Financial Fair Play Explained | Page 11 | Vital Football

Financial Fair Play Explained

Should our new owners just pay the fine for FFP and get on with it?

  • Yes

    Votes: 20 55.6%

  • No

    Votes: 16 44.4%
  • Total voters
    36
Yup. The success of the team on the pitch is putting big big pressure on those off the pitch to capitalise commercially.

I don't think they were expecting this so soon and I fear it has caught them on the hop . This will date back to when existing contracts were agreed as well so in some respects our hands are tied.
 
FFP and the Transfer window, if you can it that....i have a theory, don't shoot me down but this window has been piss poor, the Premier league, the best league in the world some say and literally nothing spent! Is that because of fear of overspending and possible points deduction or is it something else? I'm obviously no expert but I'm led to believe all transfers in the prem result in a percentage of that fee going into the Premier league coffers. Now, because of the way Everton have been publically treated and serious threat of relegation, do you think there is some kind of pact between owners to protest and not spend any money this window meaning, the Premier league rulers get no dosh? To me it would make sense only because of the sheer lack of activity, you cannot tell me, every club is happy with their squad mid term. Last season nearly 800 million was spent in January, this year 75mill in total , all leagues somethings going on. thoughts!
 
The arse has fallen out of the transfer market - when Bayern Munich are buying Eric Dier and the BBC are describing it as one of the most eye catching transfers then this is a sign of things to come across the board. Which clubs will be affected most - who knows. But as long as the Sky teams are ok then all is good in the hood. Oh then we have the Man C debacle where everyone knows what they were up to and they are now just trying to find the biggest carpet ever to sweep all their shyte under it and move on.
 
BigBadDave said:
FFP and the Transfer window, if you can it that....i have a theory, don't shoot me down but this window has been piss poor, the Premier league, the best league in the world some say and literally nothing spent! Is that because of fear of overspending and possible points deduction or is it something else? I'm obviously no expert but I'm led to believe all transfers in the prem result in a percentage of that fee going into the Premier league coffers. Now, because of the way Everton have been publically treated and serious threat of relegation, do you think there is some kind of pact between owners to protest and not spend any money this window meaning, the Premier league rulers get no dosh? To me it would make sense only because of the sheer lack of activity, you cannot tell me, every club is happy with their squad mid term. Last season nearly 800 million was spent in January, this year 75mill in total , all leagues somethings going on. thoughts!
Click to expand...
Ill be honest. Im glad clubs are abeing abit more sensible with their spending. Im sick of how much money is blown in football.


FFP isnt perfect but without it you would have teams like citeh newcastle and chelsea spending 300m a window paying stupid wages and effectively putting the final nail in the coffin of the game.

When you are paying 30-40m on average for a player then something is definitely wrong with the game.
 
Pangloss said:
Unfortunately FFP is the reason will probably never truly break the top four, it really is a terrible idea.
Click to expand...
If every club had equal wealth i think it would be great not to have. But when you have states running football clubs newcastle would blow every1 out the water with transfer fees and wages without FFP. can you imagine what the wages they would give to players? It would be insane! Thats my reservation of scrapping it
 
Even Newcastle are constrained by FFP.

FFP was bought in originally to protect the so called "big 6 " and stop other clubs being able to do what Man City and Chelsea had done. We voted against it (only 2 clubs did) and so it's one of the things Randy , bless him , got right.
 
Merd said:
It won't work like that though, the first owner will over spend to the tune of £100m, he'll fook off once he's skint leaving the club with a massive legacy issue of wages and no resale value - happened to us with Lerner and Xia - unfortunately for us Xia was a complete fraudster and nearly sent us bankrupt.
Click to expand...

Bit out of date now Merd, but I meant £100m in the sense of total transfer commitment, including wages, bonuses etc. A full zero sum, break even covering deposit that would fluctuate with time as revenues changed - but mean all owner investment was covered, without ever leaving the 'club' vulnerable per se.

No more new owners covering transfer debt, no more new owners doing a Glazer and fractioning club profit to pay their loans because they don't want to put a penny in.

Simply put a system whereby any spending over natural revenue is cleared by the owner, and not lumbered with the club. It would've avoided the Xia situation as it would've been upfront. Lerner fucked up, but he put his money where his mouth was.

But leaning on Bury, it would also have to be tied into wanky asset sell offs to family and friends on stripping.

I know it's not as simple as I state it, but it is a better way forward for owners who want to throw money. Hold them to the money they throw above what a club could naturally afford.
 
sirdennis said:
Yup. The success of the team on the pitch is putting big big pressure on those off the pitch to capitalise commercially.

I don't think they were expecting this so soon and I fear it has caught them on the hop . This will date back to when existing contracts were agreed as well so in some respects our hands are tied.
Click to expand...

As you rightly say, their hands are currently tied, budgets are long agreed and budgets don't grow just because we are doing better than expected.

The work being done now, sounding out new sponsors, marketing deals, crossing them with ending existing ones early where penalty fees apply, will be keeping our lawyers and accountants up at night I think.

I'd also imagine a good few hours have been spent on existing deals that we are happy to honour if they play ball, but they were focused on Europa League and a Champions League boost may have been minimal because it wasn't expected. We are probably seeing if we can up the CL boost, even though that boost would not come into play until next season.

Nice to think we are finally in the world of predictive success though.
 
BringbakMON said:
best not look at the slide where wages are 92% of revenue
(top of the charts for that measure)

#c*cksuckers
Click to expand...
Yeah, unfortunately I did already see that one.

These are 22/23 numbers. UEFA are bringing in a downward ratchet, which we'll hopefully sneak under with increased revenues and some prudent sales/loans. Wages 90% of revenue is the limit for 23/24, then 80% in 24/25 and finally down to 70% from 25/26 onwards. Absolutely doable I reckon.

But if we lost £138m in 22/23 *alone*, we effectively need to turn a £33m profit combined over this year and next to sneak under the £105m maximum allowable losses for any three-year period. If we made a £138m loss in 22/23, do we really expect we've turned that into even breaking even this season? Not likely, which puts some big sales on the cards this summer and the next.

I'm hoping someone's going to come in here and tell me I've got it wrong, but I think we can expect to lose some high value players soon without big money replacements coming in.
 
I assume Champions League football would wipe most of of troubles away. Revenue from the Champs League is in a completely different level.

If we dont qualify though I really don't see how we get out of this pickle without selling a few of the crown jewels. Scary.
 
for Newcastle the champs league was worth ~ £20 mill in revenue (obv due to the corrupt nature of the comp they apply a coefficient so the big boys get more eg Utd got ~ £40 mill for being as bad as Newcastle)

so it def helps a lot but we need to get in and stay in for a few years really (or massively increase revenue otherwise somehow).
I'd guess cancelling the needed ground expansion is likely due to being right up against limits and not being able to take a revenue drop (not sure if the authorities fairly make allowances for that ?)

as we seem to have emptied the cupboard with 'youth' sales then I suppose it's onto the starting XI to 'comply' with this load of old bollox
 
I can only imagine we're not alone in having to mind the pennies. If the January window is anything to go by most teams are having issues. It might actually drive down the cost of transfers.
 
Gazvilla said:
I can only imagine we're not alone in having to mind the pennies. If the January window is anything to go by most teams are having issues. It might actually drive down the cost of transfers.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. We can only hope as the fees are beyond ridiculous and for someone like Neymar his transfer fee to PSG could of brought you a small country. Getting out of control as even bit part players like our own Archer and A Ramsey and the likes of Cole Palmer are just plain crazy ( in the world us normal plebs live in anyway).
 
sirdennis said:
Champions League, Adidas deal and new shirt sponsor will see us ok. I think even Europa League will do the job .
Click to expand...
I just don’t see us doing so well and advancing then only have to sell players to survive, so to speak. I can understand a player wanting to move on after being with us for a while and looking for something we can’t offer - much bigger wages or a bigger stage. Surely our income will rocket with what’s happening and where we are - this Heck chap is a big big cog in the how successful we can become and stay at the top table. With these new deals along with youth player sales, our wages must surely be 80% of revenue. Also why would we push the boat out and buy Rodgers? Just buy no one and offload Dendonker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.