|
Post by iamstokie on Apr 9, 2023 19:27:11 GMT
The model of football finance I dunno. It's just problematic isn't it. Some clubs are fortunate enough to have fans who are owners and are highly wealthy. Obviously there is the sovereign state ownership or ostensibly owned by then anyway, again cash flow no issue. Burnley were fantastically run and then they got brought out and a Leveraged Buyout dumped onto them. Mad! I very much doubt they have breached FFP ie loss limits but could there be some nasty hidden issue in their Balance sheet post buyout. On paper no what with Parachute Payments, the exodus on relegation including major player sales, the wage reduction clauses built in and their Cash Reserves- it sounds hard to believe. West Brom who hardly have been great extravagant spenders down the years and in Receipt of Parachute Payments or PL cash every year from 2002-03 to present have had to take out a £20m loan at 13-14 pct interest from MSD! Mad- although their owner borrowing £4.95m with £50k interest from the club, their former owner borrowing £3.7m not repaid and the loan of £2m given to them from a connected company at 5 pct interest compounded monthly barely helps. In layman's terms, someone lends £100 and no fixed repayment date as such. After 1 month it's £105, after month 2 it's £110.25 and so on...Kieran Maguire says after a year it's 79.6 pct interest annualised?? Sheffield United, two big profits and not exactly a huge cost base in the PL which will have fallen on relegation. Extended accounts and missing transfer instalments. Either way they shouldn't be in that position, sold Ramsdale too, Parachute Payments. Huddersfield likewise although perhaps Covid wrecked them a bit as their debt repayment schedule to Hoyle seemed finely balanced but I wouldn't say that they should have been in a position whereby this season they were touted for administration. Wigan administration, near disaster. Out of administration, supposed to he under EFL monitoring as per regs...allowed to spend 156 pct of turnover in League One on waves in promotion season but still manageable if no great growth with higher TV mone It shouldn’t be though , if owners have money they should be able gift the club what they like , as long as it’s not loans it’s good for football as it enables them buy players from teams that need the money , all this equal footing is just bullshit from fans who’s clubs don’t have a penny and are jealous of those that do , ffp needs fucking off asap , it’s driving fans away from the game ,
|
|
|
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Apr 10, 2023 10:05:12 GMT
The model of football finance I dunno. It's just problematic isn't it. Some clubs are fortunate enough to have fans who are owners and are highly wealthy. Obviously there is the sovereign state ownership or ostensibly owned by then anyway, again cash flow no issue. Burnley were fantastically run and then they got brought out and a Leveraged Buyout dumped onto them. Mad! I very much doubt they have breached FFP ie loss limits but could there be some nasty hidden issue in their Balance sheet post buyout. On paper no what with Parachute Payments, the exodus on relegation including major player sales, the wage reduction clauses built in and their Cash Reserves- it sounds hard to believe. West Brom who hardly have been great extravagant spenders down the years and in Receipt of Parachute Payments or PL cash every year from 2002-03 to present have had to take out a £20m loan at 13-14 pct interest from MSD! Mad- although their owner borrowing £4.95m with £50k interest from the club, their former owner borrowing £3.7m not repaid and the loan of £2m given to them from a connected company at 5 pct interest compounded monthly barely helps. In layman's terms, someone lends £100 and no fixed repayment date as such. After 1 month it's £105, after month 2 it's £110.25 and so on...Kieran Maguire says after a year it's 79.6 pct interest annualised?? Sheffield United, two big profits and not exactly a huge cost base in the PL which will have fallen on relegation. Extended accounts and missing transfer instalments. Either way they shouldn't be in that position, sold Ramsdale too, Parachute Payments. Huddersfield likewise although perhaps Covid wrecked them a bit as their debt repayment schedule to Hoyle seemed finely balanced but I wouldn't say that they should have been in a position whereby this season they were touted for administration. Wigan administration, near disaster. Out of administration, supposed to he under EFL monitoring as per regs...allowed to spend 156 pct of turnover in League One on waves in promotion season but still manageable if no great growth with higher TV mone It shouldn’t be though , if owners have money they should be able gift the club what they like , as long as it’s not loans it’s good for football as it enables them buy players from teams that need the money , all this equal footing is just bullshit from fans who’s clubs don’t have a penny and are jealous of those that do , ffp needs fucking off asap , it’s driving fans away from the game , Is it driving fans away? Seems open to interpretation and hard to quantify. I suppose expenditure of the past could go down the Leagues, I've noticed that in 2-3 PL expenditure on Championship was not perhaps as high as it used to be percentage wise but that's nothing to do with FFP, could be cylical could be something else. There is an argument that FFP can reward good management and running if clubs and catch out those who just want to throw money at it or have in the past- even with FFP some clubs based on wage bubill ll and or fees or income should be higher than others. Stoke, Bristol City, probably Birmingham even in an FFP world should be higher than say Luton, Preston, Millwall based on revenue or wage bill. Probably numerous examples across the Leagues.
|
|
|
Post by shrewspotter on Apr 10, 2023 10:20:02 GMT
The model of football finance I dunno. It's just problematic isn't it. Some clubs are fortunate enough to have fans who are owners and are highly wealthy. Obviously there is the sovereign state ownership or ostensibly owned by then anyway, again cash flow no issue. Burnley were fantastically run and then they got brought out and a Leveraged Buyout dumped onto them. Mad! I very much doubt they have breached FFP ie loss limits but could there be some nasty hidden issue in their Balance sheet post buyout. On paper no what with Parachute Payments, the exodus on relegation including major player sales, the wage reduction clauses built in and their Cash Reserves- it sounds hard to believe. West Brom who hardly have been great extravagant spenders down the years and in Receipt of Parachute Payments or PL cash every year from 2002-03 to present have had to take out a £20m loan at 13-14 pct interest from MSD! Mad- although their owner borrowing £4.95m with £50k interest from the club, their former owner borrowing £3.7m not repaid and the loan of £2m given to them from a connected company at 5 pct interest compounded monthly barely helps. In layman's terms, someone lends £100 and no fixed repayment date as such. After 1 month it's £105, after month 2 it's £110.25 and so on...Kieran Maguire says after a year it's 79.6 pct interest annualised?? Sheffield United, two big profits and not exactly a huge cost base in the PL which will have fallen on relegation. Extended accounts and missing transfer instalments. Either way they shouldn't be in that position, sold Ramsdale too, Parachute Payments. Huddersfield likewise although perhaps Covid wrecked them a bit as their debt repayment schedule to Hoyle seemed finely balanced but I wouldn't say that they should have been in a position whereby this season they were touted for administration. Wigan administration, near disaster. Out of administration, supposed to he under EFL monitoring as per regs...allowed to spend 156 pct of turnover in League One on waves in promotion season but still manageable if no great growth with higher TV money- but no 2-3 wage payments late this season. The model... excellent post
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 10, 2023 13:23:40 GMT
1 The rules of participation in the Premier League are set by the Premier League and the rules of participation in the Championship are set by the EFL. They are separate organisations - they are not joined at the hip. The new regulator has the authority to set rules across both organisations - this is something new. I agree the higher loss limits in the Premier League (as set by the Premier League) incentivises Championship clubs to overspend. The answer isn't to scrap FFP (which will only make Championship clubs do it more) but to tighten up FFP in the Premier League - more regulation, not less. Football finances aren't subject to a completely free market and you are right that without some form of regulation/redistribution the situation would be far worse. That's exactly my point. The owners may well make money from shares and sell for a profit but that doesn't mean the clubs will make a profit. They may well get some more investment but that is very likely to come in the form of debt. Football itself does not generate enough money to sustain itself. The owners of football clubs make money outside the game itself. Football only stays afloat because money pours in from the outside - as it stands it is not a sustainable business. Remove the influx of external money and the whole thing would collapse. In other market places businesses take on debt to position themselves to become profitable. The owners are willing to take on the debt because they will make money when the business becomes profitable - their personal wealth is contracted to the generated with the business. In football at the moment this isn't what happens. Football clubs don't make a profit - the income generated does not cover the costs. Owners pouring money into a club to keep it going is the problem. If football scrapped all regulation the situation would just get worse and clubs would go bust in a futile attempt to outspend each other. Ultimately football has to get it's act together and make itself profitable and not stop relying on money from outside to prop it up. You should think more about how the relationship between the PL and the EFL works. Relegation helps drive TV revenue, new blood is provided by the EFL, more than 40% of EFL revenue derives from the PL and wage levels in the EFL are driven by actions of PL clubs. The two are joined at the hip. Yes the rule setting is different but together the PL and EFL shape the economics of English football. To claim they operate independently flies in the face of reality. Of course football generates enough money to sustain itself, otherwise how does it keep going? I don’t see football going out of business when people are competing to invest £5 billion into Manchester United. And that is with refusing to take money over owners who are willing to spend more. The problem is the economic model set by the interaction between the PL and EFL is unstable because it has elements of oligopoly and misaligned incentives that create the current financial performance. If the PL had European wage levels for example, it would be profitable. The situation be changed by regulation, shifts in the competitive model and better governance. The US shows how value generative professional sport can be. Of course the finances of the Premier league affect what goes on in the EFL but until the new regulator was put in place no-one had overall charge of how the funding in one affected the other - in effect the Premier League held all the cards and the EFL has to make do with the scraps. The new regulator was needed to make the distribution more equitable because left to its own devices that was never going to happen. Up until now the Premier League and the EFL were not "joined at the hip" in the sense of making decisions that take the interest of all parties into account - it's the new regulator that has done the joined up thinking for them. The money from football compromises match day revenue (tickets, catering etc), merchandise, TV money, prize money and and transfer fees. In total this money does not cover the running costs in football. Pretty much every club is dependent on money from outside football - whether in the form of donations or loans. As it stands football is not sustainable - it is completely dependent on outside money (money that was not generated from within the game) pouring in and propping it up. If someone pays billions for Man Utd they are buying a business that is millions in debt and loses money year on year. The gamble is that some other mug will eventually come along and pay them more than they spent on it. Man Utd may get a sugar daddy willing to dump their hard earned cash into a money pit but more likely an owner who will pour money into the club in the form of loans in the club's name driving them even further into debt. The economics of football is very similar to the sub prime mortgages that led to the financial crash. People were buying up debts that could not be repaid - when the bubble burst the whole thing collapsed. At some point the same will happen in football - someone will buy a Man Utd or a Chelsea and won't find a buyer willing to take the risk of owning a business with unsustainable debt, ditch the club on an administrator and walk away. When one of the big boys goes out of business there will be an emperor's new clothes moment and several other clubs will follow suit. FFP isn't perfect but scrapping it and letting the free market loose will just result in clubs going bust in droves - which to be fair some advocates of the free market understand and see it as the price your have to pay. The new regulator is there to regulate because anyone who actually understands football finances knows it's a mess and left to its own devices will get worse. Their aim is to keep as many clubs afloat as possible because they know how much a football club means to a community and aren't in the "fuck em it's their fault" gang. The way they are going to do it is by regulation - not a free for all.
|
|
|
Post by dirtclod on Apr 10, 2023 13:41:28 GMT
You should think more about how the relationship between the PL and the EFL works. Relegation helps drive TV revenue, new blood is provided by the EFL, more than 40% of EFL revenue derives from the PL and wage levels in the EFL are driven by actions of PL clubs. The two are joined at the hip. Yes the rule setting is different but together the PL and EFL shape the economics of English football. To claim they operate independently flies in the face of reality. Of course football generates enough money to sustain itself, otherwise how does it keep going? I don’t see football going out of business when people are competing to invest £5 billion into Manchester United. And that is with refusing to take money over owners who are willing to spend more. The problem is the economic model set by the interaction between the PL and EFL is unstable because it has elements of oligopoly and misaligned incentives that create the current financial performance. If the PL had European wage levels for example, it would be profitable. The situation be changed by regulation, shifts in the competitive model and better governance. The US shows how value generative professional sport can be. Of course the finances of the Premier league affect what goes on in the EFL but until the new regulator was put in place no-one had overall charge of how the funding in one affected the other - in effect the Premier League held all the cards and the EFL has to make do with the scraps. The new regulator was needed to make the distribution more equitable because left to its own devices that was never going to happen. Up until now the Premier League and the EFL were not "joined at the hip" in the sense of making decisions that take the interest of all parties into account - it's the new regulator that has done the joined up thinking for them. The money from football compromises match day revenue (tickets, catering etc), merchandise, TV money, prize money and and transfer fees. In total this money does not cover the running costs in football. Pretty much every club is dependent on money from outside football - whether in the form of donations or loans. As it stands football is not sustainable - it is completely dependent on outside money (money that was not generated from within the game) pouring in and propping it up. If someone pays billions for Man Utd they are buying a business that is millions in debt and loses money year on year. The gamble is that some other mug will eventually come along and pay them more than they spent on it. Man Utd may get a sugar daddy willing to dump their hard earned cash into a money pit but more likely an owner who will pour money into the club in the form of loans in the club's name driving them even further into debt. The economics of football is very similar to the sub prime mortgages that led to the financial crash. People were buying up debts that could not be repaid - when the bubble burst the whole thing collapsed. At some point the same will happen in football - someone will buy a Man Utd or a Chelsea and won't find a buyer willing to take the risk of owning a business with unsustainable debt, ditch the club on an administrator and walk away. When one of the big boys goes out of business there will be an emperor's new clothes moment and several other clubs will follow suit. FFP isn't perfect but scrapping it and letting the free market loose will just result in clubs going bust in droves - which to be fair some advocates of the free market understand and see it as the price your have to pay. The new regulator is there to regulate because anyone who actually understands football finances knows it's a mess and left to its own devices will get worse. Their aim is to keep as many clubs afloat as possible because they know how much a football club means to a community and aren't in the "fuck em it's their fault" gang. The way they are going to do it is by regulation - not a free for all. Good series of posts. Just wanted to chime in that yes, if they just allowed this league to go free market? As much as I bitch and complain about FFP restricting us, also realize that suddenly scrappng it would drive even more clubs into administration and nobody wants to see that. It's tough times being reflected in the game echoing the tough times all the fans are fighting through. I would like to see more coming down from the PL to offset this, but the way they're spending, it would probably just create a giant whining/wenging session from the Big 6. "Now we can't afford to join a Super League and own 600 loan players, boo hoo etc." To my view, anyone buying a football club expecting to make money to me fails the "idiot test." It's got to be someone willing to use it as a way to launder cash or as a tax write-off (Although I'm no expert in tax law in your country) and/or a true fan wanting to ensure that their favorite club is around and willing to put their money where their mouth is, realizing that it's a donation. I can't even see a way to make it self-sustainable and still keep yourself competitive, much less profitable. So I guess you could trim the revenue-leaks and own the club for a few years hoping to sell out at a profit, but that sounds like wishful thinking. Also agree that until one of the big boys gets into trouble, they'll probably just keep stumbling along like it is. Just hoping it doesn't kill too many smaller clubs in the meantime.
|
|
|
Post by independent on Apr 10, 2023 21:40:45 GMT
Leeds Utd. already complaining about the new Regulator. They say it could affect them badly, as they confirm a 34m loss last year. Only relegation poses a greater risk, they say.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Apr 10, 2023 22:30:56 GMT
Of course the finances of the Premier league affect what goes on in the EFL but until the new regulator was put in place no-one had overall charge of how the funding in one affected the other - in effect the Premier League held all the cards and the EFL has to make do with the scraps. The new regulator was needed to make the distribution more equitable because left to its own devices that was never going to happen. Up until now the Premier League and the EFL were not "joined at the hip" in the sense of making decisions that take the interest of all parties into account - it's the new regulator that has done the joined up thinking for them. The money from football compromises match day revenue (tickets, catering etc), merchandise, TV money, prize money and and transfer fees. In total this money does not cover the running costs in football. Pretty much every club is dependent on money from outside football - whether in the form of donations or loans. As it stands football is not sustainable - it is completely dependent on outside money (money that was not generated from within the game) pouring in and propping it up. If someone pays billions for Man Utd they are buying a business that is millions in debt and loses money year on year. The gamble is that some other mug will eventually come along and pay them more than they spent on it. Man Utd may get a sugar daddy willing to dump their hard earned cash into a money pit but more likely an owner who will pour money into the club in the form of loans in the club's name driving them even further into debt. The economics of football is very similar to the sub prime mortgages that led to the financial crash. People were buying up debts that could not be repaid - when the bubble burst the whole thing collapsed. At some point the same will happen in football - someone will buy a Man Utd or a Chelsea and won't find a buyer willing to take the risk of owning a business with unsustainable debt, ditch the club on an administrator and walk away. When one of the big boys goes out of business there will be an emperor's new clothes moment and several other clubs will follow suit. FFP isn't perfect but scrapping it and letting the free market loose will just result in clubs going bust in droves - which to be fair some advocates of the free market understand and see it as the price your have to pay. The new regulator is there to regulate because anyone who actually understands football finances knows it's a mess and left to its own devices will get worse. Their aim is to keep as many clubs afloat as possible because they know how much a football club means to a community and aren't in the "fuck em it's their fault" gang. The way they are going to do it is by regulation - not a free for all. Good series of posts. Just wanted to chime in that yes, if they just allowed this league to go free market? As much as I bitch and complain about FFP restricting us, also realize that suddenly scrappng it would drive even more clubs into administration and nobody wants to see that. It's tough times being reflected in the game echoing the tough times all the fans are fighting through. I would like to see more coming down from the PL to offset this, but the way they're spending, it would probably just create a giant whining/wenging session from the Big 6. "Now we can't afford to join a Super League and own 600 loan players, boo hoo etc." To my view, anyone buying a football club expecting to make money to me fails the "idiot test." It's got to be someone willing to use it as a way to launder cash or as a tax write-off (Although I'm no expert in tax law in your country) and/or a true fan wanting to ensure that their favorite club is around and willing to put their money where their mouth is, realizing that it's a donation. I can't even see a way to make it self-sustainable and still keep yourself competitive, much less profitable. So I guess you could trim the revenue-leaks and own the club for a few years hoping to sell out at a profit, but that sounds like wishful thinking. Also agree that until one of the big boys gets into trouble, they'll probably just keep stumbling along like it is. Just hoping it doesn't kill too many smaller clubs in the meantime. They had opportunities years ago to stem the tide. They cut have put caps on wages and that would have seen clubs with HUGE incomes not somehow still fail to make money. My pet peeve is the loan system. I think that more regulation of that would actually drive down costs in the long run. If Chelsea can only loan out 3-4 a year (not 34) and there are limitations on squad sizes etc as well, costs will go down.
|
|
|
Post by dirtclod on Apr 10, 2023 22:36:54 GMT
Good series of posts. Just wanted to chime in that yes, if they just allowed this league to go free market? As much as I bitch and complain about FFP restricting us, also realize that suddenly scrappng it would drive even more clubs into administration and nobody wants to see that. It's tough times being reflected in the game echoing the tough times all the fans are fighting through. I would like to see more coming down from the PL to offset this, but the way they're spending, it would probably just create a giant whining/wenging session from the Big 6. "Now we can't afford to join a Super League and own 600 loan players, boo hoo etc." To my view, anyone buying a football club expecting to make money to me fails the "idiot test." It's got to be someone willing to use it as a way to launder cash or as a tax write-off (Although I'm no expert in tax law in your country) and/or a true fan wanting to ensure that their favorite club is around and willing to put their money where their mouth is, realizing that it's a donation. I can't even see a way to make it self-sustainable and still keep yourself competitive, much less profitable. So I guess you could trim the revenue-leaks and own the club for a few years hoping to sell out at a profit, but that sounds like wishful thinking. Also agree that until one of the big boys gets into trouble, they'll probably just keep stumbling along like it is. Just hoping it doesn't kill too many smaller clubs in the meantime. They had opportunities years ago to stem the tide. They cut have put caps on wages and that would have seen clubs with HUGE incomes not somehow still fail to make money. My pet peeve is the loan system. I think that more regulation of that would actually drive down costs in the long run. If Chelsea can only loan out 3-4 a year (not 34) and there are limitations on squad sizes etc as well, costs will go down. This is exactly why many American sports have salary caps, otherwise player-costs will shoot through the roof just like they're doing in world football right now. Yes the loan system is an obvious issue as well.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Apr 10, 2023 22:43:11 GMT
They had opportunities years ago to stem the tide. They cut have put caps on wages and that would have seen clubs with HUGE incomes not somehow still fail to make money. My pet peeve is the loan system. I think that more regulation of that would actually drive down costs in the long run. If Chelsea can only loan out 3-4 a year (not 34) and there are limitations on squad sizes etc as well, costs will go down. This is exactly why many American sports have salary caps, otherwise player-costs will shoot through the roof just like they're doing in world football right now. Yes the loan system is an obvious issue as well. It’s far easier to regulate in the US though. There’s one league for each sport. Caps would have needed to have come from FIFA or UEFA and they never came. I still think that something like it could happen, with UEFA saying that player wage (+signing on fees/other bonuses) can’t be more than say 80% (?) of total revenue if the club wants to participate in European competitions. That would drive it all down dramatically.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 11, 2023 8:48:33 GMT
Leeds Utd. already complaining about the new Regulator. They say it could affect them badly, as they confirm a 34m loss last year. Only relegation poses a greater risk, they say. Nah - the biggest risk is owners running their club at a loss in order to compete with owners running their clubs at an even bigger loss. They could try building contingency into their business plan to cover the risks inherent in the business they are in. Like relegation. But then things going horribly wrong on the financial front isn't something that ever happens to a club like Leeds so how can they foresee that happening? The alternative is to ring fence your income by getting rid of relegation. Be competitive by shutting out your competitors. That's far more sensible.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Apr 11, 2023 9:26:11 GMT
This is exactly why many American sports have salary caps, otherwise player-costs will shoot through the roof just like they're doing in world football right now. Yes the loan system is an obvious issue as well. It’s far easier to regulate in the US though. There’s one league for each sport. Caps would have needed to have come from FIFA or UEFA and they never came. I still think that something like it could happen, with UEFA saying that player wage (+signing on fees/other bonuses) can’t be more than say 80% (?) of total revenue if the club wants to participate in European competitions. That would drive it all down dramatically. Providing it was enforced Real Madrid are used to not being sanctioned
|
|
|
Post by independent on Apr 11, 2023 10:30:21 GMT
Like our own position 3 years ago ,it will take a few years to sort out. 1. Limit wages to 65%/70% of income. 2. Limit squad sizes. 3. Limit agents fees. 4. All transfer fees paid in full when player signs. 5. No borrowing against future income. 6. Allow owners to irrevocably gift money to their club if they wish. If the above were introduced you would have sustainable clubs.
|
|
|
Post by idle on Apr 11, 2023 11:50:39 GMT
Like our own position 3 years ago ,it will take a few years to sort out. 1. Limit wages to 65%/70% of income. 2. Limit squad sizes. 3. Limit agents fees. 4. All transfer fees paid in full when player signs. 5. No borrowing against future income. 6. Allow owners to irrevocably gift money to their club if they wish. If the above were introduced you would have sustainable clubs. No.6 should be gotten rid of as well. Sportswashing is real and should be banned. Plus, if a club operates with a £50M loss each year and then the owner quits/dies/sell, they'll go bankrupt. Get rid of outside money altogether and we'll see a sustainable sport. And hopefully we'd get rid of the fucking billionaires and blood-oil-states that plagues the game. We'll probably see a surge in fan-owned clubs, which is purely a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by independent on Apr 11, 2023 12:27:19 GMT
Like our own position 3 years ago ,it will take a few years to sort out. 1. Limit wages to 65%/70% of income. 2. Limit squad sizes. 3. Limit agents fees. 4. All transfer fees paid in full when player signs. 5. No borrowing against future income. 6. Allow owners to irrevocably gift money to their club if they wish. If the above were introduced you would have sustainable clubs. No.6 should be gotten rid of as well. Sportswashing is real and should be banned. Plus, if a club operates with a £50M loss each year and then the owner quits/dies/sell, they'll go bankrupt. Get rid of outside money altogether and we'll see a sustainable sport. And hopefully we'd get rid of the fucking billionaires and blood-oil-states that plagues the game. We'll probably see a surge in fan-owned clubs, which is purely a good thing. I have some sympathy with your point, however I did say GIFT money, no loans. Perhaps clubs borrowing money against the assets of the club should be limited as well. Clubs then won't have big losses if they have to pay upfront for players and their wage bill is limited. Your solution is probably simpler and more effective.
|
|
|
Post by idle on Apr 11, 2023 13:17:37 GMT
No.6 should be gotten rid of as well. Sportswashing is real and should be banned. Plus, if a club operates with a £50M loss each year and then the owner quits/dies/sell, they'll go bankrupt. Get rid of outside money altogether and we'll see a sustainable sport. And hopefully we'd get rid of the fucking billionaires and blood-oil-states that plagues the game. We'll probably see a surge in fan-owned clubs, which is purely a good thing. I have some sympathy with your point, however I did say GIFT money, no loans. Perhaps clubs borrowing money against the assets of the club should be limited as well. Clubs then won't have big losses if they have to pay upfront for players and their wage bill is limited. Your solution is probably simpler and more effective. Even if it's gift money, what's stopping the murderous crown prince Mohammad Bin Salman from spending a billion a year on Newcastle players' fees and wages? I understand we need to start somewhere, but over time the missing money will deflate player wages and transfer fees, which is a good thing. I've also championed the german model of 51% fan ownership as much better than the english model. It has it's flaws, and two clubs have been able to undermine it (Red Bull Leipzig and Hoffenheim), but overall the club economies are much sounder.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Apr 11, 2023 13:39:51 GMT
I have some sympathy with your point, however I did say GIFT money, no loans. Perhaps clubs borrowing money against the assets of the club should be limited as well. Clubs then won't have big losses if they have to pay upfront for players and their wage bill is limited. Your solution is probably simpler and more effective. Even if it's gift money, what's stopping the murderous crown prince Mohammad Bin Salman from spending a billion a year on Newcastle players' fees and wages? I understand we need to start somewhere, but over time the missing money will deflate player wages and transfer fees, which is a good thing. I've also championed the german model of 51% fan ownership as much better than the english model. It has it's flaws, and two clubs have been able to undermine it (Red Bull Leipzig and Hoffenheim), but overall the club economies are much sounder. The German model also sees them invest more in youth as well, which is good. It would all still need to happen at a governing body beyond the FA though. There’s no way that Man City etc would agree to drastic changes that made them less even competitive in Europe.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Apr 13, 2023 14:51:12 GMT
I think I’ve just heard Radio Stoke reporting Vale have made a loss.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Apr 13, 2023 15:20:01 GMT
I think I’ve just heard Radio Stoke reporting Vale have made a loss. Begging bowl will be out soon
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Apr 13, 2023 16:32:33 GMT
I think I’ve just heard Radio Stoke reporting Vale have made a loss. It's either Stoke or the City Council's fault apparently.
|
|
|
Post by cdf on Apr 13, 2023 17:20:43 GMT
I think I’ve just heard Radio Stoke reporting Vale have made a loss. £1.1 million loss £5.5 million owed to the clubs owners They are making redundancies left right & centre behind the scenes and apparently they cutting the first team budget for next season too
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Apr 13, 2023 17:28:50 GMT
I think I’ve just heard Radio Stoke reporting Vale have made a loss. £1.1 million loss £5.5 million owed to the clubs owners They are making redundancies left right & centre behind the scenes and apparently they cutting the first team budget for next season too They had a budget?
|
|
|
Post by cdf on Apr 13, 2023 17:32:49 GMT
£1.1 million loss £5.5 million owed to the clubs owners They are making redundancies left right & centre behind the scenes and apparently they cutting the first team budget for next season too They had a budget? I think its called peanuts and they are currently thinking of a new name for it in time for next season
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Apr 13, 2023 17:50:19 GMT
I think its called peanuts and they are currently thinking of a new name for it in time for next season Monkey Nuts?
|
|
|
Post by Billy the kid on Apr 13, 2023 18:27:59 GMT
I think I’ve just heard Radio Stoke reporting Vale have made a loss. £1.1 million loss £5.5 million owed to the clubs owners They are making redundancies left right & centre behind the scenes and apparently they cutting the first team budget for next season too Fuckem
|
|
|
Post by cdf on Apr 13, 2023 19:05:47 GMT
£1.1 million loss £5.5 million owed to the clubs owners They are making redundancies left right & centre behind the scenes and apparently they cutting the first team budget for next season too Fuckem Exactly! Unlike us, they can not afford to owe £5.5 million. Hopefully they will fuck up again soon
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Apr 13, 2023 23:44:56 GMT
I think I’ve just heard Radio Stoke reporting Vale have made a loss. £1.1 million loss £5.5 million owed to the clubs owners They are making redundancies left right & centre behind the scenes and apparently they cutting the first team budget for next season too Do these losses break the FFP rules?
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Apr 14, 2023 8:44:43 GMT
£1.1 million loss £5.5 million owed to the clubs owners They are making redundancies left right & centre behind the scenes and apparently they cutting the first team budget for next season too Do these losses break the FFP rules? It's calculated over a 3 year period If they continue as they are then yes they will breach they have to slash their budget which usually results in relegation
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Apr 14, 2023 8:46:06 GMT
Do these losses break the FFP rules? It's calculated over a 3 year period If they continue as they are then yes they will breach they have to slash their budget which usually results in relegation Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by wilcopotter on Apr 14, 2023 8:49:42 GMT
£1.1 million loss £5.5 million owed to the clubs owners They are making redundancies left right & centre behind the scenes and apparently they cutting the first team budget for next season too Do these losses break the FFP rules? Don’t know, but I bet our mate in Bristol would know, he seems to have a lot of time on his hands.
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Apr 14, 2023 9:59:22 GMT
Do these losses break the FFP rules? It's calculated over a 3 year period If they continue as they are then yes they will breach they have to slash their budget which usually results in relegation Are there any FFP rules in Leagues 1 and 2? There was a Salary Cost Management Protocol but I thought this was scrapped after the PFA won a court case challenging it
|
|