Interesting article in the Guardian from Wednesday, I'd be surprised if we didn't chuck our name in with Leicester too: http://www.theguardian.com/football...lay-championship-clubs-threat-football-league
Interesting. The rules seem to be another complete dogs dinner. The only way to bring spending and players wages under control is to wipe out the massive financial windfall of getting to the Prem, which will mean that 'big clubs' are only big because of their attendances. Not going to happen. The Leicester fans think they are exempt because their owners transfers £110m of debt to them into shares. This would indicate that they are wrong.
Not necessarily - they are using our 2012 loss as an example in the calculation they have outlined - a large part of that £30m loss will have been due to interest payable on the debt (whether accrued or actually paid) - the debt equity swap (and possible waiver of accrued interest - not sure whether this was done) should significantly improve our financial performance (certainly reduce any loss) in this financial period - as will the slashed wages bill (Mills, Beckford, Bamba, Wellens. Gallagher, Danns, Waghorn) and increasing revenues coming in from the improved team performances ..
Any idea why you would be challenging the rules then? Believe me, I have no wish for any club to suffer through this system, a mutually agreed salary cap would be a much simpler way of sorting this out, though it would take a few years to work through.
Just my own thougts - I suspect this is largely historic - i.e our owners must have been pretty horrified to have given Sven his war chest only to find that they were going to be prohibited (or at least fined) as a consequence - these legal things take ages to get anywhere - the named clubs are arguably the ones that would suffer most under FFP so I suspect this all kicked off pre-season ... I think our owners have since 'hedged' their bets by implementing a plan B in case the legal challenge gets rebuffed - purely my thoughts as already mentioned...
There are more articles saying we are also planning on challenging FFP, which would surprise me as we seemed all for it. I guess we didn't plan to get relegated. But as usual, with a little scrutiny of any sort of ruling from the footballing gods, aka halfwits, the rules are usually worth less than the paper they're printed on. Can the FA impose such fines on clubs? If a chairman is willing to pay off debts then why can't they? We shall see how this all pans out but in the long term it's a real dogs dinner. It is hard to see how you can bring spending under control in football without something drastic, which again is unlikely.
Selling players such as Remy, Taarabt, Mbia, Granero etc should help us significantly balance our books. The amount of players on 1 year contracts as well was smart and should see our wage bill become much more stable. I'd love to see a list of players whose contracts expire at the end of the season
Wed be sensible to wait for those transfers until they are on next seasons figures. Us and wolves were some of the others challenging it.
Traore SWP Zamora A. Johnson Hill Dunne Mbia Jenas Hughes (not sure if this is a short term deal or a loan) Benayoun Luke Young O'Neil Not sure about Green and Henry, either their contracts are up or they have one more year.
Plus all our loanees: Maiga BAE Kranjcar Doyle Keane Carroll Morrison That's 19-21 players possibly leaving not including the ones already out on loan
The lawyers would have been licking their lips as soon as this was agreed. Football clubs are high risk businesses in a free market economy and cannot be treated like actors in an end-of-term school play where everyone has to be given a chance. Unbelievable that in the post-Bosman era the Football League should think otherwise.
Blimey, that’s quite a list! On the plus side, if we don’t go up this season then we shouldn’t have too many problems from a FFP point of view next season. Plus, if there’s a new man at the helm then he’d have plenty of scope to remould a completely new team. Also, I believe that I’m right in saying that any capital expenditure (i.e. new stadium and new training ground) is exempt from this rule, so we should be alright from that point of view. Fingers crossed that this is all academic anyway as we’ll be back in the prem in a few months time!
Doesn't Ji Sung Park's contract expire at the end of the season too? Looks like we need to build a new squad....yet again
Which is why, if we don't get promoted, this is a wasted year where we have propped up the team with old pros (fnarr fnarr) and loan players, presumably in order to buy a new squad for the prem in the summer. And we know how that works out. If last summer we had said - lets plan for 2-3 seasons to get back up and stay there, start building something durable and stylish with younger players who would have complained?
Traore is the only one I'd even consider wanting back. In have to laugh at the people thinking there'd only be 4-5 changes in the summer. It will be 15 and no way on earth should redknapp be trusted with doing that job.
Exactly my point and exactly why I'm against buying old players because it means replacing half your squad every year and we end up with a bunch of old, overpaid losers (with a couple of exceptions) and bugger all team spirit.
QPR and Leicester head list of clubs ready for legal action against FFP rules By Charles Sale PUBLISHED: 22:30, 26 February 2014 | UPDATED: 22:30, 26 February 2014 The Football League are facing a revolt over financial fair play, with clubs threatening legal action unless the rules are substantially reformed. It is believed 10 clubs from the Championship and one from League One — a group including Leicester, Wolves, Bolton, Blackburn and QPR — are behind a strongly-worded letter written to Football League chief executive Shaun Harvey from Manchester law firm Brabners. It says: ‘The clubs seek clarification, amendment or substantial modification to the rules, all of whom consider there are serious problems in continuing with the rules as they are drafted. ‘It is no exaggeration that the very existence or solvency of some is at risk, and therefore, unless there is action or movement, there will undoubtedly be a legal challenge, as a collective and individually, from those impacted.’ The aggrieved clubs believe the restrictions on spending and losses make it impossible to adjust to promotion or relegation, especially with the FFP rules for the Championship differing markedly from those for the PL and Leagues One and Two. And there is upset over FFP fines now going to charity rather than being distributed among the law-abiding clubs, a change decided between the FL and PL without consultation. Harvey has responded in a letter circulated to all 72 clubs defending the FFP rules, which Championship clubs voted to accept by a 21-3 margin in April 2012. Harvey wrote: ‘We are comfortable the rules were incorporated properly and this is an attempt by a few clubs to impose their views on the majority, who approved their implementation — a position we will vigorously defend if required.’ Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ar...l-action-against-FFP-rules.html#ixzz2uXClkTxz Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Wow, so clubs vote for it thinking they will get some much needed income and then the FL takes that away. That alone should be enough to invalidate this for at least a season. This could be fantastic news for us as we need to spend a load of money rebuilding in the summer.
Not me. I guess Swiss Tony looked at this season and saw the need for immediate promotion and went with Harry's strategy of 'experience'. That was always the risk. Who knows we might go up? At least we don't have ageing players tied to overlong contracts - the lists above are predominantly a legacy of Hughes supermarket sweep
Yes but redknapp has got old players and loans on short term contract we go don't give a **** if we go up or not because they won't be here. Hughes strategy was awful but redknapps isn't much better. Time to build properly, this could be our most important summer in decades.
