FFp explained and it seems that there is a bit of a hubub about it still.. http://www.theguardian.com/football...lay-championship-clubs-threat-football-league
I was led to believe that sanctions would be wishy washy, but if it really will be the case as in this paragraph: "Clubs which breach the allowed losses and are promoted to the Premier League will, under the Championship FFP rules, be fined on a sliding scale, with potentially massive payments at the top end. Clubs overspending the allowed limits, £8m, by more than £10m, a strong probability for some, will have to pay a fine of almost £7m plus a figure equal to their spending above £18m. If a club is promoted and has lost, for example, £30m, as Leicester did in 2012, it would have to pay £7m plus £12m, the level of overspending above £18m – a total fine of £19m." ... then to me I'm right behind it.
The FFP rules stink and are designed to punish the have nots. How can a club like ours ever compete (even if we wanted to and thats a different point) with clubs that have parachute payments not covered by the FFP and larger clubs with higher turnovers?
If im not mistaken, to me it seems a complete joke. If you take what Hampy is saying above, then a club that has spent approx £30m on players (incl wages) will have a fine of £18m. Now, that may well seem rather a lot, but when you consider that a promoted club will get approx £120m just for ONE SEASON in the premiersip, then that fine is worth paying (plus, the club will have the added bonus of having players who have probably increased in value if they have been promoted) Now, what makes this more of a joke, is the fact that if a club spends the £30m as mentioned above, but DOESN'T get promoted, then all the FA would do is to ban that club from buying players until their finances are in order. So, how i see it, is, a club can spend (lets say for arguments sake) £50m on players. If they get promoted, then great, they'll pay the fine and they'll still be in credit. If they didn't get promoted, then they'd be banned from buying further players. But, surely then they could sell these multi-million pound players, which would then boost their income which would then allow them to purchase players in the future. If i have totally mis-read the article, then i apologise, but i honestly think the whole FFP malarky is a complete farce.
Utter bollocks - 120 million quid includes parachute payments over four years. If you get into the top flight your wage bill and costs will go up. No club outside the big six or seven can afford to get fined £30m - it's only regular champions league football that puts you in that bracket and even Everton can't afford to chuck money around.
Once promoted, a clubs revenue increasess by £60m. Parachute payments for the 2nd/3rd/4th years (once relegated) amount to £33m (15+8+8). If a club that has over-spent by £30m, gets fined £19m will still be 20-30m in credit, even if they get relegated after just one season. Admitted, your wage bill and costs increase, but so does turnover, gate receipts and season tickets, merchandise. This is perfectly backed by the fact that Hull and Palace both spent £27m each, and Cardiff have spent £37m.
http://www.sportingintelligence.com...gue-prize-and-tv-payments-for-2012-13-210501/ The team who finishes bottom of the premier league this season is expected to get £60m from the premier league alone (excluding parachute payments) on top of that you have all your own deals - sponsorship, additional ticket sales and any other revenues they make as a club rather than from being part of the Premier League. In theory the 30m fine way of promotion will be doable but why spend silly money on this league? It just takes a bit of scouting and a bit of good business.
I've never read FFP in detail, but I agree with the premise, ensure that clubs live with their means. I know there's the whole speculate to accumulate argument, but by investing in youth production instead of wages and transfers a club could still compete. (although, i admit EPPP makes that difficult. I expect in future we'l see a lot more Zaha style transfers/ smaller clubs selling first refusal clauses and first pick from the academies etc)What I don't understand though is how a financial fine makes any sense for the Reasons stretchy is saying. Surely promoted or not there should be a transfer ban Promoted or not there should also be a points deduction for flouting the rules.
I agree with Mike Holmes, there should be an immediate points deduction for the season that the club overspent. So, if Leicester have "over-spent" by £30m, they should be deducted a certain amount of points (maybe 1 point for every 2m they overspend) That way the club is punished immediately, and not the following season whaen they will get around £80 squillion in the bank.
I like the idea of FFP in principle, clubs living within their means, that's great, the problem I have is with the PL, why are the FFP rules not the same for PL clubs as they are for championship. Again it boils IMO down to the ridiculous about of money PL clubs get compared to the other leagues, it's ruining football and soon our league will fall way behind those of Germany and Spain, it's already started!! The cash cow of the PL is ruining football not FFP
I absolutely HATE parachute payments. Get rip of that straight away, if a club goes down, that's simply tough ****. I love the Sunderland model of all players having a 50% wage reduction upon relegation. Good on them!
It’s this cretinous system of set prices for higher category clubs to raid other club’s players that arses me off. We’ve already seen some lower league clubs closing their youth schemes because it no longer seems worth the bother. I heard some smug, typically mealy-mouthed suit from the FA talking about this a while back, claiming that under the new rules lower league clubs would, over recent times, have been better off if FFP rules have applied to youth transfers. I got the impression that this berk had simply knocked up a spreadsheet with all the historical transfers and replaced them with the theoretical prices under FFP, with not a thought to the highly complex notions (which most of us grasped at five years old) of supply and demand. If you’d bought a youth player for £10K, would you have bought that same player under FFP rules for £100K? No, but you’d still go ahead with a player you’d bought, under competition from rivals, for £750K that will now only set you back by a fraction of that. But then, FA apparatchiks always seem to struggle with such basics.
A few clubs have been posting their end of year accounts in the past few days.. Forest posting losses of £17 million, Leicester at £34 million.. But the real winner so far (and unlikely to be caught) is the fun fair going on in west London http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26468560 Losses of 65m is quite honestly one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard... [I am assuming this takes into account parachute payments] but I am open to someone more familiar with the financial world to enlighten me if this isn't the case.. I imagine our accounts will be published in the next few days/weeks so it'll be very interesting to see quite where we are in terms of tightening our belt
"Championship clubs losing more than £8m in 2013-14 will be subject to sanctions under Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules." Well that's interesting. I didn't realise the penalties were introduced this summer for next season.... You've named 3 sides - QPR/Leicester and Forest. Leicester are up I think we'll all admit, be brilliant if QPR don't go up! I think we'll be fine, and under the £8 mill ( but clearly still with a hefty loss ) What other clubs will fall short? Bolton surely for starters!? Birmingham?
interesting stat that is doing the rounds.. QPR spent more money on wages than Dortmund... And only one of those teams reached the Champions League final
