Financial fair play

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
well it means the vast majority of clubs are deep in the brown stuff unless they get themselves into order pretty sharpish. i fully expect to see huge amounts of good players available this summer who can't get clubs because either their wage demands are too high or clubs simply cannot afford to take on any more players. players demands are going to have to be more suitable long term from now on and that can only be seen as a good thing. its a massive couple of years for english football in the lower leagues - i'm glad we are out of it and relatively safe financially, especially with the guarantees of extra parachute money should we go down - i also fully trust the people running the club to sort us out were we to go down (which we won't, i'm sure <ok>). i'm more interested in the clubs such as west ham, should they not go up, and what they will do. i fully believe their owners would run the risk of penalties and throw as much money at getting up as possible, hoping they go up next season and avoid the penalties laid out. wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if leicester try the same approach. ipswich can't afford to try it as their owner appears to be at least attempting to reign in the outgoings, even if their wages currently take up about 98% of turnover, which is pretty frightening really! still better than it was last year at 107%... <yikes>
 
Beefforhire-NCFC said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17841566

Forgive me if I'm wrong, as I'm ignorant to Ipswiches accounts (all I know is they're losing a **** load of cash and have 60mill+ debt) but do these new rules essentially mean Ipswich are ****ed in 2015?

Love to know who the clubs that voted against it are!
Click to expand...

1. Leicester
2. Ipswich
3. Maybe West Ham (covering their backs should they fail in the play-offs, forgive me if I am ignorant of their spending this season)

^^ My best guesses
 
The whole of football is beginning to wake up and have a reality check and not before time. Wages of even £20k per week are absolutely ludicrous and should never have got to this point (let alone the Chelski, Manx City wages)
I almost want to see a couple of clubs go to the wall to ram the point home (and Portsmouth could well be one)
There should be a wage cap on the club of x% of the gate receipts which would allow clubs to pay whatever they like to any individual but the total bill should be capped at say 70% of income. I think Rugby Leaguye does something similar and it keeps a sense of normality.
 
this should be a good thing (the new rules), and put teams on a more level playing field, except for those getting parachute payments.

It could also increase the gap to the Premier League as well unless the remuneration in the top tier is re-balanced.
 
Goldeneye175 said:
1. Leicester
2. Ipswich
3. Maybe West Ham (covering their backs should they fail in the play-offs, forgive me if I am ignorant of their spending this season)

^^ My best guesses
Click to expand...


Wrong!!

Clegg voted for it. The club is reducing the overall wage costs from 98% to just under 60% of turnover by the end of this season.
 
Leicester have a big problem and it is coming soon. They escpaed a few years ago by putting the compnay that built the Walker's Crisp Bowl into administration and have continued to spend money like water on cr*p players.

They lost a potload last year and there is no sign of a change, no wonder they voted against - idiots!!
 
I can't see how these rules stop the sponsorship work around that exists in euro FFP rules. So Ipswich could be fine as Marcus Evans can write a new sponsorship deal that covers Ipswich's costs then Evans could put the debt into a separate company. Not in the spirit of the rules but not breaking then either.
 
Bath-Canary said:
I can't see how these rules stop the sponsorship work around that exists in euro FFP rules. So Ipswich could be fine as Marcus Evans can write a new sponsorship deal that covers Ipswich's costs then Evans could put the debt into a separate company. Not in the spirit of the rules but not breaking then either.
Click to expand...

true. this is why i mentioned the other day that he might well rename their portaloo with his company name and give the club loads of money for the honour. its cheating really but plenty of clubs will do it if they've got that opportunity <ok>
 
These fairplay rules seem all well intentioned but in reality they further raise the gap between the haves and the have nots! If you can only spend a certain % of your overall income and you are a smaller club that does not generate huge amounts of money, how are you going to compete with the larger clubs that have a far bigger fansbase? This seems to me to be a rich man's charter all about protecting their status and denying smaller ambitious clubs from ever getting the chance to compete. This thing about imposing fines on those clubs that break the rules also seem to be harsh and self defeating. I'm all for financial restraint but the footballers with their excessive wage demands and their agents who act like parasites need to be curtailed at the same time.

I also understand that clubs that come down from the premiership are exempted from these rules for a year, how is that fair? They get 4 years worth of parachute payments and as they will not be included in these new arrangements they will be free to spend money with impunity!
 
johnnywarksmoustache said:
These fairplay rules seem all well intentioned but in reality they further raise the gap between the haves and the have nots! If you can only spend a certain % of your overall income and you are a smaller club that does not generate huge amounts of money, how are you going to compete with the larger clubs that have a far bigger fansbase? This seems to me to be a rich man's charter all about protecting their status and denying smaller ambitious clubs from ever getting the chance to compete. This thing about imposing fines on those clubs that break the rules also seem to be harsh and self defeating. I'm all for financial restraint but the footballers with their excessive wage demands and their agents who act like parasites need to be curtailed at the same time.

I also understand that clubs that come down from the premiership are exempted from these rules for a year, how is that fair? They get 4 years worth of parachute payments and as they will not be included in these new arrangements they will be free to spend money with impunity!
Click to expand...

i agree warky. i think something had to be done though <ok>
 
Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed said:
the problem is, and always will be, that clubs will find a way around any new conditions. how a wage cap could be introduced which works i really don't know - i do think thats a possibility but i just can't see it happening.
Click to expand...

They will increase the weekly wage with bonuses. Say the cap was £75k a week, all they would do is give - lets say - Rooney, an extra £50k if he starts a game, £50k for scoring etc....
 
If the club/company can afford to pay the players stupid amounts of money then it's their choice on how they spend it. However most can't afford it and there is the issue.
Worth is only defined as the amount someone is willing to pay for it. If people want to pay Rooney £250k a week or pay £35m for Caroll that's is what they are worth. Stupid true but it happens all the time. The issue is clubs over reaching not that salaries are too high. However clubs are over teaching to be competitive. Yes this may well increase the gap between haves and have-nots, but that isn't the issue the issue is keeping the clubs stable and in business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back