Dick Knights Mumm
Take me Home Falmer Road
I am sure you are right - but if the FA/Leagues made it a condition....... which is not going to happen........
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Bolton £163 million in debt (!)
- Thread starter shaolinpunk
- Start date
I am sure you are right - but if the FA/Leagues made it a condition....... which is not going to happen........
Creaky
Well-known member
To be accurate, 21 of the 24 clubs that were members of the Championship at the end of the 2011/2012 season voted in favour of the proposed FFP regulations.
If the rules were applied evenly over the Championship then I suspect that the majority of clubs, (including BHAFC), would be facing a transfer embargo - of course this won't happen as it would kill the transfer market as teams held on to the players they had.
It shouldn't be the clubs and their customers/fans that are penalised for any financial contravention of the 'rules' but those who are responsible for those breaches - i.e. the shareholders. Hit them personally where it hurts, in the pocket.
The current system is a total farce that assumes that only a tiny minority of clubs will fail to comply with the regulations whereas the reality is that most actually will.
We will either end up with a 'fudge' bending the rules so that only a few clubs will be deemed to have breached the regulations or, more likely, a total collapse of FFP.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
I asked Paul Barber about relegation clauses at a Q&A session. He said players wouldn't sign contracts if they were included. That's the reason that parachute payments were allowed.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Transfer embargoes aren't a deterrent. All it means is that transfers have to have League approval, not that the club can't buy new players.
seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
Certain clubs know that the FL will have to sanction the transfers at the end of the day to avoid litigation , making a mockery of the word "embargo"
saafend_seagull
Well-known member
If the football league sanctioned transfers for teams in an embargo cos of FPP, the league would fall apart.
Also Bolton will have to wait for a year to sign anyone from dec 14 because their accounts won't be ready until like sep/oct 2015 after the deadline to show they now make a 8m loss instead of 163m (if they can)
Also Bolton will have to wait for a year to sign anyone from dec 14 because their accounts won't be ready until like sep/oct 2015 after the deadline to show they now make a 8m loss instead of 163m (if they can)
Just looked it up - most of the Bolton debt is not to the banks but to Burnden Leisure (owned by Eddie Davies). Even so, what's in it for him? How deep are his pockets that he can afford a £40m/£50m loss every year? What's more, at the end of 2015/16, the club is hit by a double whammy: the end of the parachute payments and the end of the Reebok naming rights contract. I guess their losses are about to get worse
Dick Knights Mumm
Take me Home Falmer Road
But if every contract had to have a relegation clause ............ and a get-out clause there would be no question arising. Make it a EUFA-wide requirement.
Pie in the sky probably.
Creaky
Well-known member
Sanction any club for breaching the rules and there will almost certainly be grounds for a legal challenge based on the application of the rules.
How can FFP include the word "FAIR" when a club can play in a modern stadium rent free simply because the owner of the stadium happens to also own the football club - how much would it reduce our bottom line if a market rate for renting the Amex was added to the P&L.
Then of course there are interest free loans - some clubs have owners who will lend money to the club on this basis whereas others will apply an interest figure or have to go to commercial bodies for a loan - how is that equitable or fair?
If the FFP compliance calculation were made on an equitable basis then there would be very few that would end up complying, including I suspect BHAFC,
How can FFP include the word "FAIR" when a club can play in a modern stadium rent free simply because the owner of the stadium happens to also own the football club - how much would it reduce our bottom line if a market rate for renting the Amex was added to the P&L.
Then of course there are interest free loans - some clubs have owners who will lend money to the club on this basis whereas others will apply an interest figure or have to go to commercial bodies for a loan - how is that equitable or fair?
If the FFP compliance calculation were made on an equitable basis then there would be very few that would end up complying, including I suspect BHAFC,
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
In an ideal world.
Bolton Wanderers survived in The Premier League for a long time, but I remember hearing a few years before their relegation that they were living constantly at their limit financially and were relying on not going down. Sheer stupidity from Garside and co..
Stumpy Tim
Well-known member
Disagree with that. You regularly see 5 or 6 year contracts, and sometimes longer. Back in the day I remember 1 year contracts & sometimes 2 years. There was no need for clubs to give players more than a year really
Why do you think all transfer embagoes are like the Watford one? They are not.
Creaky
Well-known member
A mandatory clause such as you propose would also no doubt breach various employment laws across Europe.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
I was thinking of the Portsmouth example as well as Watford. Please tell me how it works.
Generally a transfer embago means that the club cannot sign any players. I was not aware of the portsmouth exception, but the Watford one was a specific sanction deemed appropriate for their offence.
I seem to remember reading recently (like over the summer) that relegation clauses were starting to be used a bit more now (though still not yet common place) that previously the PFA had been against them. Perhaps it depends on the player and how desperate they are to play in the premier league or how desperate the club are to get that player.
Meaning that barely any club would ever be able to sell a player again and they could all walk out at the end of the season on a Bosman.
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
We do not know yet, as the FFP rules have yet to take effect. So the embargoes in the past may not be the same as future embargoes.
northernseagull
Active member
- Mar 12, 2013
- 676
Not really understanding how they structure this level of debt - known of the debt since the early premiership day which stood close to £30m as a result of building the stadium etc...
Stupid question but if a club is £150m in debt even though its owned by another company (Burnden Leisure) how do they pay the wages? Surely that's the scale of debt that results in closure... Dwindling crowd attendance, reduction in revenue across the entire club, and Premiership hangover is making a bleak outlook for 2014 onwards.
Stupid question but if a club is £150m in debt even though its owned by another company (Burnden Leisure) how do they pay the wages? Surely that's the scale of debt that results in closure... Dwindling crowd attendance, reduction in revenue across the entire club, and Premiership hangover is making a bleak outlook for 2014 onwards.