Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Football] The ticking Profit and Sustainability (FFP) timebomb...



Bozza

Bozza

You can change this
Helpful Moderator
Jul 4, 2003
55,776
Back in Sussex
I know this has been touched upon on the Everton deduction thread, but it feels worthy of another thread for the other clubs currently walking the PSR/FFP tightrope.

I'd heard that Forest could be in danger and that Newcastle, Arsenal and Chelsea were in a bit of a bind, with limited headroom to bring in players without selling first, but I didn't know why it was all coming to a head just now before I heard the excellent David Ornstein on 5Live earlier.

Now, maybe most other people know this, but some of it was new to me, so I'll share. From what I can remember...

1. A lot of clubs kicked off at the timing of the Everton punishment, and how it feels unjust that it got pushed out to this season.
2. ...so, all clubs had to submit their 2022/23 accounts to the Premier League by 31st December.
3. ...after which the PL would take 14 days to review them, announcing breaches and charges by 14th January (tomorrow, as I type).
4. Clubs who are charged will have 14 days to respond.
5. Any subsequent independent commission hearing must be finished by April 7th.
6. Any appeals need to be concluded by 24th May. This is actually after the last game of the season, so the final league table may not be, errrrm, final after all.

So, it all be quite fun for a while, so long as we're not involved - and there's no indication we will be. I've read Everton could possibly be in trouble again though!
 




Kalimantan Gull

Kalimantan Gull

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2003
12,924
Central Borneo / the Lizard
This will build and build until the Premier League clubs vote to get rid of FFP. Only logical conclusion I can see. I'm certain there's already a majority of owners that want to spend more money, but FFP persists because it protects the status quo of the biggest clubs. Once they start getting punished or restricted in the market it will be out of the door.
 


AZ Gull

AZ Gull

@SeagullsAcademy Threads: @bhafcacademy
Oct 14, 2003
11,750
Chandler, AZ
Bozza said:
I know this has been touched upon on the Everton deduction thread, but it feels worthy of another thread for the other clubs currently walking the PSR/FFP tightrope.

I'd heard that Forest could be in danger and that Newcastle, Arsenal and Chelsea were in a bit of a bind, with limited headroom to bring in players without selling first, but I didn't know why it was all coming to a head just now before I heard the excellent David Ornstein on 5Live earlier.

Now, maybe most other people know this, but some of it was new to me, so I'll share. From what I can remember...

1. A lot of clubs kicked off at the timing of the Everton punishment, and how it feels unjust that it got pushed out to this season.
2. ...so, all clubs had to submit their 2022/23 accounts to the Premier League by 31st December.
3. ...after which the PL would take 14 days to review them, announcing breaches and charges by 14th January (tomorrow, as I type).
4. Clubs who are charged will have 14 days to respond.
5. Any subsequent independent commission hearing must be finished by April 7th.
6. Any appeals need to be concluded by 24th May. This is actually after the last game of the season, so the final league table may not be, errrrm, final after all.

So, it all be quite fun for a while, so long as we're not involved - and there's no indication we will be. I've read Everton could possibly be in trouble again though!
Click to expand...
As it happens, I was listening to the Jan 3rd episode of The Price of Football podcast at lunchtime (while taking a stroll along the canal - wearing gloves, mind, because it has been quite chilly this week in the Valley of the Sun) and a dullard was talking about this requirement to submit accounts by Dec 31.
 




Weststander

Weststander

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 25, 2011
64,090
Withdean area
Kalimantan Gull said:
This will build and build until the Premier League clubs vote to get rid of FFP. Only logical conclusion I can see. I'm certain there's already a majority of owners that want to spend more money, but FFP persists because it protects the status quo of the biggest clubs. Once they start getting punished or restricted in the market it will be out of the door.
Click to expand...

Remember that UEFA FP laws exist too. Should the scenario you mention ever come to fruition, the clubs benefitting would be banned from all UEFA competitions.
 




Hugo Rune

Hugo Rune

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Feb 23, 2012
21,635
Brighton
As mentioned before, there really is no indication that we’re going to get our wrists slapped. I know that this is a lot more complex than dodgy Transfermarkt estimates but these figures taken from the last 4 years of our transfer deals should reassure all.

I believe we can lose £150m in a rolling 3 year period:

IMG_4052.jpeg



IMG_4051.jpeg
IMG_4050.jpeg


Current season:

IMG_4049.jpeg


It appears we’re closer to +£150m than -£150m.
 


The Grockle

The Grockle

Formally Croydon Seagull
Sep 26, 2008
5,687
Dorset
Bloom has set up a sustainable model for us which we can be proud of but part of me thinks that FFP only serves to keep the traditional 'big clubs' at the top of the pile.

I feel comfortable with our approach and am eternally grateful for what Tony has done and is doing for us but part of me thinks if he felt inclined to spunk an extra half a billion of his own cash to help us compete for a title or top four push then why the hell shouldn't he be allowed to.

As long as an owner can demonstrate that their investment doesn't saddle their club with debt part of me feels a owner should be able to spend a load of cash without scrutiny.
 
Last edited:


Weststander

Weststander

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 25, 2011
64,090
Withdean area
croydon seagull said:
Bloom has set up a sustainable model for us which we can be proud of but part of me thinks that FFP only serves to keep the traditional 'big clubs' at the top of the pile.

I feel comfortable with our approach and am externally grateful for what Tony has done and is doing for us but part of thinks if he felt inclined to spunk an extra half a billion of his own cash to help us compete for a title or top four push then why the hell shouldn't he be allowed to.

As long as an owner can demonstrate that their investment doesn't saddle their club with debt part of me feels a owner should be able to spend a load of cash without scrutiny.
Click to expand...

I think the reverse. It allows a home town lad made good to intelligently build a club, reach 6th, who knows our limit from here on and to continue for years to come.

A wild west would mean Newcastle, Wolves, Chelsea, Plucky would be allowed to pump in £10b’s of petro, dodgy and blood money, wages would spiral out of control, we’d be blown out of the water. Bloom plays by business and sporting principles, imho he wouldn’t want to blow the additional sums with zero guarantee of success against states and tax cheats. FFP gives us a chance.

Citeh and PSG aren’t Cinderalla stories. They involve tax fraud on a momental scale, see Operation Longbow.
 




Colonel Mustard

Colonel Mustard

Well-known member
Jun 18, 2023
2,043
croydon seagull said:
Bloom has set up a sustainable model for us which we can be proud of but part of me thinks that FFP only serves to keep the traditional 'big clubs' at the top of the pile.

I feel comfortable with our approach and am externally grateful for what Tony has done and is doing for us but part of thinks if he felt inclined to spunk an extra half a billion of his own cash to help us compete for a title or top four push then why the hell shouldn't he be allowed to.

As long as an owner can demonstrate that their investment doesn't saddle their club with debt part of me feels an owner should be able to spend a load of cash without scrutiny.
Click to expand...

No man club is an island, entire of itself….
…
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
———————

Yes, we’re a club enjoying a rare spell of relative success. As fans, the wellbeing of our club is central to our lives. But we are also part of something even bigger and stronger than ourselves —the football pyramid and football family. By allowing the wealthiest owners to spend without rules and constraints, you drive the wedge even deeper between not just the top 6/7 and the rest of the Premier League, but between the PL and the rest of the structure that supports us. And you weaken that at your peril.
 


Kalimantan Gull

Kalimantan Gull

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2003
12,924
Central Borneo / the Lizard
croydon seagull said:
Bloom has set up a sustainable model for us which we can be proud of but part of me thinks that FFP only serves to keep the traditional 'big clubs' at the top of the pile.

I feel comfortable with our approach and am externally grateful for what Tony has done and is doing for us but part of thinks if he felt inclined to spunk an extra half a billion of his own cash to help us compete for a title or top four push then why the hell shouldn't he be allowed to.

As long as an owner can demonstrate that their investment doesn't saddle their club with debt part of me feels a owner should be able to spend a load of cash without scrutiny.
Click to expand...
I kind of agree with your point, but the problem is that future salary commitments will saddle the club with debt after the owner has left.

Owners bankrolling clubs is actually built into FFP already. Under FFP a club can only lose £5m a season of its own money, or £15m over a rolling three year period. However this can be increased to £105m over three years if the remaining £90m is from owners purchasing share capital. Clubs who have been in the EFL in the previous three years can only benefit from £8m of owner funding per year, which may shed light on Forest's issue.

So owners can bankroll the club to the tune of £30m a year under FFP, but no more of course. I wouldn't be surprised if the owners vote to expand that.

Then there are UEFA rules which surprised me as being tighter than EPL rules, a max loss of ca. £50m over three years til this year, now increasing to ca. £75m over the years for clubs in good financial standing. Also coming in from 25/26 is a requirement that 'squad costs' represent max 70% of income (currently 90%).

Good article explaining it all here https://www.skysports.com/football/...ns-are-there-on-clubs-spending-what-they-want
 


E

ElectricNaz

Well-known member
Jan 23, 2013
840
Hampshire
I have been thinking of a better / additional way to penalise clubs who breach FFP. 10 points is nothing, really. Fines are nothing if a breach means you avoid the drop.

I do think that as a secondary punishment, say a club has broken FFP by £20m.

All of the most recent transfers in, covering the value of that £20m (I.e the very latest £25m signing) Should be completely banned from being able to record any financial income from sales after any future transfer out of the club.

I.e a club who breaches by £20m. Say they signed a player for £25m on the last day of the financial year. That is the deal which is adjudged to have pushed them into breaching the rule. (Note - this could be several players, depending on the size of the breach and the size of transfers)

If they then sold that player for £50m at any point in future they shouldn't be able to record any of that as income as part of their financial accounting for FFP purposes.

Otherwise, a team could go nuts buying great young talent, take the hit on a nothingy points penalty and fine now, but reap the benefits for years to come anyway by selling and taking FFP profits on players they should never have signed in the first place.

I'm my head that makes sense, and would be a good deterrent.
 




BRIGHT ON Q

BRIGHT ON Q

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
9,114
Saw smuggies press conference, he was almost crying when saying they probably can't spend any money this window.
after the Everton points deduction these teams are realising they need to be more careful.
Wonder how their owners feel having unlimited funds backing up.
Our model is looking better by the day.
 


US Seagull

US Seagull

Well-known member
Jul 17, 2003
3,310
Cleveland, OH
Bozza said:
6. Any appeals need to be concluded by 24th May. This is actually after the last game of the season, so the final league table may not be, errrrm, final after all.
Click to expand...
I would interpret that particular bit of timing as an excuse to push the actual punishment (if any) into next season rather than leave the final league table not final.
 










Justice

Justice

Dangerous Idiot
Jun 21, 2012
18,726
Born In Shoreham
Kalimantan Gull said:
This will build and build until the Premier League clubs vote to get rid of FFP. Only logical conclusion I can see. I'm certain there's already a majority of owners that want to spend more money, but FFP persists because it protects the status quo of the biggest clubs. Once they start getting punished or restricted in the market it will be out of the door.
Click to expand...
14 clubs voted in December to close the loop hole Chelsea used to a maximum player deal of five years. The big top four or whatever don’t have the voting power to vote against FFP. It would make no sense for the rest of the league clubs to vote out FFP and make it less competitive.
With 14 votes to the good that renders the traditional so called big top six powerless to make such a decision.
 


dazzer6666

dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Mar 27, 2013
52,512
Burgess Hill
BRIGHT ON Q said:
Saw smuggies press conference, he was almost crying when saying they probably can't spend any money this window.
after the Everton points deduction these teams are realising they need to be more careful.
Wonder how their owners feel having unlimited funds backing up.
Our model is looking better by the day.
Click to expand...
Staveley has been exposed to at least one very nasty financial regulatory incident and related court cases - completely see why Toon are being managed tightly within the rules. She’s a slick operator.
 




E

ElectricNaz

Well-known member
Jan 23, 2013
840
Hampshire
All I know is if I was a Premier league team, I would not be paying top dollar for players from any of these teams. I'd rather spend abroad.

"Oh, FFP struggles you say? Well instead of 60million, we'll give you 30m if you're desperate... Oh, and if not, enjoy the points deduction because no one else in Europe has that kind of money lolzzzz"

Beyond belief why United and Arsenal spent money on Mount and Havertz respectively which helped Chelsea massively. Seems counter productive.
 




You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here