FFP charges? | Page 79 | Vital Football

FFP charges?

Pope John XXIII said:
This bit of the Leicester judgement is interesting

As a result of the predicted rule breach, the EFL followed its own procedures and told Leicester they wanted the club to submit to a business plan, enforced by the EFL, to ensure the club returned to compliance by the summer.

However, Leicester objected to that suggestion, arguing that because they were in the Premier League for most of the period, the EFL rules did not apply to them. They asked for the matter to be reviewed by the independent Club Financial Reporting Panel, who found in Leicester's favour
Click to expand...

De Marco was also Leicesters KC in this case.
 
Last edited:
Pope John XXIII said:
This bit of the Leicester judgement is interesting

As a result of the predicted rule breach, the EFL followed its own procedures and told Leicester they wanted the club to submit to a business plan, enforced by the EFL, to ensure the club returned to compliance by the summer.

However, Leicester objected to that suggestion, arguing that because they were in the Premier League for most of the period, the EFL rules did not apply to them. They asked for the matter to be reviewed by the independent Club Financial Reporting Panel, who found in Leicester's favour
Click to expand...
And this bit, which is less good for us.

"
The Panel has taken into account and respects the CFRU’s submissions that in various places the EFL Regulations are not perfectly drafted, that the Financial Regulations should be interpreted taking into account the Financial Fair Play Objectives, that there are duties of co-operation on Clubs, that there is general guidance in the EFL Regulations relating to Rule 2 and that where possible the Rules should be interpreted to apply in the same way between all Clubs playing in a Division. However, these legitimate considerations cannot be determinative where the text of Rule 2.9 is, as the Panel finds it to be, clear and sets out a workable procedure.
"

I suspect this applies to us. It means, yeah, it's not fair for all the teams and the rules should be rewritten, but this panel isn't going to change their decision or lessen the punishment because that bit you've fallen foul of is really clear.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
This bit of the Leicester judgement is interesting

As a result of the predicted rule breach, the EFL followed its own procedures and told Leicester they wanted the club to submit to a business plan, enforced by the EFL, to ensure the club returned to compliance by the summer.

However, Leicester objected to that suggestion, arguing that because they were in the Premier League for most of the period, the EFL rules did not apply to them. They asked for the matter to be reviewed by the independent Club Financial Reporting Panel, who found in Leicester's favour
Click to expand...
Specifically, that the rules didn't apply to them... yet.
Even more specifically, the rule that they could be forced to publish a business plan for compliance by this summer for this season didn't kick in yet.
They still need to obey the ps rules.
 
Strett said:
Stop it.
Click to expand...
Yes I know what you mean. Completely irrational behaviour, especially when you consider that the people who will sit in judgement are completely independent. Just as a matter of interest and I know that they are most likely doing the job out of the goodness of their heart and for nothing, if they weren't ( and I know that seems silly), but who would they send their bill to?
 
Strett said:
No they don't.
Click to expand...
The last I could find on infrastructure spend is in an old FFP document:

FFP Explained

www.financialfairplay.co.uk www.financialfairplay.co.uk

2. Permitted Exclusions

I should also point out that the level of loss that a club reports in their financial accounts will not be the same figure as is used in the Break Even calculations. This is because UEFA have allowed clubs to exclude certain expenditure from the calculations. UEFA are keen to develop the game and don't want the FFP rules to constrain clubs from investing and developing - without any exclusions a club building a new stadium or new stand would be hit by an FFP penalty (the cost of the development would mean the club reported a large financial loss). Clubs can therefore exclude infrastructure development costs and youth development/community development costs. Manchester City announced that they should be able to exclude around £10m a year as a result of the youth/community exclusion.


After reading the Everton judgement, I have my doubts if this part is still valid.

One aspect they got pulled up on related to the interest they claimed they were charged on the development costs; as it turned out the costs were covered by an interest free loan.

If the infrastructure costs are no longer exempt, why was it an issue?

There used to be a link on the PL site to the PSR Document the Clubs work to; cant find it now, I wonder if it has been removed for some reason.
 
mao tse tung said:
The last I could find on infrastructure spend is in an old FFP document:

FFP Explained

www.financialfairplay.co.uk www.financialfairplay.co.uk

2. Permitted Exclusions

I should also point out that the level of loss that a club reports in their financial accounts will not be the same figure as is used in the Break Even calculations. This is because UEFA have allowed clubs to exclude certain expenditure from the calculations. UEFA are keen to develop the game and don't want the FFP rules to constrain clubs from investing and developing - without any exclusions a club building a new stadium or new stand would be hit by an FFP penalty (the cost of the development would mean the club reported a large financial loss). Clubs can therefore exclude infrastructure development costs and youth development/community development costs. Manchester City announced that they should be able to exclude around £10m a year as a result of the youth/community exclusion.


After reading the Everton judgement, I have my doubts if this part is still valid.

One aspect they got pulled up on related to the interest they claimed they were charged on the development costs; as it turned out the costs were covered by an interest free loan.

If the infrastructure costs are no longer exempt, why was it an issue?

There used to be a link on the PL site to the PSR Document the Clubs work to; cant find it now, I wonder if it has been removed for some reason.
Click to expand...
That was my understanding as well.
I think in the Everton case, the money for the stadium came as an interest free loan from the owner and this was shown in their annual accounts as submitted to Companies house. However in accounts submitted to the EPL their was an interest charge on those loans - which I believe was actually connected to their loans from 777 as part of their operational costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.