The FFP thread

Not living in Hull I would go along with that. And another £1,000 a year per person to give additional funding.

 

One thing I don't understand about this FFP loss limit is how it's calculated?

I've taken a club at random as an example, being Middlesbrough, and am looking at their 2020/21 accounts.



Am I mad or have they lost 55m over two years? Why is that not an automatic trigger for sanctions? And if that's not how it's calculated, how is it and why do we keep hearing about the 13m cap a year on average? Am I missing something with how their losses are funded?

 

Selling players the subsequent year?

It's calculated on 3 years rolling.

 

Why does the subsequent year matter? As at 30 June 2021 Boro had more than 39m losses over their last three years. (They made a 1.8m profit the previous year so across the three years lost 53m)

 

Maybe that's why they were so intent on suing Derby for essentially 'forcing' them to overspend? Gibson is a wily operator, but yeah, they do seem to get away with murder.

 

And Stoke? $70m loss in 2020 alone.

I guess my point being that there's something not adding up about this 39m cap and us supposedly being restricted to losing 13m a season when that doesn't seem to apply to these clubs. Must be missing something.

When we were bought one of the big attractions was our FFP headroom compared to literally every other club in the division (given I believe we were the only profitable side outside the PL over a few years), and yet we're now hearing that after what I would call moderate spending relative to the big boys in the division that we're close to the limit and couldn't possibly spend much more.

Now, as I said yesterday, that narrative could be coming from Acun from the perspective of justifying sustainable and sensible spending, and if that's the case then I absolutely agree with and support it, but that's a very different place to be than 'we'll breach FFP if we spend much more'.

 

I just think he's playing by the rules and others aren't.

And I think they're being mindful not to risk breech in a worst case scenario by limiting liabilities to the 'cap', so to speak instead of having to weasel out of sanction by finding a get-out/ workaround if the expected player revenues don't materialise.

 

Yep as I said in the last para if it's more just about being cautious and sensible then I absolutely agree with and support it, but those on here saying we're close to the limit are being silly then. There's a difference between saying "I don't want us to spend enough to be in trouble" and saying "We can't spend anymore without being in trouble".

 

Think it's more a case of limiting the chance of it and playing by the rules, as as you have demonstrated, a lot don't seem to.

Think covid gave a few a get out. Most who have been sanctioned were well in the **** before the pandemic.

And, it's not good business from Acun's point of view to be potentially forced into sales purely to satisfy FFP.

If some of Stokes losses were incurred in a PL year then maybe that gives them a pass?

But it still indicates Acun's planning to invest the max he's allowed for the coming period.

 

The losses shown in the company accounts are not the same as the FFP losses. The EFL allow certain expenses to be disregarded such as Academy expenses, women's football etc. You also need to know how Middlesbrough account for transfers. if they adopt one method then the losses of £32 million over two years are disregarded. That would bring their potential FFP losses down to a maximum of £23 approx million over the two years. The accounts may give a hint to any FFP breaches but they are only the beginning.

 

Yeah not sure the Academy and women's side can account for close to 40m of losses somehow.

 

I agree, I put them in as an example of why you cannot rely on the accounts. In cash terms Middlesbrough made a profit on player transfers in the year ending 30 June 2021 of £27 million which would have given them a net profit in the accounts. Of course that would be a stupid way of dealing with your annual accounts but not necessarily a bad way when dealing with FFP, especially if you have a policy of buying cheap young players and selling them for a profit after developing them. It would give you tonnes of FFP headroom to play with. As far as I know you cannot pick and choose which method you use to deal with transfers. Once decided you have to stick with that system.

 

The numbers I cited were net of player transfers I believe. Or certainly the Stoke ones were. I've actually asked the question to the Price of Football podcast so will be curious to see if it gets answered.

 

Even €65 mil is chump change and a slap on the wrist for PSG and their owners.

Who would’ve thought that letting oil-rich despots bankroll clubs would result in unfettered spending?

 

Barcelona and Madrid, supposed fan owned clubs, have done plenty as well.

 

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/murat-ulker-hull-city-ilicali-8121441

Some tangible numbers. Tripling of commercial numbers on 12 months ago is good to hear.

 

Maybe just me being a cynic but after the revelations about Man City, I just hope all our income streams, sponsorship deals etc. are 100% by the book.

 

Murat Ülker presence explained as Hull City look to strike deal with billionaire - Hull Live (hulldailymail.co.uk)