|
Post by LL Cool Dave on Jan 16, 2024 9:30:55 GMT
Let them spend what they want, or rather what they have. It doesn't guarantee success anyway. I get that and might suit us in the Championship, however an earlier poster referred to Everton’s £20m of interest on debr, which men’s they weren’t spending what they had at all, they have racked up massive debts. Which is why I said let them spend what they have (to spend)
|
|
|
Post by stokecitytalke on Jan 16, 2024 9:47:15 GMT
I am totally on board with the principle of FFP. Without it success is simply something you go out and buy. And thereby lies the problem without FFP. If all 20 clubs in the Premier League spent beyond their means to achieve success, there will always be 19 clubs saddled with enormous debts that they can't afford.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Jan 16, 2024 9:54:51 GMT
I'm sure there's plenty of people who's attitude would be totally different if Covid hadn't of saved us from getting done.
It's not curbed wages or transfer fees, totally pointless
|
|
|
Post by Roy Cropper on Jan 16, 2024 10:05:02 GMT
FFP only helps with fair play if teams truly are working off the same budgets. Otherwise, it's impossible to disrupt the established elite.
It shouldn't be scrapped, for the sustainability reasons already mentioned, but the current model is terrible. Has to be a better way.
|
|
|
Post by independent on Jan 16, 2024 10:53:10 GMT
Everton have been treated very harshly in an attempt to show the Government that the game doesn't need a regulator. As I understand it they would be safe under the propsed new system. Even under the present system they were found guilty because of £20m interest payments on loans that they had taken out to finance their new stadium. As has been stated by the authorities: "They gained no football advantage by this". There should have been a financial penalty for this breach, not a points deduction. I would love someone to explain how this kept them in the Premier league. The new charge is billing them twice for years they have already been penalised for. Apparently if they had accepted Brentfords bid of £30m for Gordon at Christmas they would have been in the clear. They eventually sold Gordon to Newcastle for £45m but it was a couple of days too late to be included in their books for that year. A 10 point deduction in those circumstances does seem very unfair. How could they have accepted Brentford's bid at Christmas and had it included in their figures when the transfer window didn't open until the first of January? Actually the deal would have been done in January. Now, are you happy. Once it was before June, it would have been included for FFP purposes.
|
|
|
Post by independent on Jan 16, 2024 10:57:54 GMT
Let them spend what they want, or rather what they have. It doesn't guarantee success anyway. I get that and might suit us in the Championship, however an earlier poster referred to Everton’s £20m of interest on debr, which men’s they weren’t spending what they had at all, they have racked up massive debts. Yes, this was interest on debt that they had taken out for their new Stadium. The amount they borrowed wasn't counted for FFP but the interest on the debt was counted.
|
|
|
Post by wuzza on Jan 16, 2024 11:01:16 GMT
It’s motives were were fundamentally flawed - simply to maintain the balance of power with certain clubs. It is overly complex and clearly open to abuse - as with most things in life the more power and influence you have the more likely you are to get away with wrong doing. If the aim is to keep clubs solvent and have a FAIR system simply have a rigorously enforced salary cap for every tier of the game across the football world. If that isn’t possible just forget the whole thing and let the free market run wild - the results wouldn’t be much different to what we have now , just less accountancy jiggery pokery. The results would be very different without some form of FFP. The big clubs would spend more than they do now in order to force the smaller clubs to spend even more in order to deliberately bankrupt them - which is precisely what would happen. In other business sectors run on free market principles businesses going bankrupt is seen as an essential feature of the market - it is the most efficient companies getting rid of their weaker rivals making the provision of goods and services cheaper and better quality for the consumer. Apply free market principles to football and the result will be the same - football clubs who overspend to try to compete with the big boys (which is what they would have to do) will cease to exist. Even the Tory government have accepted this and setting up the new body to oversee football financing they have deliberately prevented football being run on free market principles because everyone who actually understands how a free market works knows that it will decimate the football pyramid. Those on here banging on about getting rid of FFP believe it will allow our owners to plough in more money to compete with the big boys but they either don't understand how a free market works or don't care about the fact it will drive clubs out of existence. The thing is they are also wrong about our owners ploughing money into the club to compete with the big boys. The owners won't do that. They will ensure the club lives within it's means so that when clubs do go under by getting sucked into a spending war they can't win we will be among those left standing. We will be at a higher level than we are now because there will be less teams but we will be further from the big boys than we are now - the top leagues will be just like those in the rest of Europe with 2/3/4 big hitters and the rest in a couple of professional leagues. To be honest in a totally free market a dozen or so clubs would have buggered off and formed their own league leaving the rest of us to compete at more manageable levels which will probably be the outcome of things anyway (and none the worse for that).
|
|
|
Post by Scouse on Jan 16, 2024 11:36:20 GMT
I'm sure there's plenty of people who's attitude would be totally different if Covid hadn't of saved us from getting done. It's not curbed wages or transfer fees, totally pointless Indeed depending where clubs where on their financial cycle and individual clubs specific circumstances covid , the war in Ukraine the initial collapse of the transfer market ( still a major. Issue in the EFL , if prem clubs money doesn’t filter down ) a catchall approach of averaging two seasons helped some more than others countless clubs over the years have fallen foul of FFP and been punished , points deducted , fined or had transfer embargo’s enforced just off the top of my head without even scanning the internet there’s been,Brighton , Bournemouth , Fulham , QPR , Reading , Wigan ..the list is practically endless ..whilst smart accounting has saved others Is football in a healthy position or fans interests safeguarded for it ? I honestly don’t know - it doesn’t feel like it
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jan 16, 2024 11:52:22 GMT
The results would be very different without some form of FFP. The big clubs would spend more than they do now in order to force the smaller clubs to spend even more in order to deliberately bankrupt them - which is precisely what would happen. In other business sectors run on free market principles businesses going bankrupt is seen as an essential feature of the market - it is the most efficient companies getting rid of their weaker rivals making the provision of goods and services cheaper and better quality for the consumer. Apply free market principles to football and the result will be the same - football clubs who overspend to try to compete with the big boys (which is what they would have to do) will cease to exist. Even the Tory government have accepted this and setting up the new body to oversee football financing they have deliberately prevented football being run on free market principles because everyone who actually understands how a free market works knows that it will decimate the football pyramid. Those on here banging on about getting rid of FFP believe it will allow our owners to plough in more money to compete with the big boys but they either don't understand how a free market works or don't care about the fact it will drive clubs out of existence. The thing is they are also wrong about our owners ploughing money into the club to compete with the big boys. The owners won't do that. They will ensure the club lives within it's means so that when clubs do go under by getting sucked into a spending war they can't win we will be among those left standing. We will be at a higher level than we are now because there will be less teams but we will be further from the big boys than we are now - the top leagues will be just like those in the rest of Europe with 2/3/4 big hitters and the rest in a couple of professional leagues. To be honest in a totally free market a dozen or so clubs would have buggered off and formed their own league leaving the rest of us to compete at more manageable levels which will probably be the outcome of things anyway (and none the worse for that). You are probably right. The plan was to create an hermetically sealed league of the European big boys with no promotion and relegation so that the big money would circulate amongst themselves. You are right - what remains of the English league would have less money to play with but it would be a flatter playing field. If FFP is scrapped that's probably the best outcome - especially if VAR were to go with them.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 16, 2024 11:55:33 GMT
I'm sure there's plenty of people who's attitude would be totally different if Covid hadn't of saved us from getting done. It's not curbed wages or transfer fees, totally pointless It really didn't it was the sale of the ground and CW that saved us from breaching. What we were allowed in Covid writedowns was nowhere near enough.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 16, 2024 12:05:00 GMT
I'm sure there's plenty of people who's attitude would be totally different if Covid hadn't of saved us from getting done. It's not curbed wages or transfer fees, totally pointless Indeed depending where clubs where on their financial cycle and individual clubs specific circumstances covid , the war in Ukraine the initial collapse of the transfer market ( still a major. Issue in the EFL , if prem clubs money doesn’t filter down ) a catchall approach of averaging two seasons helped some more than others countless clubs over the years have fallen foul of FFP and been punished , points deducted , fined or had transfer embargo’s enforced just off the top of my head without even scanning the internet there’s been,Brighton , Bournemouth , Fulham , QPR , Reading , Wigan ..the list is practically endless ..whilst smart accounting has saved others Is football in a healthy position or fans interests safeguarded for it ? I honestly don’t know - it doesn’t feel like it No football is definitely not healthy and unrestricted capitalism doesn't serve the vast majority of the people in any country but there is no need to chuck the baby out with the bathwater. Controls, floors & celings and redistribution can make the world and even football a better place without taking away rewards and incentives for ability and hard work. What is the closest, a workable solution in football or life?
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Jan 16, 2024 12:17:54 GMT
I don't have any sympathy with them as they overspent. I heard last night Liverpool sold Coutinho for £100m+ to fund team investment. I don't think it is as simple as saying 'it is broken as it keeps smaller clubs small, etc'. Teams that spend a lot aren't consistently spending if they're operating sensibly. 5Live spoke about this last night at length from 7, which I recommend everyone listen to as it is very informative. Clubs need to be smarter to stay up if sanctions will be more common. Let's also be clear: we were lucky to be up when these rules didn't exist as we spent loads of money without recouping much of that through players. If or when we do return we have to take a long-term view and accept relegation followed by another promotion (and the associated money from promotion and relegation) is a more sustainable route to establishing ourselves there again. Seems Forest also had the chance to sell Johnson to Brentford and didn't which would have meant them meeting the FFP rules but held out for more money like Everton did with a transfer
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 16, 2024 12:31:50 GMT
I don't have any sympathy with them as they overspent. I heard last night Liverpool sold Coutinho for £100m+ to fund team investment. I don't think it is as simple as saying 'it is broken as it keeps smaller clubs small, etc'. Teams that spend a lot aren't consistently spending if they're operating sensibly. 5Live spoke about this last night at length from 7, which I recommend everyone listen to as it is very informative. Clubs need to be smarter to stay up if sanctions will be more common. Let's also be clear: we were lucky to be up when these rules didn't exist as we spent loads of money without recouping much of that through players. If or when we do return we have to take a long-term view and accept relegation followed by another promotion (and the associated money from promotion and relegation) is a more sustainable route to establishing ourselves there again. Seems Forest also had the chance to sell Johnson to Brentford and didn't which would have meant them meeting the FFP rules but held out for more money like Everton did with a transfer Interesting and probably one of the least thought of consequences of these FFP regs forcing clubs already struggling financially to sell their assets at below market price only exacerbating their problems player value as assets only ever being considered as their purchase price amortised obviously disadvantaging clubs that sustain the game by developing their players. Maybe their asset value should be determined by periodic assessment transfermarkt already attributes notional values to players that changes without them moving clubs so it's quite easily adapted/adopted. Would this help? You'd have to ask someone far smarter than me, cue the snarky comments
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Jan 16, 2024 12:34:18 GMT
Seems Forest also had the chance to sell Johnson to Brentford and didn't which would have meant them meeting the FFP rules but held out for more money like Everton did with a transfer Interesting and probably one of the least thought of consequences of these FFP regs forcing clubs already struggling financially to sell their assets at below market price only exacerbating their problems player value as assets only ever being considered as their purchase price amortised obviously disadvantaging clubs that sustain the game by developing their players. Maybe their asset value should be determined by periodic assessment transfermarkt already attributes notional values to players that changes without them moving clubs so it's quite easily adapted/adopted. Would this help? You'd have to ask someone far smarter than me, cue the snarky comments Is a really good point Forest could have sold him for allegedly 12 million less and fallen within the FFP rules according to the lawyering dude on Sky
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheboothen on Jan 16, 2024 12:34:48 GMT
It is and if found guilty they should be looking at demotion to the conference like Rangers had but alas because of their mega rich owners they'll just get well nothing! Rangers deserved it ...was all for that one 👍 Was a good piece earlier on Sky re Man City. I agree re the sanctions but some jumping the gun re the alleged charges perhaps, will be interesting My gripe with Rangers was that they didn't go down further and were able to basically get back to where they were quicker than they should have 😅 It was beautiful though all the same.
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Jan 16, 2024 12:37:28 GMT
Rangers deserved it ...was all for that one 👍 Was a good piece earlier on Sky re Man City. I agree re the sanctions but some jumping the gun re the alleged charges perhaps, will be interesting My gripe with Rangers was that they didn't go down further and were able to basically get back to where they were quicker than they should have 😅 It was beautiful though all the same. My gripe is that they all smell of wee I think was mentioned on Sky at the time
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheboothen on Jan 16, 2024 12:39:40 GMT
My gripe with Rangers was that they didn't go down further and were able to basically get back to where they were quicker than they should have 😅 It was beautiful though all the same. My gripe is that they all smell of wee I think was mentioned on Sky at the time Sweat and wee 👍
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Jan 16, 2024 12:40:28 GMT
My gripe is that they all smell of wee I think was mentioned on Sky at the time Sweat and wee 👍 That's just the women 👍
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 16, 2024 12:42:22 GMT
Rangers deserved it ...was all for that one 👍 Was a good piece earlier on Sky re Man City. I agree re the sanctions but some jumping the gun re the alleged charges perhaps, will be interesting My gripe with Rangers was that they didn't go down further and were able to basically get back to where they were quicker than they should have 😅 It was beautiful though all the same. Rangers weren't demoted they went into liquidation. The Rangers we see now is essentially an entirely different entity.
|
|
|
Post by Vadiation_Ribe on Jan 16, 2024 12:42:49 GMT
Good thread - there's probably more sense here than in the official talks on FFP. Even the bit about them smelling of wee.
To me FFP has always been a way to keep the bigger clubs at the top. Just another thing that helps the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
There must be a better way.
As for sympathy, clubs going under or even relegation is sad for the people whose livelihoods count on them as well as the fans.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 16, 2024 12:42:56 GMT
I thought is was old people.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheboothen on Jan 16, 2024 12:45:09 GMT
I thought is was old people. Old Rangers fans do stink of piss aswell you are correct.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheboothen on Jan 16, 2024 12:46:11 GMT
My gripe with Rangers was that they didn't go down further and were able to basically get back to where they were quicker than they should have 😅 It was beautiful though all the same. Rangers weren't demoted they went into liquidation. The Rangers we see now is essentially an entirely different entity. I'm fully aware and they should have started lower than they did.
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Jan 16, 2024 12:49:20 GMT
Remember listening to Simon Jordan ages ago saying FFP wouldn't stop shitebags taking over small clubs because what serious business interest, unless they're a fan, are going to take over a side where they can't invest especially if the club are shit? It's purely there to stop another Man City disturbing the hierarchy.
The issue too is if Saudi does take off then FFP becomes obsolete.
It's wild really that Newcastle and Stoke are completely wedged but both are completely skint at the same time - makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Jan 16, 2024 13:04:14 GMT
I'm sure there's plenty of people who's attitude would be totally different if Covid hadn't of saved us from getting done. It's not curbed wages or transfer fees, totally pointless It really didn't it was the sale of the ground and CW that saved us from breaching. What we were allowed in Covid writedowns was nowhere near enough. It really did, of course selling the ground was also neccessary but that's something we could have done no matter what, Covid allowed us to write down players values by an extra 42.5 Million in the 2020 accounts. 19 - 21 accounts show around 145 Million loss, but because of covid they classed 20 & 21 accounts as 1 and averaged the loss so then 19 + 20/21 + 22 = 98 Million losses Then the ground sale was said to raise around 30 Million in profit (70 Sale - 40 Value on the books) You're still almost double the allowed 39 Million losses, but then we wrote off 42.5 Million as exceptional ammortisation in May 20 and put most of that down to Covid exceptions in the accounts, far more than the agreed allowed blanket covid allowance of whatever it was, think something like 2.5 Million a season. There is no doubt we were effected by covid more than most other clubs, we'd just gone on a spending spree and then covid effectively shut the transfer market, but after watching the dross that we brought I'd doubt we'd have got much back if the marker had stayed the same. But the bottom line is without Covid the 2 years being averaged and the covid exception write down of players wouldn't of happened and we'd have been done.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 16, 2024 13:10:43 GMT
It really didn't it was the sale of the ground and CW that saved us from breaching. What we were allowed in Covid writedowns was nowhere near enough. It really did, of course selling the ground was also neccessary but that's something we could have done no matter what, Covid allowed us to write down players values by an extra 42.5 Million in the 2020 accounts.19 - 21 accounts show around 145 Million loss, but because of covid they classed 20 & 21 accounts as 1 and averaged the loss so then 19 + 20/21 + 22 = 98 Million losses Then the ground sale was said to raise around 30 Million in profit (70 Sale - 40 Value on the books) You're still almost double the allowed 39 Million losses, but then we wrote off 42.5 Million as exceptional ammortisation in May 20 and put most of that down to Covid exceptions in the accounts, far more than the agreed allowed blanket covid allowance of whatever it was, think something like 2.5 Million a season. There is no doubt we were effected by covid more than most other clubs, we'd just gone on a spending spree and then covid effectively shut the transfer market, but after watching the dross that we brought I'd doubt we'd have got much back if the marker had stayed the same. But the bottom line is without Covid the 2 years being averaged and the covid exception write down of players wouldn't of happened and we'd have been done. Suggest you do some research Covid writedowns for FFP are nothing like that scale. You're talking about what we tried to get past FFP monitors not what was accepted, you're a mile out.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Jan 16, 2024 13:17:23 GMT
It really did, of course selling the ground was also neccessary but that's something we could have done no matter what, Covid allowed us to write down players values by an extra 42.5 Million in the 2020 accounts.19 - 21 accounts show around 145 Million loss, but because of covid they classed 20 & 21 accounts as 1 and averaged the loss so then 19 + 20/21 + 22 = 98 Million losses Then the ground sale was said to raise around 30 Million in profit (70 Sale - 40 Value on the books) You're still almost double the allowed 39 Million losses, but then we wrote off 42.5 Million as exceptional ammortisation in May 20 and put most of that down to Covid exceptions in the accounts, far more than the agreed allowed blanket covid allowance of whatever it was, think something like 2.5 Million a season. There is no doubt we were effected by covid more than most other clubs, we'd just gone on a spending spree and then covid effectively shut the transfer market, but after watching the dross that we brought I'd doubt we'd have got much back if the marker had stayed the same. But the bottom line is without Covid the 2 years being averaged and the covid exception write down of players wouldn't of happened and we'd have been done. Suggest you do some research Covid writedowns for FFP are nothing like that scale. You're talking about what we tried to get past FFP monitors not what was accepted, you're a mile out. I suggest you look at the accounts its all there in black and white, and swiss ramble did a massive twitter insight into it all. You can't make 145 Million losses fit into 39 Million with a ground sale and a womans football team, and ground improvements don't even hit the P & L.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 16, 2024 13:18:44 GMT
Suggest you do some research Covid writedowns for FFP are nothing like that scale. You're talking about what we tried to get past FFP monitors not what was accepted, you're a mile out. I suggest you look at the accounts its all there in black and white, and swiss ramble did a massive twitter insight into it all. You can't make 145 Million losses fit into 39 Million with a ground sale and a womans football team, and ground improvements don't even hit the P & L. There simply haven't been £40 odd million of allowable covid writedowns fact.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Jan 16, 2024 13:27:14 GMT
I suggest you look at the accounts its all there in black and white, and swiss ramble did a massive twitter insight into it all. You can't make 145 Million losses fit into 39 Million with a ground sale and a womans football team, and ground improvements don't even hit the P & L. There simply haven't been £40 odd million of allowable covid writedowns fact. Correct it wasn't as much as 40 odd that we put down to Covid. I'll give you 1 fact and leave this conversation because I know you like to argue with everyone. 31st May 20 Impairment of Intagible fixed assets £42.516 Mill Notes to the accounts Note 19 Covid 19 Lost Revenues £3.983 Mill Costs of not utilising furlough £4.1 Million Impairment directly attributed to Covid 19 £30.131 Million Total £38.223 Million Still doesn't change the fact that without Covid we'd have broke FFP Have fun.
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Jan 16, 2024 13:40:48 GMT
There simply haven't been £40 odd million of allowable covid writedowns fact. Correct it wasn't as much as 40 odd that we put down to Covid. I'll give you 1 fact and leave this conversation because I know you like to argue with everyone. 31st May 20 Impairment of Intagible fixed assets £42.516 Mill Notes to the accounts Note 19 Covid 19 Lost Revenues £3.983 Mill Costs of not utilising furlough £4.1 Million Impairment directly attributed to Covid 19 £30.131 Million Total £38.223 Million Still doesn't change the fact that without Covid we'd have broke FFP Have fun. Conventional wisdom seems to be we were allowed about £5M per season of covid writedowns. You won't find it in any accounts because such things don't have to be published and when Stoke don't have to publish something they just don't. There has been a cart load of financial gymnastics to avoid breaching FFP and we apparently haven't been allowed full value on any of them and no doubt if we were going to breach there'd have been some more. The vast majority of it is was and has been contrived nonsense. I'm glad we got away with it because it's my club but I'm not going to pretend that most of it wasn't magical thinking including the valuations of the fixed assets (Very Trumpian).
|
|