James Bond's body double
Well-known member
I wasn't meaning that, I was wondering if the rules have changed a bit will this change his stance on things?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
FFP latest predictions
- Thread starter mickybha
- Start date
I wasn't meaning that, I was wondering if the rules have changed a bit will this change his stance on things?
I am shocked anyone is shocked by that, FFP was never going to stick, and it was being used as an excuse not to spend money if a club wanted to use a excuse.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,225
No, and I fully understand that. Whether it's a good rule or not isn't my argument here though. The pisser for me is that we seem to be one of the few clubs that have actually taken it seriously, once it was imposed, trying to get our house in order, whilst a number of others have carried on regardless, spending what they liked. Inevitably, we'd have been at something of a competitive disadvantage as a result.
Whilst we don't yet know what they've voted for, it nonetheless bites that certain clubs can just- so it seems- say a great big "**** you" to the regulations and possibly walk away without a care in the world, simply by voting to change the rules to suit them better.
fat old seagull
New member
So you've deemed it pathetic, whilst not knowing...
1. What they actually voted for.
2. How we voted (perhaps the changes are what we regard as sensible changes whilst still restricting those who go for broke)
It may be pathetic, of course, it just doesn't seem whether we know one way or the other yet.
James Bond's body double
Well-known member
I think he's opened it pretty wide already....don't you ?
Okay think may comments have been misinterpreted, all I was thinking if rules are changing will he think differently that's all.
nwgull
Well-known member
We don't know what they've voted for yet. They'd need a majority of chairman to vote any change, and I'd be surprised if the 7-8 clubs that look likely to fail last year's restrictions were let off the hook by the remainder - the majority - that were within limits.
Brighton Breezy
New member
I think it is worth waiting to see what the changes are before passing judgement.
Could they potentially involve a change in the parachute payments? Reducing these could be good for clubs like our. Not sure whether that falls under Premier League or Football League remit.
It might be that certain sanctions have been relaxed in return for other concessions being adapted.
Until the exact details are revealed it is difficult to say whether the changes are good or bad or a bit of both.
It might be we actually supported them. At this stage, we just don't know.
Could they potentially involve a change in the parachute payments? Reducing these could be good for clubs like our. Not sure whether that falls under Premier League or Football League remit.
It might be that certain sanctions have been relaxed in return for other concessions being adapted.
Until the exact details are revealed it is difficult to say whether the changes are good or bad or a bit of both.
It might be we actually supported them. At this stage, we just don't know.
I think I'm right in saying that a rule change requires a 75% majority. If so, then for a proposed change to go through, fewer than 7 clubs must have voted against it.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,225
I do, yes.
The clubs agreed to the FFP thing in the first place. If they thought it wasn't going to be attainable, why not make them more achievable at the start? That's what I don't grasp. Or vote unilaterally against the whole concept of FFP from the off.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,225
I think one of the journalists is reporting that parachute payments will be reduced from four to three years.
Doesn't specify whether they'll simply get the same total money, just spread over the shorter period...
In relation to the rest of your post, I concede I'd not really considered whether any purported changes might work in our favour. I guess, thinking more rationally after my initial annoyance, they could do, although presumably they'd only work in our favour the same as they would other clubs. Thus we'd be less likely to be in breach of the rules, but there'd be no change in our position relative to other clubs?
Marty___Mcfly
I see your wicked plan - I’m a junglist.
- Sep 14, 2011
- 2,251
The biggest financial punishment is for clubs who spend way beyond their income, but repeatedly fail to get to the Prem. Unfortunately the Albion fall in to this category. Once a club gets to the Prem even for one season it's a minimum £60 million injection of cash and the sums start adding up.
FFP is a red herring in comparison.
FFP is a red herring in comparison.
I'm not sure about "loosenings" but some fairly fundamental changes were needed to make it a more sensible tool.
FFP has always struck me as a blunt instrument. Certainly having consistent financial rigour applied is worthwhile, but the way FFP was constructed was over simplistic. Hopefully they'll adopt a more pragmatic approach to prevent financial collapse, which I thought was the overriding objective
seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
The three relegated clubs , the clubs giving FFP the middle finger and clubs looking further down the line will vote for it , it will be another whitewash job.
Not complex. A club can't lose more than £x after allowing a maximum equity investment of £x
Some aspects are excluded (infrastructure, academy and others I assume)
Merely saying a club can't lose more than £x is daft.
Although it might appear unfair to some if 'I' want to put money into my club that doesn't increase it's debt and covers all it's forward obligations (generally player contracts) then I don't understand why 'I' shouldn't be allowed to
seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
Is Paul Barber lying down in a dark room with a cold flannel on his forehead at the moment ?
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,225
If you read Bozza's recent posts on the subject, it's possible I've got entirely the wrong end of the stick, and PB is in fact, as we speak, reclining in a leather swivel chair whilst sipping a glass of champagne and stroking a white cat.
Albion Dan
Banned
According to Sky at least 80% of clubs voted for the changes which were a reduction in amount of annual Premier parachute payments and an increase in the amount an owner can subsidise losses.
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
So all the hard work the club has done to keep in line FFP wasn't necessary. Let's be honest did we expect any different? At least the club can hold it's head high on this one and say we kept in line with the rules.