I don't even pretend that I fully understand the FFP rules and regulations but I can understand why it was implemented. Or can I? Just reading about the current QPR case and it would appear to my cynical devious mind that, like most things in life, there's different rules for different folks and never the twain shall meet. Am I going slightly off my west coast rocker or is it correct that the owner has found 60 million quid to offset the chance of a fine imposed by the powers that be and so now the penalty will only be 8 million, which by my poor accounting will buy you a certain expensive Brentford player? As was said yesterday by one of our 606ers it appears now that a lower/secondary class of clubs is being evolved and separated from the rest by virtue of the fact that they are not a yoyo promotion/relegation organisation who spend irrationally to gain their higher status, only to be rewarded when they fall back down. All's fair in love and war but it doesn't appear to be that way with football clubs, unless you are part of the under reported system that allows some clubs to get away with things that are somewhat questionable. I am not saying that I smell a rat here but what if this were Bristol City, would be allowed to get away with it - I think not. How much did our glorious season that was so enjoyable net the club for winning the League One title and the Johnstone Paint Trophy? I suspect that it was peanuts in comparison to kinds of monies floating around in the higher ranks of the football pyramid where failure and creative accounting rules the roost for those who might matter more than others. I think it's great to see all these overseas owners contributing so much to the English game, and let's face it they are so much more adept at these things than homegrown entrepreneurs. I was talking about footballing nuance of course and don't want to be accused of casting doubts about offshore accounting practices.
It's all smoke and mirrors Mike For every rule that's implemented, there are people straight on it at virtually every club, working out how to circumvent whatever has been passed into the laws of the game.
inver the plan is to sign them as Bristol rfc, then loan them to BristolCFC for a penny a year, SL then gets them to be his housekeeper in Bristol for a salary of £1.48mill a year and BCFC pay them £0.02m. prior to selling them on BCFC pay SL 75% of the ongoing fee and pocket the difference, which is then used to buy pies which gets the money back with a profit and they can then pay the tea lady, who then gives back most of the money to buy a franchise selling the tea, in the meantime SL buys the next player for £20 million and the process repeats..... or we go up get relegated and pocket the parachute payment and TV money 6 times till we £200 million in the kitty and then we stay up there for 20 years till the fans get bored and drop back to Div 1 to win everything and repaet
now that's a twist SL gives them the use of the stadium for £10m a year, then pays off their debt at the end of the year ... tea lady and pieman pay for franchises, etc
Transfer signings don't contribute towards FFP So we can effectively spend 20 million on players as long as the wage bill don't exceed the income as far as I'm aware.
your opening a whole can of worms there mike, but what I would say is that if we do pay x amount to Brentford for grey is that at least the money will filter down as far as luton, and not go abroad, and surely some allowance should be made for that.
I wasn't trying to say something bad about monies going abroad because we all know that offshore accounts are the prime tax haven for the wealthier of us, but rather pointing out that there always seems to be a different set of rules for one and another set for others. As angelic said it's all smoke and mirrors anyway so laissez faire I suppose.
