|
|
Post by nonameface on Nov 19, 2023 15:40:15 GMT
Couldn't agree more. FFP has only ever been about protecting a number of elite clubs. That's completely wrong - the club's at the front of the queue to get rid of FFP are the big clubs. Scrap FFP and they get to keep even more of the TV money and they will simply outspend everyone else and drive clubs into administration. It's completely naive to expect football becoming a more level playing field by scrapping FFP - it will result in the exact opposite. The smaller clubs will just drive themselves into unsustainable debt to try and compete with the big boys who will just chuck more money in and piss themselves laughing as their increasingly desperate wannabe rivals drive themselves out of existence. FFP is basically a crash barrier to stop this happening - clubs get forewarned before they behave recklessly and go bust. Remove the crash barrier and they just crash. Our fans don't won't to accept this because they see Peter Coates as a soft headed sugar daddy who will just carry on pouring money into the club and save it from debt while slugging it out with the big boys. Thing is it won't happen. Peter Coates isn't stupid - he won't just keep chucking money at a race he can't win, he won't load the club with unsustainable debt and the real money isn't his anyway. Denise isn't going get Bet365 to play financial Russian Roulette with the Saudi and Qatari governments. No-one on here has provided an alternative to what I've described above because there isn't one. Scrapping FFP is just an empty mantra that no-one chanting it has thought through. Not sure FFP decides how TV money is spent by the big clubs, other than the big clubs abuse their power in negotiations for a sporting competition on how the money is spent, which sort of proves many people's views on it. Since we've been relegated we really got to see what an awful thing it is and how it doesn't make sense, using accounting that makes sense with business but not football. When we were relegated we couldn't take a loss on a player (where we had already spent the transfer fee) for anything more than the amount written down on the players value(transfer fee divided by years on contract). FFP put us in the worst position, instead of selling and saving wages, we had to loan players out. Our negotiation point was awful and if we didn't have the owners we had we would have had awful financial consequences. If it's designed to focus on keeping clubs financially protected it needs to move away from its present way. League 1 and 2 model focusing on wages/transfer fees to turnover is much better but does limit competition. A best way to allow financial speculation and keep clubs solvent would be to limit wages/transfer fees to turnover, but to allow clubs to break this if the owners fund directly the gap (not through debt but their OWN funds) and to provide the funds to a governing body for future years overspend. e.g. if you sign players that mean an over spend by £10m this year, but their contracts commit a further £10m in total in future years then as an offer you'd pay immediately £10m in for year 1 and provide a governing body the additional £10m which will be released when it's due. Only owners with money to overspend would do so and those without would have to be disciplined and run it to not make a loss! |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 19, 2023 16:09:59 GMT
That's completely wrong - the club's at the front of the queue to get rid of FFP are the big clubs. Scrap FFP and they get to keep even more of the TV money and they will simply outspend everyone else and drive clubs into administration. It's completely naive to expect football becoming a more level playing field by scrapping FFP - it will result in the exact opposite. The smaller clubs will just drive themselves into unsustainable debt to try and compete with the big boys who will just chuck more money in and piss themselves laughing as their increasingly desperate wannabe rivals drive themselves out of existence. FFP is basically a crash barrier to stop this happening - clubs get forewarned before they behave recklessly and go bust. Remove the crash barrier and they just crash. Our fans don't won't to accept this because they see Peter Coates as a soft headed sugar daddy who will just carry on pouring money into the club and save it from debt while slugging it out with the big boys. Thing is it won't happen. Peter Coates isn't stupid - he won't just keep chucking money at a race he can't win, he won't load the club with unsustainable debt and the real money isn't his anyway. Denise isn't going get Bet365 to play financial Russian Roulette with the Saudi and Qatari governments. No-one on here has provided an alternative to what I've described above because there isn't one. Scrapping FFP is just an empty mantra that no-one chanting it has thought through. Not sure FFP decides how TV money is spent by the big clubs, other than the big clubs abuse their power in negotiations for a sporting competition on how the money is spent, which sort of proves many people's views on it. Since we've been relegated we really got to see what an awful thing it is and how it doesn't make sense, using accounting that makes sense with business but not football. When we were relegated we couldn't take a loss on a player (where we had already spent the transfer fee) for anything more than the amount written down on the players value(transfer fee divided by years on contract). FFP put us in the worst position, instead of selling and saving wages, we had to loan players out. Our negotiation point was awful and if we didn't have the owners we had we would have had awful financial consequences. If it's designed to focus on keeping clubs financially protected it needs to move away from its present way. League 1 and 2 model focusing on wages/transfer fees to turnover is much better but does limit competition. A best way to allow financial speculation and keep clubs solvent would be to limit wages/transfer fees to turnover, but to allow clubs to break this if the owners fund directly the gap (not through debt but their OWN funds) and to provide the funds to a governing body for future years overspend. e.g. if you sign players that mean an over spend by £10m this year, but their contracts commit a further £10m in total in future years then as an offer you'd pay immediately £10m in for year 1 and provide a governing body the additional £10m which will be released when it's due. Only owners with money to overspend would do so and those without would have to be disciplined and run it to not make a loss! What you are arguing for isn't the scrapping of FFP, it's just a different type of FFP. I'm not sure it even achieves the levelling of the playing field that supporters of scrapping FFP believe (wrongly) would happen. The big guns can still put in more than the rest and those without sugar daddy owners would just complain they are restricted even more because the club's can't resort to loans to compete. In terms of what happened to us on relegation the other clubs in the Championship have more right to complain about unfair treatment than us. It was our fault that we took on contracts that were unsustainable should we be relegated and we got bailed out for our own recklessness by parachute payments unavailable to the existing clubs in the league. The new footballing body has a remit to oversee and impose solutions on league clubs and they have a brief to look at how the TV money is spent, parachute payments and financial practices that mean football clubs remain solvent. They might well get rid of FFP in its current form but there will still be some form of regulation and it won't be the free for all that those calling for the scrapping of FFP actually want. |
|
|
|
Post by nonameface on Nov 19, 2023 18:50:43 GMT
Not sure FFP decides how TV money is spent by the big clubs, other than the big clubs abuse their power in negotiations for a sporting competition on how the money is spent, which sort of proves many people's views on it. Since we've been relegated we really got to see what an awful thing it is and how it doesn't make sense, using accounting that makes sense with business but not football. When we were relegated we couldn't take a loss on a player (where we had already spent the transfer fee) for anything more than the amount written down on the players value(transfer fee divided by years on contract). FFP put us in the worst position, instead of selling and saving wages, we had to loan players out. Our negotiation point was awful and if we didn't have the owners we had we would have had awful financial consequences. If it's designed to focus on keeping clubs financially protected it needs to move away from its present way. League 1 and 2 model focusing on wages/transfer fees to turnover is much better but does limit competition. A best way to allow financial speculation and keep clubs solvent would be to limit wages/transfer fees to turnover, but to allow clubs to break this if the owners fund directly the gap (not through debt but their OWN funds) and to provide the funds to a governing body for future years overspend. e.g. if you sign players that mean an over spend by £10m this year, but their contracts commit a further £10m in total in future years then as an offer you'd pay immediately £10m in for year 1 and provide a governing body the additional £10m which will be released when it's due. Only owners with money to overspend would do so and those without would have to be disciplined and run it to not make a loss! In terms of what happened to us on relegation the other clubs in the Championship have more right to complain about unfair treatment than us. It was our fault that we took on contracts that were unsustainable should we be relegated and we got bailed out for our own recklessness by parachute payments unavailable to the existing clubs in the league. Not sure that's fair. They introduced the points deduction retrospectively! It had only been fines previously. Would you think it was right if you drove down the motorway at 70 one day. Then a week later you got points for that as the speed limit had been changed to 60 and backdated a week? |
|
|
|
Post by logdog on Nov 19, 2023 20:14:05 GMT
Football is just the same as everyday life. If you’ve got enough money, you can buy the best legal teams in the world. If you’ve got the best people fighting your corner, you can get away with a lot. The Saudi’s at Man City rub shoulders with some of the most powerful & influential people in the world. They ain’t being made an example of anytime soon. Except in everyday life businesses and companies do not have £170m handed to them for doing nothing. That was man city for winning the PL last season. Even poor old relegated Southampton, Leicester & Leeds scooped around £130m each for failure……and It increases with every new broadcasting contract signed by PL. just imagine running a successful little engineering company and every year you recieved a £100m check for doing nothing. The point I was making was that if you’ve got enough money, you can buy the best lawyers. If you’ve got the best lawyers, they are experts at bending the rules. The prize money in football is another matter altogether. |
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Nov 20, 2023 11:24:40 GMT
Football is just the same as everyday life. If you’ve got enough money, you can buy the best legal teams in the world. If you’ve got the best people fighting your corner, you can get away with a lot. The Saudi’s at Man City rub shoulders with some of the most powerful & influential people in the world. They ain’t being made an example of anytime soon. Except in everyday life businesses and companies do not have £170m handed to them for doing nothing. That was man city for winning the PL last season. Even poor old relegated Southampton, Leicester & Leeds scooped around £130m each for failure……and It increases with every new broadcasting contract signed by PL. just imagine running a successful little engineering company and every year you recieved a £100m check for doing nothing. Surely winning the PL is a bit more than doing nothing? |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Nov 20, 2023 12:14:12 GMT
Except in everyday life businesses and companies do not have £170m handed to them for doing nothing. That was man city for winning the PL last season. Even poor old relegated Southampton, Leicester & Leeds scooped around £130m each for failure……and It increases with every new broadcasting contract signed by PL. just imagine running a successful little engineering company and every year you recieved a £100m check for doing nothing. Surely winning the PL is a bit more than doing nothing? Think he was referring more to Southampton etc getting 100 plus million for getting relegated. I agree winning the Premier league is way more than nothing. Just a shame man city have broken loads of rules in order to do it. I preferred man city when they were crap 😆 |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Nov 20, 2023 12:21:43 GMT
Except in everyday life businesses and companies do not have £170m handed to them for doing nothing. That was man city for winning the PL last season. Even poor old relegated Southampton, Leicester & Leeds scooped around £130m each for failure……and It increases with every new broadcasting contract signed by PL. just imagine running a successful little engineering company and every year you recieved a £100m check for doing nothing. Surely winning the PL is a bit more than doing nothing? My point is that PL clubs get money rained on them like confetti regardless of achievements. We won fuck all in PL but we’re still guaranteed whatever the going rate was from the various media. £80m or so I’m guessing. Back in the day when clubs relied on gate takings and sponsorship the earnings were commensurate with success. I know that your position in the PL will dictate the amount of wedge you get but even for relegated teams it’s considerable. |
|
|
|
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Nov 20, 2023 12:48:18 GMT
Given it is strictly about FFP and not involving Stoke I just want to say one thing. Yeah I won't be especially welcome but.
Quite happy here, fits the crime for sure. PL clubs have had a freeish pass for far too long. Hopefully sets a positive precedent moving forward (Still I have issues potentially for historic breaches with Aston Villa, Fulham, Nottingham Forest- all maybe).
Had Everton been docked last year as they should've been they would have gone down surely. Now Idk. Likewise 2021-22, big trouble had they fallen foul in the year of the breach.
Intrigued as to how Stoke and Nottingham Forest Covid add-backs differ to Everton though as a principle.
|
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Nov 20, 2023 13:01:12 GMT
It's a farce how long it takes to investigate these things - who exactly have they got on the case? - one bloke spending a couple of hours a week on it? - If it's the clubs involved making it difficult/drawn out (which it no doubt is), start docking points until they cooperate.
|
|
|
|
Post by bristolcityinpeace on Nov 20, 2023 13:15:45 GMT
2 more bits..if you look in summer 2021 under Benitez they slipped into austerity mode. Gray for a couple of million, Townsend and Rondon on a free. Think James left among other things, Sigurdsson unavailable etc.
What did it for them, IMO the final was Janaury 2022. They failed FFP by £19.5m in the final analysis, over the period.
In January 2022 they:
1) Sacked Benitez and his coaching team- £10.5m according to the accounts. Dunno if that includes Lampard cost or if that adds to the costs further.
2) Added Patterson and Mykolenko. £12m and £16m respectively (yea I know, amortisation). Plus wages for 5-6 months.
3) Added Van De Beek and El Ghazi loan. Wages covered in full, Van De Beek perhaps had a loan fee. 5-5.5 months.
4) Alli. No loan fee but they covered his wages in full for 5 months.
I reckon that covered their overspend. Oh they sold Digne but that and a Richarlison sale at the price he went for and they would have definitively fallen within IMO.
They got what they deserved. They knew breaching FFP was a risk.
|
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Nov 20, 2023 13:22:19 GMT
2 more bits..if you look in summer 2021 under Benitez they slipped into austerity mode. Gray for a couple of million, Townsend and Rondon on a free. Think James left among other things, Sigurdsson unavailable etc. What did it for them, IMO the final was Janaury 2022. They failed FFP by £19.5m in the final analysis, over the period. In January 2022 they: 1) Sacked Benitez and his coaching team- £10.5m according to the accounts. Dunno if that includes Lampard cost or if that adds to the costs further. 2) Added Patterson and Mykolenko. £12m and £16m respectively (yea I know, amortisation). Plus wages for 5-6 months. 3) Added Van De Beek and El Ghazi loan. Wages covered in full, Van De Beek perhaps had a loan fee. 5-5.5 months. 4) Alli. No loan fee but they covered his wages in full for 5 months. I reckon that covered their overspend. Oh they sold Digne but that and a Richarlison sale at the price he went for and they would have definitively fallen within IMO. They got what they deserved. They knew breaching FFP was a risk. Blimey. I'd forgotten about Alfie Sigurdsson. Just googled him and he's had the sex charges case against him dropped through lack of evidence. Career ruined i guess. |
|
|
|
Post by jesusmcmuffin on Nov 21, 2023 13:27:11 GMT
Except in everyday life businesses and companies do not have £170m handed to them for doing nothing. That was man city for winning the PL last season. Even poor old relegated Southampton, Leicester & Leeds scooped around £130m each for failure……and It increases with every new broadcasting contract signed by PL. just imagine running a successful little engineering company and every year you recieved a £100m check for doing nothing. The point I was making was that if you’ve got enough money, you can buy the best lawyers. If you’ve got the best lawyers, they are experts at bending the rules. The prize money in football is another matter altogether. Nothing to suggest that had happened in any cases |
|
|
|
Post by logdog on Nov 28, 2023 19:10:18 GMT
The point I was making was that if you’ve got enough money, you can buy the best lawyers. If you’ve got the best lawyers, they are experts at bending the rules. The prize money in football is another matter altogether. Nothing to suggest that had happened in any cases Are you kidding me? |
|
|
|
Post by TinkerT on Nov 28, 2023 19:25:58 GMT
2 more bits..if you look in summer 2021 under Benitez they slipped into austerity mode. Gray for a couple of million, Townsend and Rondon on a free. Think James left among other things, Sigurdsson unavailable etc. What did it for them, IMO the final was Janaury 2022. They failed FFP by £19.5m in the final analysis, over the period. In January 2022 they: 1) Sacked Benitez and his coaching team- £10.5m according to the accounts. Dunno if that includes Lampard cost or if that adds to the costs further. 2) Added Patterson and Mykolenko. £12m and £16m respectively (yea I know, amortisation). Plus wages for 5-6 months. 3) Added Van De Beek and El Ghazi loan. Wages covered in full, Van De Beek perhaps had a loan fee. 5-5.5 months. 4) Alli. No loan fee but they covered his wages in full for 5 months. I reckon that covered their overspend. Oh they sold Digne but that and a Richarlison sale at the price he went for and they would have definitively fallen within IMO. They got what they deserved. They knew breaching FFP was a risk. Blimey. I'd forgotten about Alfie Sigurdsson. Just googled him and he's had the sex charges case against him dropped through lack of evidence. Career ruined i guess. This and mendy sueing man City for wages lost, nothing will change though and it will always be trial by media in the country by the gutter press. |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Dec 21, 2023 14:58:10 GMT
Could Everton go into administration next month and get a further 9 points deduction? The take over wont be complete for quite a while yet, the potential owners, 777 group, have already loaned them £100m this calendar year and it runs out this month and with Everton needing £20m a month to keep going (sounds insane), would you put more money in if there is a risk of failing the FA's fit and proper test  , and with the existing owner saying he won't/can't put more money in. Would the investors come in with more money when there is the risk of relegation and losing the PL ££££ ? |
|
|
|
Post by rickyfullerbeer on Dec 21, 2023 15:07:20 GMT
I think they'd still stay up. They've been brilliant so far, and whilst I'm not sure they'll maintain their current levels, I think they can better three of Sheffield Utd, Burnley, Luton, Forest and Palace by 19 points.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scouse on Dec 23, 2023 8:46:25 GMT
Could Everton go into administration next month and get a further 9 points deduction? The take over wont be complete for quite a while yet, the potential owners, 777 group, have already loaned them £100m this calendar year and it runs out this month and with Everton needing £20m a month to keep going (sounds insane), would you put more money in if there is a risk of failing the FA's fit and proper test , and with the existing owner saying he won't/can't put more money in. Would the investors come in with more money when there is the risk of relegation and losing the PL ££££ ? The takeover moved a step nearer yesterday when it was confirmed 777 had received FCA ( Financial Conduct Authority ) approval Date has also recently been confirmed for the move to their new ground , as long discussed & expected , rather than move part way through next season when the new stadium is scheduled to be finished, it’ll be at the start of the 25/26 season .. |
|
|
|
Post by thisisouryear on Dec 23, 2023 8:56:21 GMT
Everton belong in the Premier League, it would be a sad day for football if they weren't in the top flight. I'm quite happy they hold the record as the team who have been in the top division the longest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2023 13:36:18 GMT
Could Everton go into administration next month and get a further 9 points deduction? The take over wont be complete for quite a while yet, the potential owners, 777 group, have already loaned them £100m this calendar year and it runs out this month and with Everton needing £20m a month to keep going (sounds insane), would you put more money in if there is a risk of failing the FA's fit and proper test , and with the existing owner saying he won't/can't put more money in. Would the investors come in with more money when there is the risk of relegation and losing the PL ££££ ? Ludicrous amount to lose, isn’t it. The PL should have had stronger regulations for years. |
|
|
|
Post by Vadiation_Ribe on Dec 23, 2023 22:48:41 GMT
I think they'd still stay up. They've been brilliant so far, and whilst I'm not sure they'll maintain their current levels, I think they can better three of Sheffield Utd, Burnley, Luton, Forest and Palace by 19 points. I don't think it's that straightforward. If three of them reach 31 points, Everton will need 50. The deduction they've had already must have galvanised them for a short time at least, as their good form has only come since. But can they maintain that? |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Dec 26, 2023 9:04:13 GMT
Could Everton go into administration next month and get a further 9 points deduction? The take over wont be complete for quite a while yet, the potential owners, 777 group, have already loaned them £100m this calendar year and it runs out this month and with Everton needing £20m a month to keep going (sounds insane), would you put more money in if there is a risk of failing the FA's fit and proper test , and with the existing owner saying he won't/can't put more money in. Would the investors come in with more money when there is the risk of relegation and losing the PL ££££ ? The takeover moved a step nearer yesterday when it was confirmed 777 had received FCA ( Financial Conduct Authority ) approval Date has also recently been confirmed for the move to their new ground , as long discussed & expected , rather than move part way through next season when the new stadium is scheduled to be finished, it’ll be at the start of the 25/26 season .. Nicest ground in the Championship?  |
|
|
|
Post by LH_SCFC on Jan 14, 2024 20:26:36 GMT
In line for a further points deduction, alongside Forest.
|
|
|
|
Post by hamsta2 on Jan 14, 2024 21:03:25 GMT
In line for a further points deduction, alongside Forest. Yes. All over Twitter from a good source too. Feel for the fans tbh - not their fault. Wonder what Nuno will think. |
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Jan 14, 2024 21:13:26 GMT
Can't wait to see what citeh get, down to the conference I hope!
|
|
|
|
Post by Gob Bluth on Jan 14, 2024 21:19:14 GMT
I’ve not been able to find a good source on the explaination so sorry for the stupid question. If a club has a really bad season financially, minus 1 billion, this pushes them in red for FFP over 3 years, do they get docked 10 points every season? Feels a bit double jeopardy-esque.
|
|
|
|
Post by LH_SCFC on Jan 14, 2024 21:25:06 GMT
I’ve not been able to find a good source on the explaination so sorry for the stupid question. If a club has a really bad season financially, minus 1 billion, this pushes them in red for FFP over 3 years, do they get docked 10 points every season? Feels a bit double jeopardy-esque. It’s unlikely they’d only get a 10 point deduction if the losses were so extreme. It would be far greater. |
|
|
|
Post by scfcno1fan on Jan 14, 2024 21:31:02 GMT
Why another deduction for Everton?
|
|
|
|
Post by st3mark on Jan 14, 2024 21:37:59 GMT
Why another deduction for Everton? They usually get given a deadline to fix things or show they are back on track after the first deduction I think. Don't know if that's what's happening on this occasion though. |
|
|
|
Post by juiceandbits on Jan 14, 2024 21:38:23 GMT
Why another deduction for Everton? Deduction isn't confirmed however it is for the year cycle ending in June 2023. |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Jan 14, 2024 21:41:48 GMT
Why another deduction for Everton? See my post above from a few weeks ago, maybe a bit of that |
|
, and with the existing owner saying he won't/can't put more money in. Would the investors come in with more money when there is the risk of relegation and losing the PL ££££ ? 
