The Fear
A Wise Man (once sat next to him)
Stitch up isn't it? Shouldn't have been allowed full stop, but that is their fault for not making the rules clear to stop it, can't really blame those using the loophole.
The 'Profit & Sustainability' Thread
- Thread starter mike_field
- Start date
Stitch up isn't it? Shouldn't have been allowed full stop, but that is their fault for not making the rules clear to stop it, can't really blame those using the loophole.
Randy Blockhead
Vital Newbie
You would think so.
Seems to me any rules should be there to safeguard the club (not owners) and their fans. Any monetary targets should correlate to the resources and ability to pay. It seems wrong to try and apply the same set figure as a benchmark to, say, Man City and to Fulham. The available assets are so different.
I realise those clubs with wealthy owners come out on top, but that is the same in almost all walks of life. I don’t think you can artificially change that, although the thought of cartels isn’t the most appealing vision.
The club I referred to originally is very big, but remains very reliant on loans. Fortunately, we now have owners that can back up their ambition.
mike_field
Vital Football Legend
For those interested in the wage end of FFP, dug this out earlier as I went searching so I wasn't guessing from memory.
https://www.toffeeweb.com/season/18-19/comment/editorial/37675.html
https://www.toffeeweb.com/season/18-19/comment/editorial/37675.html
McParlandTheGreat
Vital Champions League
Mike, as far as I can see, the STCC bit of FFP was scrapped last year.
mike_field
Vital Football Legend
No, that was the end of the three year run where it was reassessed again. I just can't find the new figures but I'd be amazed if they had got rid of it as otherwise, why introduce it to begin with.
I know there was a call to scrap it at one point but I've no idea what happened with the vote.
You got a link?
I know there was a call to scrap it at one point but I've no idea what happened with the vote.
You got a link?
Holte139
Vital Squad Member
My guess would be that it serves as a convenient excuse for the majority of owners (no matter how much or little money they have) to invest as little as possible while creaming profits off the top for as long as possible.
It suits their pockets, in other words!
But my uncle has said that I'm far too cynical for a twenty-something, so make of that what you will!
mike_field
Vital Football Legend
Actually yes, found it.
Buggeringly that doesn't help us as we maxed out on player spend last year - but it does mean with fewer additions (get rid of Hogan/Lansbury etc, we have small wriggle room on wage increase then) but that may be why deals are taking longer than we want as we are having to balance 'overall spend' now rather than strict spend and then some targets being out of whack because of the previous % growth. We need to be cleverer.
Buggeringly that doesn't help us as we maxed out on player spend last year - but it does mean with fewer additions (get rid of Hogan/Lansbury etc, we have small wriggle room on wage increase then) but that may be why deals are taking longer than we want as we are having to balance 'overall spend' now rather than strict spend and then some targets being out of whack because of the previous % growth. We need to be cleverer.
mike_field
Vital Football Legend
Outside of maybe Arse/Spurs/Burnley I'm not sure any clubs make a profit that owners can claw back in reality. It's a net loss for the vast majority - if you want to make money owning a football club at any level is a daft move.
Man U probably make the Glaziers money simply because the Glazier's borrowed against the club to buy them and didn't actually put a penny in to begin with.
The Fear
A Wise Man (once sat next to him)
Our CEO is adamant we are fine in the PL for the, what you call FFP but you know it isn't actually called that.. profit and sustainability. He helped write the rules, you'd imagine he knows.
They should be scrapped, they hit the Championship sides really harshly, there was definite worry of going back down. It is done on purpose, no doubt, to stack the cards against those trying to break into the 'closed shop' and the Sky darlings at the top.
With the money in the tv deals and sponsorship (soooo much bigger in the PL) and the fact we haven't got anywhere near the biggest wage bill even in the sixth and down part of the league, I can't see that we will be that challenged rules wise.
mike_field
Vital Football Legend
Yup, but this is where I think Purslow is being clever as per other thread.
No PL club should struggle under the constraints of FFP (yes P&S but FFP is more familiar for everyone else) when it comes to operating and not breaching. But again that doesn't mean an owner rich club like us can spend £500m in one window which would be needed to instantly take us (albeit with risk) from lower bottom half in the league straight to guaranteed top ten or higher.
The whole thing should definitely be scrapped - no argument from me there - but again there's a different between saying it shouldn't be a problem and then not acknowledging the restrictions it places on us.
With the wage cap being removed from it, we should be able to create greater wriggle room but it still means we are capped at the overall 3yr spend. So if we were clever last year on our new 3 yr balance and those players are also on less than those we let go on the more golden (instant fix that failed) contracts.
This year we can up both transfer fees and wages to a degree, whilst still haggling hard. It does mean we are looking at fewer captures (which we should be anyway simply to keep some momentum going) but significant quality increase.
Wilson, if the £100k a week claim is right, would be absolutely batshit from our point of view.
No PL club should struggle under the constraints of FFP (yes P&S but FFP is more familiar for everyone else) when it comes to operating and not breaching. But again that doesn't mean an owner rich club like us can spend £500m in one window which would be needed to instantly take us (albeit with risk) from lower bottom half in the league straight to guaranteed top ten or higher.
The whole thing should definitely be scrapped - no argument from me there - but again there's a different between saying it shouldn't be a problem and then not acknowledging the restrictions it places on us.
With the wage cap being removed from it, we should be able to create greater wriggle room but it still means we are capped at the overall 3yr spend. So if we were clever last year on our new 3 yr balance and those players are also on less than those we let go on the more golden (instant fix that failed) contracts.
This year we can up both transfer fees and wages to a degree, whilst still haggling hard. It does mean we are looking at fewer captures (which we should be anyway simply to keep some momentum going) but significant quality increase.
Wilson, if the £100k a week claim is right, would be absolutely batshit from our point of view.
The Fear
A Wise Man (once sat next to him)
Multiple threads?
(not seen the other thread, does go to my constant nagging recently though, we can and should all do better and discussing in the correct threads, so things aren't a) missed b) repeated c) there is no c but just two points in a list seems a bit sterile) d) see point c.
So basically you condescend to the thick and call it something that it isn't and exclude intelligent people like me then? (I was going to misspell intelligent to make it even clearer to others I'm joking, but then, I'd have to explain that is a joke as well and it alllll seems tooooo complicated)
(I was a bit 'really, does it matter' when someone was pulled up about it in the meeting to be honest, seemed the least of our worries)
Woooooooahh there. Hold your horses.
No one has suggested we spend that much, or risk the club. I think I have been clear in what I've said, you'd have to go a long way to breach the rules in this league. Yes, £500m would be going a long way. Then again, if some bugger had £500m to spend, (come on in chorus everyone)
WE'D JUST PAY THE FINE....!
I don't like it when we agree. It makes me feel uneasy.
As said, they are confident you would have to go a long way to run into trouble in this league, no one would do that, no one has the finances at the club that would be willing to do that, and none of us are calling for that I don't think.
Yup.
Now if you go shave your head, you can almost present yourself as a respectable member of the forum owners team. But shave the beard as well, otherwise you'll simply look like your head is on upside down.
mike_field
Vital Football Legend
Multiple threads?
(not seen the other thread, does go to my constant nagging recently though, we can and should all do better and discussing in the correct threads, so things aren't a) missed b) repeated c) there is no c but just two points in a list seems a bit sterile) d) see point c.
So basically you condescend to the thick and call it something that it isn't and exclude intelligent people like me then? (I was going to misspell intelligent to make it even clearer to others I'm joking, but then, I'd have to explain that is a joke as well and it alllll seems tooooo complicated)
(I was a bit 'really, does it matter' when someone was pulled up about it in the meeting to be honest, seemed the least of our worries)
Woooooooahh there. Hold your horses.
No one has suggested we spend that much, or risk the club. I think I have been clear in what I've said, you'd have to go a long way to breach the rules in this league. Yes, £500m would be going a long way. Then again, if some bugger had £500m to spend, (come on in chorus everyone)
WE'D JUST PAY THE FINE....!
I don't like it when we agree. It makes me feel uneasy.
As said, they are confident you would have to go a long way to run into trouble in this league, no one would do that, no one has the finances at the club that would be willing to do that, and none of us are calling for that I don't think.
Yup.
Now if you go shave your head, you can almost present yourself as a respectable member of the forum owners team. But shave the beard as well, otherwise you'll simply look like your head is on upside down.
For once in my life I think you've out-typed me!
Shit, is that how it feels?
I'll be back after I've been outside for some air.
Villa Onion bag
Vital Squad Member
Read that article this morning. If true, this could be the reason we seem to be unable to match the wages even though we can compete on the valuation. I also suppose this is why we are not being linked with any top drawer recruits and have chosen to focus on Championship and reserve team players, with the offer of regular football for some and a step up in the league for others. The cheaper foreign imports didn't fare so well, (Wesley excluded price wise), so more UK based players seems to be the way we are going.
FPP is still a mystery to me. I understand revenue (including wages, transfer fees, player sales, commercial rights) is calculated over the previous two years with a projected figure for the current (coming season), Back in 2016/17, a team with two consecutive years in the league had a maximum loss of £105m allowable, whereas a promoted team who stayed up, were allowed a maximum loss of £61m. In all cases , this was reduced to £15m loss if the owners pumped loads of their cash in (or bought the ground and leased it back). The figures may have changed, but you get the idea. In effect, any team in the bottom half of the table will be relegated if they incur a 9 point deduction for breaching the rules. (TV money does not count).
The club appears to be cutting their cloth to suit. Does this mean that we the fans also have to cut our expectations or ambitions? Slowly, slowly making progress whilst avoiding the trap door.
JW1985
Vital Champions League
Just a way if keeping the already rich clubs at the top. And even if they are caught red handed breaking the rules ala man city they get off without any censure whatsoever. Its a fucking joke.
Its doing what it was designed to do, keep a closed shop.
