The FFP thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
I just think there’s a large difference between bringing in a player on loan (who came to get game time in the first place) and not being able to select him because of rules, and not selecting a player you own because of form.

I think it’s also a good way of making clubs wary of loaning you players in future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SydneyTiger14
Drew said:
I just think there’s a large difference between bringing in a player on loan (who came to get game time in the first place) and not being able to select him because of rules, and not selecting a player you own because of form.

I think it’s also a good way of making clubs wary of loaning you players in future.
Click to expand...

You must log in or register to see images
 
Drew said:
I just think there’s a large difference between bringing in a player on loan (who came to get game time in the first place) and not being able to select him because of rules, and not selecting a player you own because of form.

I think it’s also a good way of making clubs wary of loaning you players in future.
Click to expand...

Of course it would be possible to overstack, but 7 loans with one out until all but the last knocking of the regular season wouldn't be overstacking, as statistically speaking one of the other loanees would also likely be unavailable the majority of the time anyway.
 
Mckechnie Orange said:
Of course it would be possible to overstack, but 7 loans with one out until all but the last knocking of the regular season wouldn't be overstacking, as statistically speaking one of the other loanees would also likely be unavailable the majority of the time anyway.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

I think the relationships with players and other clubs would be tested too much to make it worthwhile.
 
Drew said:
Fair enough. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

I think the relationships with players and other clubs would be tested too much to make it worthwhile.
Click to expand...

Depends on the players/clubs were loaning in I suppose, but Liam is at great pains to emphasise no one comes in a guaranteed starter.
 
Someone’s calculated the amount of compensation each club could potentially be entitled to if Man City were found guilty of all charges going back all the years and ours could be as much as £4.4m.

They won’t be found guilty of them all, so we won’t be getting £4.4m, but there’s a chance we’d get something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steven Toast and rovertiger
Hull City vice-chairman Tan Kesler has been voted onto the EFL's three-man board in what is being viewed as a significant coup for the Championship club.

Kesler will replace Millwall's Steve Kavanagh and will join Preston North End's Peter Ridsdale and Middlesbrough's Neil Bausor in representing the Championship, along with chairman Rick Parry and chief executive Trevor Birch.

All 23 other clubs in English football's second tier have been notified about the change with Kesler taking over from Kavanagh ahead of the EFL AGM on Friday.

At the meeting on June 7, one of the key topics for discussion will be the way Financial Fair Play (FFP) is implemented in the Championship, with City among a host of clubs keen to see changes made.

The Tigers, along with Leeds United, Stoke City, West Brom and Welsh duo Cardiff City and Swansea City, are believed to be proposing a change to the financial rules and move away from the current spending limits in favour of the new UEFA approach.

Introduced in June 2022 with a three-year grace period to adapt, clubs can spend 70 per cent of their revenue on wages, transfer fees and agents fees with permitted losses increasing from £24.98m to £49.96m, and that method is one clubs in the Championship are keen to see implement, those it's not the only idea.
 
How do we make losses if we're restricted to spending 70% of income? That seems more restrictive not less.
 
So you can spend 70% of your income plus £50 Million ? Over a 3 year period ?

As opposed to 100% of your income and a £39 Million loss ?
 
originallambrettaman said:
That's the UEFA rules, I don't think the Championship ones will be exactly the same numbers, though even if they were you get three years grace to go hell for leather.
Click to expand...

Would the three-year grace period affect clubs and leagues that introduce the UEFA rules now after or is three years from 2022 when UEFA initially introduced them?

Even so, just one year of unrestricted spending could have a huge influence.
 
You must log in or register to see images


Actually, this is from UEFA’s website so it seems it’s not exactly three years of unrestricted spending to go apeshit if clubs want to but a phased period of lowering the percent of revenue a club can spend.
 
The 2022/23 accounts said our revenue was £18.1 million before player sales. I think that would mean we could spend about £14.5 million on amortised transfer fees, wages, agent fees etc. for the 2024/25 season before any player sales. We won’t know what our revenue was last season until next year so I’m just guessing. Our revenue likely increased for the 2023/24 season but not massively.
 
The whole FETÖ thing in Turkey is just like McCarthyism and ‘reds under the bed’ in the US during the 1950s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back