Never said otherwise.
However, your approach to ffp only considers transfer fees, far too simple.
Transfer Rumours Transfer Rumours thread
- Thread starter Bozz
- Start date
-
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
-
Never said otherwise.
However, your approach to ffp only considers transfer fees, far too simple.
If FFP is not about net income, then there is no need to increase profit - they'd surely rather pay debt down or reinvest rather than pay tax? Tbh, football Finance is one huge mystery to me....I really shouldn't speculate
If FFP is not about net income, then there is no need to increase profit - they'd surely rather pay debt down or reinvest rather than pay tax? Tbh, football Finance is one huge mystery to me....I really shouldn't speculate
My own finances are a ****ing mystery to me, never mind football ones.
If FFP is not about net income, then there is no need to increase profit - they'd surely rather pay debt down or reinvest rather than pay tax? Tbh, football Finance is one huge mystery to me....I really shouldn't speculate
you are right, i should say its all about revenue. I should have said revenue increases are key to driving the ability to spend
"A club's outgoings in transfers, employee benefits (including wages), amortisation of transfers, finance costs and dividends will be counted over income from gate receipts, TV revenue, advertising, merchandising, disposal of tangible fixed assets, finance, sales of players and prize money."
"Any money spent on infrastructure, training facilities or youth development will not be included."
The issue is you are not allowed to spend more than you spend over a 3 year period, this is the break-even requirement, where clubs are ordered to not spend more than the income that they generate, and that they must balance their books over the course of three years.
this means for instance Man city overs can build a 7k stadium just for youths then count all the revenue form the new ground towards the club but not its costs of construction.
Our 50mil investment in kirkby would not be included but the income form houses at melwood could be.... but that project is a washout, it will wipe its own feet only.
If LFC made a profit in 2017 (we did, 39mil) (year ends 31st may 2017)
If LFC make a profit in 2018 (maybe we did, i don't know)
LFC made a profit in 2019? not so sure. (up to 31st may 2019)
This is the thing. It keep rolling on so right now us fans are in the dark.
If we made a 39mil profit in 2017 and say in 2018 with the CL run we record a profit of 70mil say... that 107mil.
Then say this year we make another profit before transfer fees of i dunno 40mil... well guess what we spend 141mil net last summer.
147 v 141.. FFP is ok.
Now... take out 39mil profit in 2017 for next year
That means we've a big 141 mil net spend in the middle year to deal with so we have to see we should be seeing a massive transfer window next summer either.... IF revenues don't support it.
If FFP is not about net income, then there is no need to increase profit - they'd surely rather pay debt down or reinvest rather than pay tax? Tbh, football Finance is one huge mystery to me....I really shouldn't speculate
Its all about not spending more tha you can afford, not running at a consistent loss.
well.... 2 clubs did get a reduction in squad size for CL (city and psg) but the punishment is no worse than if you can't fill the HG quota.
City and psg are again under investigation and have suspended fines hanging over them
So... not punished enough would be a fair way to put it?
- May 22, 2011
- 73,771
- 25,704
- 113
Lfc make **** tonnes of money especially last couple years with tv rights in prem and the CL run. Add in our supoosedly new deal going to be worth 75m a year and I don’t think need to worry about ffp.
Yea we spent a lot but how much net spend is that? When you add that to the other money making aspect of the club it’s in a decent place.
Are we we going to spend another 60m in jan and 150m in summer? Probably not but if klopp wants someone then the owners have shown that they will back him with no hesitattion
Yea we spent a lot but how much net spend is that? When you add that to the other money making aspect of the club it’s in a decent place.
Are we we going to spend another 60m in jan and 150m in summer? Probably not but if klopp wants someone then the owners have shown that they will back him with no hesitattion
don't forget some of the costs of the main stand can be offset in that period.
Ffp is toothless, one of the more pointless discussions. Each club will have a team of accountants playing with the figures so they come out to show what they want.
If it was as simple as transfer spends had to add up, then it would have an effect, but it's obvious from city and psg that you can do what you want with little fear of action
Thats true.
That 39mil profit we do know about in 2017 could be "higher" when offset......
We made 39mil after tax in profit in 2017. After than who knows.
We are always 18months behind. We are still waiting for may 2018 accounts to be fully published.
this article will give you all hope
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbym...rd-profit-that-could-reach-150m/#7d5e7dc65554
estimated profit for year ending may 2018 form this guy who did the same the year before.
The accounts in march will make interesting reading.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbym...rd-profit-that-could-reach-150m/#7d5e7dc65554
estimated profit for year ending may 2018 form this guy who did the same the year before.
The accounts in march will make interesting reading.
Im not bothered either way.
Must be a good reason klopp didnt fancy him. Guess we will see why soon enough.
Except you can do looking as the outlay on transfers / wages etc isn't more than you can afford.
The owners could choose to blow £1b on crates of Um Bongo if they wanted, it wouldn't break ffp rules. Buying a player for £1b would.
Maybe because our front 3 [plus Shaquiri, playing well when called on], means there's no room for Pulisic. £50-60m for a bench player with less than 18 months left on his contract??
But if they spend £1bn on Um Bongo and then get Um Bongo to sponsor us then it doesn't break ffp as City and Paris show