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

Paul Barber on today's FFP vote



Goldstone1976

We Got Calde in!!
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patreon
Apr 30, 2013
13,765
Herts
I think this justifies its own thread, as well as being in the other one:

I've just spoken to PB, who said the following:

1) the club voted in favour of the change. The principle reason why the club did is because since the original acceptable losses under FFP were agreed, the parachute payments for clubs being relegated from the PL have increased by c50%, thus dramatically penalising clubs without parachute payments. The club would have preferred the increase in acceptable losses not to have been as high as it turned out to be, but decided to vote in favour "for the greater good".

2) the acceptable loss next season will now be £13m, not the £5m it was previously agreed to be. He described the additional acceptable loss of £8m as "massive", which of course it is.

3) he declined to answer my question concerning whether TB would be prepared to fund a loss of as high as £13m next season (citing commercial sensitivity and the fact that the Board will need to discuss the outcome of today's meeting first - which is entirely reasonable. I was a bit cheeky asking, tbh) but stressed the following:

a) By agreeing to an increased acceptable loss, TB has the opportunity to fund losses of up to £13m next season if he is prepared to go that high.
b) the club's ambition remains to be promoted to the PL and the club's policy will continue to be to have a squad that is competitive.
c) the club took the decision to vote in favour, taking due cognisance of the possibility that, after promotion, we may, "God forbid" be relegated at some point thereafter.

4) rumours of TB becoming disinterested in the club or of intending to sell are "nonsense".

5) as previously stated, he expects the club to have met the FFP limit of £8m loss last season. Further, the club is "on track" to meet the maximum loss of £6m this season.

He reiterated his prior statements that he wishes to be as open with fans (yes, that was the word he used) as possible, hence agreeing to answer my questions.

He knows I'm making this post.
 












simballs

New member
Jun 11, 2012
31
Southwick
Great post OP. Interesting to see which direction TB decides to go with respect funding greater losses now they are going in the right direction.
 








KZNSeagull

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
19,693
Wolsingham, County Durham
I think this justifies its own thread, as well as being in the other one:

I've just spoken to PB, who said the following:

1) the club voted in favour of the change. The principle reason why the club did is because since the original acceptable losses under FFP were agreed, the parachute payments for clubs being relegated from the PL have increased by c50%, thus dramatically penalising clubs without parachute payments. The club would have preferred the increase in acceptable losses not to have been as high as it turned out to be, but decided to vote in favour "for the greater good".

2) the acceptable loss next season will now be £13m, not the £5m it was previously agreed to be. He described the additional acceptable loss of £8m as "massive", which of course it is.

3) he declined to answer my question concerning whether TB would be prepared to fund a loss of as high as £13m next season (citing commercial sensitivity and the fact that the Board will need to discuss the outcome of today's meeting first - which is entirely reasonable. I was a bit cheeky asking, tbh) but stressed the following:

a) By agreeing to an increased acceptable loss, TB has the opportunity to fund losses of up to £13m next season if he is prepared to go that high.
b) the club's ambition remains to be promoted to the PL and the club's policy will continue to be to have a squad that is competitive.
c) the club took the decision to vote in favour, taking due cognisance of the possibility that, after promotion, we may, "God forbid" be relegated at some point thereafter.

4) rumours of TB becoming disinterested in the club or of intending to sell are "nonsense".

5) as previously stated, he expects the club to have met the FFP limit of £8m loss last season. Further, the club is "on track" to meet the maximum loss of £6m this season.

He reiterated his prior statements that he wishes to be as open with fans (yes, that was the word he used) as possible, hence agreeing to answer my questions.

He knows I'm making this post.

Splendid - thanks for doing that and for clarifying the position re next year! :thumbsup:
 




The Merry Prankster

Pactum serva
Aug 19, 2006
5,576
Shoreham Beach
Joke. We are never going to be able to compete. TB's stated policy is to be self sufficient regardless of FFP. Whilst the permissible losses were coming down to reasonable amounts then we could hope to compete. We simply won't compete against teams who are happy to go £13 000 000, over plus those with parachute payments means that we'll be in a small and exclusive group numbering about four.
 






Box of Frogs

Zamoras Left Boot
Oct 8, 2003
4,751
Right here, right now
4) rumours of TB becoming disinterested in the club or of intending to sell are "nonsense".

Waiting for the Worthing undertakers comment on this.
 


Bwian

Kiss my (_!_)
Jul 14, 2003
15,898
I'm staggered that an acceptable loss of £13 Million is even being discussed in the second tier of English football. Unbelievable really.

How can the likes of Tony Bloom, a very wealthy man, keep a club like ours competitive without outside investment?
 








Brighton Mod

Its All Too Beautiful
I'm staggered that an acceptable loss of £13 Million is even being discussed in the second tier of English football. Unbelievable really.

How can the likes of Tony Bloom, a very wealthy man, keep a club like ours competitive without outside investment?

How to become a millionaire as a club owner, start off as a billionaire! Our chairman cannot keep throwing funds at the club, if indeed he is, the money involved is fast becoming obscene. Its about time a club went out of business and ceased playiing football. Banks funding footballs overdraft must be reckless and mad, which of course they are.
 


Thunder Bolt

Ordinary Supporter
Waiting for the Worthing undertakers comment on this.

Perhaps he should have gone to one of the fans forums recently (NWSS). From the Albion Almanac.

Q. Can you reassure us that there are structures in place to keep the Albion safe from
a rich foreign owner who has no empathy with the club?

TB: I anticipate being the owner of the Albion for many years to come, but there may
come a point when I think about selling the club to someone else. I think it goes without
saying that I would be extremely careful and do a lot of due diligence on a potential new
owner. But however much due diligence I do, I can’t guarantee what that owner would do.
And that new owner might sell the club on. These things are unforeseeable.
You can only do so much to protect the football club, but I will have a look to see if
safeguards can be put in place, for instance having something in the Articles of Association
 




Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
61,674
Location Location
Its a bit of a nonsense that (some) clubs, including ours, have been cutting costs and selling players all over the shop to squeeze in to this £6m loss allowance, in preperation for it being a maximum of £5m losses next season....only for the goalposts to shift again and the permitted losses to shoot all the way back up to £13m next season.

I'm not saying I'd expect TB to automatically get the chequebook out to use up that £13m quota that going to come into play. But how the hell are you supposed to plan a long-term strategy and tailor your spending accordingly whilst trying to remain competative, when the bloody rules keep changing ? Crucial, fundamental decisions are being made and HAVE been made to fit in with what we THOUGHT would be a maximum of £5m in losses. Players have been sold. Targets have been lowered. Now thats not the case, its all up in the air again.

I'm not blaming the club btw. But this whole FFP thing is an absolute cuffing SHAMBLES as far as I'm concerned.
 


Bwian

Kiss my (_!_)
Jul 14, 2003
15,898
How to become a millionaire as a club owner, start off as a billionaire! Our chairman cannot keep throwing funds at the club, if indeed he is, the money involved is fast becoming obscene. Its about time a club went out of business and ceased playiing football. Banks funding footballs overdraft must be reckless and mad, which of course they are.

Be careful of what you wish for!

You're right though. What it needs is a PL club to cease trading for football to wake up. It will never happen though, the PL brand would not be allowed to have that on its records.
 



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