http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/spor...t-outraged-by-140m-transfer-splurge-1-6011304 Interesting article. I think we might have climbed on the Gravy Train just in time as FFP bites. It wouldn't be surprising if at least two relegated clubs bounce straight back up every season for the foreseeable future.
This was the best possible season to go up, with the TV money increasing by so much as well as FFP coming in.
I think the Allams knew it was important to get promoted last season - I remember Papa saying something about it not being so easy to challenge this season if we didn't go up last
Would have been more advantage had we barely spent, as it is I bet we'll make a small loss when all things are considered, or if not only a marginal profit. If we go down, we'd have to get sizeable fees for our players in order to be a financial giant in the championship and still meet FFP. But we'd have to completely rebuild the team. I'd hazard a guess that if we came down we'd probably lose Huddlestone Figueroa Davies Chester Brady McGregor Aluko, Koren, Fryatt, McLean, Cairney, Harper and Faye's (maybe more i cant think of also) contracts would be up and all would likely leave. Gedo, Graham and Livermore would return to their parent clubs. Likely Elmohammady and anyone else who may impress could get offers from premiership clubs too. We'd probably be left with a squad of Oxley, Rosey, McShane, Bruce (I'd assume would be kept on), Dudgeon, Meyler, Quinn, Boyd, Sagbo and Proschwitz. That would need significant investment just to full out before we think about splashing on quality.
FFP definitely helps Prem teams no question but IMHO is ultimately doomed as soon as it tries to be applied to the Prem - because the big boys will mount a legal challenge on the grounds of 'restraint of trade' and it will then be revoked across the leagues (at least in its' current form). Which Prem teams could operate on the basis of a maximum £8 million loss per season? ... and who came up with that figure anyway? Supposed to ensure that clubs don't go into administration - fair enough but does it - you make any consistent loss as a business and your liquidity will be called into question at some stage. IMHO the Prem teams will mount a legal challenge to FFP on the grounds that it is not fit for purpose and has no real basis in law. If a club is bankrolled by non-recourse loans or otherwise legally guaranteed debt (from a rich owner( then there is no risk of administration (at least whilst that owner is in charge). ... but whilst FFP exists in its' current form, one thing is for sure ... far more difficult for a non relegated Prem team to get up from the Championship.
I can't remember the finer details of FFP fosse, but isn't what they call an 'acceptable loss' in reality an allowance for the clubs owner to invest up to £2,000,000 on top of the clubs own income?
Subject to FPP rules profit is not the be-all and end-all for football clubs. A lot of owners are willing to risk short term losses knowing that remaining in the Premier League will make them a lot more valuable to potential buyers.
Not too sure buddy - you have to laugh at the concept of FFP when you consider it in context with the way in which Man Utd, Citeh, Chelski, Liverpool etc are funded ...
Personally think if they are going to introduce FFP in every league, then they need to sort out parachute payments, because all its doing is letting stupid clubs like QPR continue to spend stupid in the Championship, like Craig says, the Championship is going to start becoming more predictable, and thats not what the Championship is about.
FFP would do that in itself. The whole point of parachute payments is so that clubs have a windfall when they get relegated so that they can dare spend to be competitive without risking total financial meltdown on relegation. Parachute payments are there to cover excess in wages as I think it's almost guarentee you'll come down with a far bigger wage bill than you went up with. It's going to cause problems til FFP works in the top flight as clubs can spend big on players they can sell on for big fees upon relegation which will count towards the clubs income on top of the parachute money, but if FFP is introduced into the top flight it should cut the need for such drastic parachute payments as clubs will only spend what is financially viable to them. Everyone says FFP won't work in top flights due to the way big clubs are run and funded, but if they introduce it the same way it works in the lower leagues it will, even Man City's owner I'm sure won't want to invest £80m on top of what the club can afford itself if he has to pay an £80m fine on top which will help strengthen rivals. The only changes I'd make to the current system is that every fine for overspending should be shared amongst every club in every league in that country to help strengthen the whole system from bottom up. If say Man City and Chelsea paid £100m in fines between them, that's an extra £100m gap between the rest of the premiership and the championship. I also think clubs running at a loss shouldn't be banned from European competition as is the system being mooted. One things for sure though, whatever they're going to do about it it needs to be done fast before the bridges between each league become too far to travel.
The Premier League is a private members club, they can come up with any rules they like and as long as enough of the clubs agree, then it can't be challenged legally.
