The more I read on this board, the more it is clear that people have no idea of the implications of this whatsoever. So, to make it crystal clear, here are a few broad pointers which may enlighten a few which go directly to what the BOD said a few weeks ago, i.e. we are working to be in line with the FFP and what DM said in his Talk Sport interview when he said that his brief was "to reduce the wage bill by 50%". Its a longish read but worth it. This does not just apply to us. This is why we aren't splashing the cash until we reduced the wagebill. That is 4 out so far and 1 in at probably less than 20% of the total wagebill of those that left and why despite the results, we were hanging on to complete the rebuild in the summer as the wages will probably be halved with a LOT of players out of work.... In June 2011, the English Football League announced that clubs in the divisions lower than the Premiership had also agreed in principle to adopt the FFP Regulations at their annual meeting. Debt in the lower leagues stood at around £700 million, of which 80 percent applied to the second tier of English football, The Championship. FA chairman David Bernstein described the Football League's announcement as "very encouraging. Michel Platini also commented; "We are very happy to see that Football League clubs, under the umbrella of the Football Association, are again taking the initiative on good governance issues by introducing Financial Fair Play. Later it was agreed by a majority of 21 to 3 that Championship losses were to be incrementally decreased season by season with clubs able to make a maximum loss of £6m for the 2012-13 season and £5m for 2013-14, while from the 2014-15 season clubs will be allowed to make only a £3m loss and can expect heavy fines or a transfer embargo if losses exceed £6m. From 2015-16 clubs can deliver a £2m operating loss on top of accepting £3m in investment from their owner, which combines to make a £5m overall loss. Teams that win promotion to the Premier League having failed to adhere to the rules must pay a ‘Fair Play Tax’ on their losses which ranges from 1% on the first £100,000 to 100% on anything over £10m. In July, AC Milan sold their two star players, Thiago Silva and Zlatan Ibrahimovic, to free-spending Paris Saint-Germain for a combined €65 million (£51.4 m) in order to meet FFP. Club owner Silvio Berlusconi commented; "We did not want to sell Thiago Silva or Ibrahimovic and turned down the first offer. We then thought about the Financial Fair Play…so we had to accept it with weeping hearts. It was impossible for us to turn down the offer. It has saved us a lot of money in transfers and wages, meaning our finances are secure for many years to come. We will save 150 million euros in two years." On 11 September 2012, UEFA announced that they had imposed the first penalties of the Financial Fair Play era. The penalty was to temporarily withhold prize money from 23 clubs after they failed to comply with the rules. The 23 clubs penalised had until 15 October 2012 to prove that they had plans to pay a combined €30,000,000 in unpaid player wages, transfer fees and social taxes for the period ending on 30 September 2012. It was announced later that 16 of the 23 clubs facing potential prize money lost had received their prize money won in European competition as they had managed to settle their debts before the 30 September 2012 deadline. As a result, the following clubs had a punishment reprieve after having prize money initially withheld: • FK Borac Banja Luka, FK Sarajevo and FK Zeljeznicar (Bosnia) • CSKA Sofia (Bulgaria) • Maccabi Netanya (Israel) • FK Shkendija 79 (Macedonia) • Floriana (Malta) • Buducnost Podgorica and Rudar Pjevlja (Montenegro) • Ruch Chorzow (Poland) • Sporting Clube de Portugal (Portugal) • Vaslui (Romania) • Rubin Kazan (Russia) • Atletico Madrid (Spain) • Eskisehirspor and Fenerbahce (Turkey) Since the original 11 September action by UEFA, two other clubs faced action as their situation with overdue payments had deteriorated between June and September 2012. They were Lech Poznan of Poland and Arsenal Kyiv of Ukraine. On 21 December 2012, the first punishments of UEFA Financial Fair Play were handed out to eight clubs in total. Vojvodina and Arsenal Kyiv avoided a ban but both were fined with Vojvodina fined €10,000 and Arsenal Kyiv fined €45,000 but facing an extra €30,000 fine if they fail to prove they have no outstanding payments by 31 March 2013. Hajduk Split, Osijek, Rapid Bucharesti, Dinamo Bucharesti and Partizan Belgrade have been punished with a ban from UEFA cup competition for the next season that they qualify unless they can prove that have paid their outstanding payments by 31 March 2013. If they fail to meet the 31 March 2013 deadline, then they will be banned. The ban would be applicable for the next three seasons (i.e. 2013-14, 2014–15, 2015–16). Osijek, Dinamo Bucharesti and Rapid Bucharesti were fined €100,000 each. Hajduk Split were fined €40,000 but will be fined an extra €40,000 if they fail to prove they have no outstanding payments by 31 March 2013. Malaga have been handed the biggest punishment though and will be banned for one year from UEFA competition, applicable for the next four seasons (i.e. 2013-14, 2014–15, 2015–16 and 2016–17). They also face another one year ban during the applicable four seasons if they fail to prove that they have no outstanding payments by 31 March 2013. They have also been fined €300,000. BIGGER PICTURE PEOPLE, BIGGER PICTURE...
It sounds like the perfect setting for 'creative accounting' to me for clubs who wish to spend more money than they are allowed. If we didnt think football was already a business, then there will soon be more accountants than players at football clubs.......................
Clubs like Watford, who dont pay their players wages, but have them paid by a club in another country, are already showing how creative you can be. Club owners will all start having a club in every country, and able to pass off the losses to one 'mug' club, who will be the fall guys each time. Just like Jimmy Carr, the rich will get richer, whilst ordinary small clubs will be playing with worser players to ever dwindling support.
This has been coming for years and possibly one of the main reasons why Steve Lansdown felt the new stadium was so important, so to generate more income within the football club. IMO, Steve’s vision.. To build a new stadium, to attract corporate companies and sponsorships along with the income from corporate events such as concerts etc, premiership football to increase the revenue from more season ticket holders & match day sales. A decent Academy & Training facilities to help generate home grown players and attract decent players and management staff to the club. Also IMO, the vision has become rather blurred for Steve as not much has gone according to plan. The farce regarding the stadium due to Long Ashton Dog walkers. Failure to recruit a decent coach/manager since Gary Johnson was sacked, hence our current position in the league, we required progress to what GJ created, but instead the board opted for the (after the Coppell farce) cheaper inexperienced route from Keef & Del. So now with the FFP looming and failure to create the necessary income within the club we are forced to cut wages to meet requirements. (One of the reasons why I was banging on about why we needed a decent manager to compete and stay in the championship) The vision was there, but with the failure of Bristol regarding the stadium and I believe, some terrible decisions made by Steve and the board regarding recruitment to take us to the next level has put us in the position we currently find ourselves in. Steve’s vision has become very misty!
Very in depth thread Prem and I can see where these new regulations are supposed to reduce teams spending beyond their means and if I think about it further they have been a long time coming. My biggest source of cynicism is the fact that are still, and will continue to be, many teams who have been spending way beyond their means for many years, driving up the expectations of agent represented players who sole being in life is greed beyond comprehension. In my opinion the largest teams in Europe, most of whom are based in England under foreign ownership, have created a business model that can never be sustained for the future. The salaries paid out by these people have created an environment in which the lesser teams have no possibility of survival even if they go into debt which they will never be able to recoup. Owners, players and their agents have raped the game of football and have failed the supporters, but when it comes down to the source of the problem it must solely be down to the owners agreeing to pay the ludicrous salaries paid out at all levels of the game. Meanwhile the Football League management sat idly by and let this happen ,and by their dereliction of duty have set up an environment in which many teams will probably go to the wall. Shame on all the guilty parties.
Thanks Prem for reinforcing the wider picture about FFP. More immediately in relation to Bristol City, and reading between the lines of what SOD is already saying about rebuilding confidence in the current squad, his reference to loan players rather than permanent ones, that apart from maybe MacFadzean and possibly one other, we will be having only loan players in to help in the relegation fight. Thus if we save ourselves, the proper rebuild can take place in the summer which is in the next financial year for City and we do not commit ourselves to contracted players before we know what the future will be. If only we get this stadium going which will in itself not be the total answer but will bring in more revenue from the commercial activities.
'Very in depth thread Prem' ???? He's just stating the obvious, very good cutting and pasting and you're impressed ??? 'what DM said in his Talk Sport interview when he said that his brief was' - To keep us in the Championship - forget Prem's smokescreen of FFP. It's just not BCFC - Every other club, bigger and smaller, in the Championship has to adhere to FFP rules. Trouble is Lansdown employed McInnes.
Okay, since you quoted me, I'll bite. The purpose of FFP isn't to get teams to live within their means. It's to stop larger teams from being able to dominate the market and in turn forcing smaller clubs to raise their budgets to compete. As I'm sure you're aware, clubs DO NOT have to break even within the first couple of years of FFP. This is handled through acceptable deviations of set sums of money, meaning that until the 2018/19 season clubs are allowed to overspend from a region of around £45M up to around £30M as long as the club can justify to UEFA that these are a part of a strategy for sustainability. This is why clubs like Chelsea can still splash the cash on the likes of Oscar and Hazard, because these players are viewed as an investment for a weakened squad and the potential of not being able to match their previous performance in the Champions League. Given their failure to get out of the group stages UEFA will be entirely fine with their spending this season. In our case, we could very easily spend more money because of our situation in the league and the need to stabilise the club. It's also why we could buy out McInnes' contract. The board is able to argue to UEFA that dismissing McInnes is an investment in the future of the club. The most important fact to raise is how domestic clubs breaking FFP will be handled. As we all know UEFA have no authority on domestic leagues as it falls within the remit of the leagues themselves and the national FA. If Lansdown decided to inject millions into the club and buy some top-quality players we may be banned from European competition, but who gives a ****? I certainly don't, because even with huge investment we wouldn't get anywhere near the Europa League. A big turning point in all of this is that losses are ignored if they are a part of a trend towards self-sufficiency. This is why Man City has built a ridiculous academy recently, all because of FFP and to show signs that the club will produce their own talent and will become more self-sufficient in the future. It's also why Lansdown has recently talked about building our own talent pool. One point you also failed to mention is that according to UEFA's break-even template a club is allowed to spend outside of their means on items that the club can argue is for the long-term vision of the club. Three clubs in the Premier League that have reported huge losses (Liverpool, Chelsea and Man City) will be reported as profits, because Liverpool are paying off management and have stadium costs, Chelsea are paying off previous management to come and leave, and Man City for (surprisingly) trying to reduce their insane wage budget. This is a big reason why Lansdown is so pissed off at the stadium situation. Arsenal are a prime example of how you can hide debt within stadium costs, as their debt against this is essentially written off under FFP. Under these rules, all Premier League teams are under the acceptable deviations raised above. All the clubs you have mentioned have spent poorly and from a poor footing. You are right that these players had to go under FFP. In AC Milan's case, they are looking towards building a new stadium, which is where Berlusconi will spend his money, with this being used as a positive block towards spending on the club again. Malaga have spent with complete disregard, and now that they are in financial trouble there is little they can do but take any punishment given. They are unable to prove to UEFA that their spending over recent years is a trend towards self-sufficiency because they cannot pump more money in to sustain their current position. So, in our case we are perfectly able to spend under the rules of FFP, and if our stadium was going ahead you can be sure that Lansdown would have his cheque book out because our future investments (stadium and academy improvements) would allow us wiggle room within the acceptable deviations of our loss. If anything, now is a fantastic time to be buying, because any future sales based on our spending can offset any debt the club would build when FFP is in full swing. It's like stock-piling gold while it is cheap and selling when the price is high. Using FFP as an excuse to not spend in our current window is bullshit. FFP is not a blanket rule stopping anyone that isn't earning from spending, because that would limit any kind of growth and would keep rich clubs rich. The entire purpose is to enforce balance in the transfer and wage market without having to resort to capping. With all the wiggle room that UEFA has given through acceptable deviations and being able to write off debt against FFP if it is deemed for long-term benefit, Lansdown is perfectly able to spend to get great players in, a huge stadium to get more fans in and to push commercial interests at the club. It's for this reason that Lansdown wants to build the stadium, because the club can then get businesses involved in the club and can offset debt through commercial ventures in the interest of growing the club.
But that just means that until we can get our new stadium started we remain stuck in the warm brown smelly stuff the phantom Long Ashton dog walkers allow their phantom pets to do on our clubs land.
Using Millwall as an example proves differently. That clubs wage bill is somewhere around nine million less than BCFC's, and does not go near a 100%+ past income.
Well explained EnderMB, which IMO justifies my view on our situation......the Stadium has been a massive kick in the teeth to SL's plans which was beyond his control.......But to progress the team, which again IMO was his biggest downfall. As for Del.....the FFP situation is just an excuse for his failings as a manager at our club and like I've said before, he was way out of his depth.
An article from recent Daily Telegraph by James Lawton, well respected football writer; Here in the home of football there was some considerable cynicism concerning the absolute purity of the motivation behind the decision of Manchester United, Arsenal, Tottenham and Liverpool to band together to pursue an early enactment of Uefa's Financial Fair Play regulations. Those against the move said it was an appalling example of spoiling envy by the once high and mighty and utterly unscrupulous applied to the unbounded riches of the new plutocracy of Chelsea and Manchester City – and one designed not only to claw back some of their old advantages but deny other much less fortunate clubs the chance of rescue by the oligarch or sheikh of their dreams. Those in favour, while recognising the essential hypocrisy of clubs who, in the past, were happy enough to flaunt their financial muscle, argued that it might just bring a degree of balance and sanity to a league which is becoming progressively, even obscenely, unbalanced. This was an intriguing debate right up to the moment you spoke to an official of the National Football League, which at the moment is involved in a superbly competitive climax to its season and ever more convinced of the wisdom of its founders, in a car showroom in Canton, Ohio, when they formed the unshakable belief that any league is only as strong and as healthy as its weakest member. "To be honest," he said, "most NFL owners simply wouldn't be able to get their heads around this discussion. Their understanding of a league doesn't include the possibility that a team could be crowned champions while running up losses of over £100m. "The whole basis of NFL policy is to create genuine competition and every league regulation is designed to support this proposition." There are many such regulations, of course, and in order of importance they are generally listed as follows. 1: The draft system, whereby this season's least successful team gets first pick of the best available player; 2: Salary cap in which every NFL team has to operate on a budget of roughly $120m; 3: Shared revenue, which is all TV income, whether you appear nationwide a dozen times or not once, 40 per cent of all ticket sales and 60 per cent of shirt sales beyond the team's city and state. "Under this system," says the NFL man, "you have to be either spectacularly brilliant or incompetent to experience the extremes of consistent success or failure." The point is confirmed by a mound of statistics, historic and current. Over the 20 years of the Premier League there have been five champions. The title has gone to Manchester United 12 times, to Arsenal and Chelsea three times each, once to Blackburn, in the time of the old steelman Sir Jack Walker's munificence, and now resides with the richest club in the world, Manchester City. This compares with 12 Super Bowl champions over the same period, with the biggest multiple winners, Dallas Cowboys, New York Giants and New England Patriots winning three each and New Orleans and Tampa Bay among those to have won once. Continues in next post
Consider the betting for the Premier League title with so much of the programme to be completed: Manchester United 2-7, Manchester City 100-30, Chelsea 14-1, Tottenham and Arsenal 200-1 and Everton 500-1. This compares, going into the last three games of the NFL season: Patriots 11-10, San Francisco 49ers 9-4, Atlanta Falcons 9-2 and the Baltimore Ravens 8-1. As Harry Redknapp peers through the January window while considering the cliff face of his battle against relegation, having seen Chelsea snap up Demba Ba on account of the failure of £50m Fernando Torres, it is also interesting to note this season's performance by the sick men of the last NFL season. The Indianapolis Colts trailed out of last season with a record of 2-14. This time, buoyed by their No 1 draft pick, Andrew Luck of Stanford University, the alma mata of Tiger Woods and John McEnroe, they made the play-offs after winning 11 games. Washington Redskins, also in desperate shape, rallied this season with the help of another top quarterback, Robert Griffin III, to win their division of the NFC. Yes, of course, English football operates in another world and there is no easily regulated system of recruitment from high-level university sport, but certain operating principles of American football have surely never more cried out for some inspection this side of the Atlantic. The most rigorously applied regulation concerns ownership. Under NFL regulations, the owners of Chelsea, Manchester City, Manchester United and the tragi-comic Venky's of Blackburn would have had a more strenuous task of winning control over their famous old clubs. Ironically, the Glazers did manage to buy the Tampa Bay Buccaneers but the debt-heavy composition of their bid for United would have been laughed out of an owners' meeting which demands a three-quarters majority vote. Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour could only have bought Chelsea and City after an exhaustive examination of their finances – and the Sheikh's predecessor in Manchester, Thaksin Shinawatra, would surely have been wasting his time. Robert Kraft, owner of the Patriots, says that he briefly contemplated a bid for Liverpool. He is a great admirer of the world's most popular game. Then he inspected the financial mores of the Premier League and was aghast. The late Art Modell, owner of the Cleveland Browns and Baltimore Ravens, who started his working life as a father-less 15-year-old cleaning the hulls of ships in Brooklyn docks, could not be said to be shorn of a ruthless competitive streak. However, when he became a patron of sport he saw the point of keeping the gridiron so level that success would come only as a result of brilliant coaching and play. He once said after an owners' meeting which enforced the belief in budget caps and some basic understanding of the meaning of the word league, "We are Republican fat-cats who vote socialist." They also run a sport, it is maybe timely to remember, in which Super Bowl rings have to be won rather than bought.
We're still spending on the stadium, although obviously not as much as if we were actually building it. It's my theory that this is why Lansdown has recently brought up our need to bring in our own talent, furthering the move to rebuild the academy almost out of the blue. Good academies cost a lot of money to run and build, but also provide player sales and will count against running debt in FFP. Building a new academy and selling local talent will help out while FFP starts to kick in.
."the FFP situation is just an excuse for his failings as a manager at our club and like I've said before, he was way out of his depth" You've said before and will no doubt say again. its getting boring now though... lets see what this new man can do eh? I feel he will be facing much the same problems and dilemmas. You simplify the issues down to the 'manager' for me. I don't feel we could attract the players you talk about us needing due to the FFP issues. its a self fulfilling circle, We need good players to improve, cant pay the rate, don't get them! struggle in the league. This then compounds the situation because no one wants to come due to our situation and you get the feeling the Board would now throw a bit more money at it but its all too late. Sorry but there are many mistakes being made, mostly by our board... It wasn't all down to the manager..
2 statements from miles of script........ before the days of agents and freedom of contract foriegn ownership etc football and clubs were in my opinion far much better. Most teams played at least 4 or 5 "home grown or scouted from out of the 4 divisions" players...now there is players from all around the world, loan players and for most of the lower division clubs players possibly getting better quality wise as they are displaced down the line by the obscenely foreign rich who are taking over at the top... it is a longish read and for those who didnt know of it or about quite filling...however in a nutshell it is catch 22..... Please sir I have no money, OK dont worry we will fine you and give more time to pay or get straight, and in the meantime keep your prize winnings and ban you from having the will to play by taking away your opportunity to earn more money to get straight, pay your fines or creditors..no more europe for 3-4 years..... A man walks into the bank, I would like to see my personal banker please "hello sir what can I do for you" You have sent me 3 letters demanding £20 x 3 = £60 and I am not happy Ah yes but you do owe us £4.53p No I now owe you £64.83p because you you have added 3 letters and 30p interest for last month. Well we do have to make things pay thats why we charge for a letter and interest. If you look on my account you will see a cheque has cleared for £3623.89p, yes it was late, and after all my bills have been paid my balance is -£53.92p and I have here a cheque for £4112.56p to pay in, had you not sent me letters 3 days apart at the time my cheque was clearing and debited me interest and a late payment fee I would be in credit. Stopping my ability to earn by adding costs and stopping my ability to carry my business forward is bad practice.. What would you like me to do Repay my debited money allow me to work and we will both benefit, I know there are penalties and do my best avoid them lets WTSC OK press press press return, all done, sorted balance is now +£16.38 happy now MRr JGF2.... ...I know its not exactly the same but stopping teams playing in Europe is detrimental, they should allow them to play and pay off their creditors directly from monies gained
'We need good players to improve, cant pay the rate, don't get them!' Banksy - McInnes couldn't afford defenders because the fool had spent most of his budget on strikers. He had Stead,Pitman,Taylor - added Baldock and Davies and left us with Fonts and Tangle at the back. Sorry, McInnes takes all the blame.
