Forest and FFP

[Creaky]

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.

Sounds very good but it seems very strange that the path taken by the League to ensure 'sustainability' has been to restrict the amount owners can invest in the club without penalties! Most businesses would be attempting to encourage, not discourage, investment. By all means restrict the amounts clubs can borrow but to prevent investment in other ways such as equity purchase, sponsorship etc is counter-productive.

I think the answer is in the name, Financial Fair Play - clubs that don't have rich investors feel it is unfair that they should be able to attract better players than they can - well that's life - it's not fair.

If the League had simply restricted the loans any club could have on their books to a fixed amount this would have done far more to stabilise the financial standings of clubs than the current system.

 

[Giraffe]

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.

That in itself is a huge flaw then itsn't it. What's the point of the rule then.

Surely the whole idea behind Financial Fair Play is to make a more level playing field for everyone, a kind of socialist concept. I fail to see how it can work without Premiership buy in. Well in fact I just fail to see how it will work.

 

[Postman Pat]

Sounds very good but it seems very strange that the path taken by the League to ensure 'sustainability' has been to restrict the amount owners can invest in the club without penalties! Most businesses would be attempting to encourage, not discourage, investment. By all means restrict the amounts clubs can borrow but to prevent investment in other ways such as equity purchase, sponsorship etc is counter-productive.

I think the answer is in the name, Financial Fair Play - clubs that don't have rich investors feel it is unfair that they should be able to attract better players than they can - well that's life - it's not fair.

If the League had simply restricted the loans any club could have on their books to a fixed amount this would have done far more to stabilise the financial standings of clubs than the current system.

Investment itself isn't being restricted, but more where the money is being spent.

As I understand it clubs are free to spend as much as they see fit on things like stadium improvements and youth team development, which I would class as investment.

Giving player X 50k per week is not an investment.

 

[father_and_son]

Sounds very good but it seems very strange that the path taken by the League to ensure 'sustainability' has been to restrict the amount owners can invest in the club without penalties! Most businesses would be attempting to encourage, not discourage, investment. By all means restrict the amounts clubs can borrow but to prevent investment in other ways such as equity purchase, sponsorship etc is counter-productive.

I think the answer is in the name, Financial Fair Play - clubs that don't have rich investors feel it is unfair that they should be able to attract better players than they can - well that's life - it's not fair.

If the League had simply restricted the loans any club could have on their books to a fixed amount this would have done far more to stabilise the financial standings of clubs than the current system.

Based on what I have read on the subject, the FL class financial stability means not being reliant on a sugar daddy who may or may not stay around. Its about ensuring that the "normal income" of the club (tv, tickets, pies, corporate, etc) is enough to cover costs. An admirable aim IMO.

However, I agree with you. If Mr Chairman wants to spend his own money on his hobby then that's up to him, provided its done in a sustainable and professional fashion. Given that the FL have the final say over who can/can't own a club, then it is down to them in the first place to stop some asset-stripping c**t like Archer or someone like Glazer, leveraging the worth of the club and landing them millions in debt, taking over a club. Or for some Chair threatening to take his bat and ball home if he gets bored. Provided the prospective owner commits to long term investment that ensures the club stays stable, then personally , I have no issue with any rich individual indulging a love of the game (provided that's what it is).
Unfortunately, as we see time and time again, the FL have no b*lls and let any old crook in.

FFP could be replaced with "Fit and Proper" person tests on the owners on [an ongoing/annual basis] which have some clout and have a contractual element that commits the owner to certain principles regarding debt, assets and sustainable investment. Fail the test in any year and you lose the right to own and control a club and ownership passes to the FL for them to sell on.

 

[Creaky]

Investment itself isn't being restricted, but more where the money is being spent.

As I understand it clubs are free to spend as much as they see fit on things like stadium improvements and youth team development, which I would class as investment.

Giving player X 50k per week is not an investment.

It's every bit as much an investment as a company paying 'top whack' to get the best salesmen.

One is a capital investment the other a trading one. Both necessary for success.

Problems arise with trading investments when loans are used to pay for them and the additional revenue does not cover the cost of those loans. This isn't the case if the revenue to pay for the high cost players is put in place via equity purchase or sponsorship deals.

 

[Diego Napier]

Now that it seems very likely they won't be going up it will be interesting to see what happens with FFP.

They should be buggered, totally buggered. But my gut feeling is the football league are going to be incredibly weak on this, and any penalties will be extremely lame.

How much scope have they got to penalise? Are the rules laid down very strictly. It should be clear how much you will be penalised for going over the £8m loss, but I doubt it is.

Interesting and quite novel; I imagine most of us were hoping they would be financially penalised.

 

[Creaky]

Based on what I have read on the subject, the FL class financial stability means not being reliant on a sugar daddy who may or may not stay around. Its about ensuring that the "normal income" of the club (tv, tickets, pies, corporate, etc) is enough to cover costs. An admirable aim IMO.

However, I agree with you. If Mr Chairman wants to spend his own money on his hobby then that's up to him, provided its done in a sustainable and professional fashion. Given that the FL have the final say over who can/can't own a club, then it is down to them in the first place to stop some asset-stripping c**t like Archer or someone like Glazer, leveraging the worth of the club and landing them millions in debt, taking over a club. Or for some Chair threatening to take his bat and ball home if he gets bored. Provided the prospective owner commits to long term investment that ensures the club stays stable, then personally , I have no issue with any rich individual indulging a love of the game (provided that's what it is).
Unfortunately, as we see time and time again, the FL have no b*lls and let any old crook in.

FFP could be replaced with "Fit and Proper" person tests on the owners on [an ongoing/annual basis] which have some clout and have a contractual element that commits the owner to certain principles regarding debt, assets and sustainable investment. Fail the test in any year and you lose the right to own and control a club and ownership passes to the FL for them to sell on.

Current FFP regs do little or nothing to prevent such activities.

 

[El Presidente]

Surely the whole idea behind Financial Fair Play is to make a more level playing field for everyone.

I disagree fundamentally with that viewpoint though. FFP was set up to ensure that the self perpetuating self congratulating self preserving cartel of 'rich' clubs at the top of division, who always qualify for Champions League, do not have to worry about a mid-tier club finding a rich benefactor and upsetting their cost little arrangement. What they fear most all is another Manchester City occurring, which will present greater competition.

FFP is designed to reduce fairness, not create it.

 

[Hotchilidog]

I disagree fundamentally with that viewpoint though. FFP was set up to ensure that the self perpetuating self congratulating self preserving cartel of 'rich' clubs at the top of division, who always qualify for Champions League, do not have to worry about a mid-tier club finding a rich benefactor and upsetting their cost little arrangement. What they fear most all is another Manchester City occurring, which will present greater competition.

FFP is designed to reduce fairness, not create it.

Quite correct. However if FFP were strictly enforced in the championship we would probably be big beneficiaries (once our costs are under control) as we do generate more revenue than many other championship teams.

 

[El Presidente]

Quite correct. However if FFP were strictly enforced in the championship we would probably be big beneficiaries (once our costs are under control) as we do generate more revenue than many other championship teams.

Disagree, our turnover last year was £22 million, clubs coming down from the PL get £18 million in parachute payments alone, so they have a huge head start over us.

 

[saafend_seagull]

Still don't know why people moan at Bolton, forest etc.

As far as I'm concerned they can spend what they want.

We are lucky enough as it is. Those who moan are jealous. How about you pump unlimited cash into the football club instead of being happy for one guy to do this for us?

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Disagree, our turnover last year was £22 million, clubs coming down from the PL get £18 million in parachute payments alone, so they have a huge head start over us.

Parachute payments skew the whole thing wildly and frankly imo make a mockery of ffp.

 

[Driver8]

Still don't know why people moan at Bolton, forest etc.

As far as I'm concerned they can spend what they want.

We are lucky enough as it is. Those who moan are jealous. How about you pump unlimited cash into the football club instead of being happy for one guy to do this for us?

Suggest you look at Leeds,Leicester, Palace (twice) Pompey (three times?) etc etc. to see why it's a problem and why FFP was introduced. It's nothing to do with jealousy.

 

[El Presidente]

Suggest you look at Leeds,Leicester, Palace (twice) Pompey (three times?) etc etc. to see why it's a problem and why FFP was introduced. It's nothing to do with jealousy.

FFP would also have done very little to stop any of those clubs going into administration.

 

[Rugrat]

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.

I think the notion that the FL can set their own rules when it comes to how I (the shareholder) chose to invest in my business will be a fundamental that is challenged. I genuinely don't see it standing up if challenged in a court of law.

 

[Triggaaar]

I think the notion that the FL can set their own rules when it comes to how I (the shareholder) chose to invest in my business will be a fundamental that is challenged. I genuinely don't see it standing up if challenged in a court of law.

It's a club membership, with rules. Just like there are rules on how many players you can have in your squad. 'But I can afford to employ 30 players, and they want a job, so who are the FL to tell me I can't employ them all?' Them's the rules. You can employ them all and play football somewhere else, but if you want to play football in our leagues, you play by our rules.

 

[Rugrat]

It's a club membership, with rules. Just like there are rules on how many players you can have in your squad. 'But I can afford to employ 30 players, and they want a job, so who are the FL to tell me I can't employ them all?' Them's the rules. You can employ them all and play football somewhere else, but if you want to play football in our leagues, you play by our rules.

I think that's a different issue. I'll play by the rules but you cannot tell me how I should run my business.

I understand where you are coming from but I think we might need to agree to differ on this one!

 

[Triggaaar]

I think that's a different issue. I'll play by the rules but you cannot tell me how I should run my business.

It's exactly the same thing. You can run your business how you like, but if you want to be in the club, then you follow the club rules.

 

[TSB]

Still don't know why people moan at Bolton, forest etc.

As far as I'm concerned they can spend what they want.

We are lucky enough as it is. Those who moan are jealous. How about you pump unlimited cash into the football club instead of being happy for one guy to do this for us?

I'm deeply jealous of Blackburn, Bolton and Forest. I mean just look at their attendances (Bolton, Blackburn), grounds (Blackburn, Forest) debt (all three) and league position (all three), I wish we were them.
What a strange strange statement.

 

[Albion Dan]

Disagree, our turnover last year was £22 million, clubs coming down from the PL get £18 million in parachute payments alone, so they have a huge head start over us.

Parachute Payments completely undermine FFP and should be challenged by the league, or be prevented from counting toward FFP allowance.