Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[LFEE]

I don’t mind spending limits for clubs but all teams competing in the same division must be allowed to spend the same amount of money regardless of their income. If Luton want to spend as much as Man City then so be it. It’s Man City’s upper limit than needs to be controlled and everyone else just falls within it until someone else grows bigger and surpasses it and sets the bar higher for everyone.

[healthyaddiction]

30 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Nothing at all.  But it wouldn’t count towards FFP - which of course what matters.  The regs state which income streams are counted in the assessment, and which aren’t. 

What if we loaned 1 million to PIF and they paid it back with 1000% interest?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, LFEE said:

I don’t mind spending limits for clubs but all teams competing in the same division must be allowed to spend the same amount of money regardless of their income. If Luton want to spend as much as Man City then so be it. It’s Man City’s upper limit than needs to be controlled and everyone else just falls within it until someone else grows bigger and surpasses it and sets the bar higher for everyone.

 

Yeah I said the same at HT of the Bournemouth v Man Utd game. Bournemouth have ambitious owners but because they spent a lot of money last summer to consolidate and push towards mid-table, they'll unlikely be able to push on, or be forced to sell Solanke to pay their way.

 

Man Utd could finish mid-table but have the luxury of saying "meh", ignore what happened, and spend another £200m without flinching. 

[duo]

7 minutes ago, LFEE said:

I don’t mind spending limits for clubs but all teams competing in the same division must be allowed to spend the same amount of money regardless of their income. If Luton want to spend as much as Man City then so be it. It’s Man City’s upper limit than needs to be controlled and everyone else just falls within it until someone else grows bigger and surpasses it and sets the bar higher for everyone.

Spend what you have it's simple as - Simon Jordan has said at start of each season a club produces a bond as proof of funds. It's clear these rules are just to limit spending of every club other than the big 6.

[duo]

6 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

Yeah I said the same at HT of the Bournemouth v Man Utd game. Bournemouth have ambitious owners but because they spent a lot of money last summer to consolidate and push towards mid-table, they'll unlikely be able to push on, or be forced to sell Solanke to pay their way.

 

Man Utd could finish mid-table but have the luxury of saying "meh", ignore what happened, and spend another £200m without flinching. 

..and they are a billion in debt. A BILLION!!

[Whitley mag]

56 minutes ago, mondonewc said:

This is honestly a fucking shambles, the rulemakers are making a mockery of the league, twats! 

Trouble is the rule makers are the clubs which is the problem.

[timeEd32]

The way football is structured and the amount of money in the game now has created a fundamental flaw on the financial side that I’m not sure has any solution.

 

Clubs at the top of the pyramid like Man City and Real Madrid have revenues approaching a billion £ annually, but they have to spend most of it to maintain their position.

 

The clubs behind them need to spend everything to stay in the Champions League / try to win a title.

 

The ones behind them spend it all to try to get there, the ones in the middle spend it all to stay there, and the ones at the bottom spend it all to try to survive.

 

There is no such thing as treading water in football; you can’t take a year to reset without great risk. And if you’re a Champions League club or bottom half club then every season you are at risk of £70-£100m+ in revenue vanishing the next season. This makes it incredibly difficult to be consistently profitable.

 

Now you can argue that football clubs shouldn’t be corporate entities generating huge profits, which is fair if not a bit fantastical in the 21st century. But the problem is if you aren’t profitable in the best of times then a downturn can quickly put a club in a tenuous position.

[worthy]

Small clubs thinking FFP is for them is just fooling themselves - its all to keep the "big names" - Why? I have no fucking clue. Honestly I want some lawyers to challenge FFP and its Anti-competitive practices. How is it fair that the PL gets to decide how much money anyone wants to pay for commercial rights. But yet football players can go for 100+ ? So one is "how much someone is willing to pay" and the other is "well, we dont think its okay". Fuck off with the FFP shite.

[El Prontonise]

45 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

The way football is structured and the amount of money in the game now has created a fundamental flaw on the financial side that I’m not sure has any solution.

 

Clubs at the top of the pyramid like Man City and Real Madrid have revenues approaching a billion £ annually, but they have to spend most of it to maintain their position.

 

The clubs behind them need to spend everything to stay in the Champions League / try to win a title.

 

The ones behind them spend it all to try to get there, the ones in the middle spend it all to stay there, and the ones at the bottom spend it all to try to survive.

 

There is no such thing as treading water in football; you can’t take a year to reset without great risk. And if you’re a Champions League club or bottom half club then every season you are at risk of £70-£100m+ in revenue vanishing the next season. This makes it incredibly difficult to be consistently profitable.

 

Now you can argue that football clubs shouldn’t be corporate entities generating huge profits, which is fair if not a bit fantastical in the 21st century. But the problem is if you aren’t profitable in the best of times then a downturn can quickly put a club in a tenuous position.

 

Football clubs know they can get bailed out that's why.

[El Prontonise]

2 hours ago, LFEE said:

I don’t mind spending limits for clubs but all teams competing in the same division must be allowed to spend the same amount of money regardless of their income. If Luton want to spend as much as Man City then so be it. It’s Man City’s upper limit than needs to be controlled and everyone else just falls within it until someone else grows bigger and surpasses it and sets the bar higher for everyone.

 

Yeap it needs to a spending limit.

 

This is actually weirdly one of the things the super league wanted to do.....

 

I'd argue as well the American owners would also like such a rule as it would allow them to make profits like their franchises do.

[HawK]

For every pound you lose, you pay an additional pound to an escrow to guarantee the debt. Then the club isn't saddled with debt and if the club is bought, all debts are nulled by the escrow.

 

Now, if you don't pay the additional pounds to escrow to match the losses, that's when punishments/sanctions happen.

[timeEd32]

45 minutes ago, El Prontonise said:

 

Football clubs know they can get bailed out that's why.

That doesn’t help the drunken spending, but it’s not the core reason for the never ending arm’s race.

[TheBrownBottle]

3 hours ago, healthyaddiction said:

What if we loaned 1 million to PIF and they paid it back with 1000% interest?

Same I’m afraid  

[Slim]

 

[brummie]

Hmmm. 
 

More suggestion we might be leaving or rebuilding Villa Park. First, selling a chunk of us to Comcast (who own Sky and NBC and also do stadium builds)  so they can be our ‘infrastructure partners’ and today some more appointments as directors, including the person at co-owner Wes Eden’s’ company who oversaw building a new stadium for the Bucks. That doesn’t sound like a coincidence. 
 

i don’t think any of this would be on the menu were it not for football becoming even more of a rapacious money driven industry than it already was. 

[Pixelphish]

8 minutes ago, brummie said:

Hmmm. 
 

More suggestion we might be leaving or rebuilding Villa Park. First, selling a chunk of us to Comcast (who own Sky and NBC and also do stadium builds)  so they can be our ‘infrastructure partners’ and today some more appointments as directors, including the person at co-owner Wes Eden’s’ company who oversaw building a new stadium for the Bucks. That doesn’t sound like a coincidence. 
 

i don’t think any of this would be on the menu were it not for football becoming even more of a rapacious money driven industry than it already was. 

 

The Sky 7 is born.

[The College Dropout]

FFP helps a lot of the other PL clubs like Crystal Palace.

 

before our takeover 14 clubs had a realistic chance of going down. With our takeover and other ambitious owners, that number decreases and increases the chances of them being relegated. If they decentivised ambition from other clubs it helps their position.

 

Clubs like Crystal Palace and even West Ham don't even have to be well managed to achieve minimal goals like us under Ashlety

[The College Dropout]

Full numbers for accounting are out for last season.

 

Squad cost 7th highest in the league. Our squad costs half of Man U's.

 

Think I've seen wages we are 8th.

[toontownman]

20 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Full numbers for accounting are out for last season.

 

Squad cost 7th highest in the league. Our squad costs half of Man U's.

 

Think I've seen wages we are 8th.

You get what you pay for I guess ?

 

Another feather in the cap of Eddie and the transfer team. Had we not had those injuries we would be much closer to top 4 than our current position.

[Stifler]

I know papers like to put a doom perspective on things, but apparently the Everton 777 is about to collapse and they maybe placed into administration.

[Guest]

Just now, Stifler said:

I know papers like to put a doom perspective on things, but apparently the Everton 777 is about to collapse and they maybe placed into administration.

Oh no

[MagMal]

3 minutes ago, Stifler said:

I know papers like to put a doom perspective on things, but apparently the Everton 777 is about to collapse and they maybe placed into administration.

So you are telling me there is hope the turd will flush??  

[Nucasol]

24 minutes ago, Stifler said:

I know papers like to put a doom perspective on things, but apparently the Everton 777 is about to collapse and they maybe placed into administration.

Ooooooooooh cat amongst the motherfucking pigeons if true.

[Nucasol]

Is administration still an automatic 9 point deduction?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Nucasol said:

Is administration still an automatic 9 point deduction?

Yes