13 league titles.
How many in the last decade ... just out of interest?
13 league titles.
Infrastructure don’t come under FFP, bro.
So debt/ loan repayments for the stadium don’t get deducted from our “FFP budget”.
FFP is essentially player expenditure and we’re well under budget on that - apparently by about £220m-£250m.
How many in the last decade ... just out of interest?
Infrastructure don’t come under FFP, bro.
So debt/ loan repayments for the stadium don’t get deducted from our “FFP budget”.
FFP is essentially player expenditure and we’re well under budget on that - apparently by about £220m-£250m.
Yet I'd argue a new football ground or rebuild is the most likely thing to send a club under, purely because of the costs involved. My teams rebuild nearly sent us under, it was only the moving around of the pot under different arms, that removed the threat, but technically speaking with no ground you have no football club. Look at Birmingham with the problems over past asbestos, look at Coventry, didn't they have a falling out with someone so they had to leave the Rioch initially. I'm sure even clubs like Charlton had similar problems...and the story goes on...even Spurs were lucky that the restraints of covid were lifted when they were, how much longer before it put Spurs in financial trouble. Anyway as I now understand it the rules changed, but my point remains, that a football ground can be the making or fall of a football club and not to include it within the rules is ridiculous, you either allow the owners to spend their wealth how they want, or you don't.

As you've been told Fosse, football has existed for a lot longer than the last decade.

Wasn’t joking, ideal for getting to Wembley on train, prices were good and drink prices were spot on for down southNot sure if you're joking but stayed there over Easter when I took the kids to Harry Potter Studios. Was decent and we got the train down into London pretty easily. Would recommend.
This is where you now tell me its an infamous dogging hotspot or something. Still would recommend.
As you've been told Fosse, football has existed for a lot longer than the last decade.
Yet I'd argue a new football ground or rebuild is the most likely thing to send a club under, purely because of the costs involved. My teams rebuild nearly sent us under, it was only the moving around of the pot under different arms, that removed the threat, but technically speaking with no ground you have no football club. Look at Birmingham with the problems over past asbestos, look at Coventry, didn't they have a falling out with someone so they had to leave the Rioch initially. I'm sure even clubs like Charlton had similar problems...and the story goes on...even Spurs were lucky that the restraints of covid were lifted when they were, how much longer before it put Spurs in financial trouble. Anyway as I now understand it the rules changed, but my point remains, that a football ground can be the making or fall of a football club and not to include it within the rules is ridiculous, you either allow the owners to spend their wealth how they want, or you don't.
out of interest who are the big 6 ?For all your whinging and belly aching you've kept coming second to a better team and manager - in all your glory years there were no financial constraints on you - was that 'fair play'? ...
... and for me there shouldn't be for anybody else now - FFP as it stands ain't fit for purpose ... other means are available but wouldn't be as effective in stifling competition for the Big boys ...
If you want real FFP then bring in wage and transfer caps that apply to ALL and a draft system ... would make the league more interesting and competitive for everyone other than the Big 6 ...
out of interest who are the big 6 ?

Don't they? ... I wonder why? ... considering every cost has to be met from the same pot of money ... we went into administration over infrastructure costs ... not overspending on players ... and we are often cited (certainly on here) as an example of why FFP is needed...
And therein lies my point - FFP and Financial Sustainability measures, as they stand, give a distinct advantage to the already Big clubs and are the biggest inhibitor to any other club breaking into that group that has existed in the entire history of the game - coincidence? ... I think not.
name them .The Sky 4 and the other 2 ...Happy to help![]()
No your breaches for FFP came because you overspent on player expenditure.
I don’t blame you for trying to take the gamble as it showed footballing ambition but it was a risk that didn’t pay off, you essentially started spending like a “big club” on transfers and especially wages and needed that spending to bring you CL revenue to cover it all, you missed out twice, then got relegated and that ****ed you for FFP. Your wages to turnover for 22/23 ended up being considerably over 110%… ours in comparison was less than 50% - the lowest in the Prem.
name them .

Of course mate ... was easy to buy success back then ... evidently![]()

Recently yes ... but is there any danger to our financial stability or sustainability? ... absolutely not ... and that was supposedly the reason for FFP etc...
So round we go - rules aimed at stopping us and others becoming too competitive- nowt to do with our financial health ... which is just fine ...
The rules, if they are to stay, need a complete overhaul and all costs including those on infrastructure need to be factored into spending equations - it would still favour the biggest clubs - so additional safeguards could be included to even that out even more - parental guarantees and exit charges...
If you can't see how the existing rules help to keep the status quo and limit the growth of clubs outside the Big 6 then you are not as bright as I thought you were ...
So already gained 2 ,plus you ignored Everton who were one of the group who led to the formation of PL , and surely now a big 7 with Newcastle . Keep it up and at this rate we will have a big 13You could just Google them ...
The Sky 4 are United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea ...
The other 2 Citeh and Spurs...
Also defined as 'those that have spent the most on transfers and wages over the last quarter of a century' or, less charitably, "... self centred ****s who wanted to break away and join a Super League and have the most to lose from other clubs becoming competitive..."
I'll have to start charging you from now on btw - I'm not ****ing Alexa ... although I might have whilst at Uni, come to think of it ...![]()