http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25564078 Just scrap FFP and give all the money wasted on setting it up and "enforcing" it to charity instead
While I'm not jumping on the Chelsea-bashing it makes me very mad to see FFP touted as a measure needed to make football fair again. How can a club like Chelsea which very clearly is not turning a profit due to massive transfer fees, get away with that, while clubs such as Partizan Belgrade are threatened with expulsion from the only thing keeping us alive - European football? We aren't privatised, we can't afford anyone other than the obscure Brazilian who comes to play for close to nothing in hopes of getting scouted, our football is caught in a cycle of talent leaving our poor league for stronger leagues, further weakening our football. Yet FFP has only ever penalised us and other Eastern European minnows for failing to pay off small time debts (tens or hundred thousands of pounds) while clubs like Chelsea can post close to 50 million pound losses and no one bats an eyelid? It just leaves a bitter taste of unfairness. I understand why it happens. Chelsea are in modern day terms a massive club and will always be more attractive to the neutral. But FFP so far has only made that gap bigger - If we weren't hit by penalties every time we got into minor debt (we always pay it off) maybe we could save up some money, hold on to our talents, spend a winter in the Champions League, and fix things up for smaller clubs. But it won't happen. Modern football at it's worst. I suppose it's just inevitable though.
RE; the poll Where is the "let's see how it goes / give it time" option? The assessments are based on the previous three years meaning the full effect doesn't come into play for another season yet. Let's wait and see what happens, we all knew clubs could have losses of up to £36m over the three year period anyway and all clubs had until the 2015-16 to get things sorted. We also knew that clubs would face warnings etc before facing bans, if at all too.
FFP as a measure by which to engender more fairness in the game and to control the financial recklessness of clubs is a failure. We discussed the limitations and unforeseen consequences of the rules ad infinitum. Therefore the news from Chelsea today is not unexpected. FFP merely stands as a token that some clubs and authorities recognise that something has to be done. If you like FFP is the blast of the Ref's whistle to start the game. Whilst we are better off with FFP it cannot and will not bring about the changes most of us would wish to see. But it's a start.
I thought clubs were allowed losses up to a certain percentage of their turnover? If so, a team like Chelsea are obviously going to have a larger loss than a smaller team because their turnover is so much greater. Still, prepared to give it time. We're still in the first phase like Gerrez pointed out and clubs have two more years to fix their finances.
i read the chelsea report on sky but not thier full stuff... apparently the year before they posted a tiny loss of you average the two years to get to the loss that barely scrapes under the figure... conveniently... but i don't get the "deduction" they are seemingly allowing to get down to 25mil. charitable and so forth and so on. it seems to me the big clubs will find easy ways round this rule so its in effect pointless. England has a special case, so has france.. two rich clubs about to fight it out. when cheslea here splashed 500mil abramovich "assumed" his team was great and stopped spending. everything evened out. the minute they got into trouble the mad spending started again. I don't know if city and cheslea would stop spending way way over the clubs means via sugar daddy payments to compete with each other forever.... but if they did it'd potentially tip the rest into chaos as the money filtered down (and out into foreign clubs) would give whomever an advantage. For example..... if everton got a bid of 50mil for barkley... would kenwright take it no matter what is said about his value... then would they be able to afford more than a few loans to push for 4th? Would we see mad indians buying up clubs not for the prem money but for one player they think they can flog on? EG... buy LFC for 200mil from RBS, flog suarez (ala torres) then sell up for 250mil as well? Buy the club on short term debt, lump it on club then pass it on. Portsmouth had 4 owners in one year. I don't know the effect of FFP nor do i know the effect of not having it. the reality is the TV moeny is so big but the transfer fees are also so big that it seems easier for big clubs to get round than small clubs so the field is not level
Some expenses don't fall under FFP. For example, depriciation, non recurring exceptionals (paying of a sacked manager) and youth development. In 2011 Chelsea lost £67.7m, but in actual fact, they only lost £7-12m? Regarding ffp. From the £67.7m, Chelsea lost £41m in exceptionals (paying of ancelotti staff + getting avb from porto), 8.6m in depriciation (not relevant under ffp) and around £10m in youth development (excluded under ffp).
so if you build a hotel or a stadium you can knock that off the top.. build a massive training complex but link it to youths you can knock that off... sack 20 managers, (bad practice) write it off.. In the end this is why the rich get richer. cheslea can slosh it around from daddy and not worry but a club for example like southampton have to fund it... or swansea, or EVERTON for example. At this point there are two "rich" clubs in england with big stadia competing with two billionaire clubs... then comes LFC and tottenham and the like. 4th is a pipe dream for most everyone.... one more billionaire coming in and the prem will be done.... right now i cannot see how spurs and us can keep it up for long.
I think it's bollocks that paying off contracts or buying out new ones doesn't fall under FFP. That should be included because it's a huge layout and clubs should have to think twice about doing it.
What is a house? Is it a place that shelters you and your belongings and family from the outside world? Or is it a statement supposedly of your standing in society because of it's size and location? Or is it an investment either in your future or a means of income today? Or is it a mixture of all or some of these things? With FFP it's more about the philosophy and direction of travel than it is about the rules themselves.
maybe that's the point, it only really benefits the rich clubs, bit like our government dont really punish these companies like fuel,gas,insurance etc that take the piss, its us that get shafted and the rich protected.
The ******ed Russian must be seriously pissed off now, I don't care how much money he has he cant be enjoying wasting it on a team that are one of the worst in Europe to watch.
