the incompetent is nonsense - why should they? If they did the cheats and the incompetent would just carry on knowing some idiot will bail them out when the screw up again. The Sheffield United situation has passed me by somewhat, what exactly have they done? I didn't think they were necessarily big spenders and with two recent stints in the premier league assumed they'd be nowhere near breaching FFP rules? It's not FFP, it's cash flow and or solvency.
|
|
|
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Mar 29, 2023 10:31:53 GMT
The Sheffield United situation has passed me by somewhat, what exactly have they done? I didn't think they were necessarily big spenders and with two recent stints in the premier league assumed they'd be nowhere near breaching FFP rules? As far as I can make out they are on the brink of going into administration - they are having to do things like not switch on the undersoil heating because they might not be able to pay their players. The situation is way past an FFP issue - they are on the verge of going out of existence. At the start of our first season after relegation we tried to do what Sheffield Utd are doing - retain the core of their Premiership side and buy in players in an attempt to make an instant return to the Premiership. Before Xmas it was apparent that wasn't going to happen and the owners saw the writing in the wall, sacked Rowett and started to downsize. We played by the rules and by sticking to FFP constraints haven't come anywhere near going into administration. Sheffield Utd's have done the exact opposite - ignored the warning signs and gone for broke, jeopardizing the club's existence. FFP hasn't done this - Sheffield Utd's owners have done this by ignoring FFP and not living within their means. Mainly they used Bank Loans and such to top up cash flow rather than the Bank of the owner. If the Coates family at Stoke or Lansdown at my club or many owners at many clubs decided to try to truly make a club stand on its own too feet it'd either mean firesales or financial crash. If you look at the Blades Leisure accounts to June 2021 you will see £53m in Bank Loans due within 12 months. Incidentally they appear to have somehow found a way to delay their 2022 accounts as well as the club ones to a due date at CH which is the end of June. As have the club and Huddersfield too. Could be a glitch of course the 3 months later than expected thing- we'll see. Though should add that the club rather than Blades Leisure Limited showed only £30m in Bank Loans repayable within a year.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 29, 2023 10:51:22 GMT
As far as I can make out they are on the brink of going into administration - they are having to do things like not switch on the undersoil heating because they might not be able to pay their players. The situation is way past an FFP issue - they are on the verge of going out of existence. At the start of our first season after relegation we tried to do what Sheffield Utd are doing - retain the core of their Premiership side and buy in players in an attempt to make an instant return to the Premiership. Before Xmas it was apparent that wasn't going to happen and the owners saw the writing in the wall, sacked Rowett and started to downsize. We played by the rules and by sticking to FFP constraints haven't come anywhere near going into administration. Sheffield Utd's have done the exact opposite - ignored the warning signs and gone for broke, jeopardizing the club's existence. FFP hasn't done this - Sheffield Utd's owners have done this by ignoring FFP and not living within their means. Mainly they used Bank Loans and such to top up cash flow rather than the Bank of the owner. If the Coates family at Stoke or Lansdown at my club or many owners at many clubs decided to try to truly make a club stand on its own too feet it'd either mean firesales or financial crash. If you look at the Blades Leisure accounts to June 2021 you will see £53m in Bank Loans due within 12 months. Incidentally they appear to have somehow found a way to delay their 2022 accounts as well as the club ones to a due date at CH which is the end of June. As have the club and Huddersfield too. Could be a glitch of course the 3 months later than expected thing- we'll see. Thanks for the update. So the loans are taken out in the name of the club rather than the owners? This is how most owners would behave with or without FFP - they will load the debt on the club so when the club goes bust they walk away with their personal wealth in tact. Without FFP it would just happen more often. I get that owning a football club isn't a great way of making money and that investment is needed to keep it going. Which makes something like FFP even more important - without the constraints clubs would be the victims of stupid and reckless owners gambling their clubs existence on a push for glory. Get rid of FFP you'd have 30 or 40 clubs going for those 20 places in the Premier League and half of them will have gone bust in a couple of seasons. I think we'd actually do well out of the carnage. Our owners are good with their money and wouldn't join in the madness (much to the howls derision on here). After a couple of years we'd be well placed to capitalise on the decimation of the opposition. Effectively you'd have the existing Premiership elite (the ones who would benefit most from scrapping FFP), the Championship teams like us not daft enough to go for broke and the lower league teams who couldn't play that game anyway.
|
|
|
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Mar 29, 2023 11:26:58 GMT
Mainly they used Bank Loans and such to top up cash flow rather than the Bank of the owner. If the Coates family at Stoke or Lansdown at my club or many owners at many clubs decided to try to truly make a club stand on its own too feet it'd either mean firesales or financial crash. If you look at the Blades Leisure accounts to June 2021 you will see £53m in Bank Loans due within 12 months. Incidentally they appear to have somehow found a way to delay their 2022 accounts as well as the club ones to a due date at CH which is the end of June. As have the club and Huddersfield too. Could be a glitch of course the 3 months later than expected thing- we'll see. Thanks for the update. So the loans are taken out in the name of the club rather than the owners? This is how most owners would behave with or without FFP - they will load the debt on the club so when the club goes bust they walk away with their personal wealth in tact. Without FFP it would just happen more often. I get that owning a football club isn't a great way of making money and that investment is needed to keep it going. Which makes something like FFP even more important - without the constraints clubs would be the victims of stupid and reckless owners gambling their clubs existence on a push for glory. Get rid of FFP you'd have 30 or 40 clubs going for those 20 places in the Premier League and half of them will have gone bust in a couple of seasons. I think we'd actually do well out of the carnage. Our owners are good with their money and wouldn't join in the madness (much to the howls derision on here). After a couple of years we'd be well placed to capitalise on the decimation of the opposition. Effectively you'd have the existing Premiership elite (the ones who would benefit most from scrapping FFP), the Championship teams like us not daft enough to go for broke and the lower league teams who couldn't play that game anyway. Sort of, yes. In this instance, more that the owners don't or can't stick much in but the financing comes from different sources. ie Bank Loans or MSD or whoever. Maybe factoring another. If the debt is to the owner it's a nice comfortable debt on paper...if it's to an external bank but perhaps not fully backed by the owner...well. Stoke have an excellent cadh balance but that's mainly because of owner input although sales of Collins and Souttar also help moving forward. It's a mystery as to how Sheffield United and indeed Huddersfield are in the position in the 1st place given low cost base by PL standards, Parachute Payments and continuing cost cutting on relegation.
|
|
|
Post by LGH87 on Mar 29, 2023 11:46:11 GMT
Thanks for the update. So the loans are taken out in the name of the club rather than the owners? This is how most owners would behave with or without FFP - they will load the debt on the club so when the club goes bust they walk away with their personal wealth in tact. Without FFP it would just happen more often. I get that owning a football club isn't a great way of making money and that investment is needed to keep it going. Which makes something like FFP even more important - without the constraints clubs would be the victims of stupid and reckless owners gambling their clubs existence on a push for glory. Get rid of FFP you'd have 30 or 40 clubs going for those 20 places in the Premier League and half of them will have gone bust in a couple of seasons. I think we'd actually do well out of the carnage. Our owners are good with their money and wouldn't join in the madness (much to the howls derision on here). After a couple of years we'd be well placed to capitalise on the decimation of the opposition. Effectively you'd have the existing Premiership elite (the ones who would benefit most from scrapping FFP), the Championship teams like us not daft enough to go for broke and the lower league teams who couldn't play that game anyway. Sort of, yes. In this instance, more that the owners don't or can't stick much in but the financing comes from different sources. ie Bank Loans or MSD or whoever. Maybe factoring another. If the debt is to the owner it's a nice comfortable debt on paper...if it's to an external bank but perhaps not fully backed by the owner...well. Stoke have an excellent cadh balance but that's mainly because of owner input although sales of Collins and Souttar also help moving forward. It's a mystery as to how Sheffield United and indeed Huddersfield are in the position in the 1st place given low cost base by PL standards, Parachute Payments and continuing cost cutting on relegation. Exactly why I was surprised, what on earth has happened to all that cash?
|
|
|
Post by independent on Mar 29, 2023 22:03:56 GMT
+it's not really a mystery. Like almost all clubs they have been living beyond their means. We would have gone out of business if the Coates hadn't written off or converted into equity about £160m. It would be interesting to see the combined income of all the clubs in the top flight of all the leagues in Europe and then to see the figure for the amount that they are spending. What is surprising is that anyone still believes that getting into the Premier League will solve their financial problems. All the available evidence proves the opposite. Whether clubs stay up for 1,2,3,4,5 or even 6 years they still wind up broke despite the riches they have enjoyed. We need to get back to a situation where all transfer fees have to be paid in full on the day a player is signed. This would transform football completely and prevent even the likes of Chelsea from signing the number of players they have done. It would also prevent Arsenal giving away players that they spent £340m on. Neither of those clubs (or Everton) are in financial trouble but their actions have not been good for Football.
|
|
|
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Mar 30, 2023 1:06:44 GMT
+it's not really a mystery. Like almost all clubs they have been living beyond their means. We would have gone out of business if the Coates hadn't written off or converted into equity about £160m. It would be interesting to see the combined income of all the clubs in the top flight of all the leagues in Europe and then to see the figure for the amount that they are spending. What is surprising is that anyone still believes that getting into the Premier League will solve their financial problems. All the available evidence proves the opposite. Whether clubs stay up for 1,2,3,4,5 or even 6 years they still wind up broke despite the riches they have enjoyed. We need to get back to a situation where all transfer fees have to be paid in full on the day a player is signed. This would transform football completely and prevent even the likes of Chelsea from signing the number of players they have done. It would also prevent Arsenal giving away players that they spent £340m on. Neither of those clubs (or Everton) are in financial trouble but their actions have not been good for Football. Yes agree to a point, although I've looked at it and Huddersfield like I say hmm. Sheffield United so far hmm but in both cases the 2021-22 accounts should they see the light of day should be instructive. All transfer fees paid up front could he interesting. It possibly happens at certain levels of non League?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 30, 2023 12:06:52 GMT
+it's not really a mystery. Like almost all clubs they have been living beyond their means. We would have gone out of business if the Coates hadn't written off or converted into equity about £160m. It would be interesting to see the combined income of all the clubs in the top flight of all the leagues in Europe and then to see the figure for the amount that they are spending. What is surprising is that anyone still believes that getting into the Premier League will solve their financial problems. All the available evidence proves the opposite. Whether clubs stay up for 1,2,3,4,5 or even 6 years they still wind up broke despite the riches they have enjoyed. We need to get back to a situation where all transfer fees have to be paid in full on the day a player is signed. This would transform football completely and prevent even the likes of Chelsea from signing the number of players they have done. It would also prevent Arsenal giving away players that they spent £340m on. Neither of those clubs (or Everton) are in financial trouble but their actions have not been good for Football. This site makes very sobering reading sportsbrief.com/facts/top-listicles/12097-rankings-premier-league-clubs-debt/. Even the biggest names in football are in massive debt. Clubs are living beyond their means to maintain or inflate their positions in the pecking order - it's a massive bubble that could easily burst. It also gives the lie to the idea that getting rid of FFP and scrapping the transfer window would solve the problem when clubs get themselves in trouble. The fact is the money in football isn't generated from within the game - the money is being financed from outside of football. When a Chelsea or a Man Utd buy a player it isn't coming from their income - it's coming by hiking up their debt. At some point the money men will pull out and all that wealth supposedly sloshing about in football will simply vanish. Scrapping FFP will simply accelerate the process. And as to Chelsea..£1.38 BILLION in debt...but I suppose the Coates family are their to help bail out the little scamps...
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Mar 30, 2023 13:17:34 GMT
West Brom could be an interesting watch. Their fans are furious about this £5m the owner took for one of his other companies and seemingly has no intention to pay back
|
|
|
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Mar 30, 2023 14:40:26 GMT
Looks like Reading and their suspended-6 will soon be unsuspended ie activated this season. Ince seems to think it'll be this week.
Fulham, Nottingham Forest maybe and potentially even Bournemouth I wonder about.
Then there is Aston Villa to 2019, in that 3 year period...I wonder how compliance was achieved ie the validity.
Take Bournemouth e.g. their Upper Loss Limit is £72m before adjustments etc to 2022..
2018-19- -£32m loss 2019-20- -£60m loss 2020-21- +£16m Profit Combined average of 2019-20 and 2020-21 is a -£22m loss. 2021-22- -£55m loss.
£109m in pre tax adjusted FFP losses. Challenge is to get it down to £72m. Category 3 Academy which won't have a huge amount but then Promotion Bonuses excluded. I reckon probably a few million within.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Mar 30, 2023 15:15:57 GMT
West Brom could be an interesting watch. Their fans are furious about this £5m the owner took for one of his other companies and seemingly has no intention to pay back Probably a bonus to himself through the other company
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Mar 30, 2023 17:47:47 GMT
theathletic.com/4365308/2023/03/30/west-brom-guochuan-lai-loan/West Brom fans will be incensed by this, as Lai’s representatives at the club appear to have made no attempt to collect the debt, despite Wisdom Smart issuing a special resolution last year that said it had “cancelled” more than £25m of share capital because it was “excess” to its requirements. West Brom, on the other hand, are badly in need of money. The accounts cover the Midlands-based club’s first season back in the Championship following their relegation from the Premier League in 2021. They actually made a profit of £171,000 but it would have been a £16.7m loss but for the sale of Matheus Pereira to Saudi side Al-Hilal. And further sales of that magnitude are the only way the auditors see the club surviving as a going concern. In fact, they even go so far as to say they believe there is a “material uncertainty” about West Brom’s future. Noting that the club has already taken – and fully drawn down – a £20m loan from the UK arm of American private equity firm MSD, the auditors warn: “Given that such funding or player trading is not guaranteed, these events or conditions indicate that a material uncertainty exists that may cast significant doubt on the group and company’s ability to continue as a going concern.” The club published a statement on its website on Thursday reiterating Lai’s intention to repay the loan.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Mar 30, 2023 18:29:29 GMT
Reading FC are expecting to be hit with a six point deduction by the English Football League (EFL) within the next 48 hours.
That's according to manager Paul Ince, who spoke to the media on Thursday lunchtime ahead of his side's Championship clash at Bristol City this Saturday.
"For players, it's devastating to be deducted points, especially so late in the season. It can go one of two ways. If we'd have got them at the start of the season, at least you've got time to get over it.
"It's just the timing for me. We've had four weeks and the international break but by the sounds of it, it's coming in the next 24 or 48 hours - it's going to be imminent - so the timing is not great with eight games to go.
"But it's coming...we aren't going to get away with it. We've got to pick the boys up and it's not easy when we have eight or nine first-team players out as it is."
|
|
|
Post by stokecitytalke on Mar 30, 2023 20:05:58 GMT
Oh dear! What a shame! Never mind!! 😃
|
|
|
Post by citynickscfc on Mar 30, 2023 20:10:29 GMT
It’s not sport, it’s more like this That's an ingenious likening
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Mar 31, 2023 8:21:07 GMT
Reading about United's possible sale they are something like £780 million in dept and just because they keep up the interest payments it's fine, I think I read that since they took over the Glaziers have taken a over a billion out of the club in dividends and so on, see FFP works for them.
|
|