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

Forest and FFP



drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,007
Burgess Hill
If Tony Bloom is declared bankrupt there would be no Albion though, regardless of FFP compliance.

FFP is profit, not cash based, and as anyone who is worked in insolvency will tell you, it's cash that matters

Out of interest then, what would you propose to ensure better stewardship of football clubs, ie to minimise the amount that go into administration only to resurrect shortly after in the same league but with no debt?
 


El Presidente

The ONLY Gay in Brighton
Helpful Moderator
Jul 5, 2003
39,689
Pattknull med Haksprut
Out of interest then, what would you propose to ensure better stewardship of football clubs, ie to minimise the amount that go into administration only to resurrect shortly after in the same league but with no debt?

The FA/PL/FL having 51% ownership of all clubs and representation on every board of directors.
 


drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,007
Burgess Hill
The FA/PL/FL having 51% ownership of all clubs and representation on every board of directors.

Does that work any where else in the world? I know the German 50+1 rule but that is for members. Would that also mean that the FA would have to contribute 51% towards infrastructure? With regard to the German model, other than cheaper prices, what other benefits does that give german football particularly further down the leagues?
 


Driver8

On the road...
NSC Patreon
Jul 31, 2005
15,951
North Wales
Does that work any where else in the world? I know the German 50+1 rule but that is for members. Would that also mean that the FA would have to contribute 51% towards infrastructure? With regard to the German model, other than cheaper prices, what other benefits does that give german football particularly further down the leagues?

How many German teams have gone bust? I have no idea but presumably that is the comparison that matters.
 


clapham_gull

Legacy Fan
Aug 20, 2003
25,175
So is it not possible that Forest (£17m loss last season) are doing exactly the same 'creative accountancy' as us (£15m loss last season)? They have undoubtedly been more free-spending in the transfer market and I imagine they will fail to meet FFP this season when it matters, but I don't really understand the fascination with them on this site as though they are the worst example. Blackburn, a club that is NEVER mentioned in relation to FFP, lost £30m last year, Bolton lost £50m and QPR lost £65m and they could ALL be in this division again next season. They must be in far more trouble, surely?

The losses according to the FFP method of accountancy are the important ones not what's published in year end accounts.

why the fascination ? I think people keep an eye on the gates and activity in the transfer window and think mmmmmm...how did they do that ?
 




Creaky

Well-known member
Mar 26, 2013
3,834
Hookwood - Nr Horley
Financial Fair Play regulations have been in effect since the 2011/2012 season - it is only the penalties for non-compliance that come into effect next season, (based on this seasons financial reports).

The simple truth is that very few clubs made any effort to comply with the FFP regs in the first two seasons, (including BHAFC). Claims by clubs, (including ours), that they are aiming for compliance, especially when accompanied by criticisms of other clubs that appear to be ignoring FFP, all rings a little hollow.
 


Leighgull

New member
Dec 27, 2012
2,377
Agree with this. From what I have seen of it, and I have made an attempt to inform myself, the rules to me seem pretty watertight and the penalties laid out clearly.

So I'm constantly puzzled by the number of people who come on here asking stupid questions like 'Explain FFP to me in 10 words'. The information is out there in many places and if you did a bit of reading it should be fairly clear, it just seems to be a lot of fans can't be bothered to learn about it and are instead coming to a lot of assumptions about it being lacking when actually it isn't lacking, their knowledge and more specifically their attempts to acquire knowledge is what is lacking.

I used to work for a managing Director who used to ask for things like marketing strategy in one slide and would commit to ridiculous ideas nd illegal suggestions brooked by an an incredibly shady Business Director based on "a summary in 10 words" or sketched on the back of a fag packet. Eventually the FD walked and he was sacked by hoard but it was a very long 3 years whilst he was on a massive bunce before it happened.

Not sure what lesson we can all learn from this but I say screw Forest for clearly having employed him to set out their FFP compliance.
 


RexCathedra

Aurea Mediocritas
Jan 14, 2005
3,498
Vacationland
Does that work any where else in the world?

MLS in the US. Club owners are essentially shareholders in the league. Revenue sharing is the rule, as well.

Comparison of league and team ownership structures here.
 




Mental Lental

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
2,271
Shiki-shi, Saitama
I can see a few teams, knowing that they're gonna get an embargo in January, spending big in summer for one last push to the promised land (looking at QPR, Blackburn and Bolton especially). With no other financial back up plan other than "get to the premiershite before we get embargoed". And the sickening thing is that most of the fans will just go along with it because of that Premier league carrot dangling in front of them.

It makes it very difficult to keep up the spirit of fans united when said football fans are so demonstrably stupid.
 




Seagull on the wing

New member
Sep 22, 2010
7,458
Hailsham
Except that there is no RRP on Sponsorship so it will be a question of degrees.

Plus if I want to sponsor my favourite club and it's my decision to pay (say) £20M for the privilege I really can't see how the FL can stop me, even if it isn't "the going rate"

It's a can of worms for sure
Wow! Rugrat...you are putting £20m into the club....good on you pal,I'll add my £1.89 to that ...
 




drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,007
Burgess Hill
MLS in the US. Club owners are essentially shareholders in the league. Revenue sharing is the rule, as well.

Comparison of league and team ownership structures here.

But that is a model that any established league would find almost impossible to replicate as, in the case of our big clubs, they are long established businesses where the owners have pumped in large amounts of cash and would not take too kindly to losing 51% of their shares! Also, in the states you have franchises so that they can be moved around when not successful. I think you will find a lot of resistance to any similar situation here.

How many German teams have gone bust? I have no idea but presumably that is the comparison that matters.

Have to say I don't know the answer to that. However, would anyone comment on the standard of the the German second tier compared to our championship!


As for El Pres, firstly he comments that we are imposing financial restrictions on the football industry that don't apply to other sectors in a free market but then comes up with a form of nationalisation of all clubs!
 


father_and_son

Well-known member
Jan 23, 2012
4,646
Under the Police Box
Nope. We don't restrict grocers, phone manufacturers or sex toy emporiums, why football clubs?

Because these industries don't have a regulating body scared that heir entire world is unsustainable. The equivalent is the banking industry being told that they have to massively increase their capital reserves by the FSA (FCA now). This was an industry that almost imploded because they started to ignore basic economic principles. Football is exactly the same at the moment and it is in the interest of everyone (clubs, fans, players and the wider economy) that clubs be constrained to work in a financially sustainable way and not have a club a season going under.
 


father_and_son

Well-known member
Jan 23, 2012
4,646
Under the Police Box
MLS in the US. Club owners are essentially shareholders in the league. Revenue sharing is the rule, as well.

Comparison of league and team ownership structures here.


MLS also dramatically different set up to almost anywhere else in the world because of their Draft system for bringing in domestic talent. Like most of the US sports this is designed to even the playing field between clubs by, essentially, penalising last year's winners and rewarding the losers so that no team or group of teams can gaina consistent and self sustaining dominance.
With "soccer" this collapses because there is an international market that, say, American Football doesn't.

The premise is for the greater good of the sport but does mean the American model can't be replicated elsewhere without game changing upheaval... How many UK footballers have been to 'college' or uni? I mean, how many can even write their own name innit?
 






Giraffe

VERY part time moderator
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patreon
Aug 8, 2005
26,454
Sorry but the penalties are clear enough. If you get promoted, you get fined and if you don't you get a transfer embargo which remains in place until you demonstrate you are on track to meet FFP limits. All clubs have to submit their accounts for the current season by 1st Dec 2014. If Forest fail to get promoted, as seems likely, and their dubious sponsorship deal is declared outside the rules then they won't be able to sign any players from the 1st Jan 2015 and that continues until they meet the guidelines so that could be for several years if they have players tied into expensive contracts. It also means that if they have not demonstrated they are on track by June 2015 (which is probably unlikley) then any players whose contracts are up at that time cannot be re-signed. It does of course mean they still have the August 2014 window to purchase players but that will be the last transfer window not affected by FFP.

If they got promoted, then they get fined and if they are over £10m above the limit then the fine equates to 100% of however much they are over. For example, if they have a loss of £40m this season in a bid to get promoted and succeeded, the fine would be £28.68m (give or take a few £s as it is 100% of the loss over £10m above the limit and a sliding scale upto the £10m).

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/FLExplainedDetail/0,,10794~2748246,00.html

I understand the rules and the proposed penalties of which I am aware. However I've looked at this for ten minutes and I can already see obvious ways in which a club like Forest can bend the rules, adjust their accounts so they miss out one year but can demonstrate they are not missing out in the current year and therefore no penalties are due. That's the bit I think is bollocks. if you have failed to meet FFP you should lose points. You shouldn't be able to just say oh yes, we have spent £20 million over the allowed loss, but this season we won't. By that point they have already gained a huge advantage over everyone else so how can that be fair.

On a separate note I just can't see how it can be legally enforceable. How can you legally stop an owner of a business investing as much money as they want into it? The whole idea of it is flawed.
 


El Presidente

The ONLY Gay in Brighton
Helpful Moderator
Jul 5, 2003
39,689
Pattknull med Haksprut
I understand the rules and the proposed penalties of which I am aware. However I've looked at this for ten minutes and I can already see obvious ways in which a club like Forest can bend the rules, adjust their accounts so they miss out one year but can demonstrate they are not missing out in the current year and therefore no penalties are due. That's the bit I think is bollocks. if you have failed to meet FFP you should lose points. You shouldn't be able to just say oh yes, we have spent £20 million over the allowed loss, but this season we won't. By that point they have already gained a huge advantage over everyone else so how can that be fair.

On a separate note I just can't see how it can be legally enforceable. How can you legally stop an owner of a business investing as much money as they want into it? The whole idea of it is flawed.

Errr..........because by the time the accounts are published Forest, and I don't know why they're being singled out, could have been promoted, and FL points deduction wouldn't be applicable in the PL.
 


Bwian

Kiss my (_!_)
Jul 14, 2003
15,898
I did the sums at the time and said that even with a £50m stadium funded 40% by grants that the numbers didn't stack up, but no one believed me and said I was shit stirring.

During the FFA Campaign many of us were happy to repeat what was being said by the club, accurate or not. We knew we had to do so to counter most of the ridiculous arguments being put out by Cuttress and her cronies.

As it turned out, we got a hugely improved design/amenities, funded by Tony Bloom and the 'village' of Falmer hasn't been ransacked whenever we play at home. The Amex is, to me, a great addition to the Sussex landscape.

Now all that's needed is a reduction in matchday expenses to bring the losses down...
 




Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
49,985
Goldstone
Plus if I want to sponsor my favourite club and it's my decision to pay (say) £20M for the privilege I really can't see how the FL can stop me, even if it isn't "the going rate"
Because the football league can set their own rules. You can pay your £20m (thank, by the way), their rule should be that for FFP calculations, sponsorship deals (and all others for that matter) have to meet certain criteria.
 


Official Old Man

Uckfield Seagull
Aug 27, 2011
8,486
Brighton
Shirt sponsorship. One way around FFP is to sponsor the shirts for £25 million via an off shore company re Man City. Now surely then FL will look at this but in our defense we have the highest home gates and so should be able to say the sponsor believes they are getting their monies worth. Similarly QPR are on TV a lot and so can say the same thing.
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here