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

Financial Fair Play: Brighton hope for Football League clampdown



Biscuit

Native Creative
Jul 8, 2003
22,205
Brighton
From BBC Sport:


Brighton & Hove Albion head of football operations David Burke hopes the Football League will clamp down heavily on those clubs who fail to abide by the new Financial Fair Play rules.

Championship clubs are permitted to make a loss of £8m this season, according to rules approved by member clubs last year, with those who fail to comply set to face sanctions from the League.

"We at Brighton have been planning and working hard to get in line with FFP," Burke told BBC Sussex.

"There are a number of clubs that we know already will not be within the financial limits.
Play media

"We hope the Football League will be really strong with the transfer embargos and the fines, or taxes, are imposed properly.

"The idea is that these clubs will be penalised."

The Seagulls have undergone extensive cost-cutting in order to fall into line with the new system, which is aimed at controlling spending.

Clubs which fail to meet Financial Fair Play regulations will be subject to a transfer embargo until they lodge fresh financial information which demonstrates they meet the regulations.

If a club is promoted to the Premier League but breaches the regulations, they will have to pay a 'Fair Play Tax' on their excess, ranging from 1% to 100%, which will then be distributed between Championship teams who comply with the rules.
Financial Fair Play & Championship clubs

Championship clubs voted in proposals aimed at controlling spending in April 2012

Championship clubs must reduce losses season-on-season to a maximum of £5m (£3m can be funded by shareholders) by 2015-16

Season 2013-14: Permitted allowance of £8m (£5m can be funded by shareholders)

Season 2014-15: Permitted allowance of £6m (£3m can be funded by shareholders)

Season 2015-16: Permitted allowance of £5m (£3m can be funded by shareholders)

Championship sanctions start in 2014-15 season

Clubs remaining in the Championship who fail to comply will be subject to a transfer embargo in the January 2015 window until they can demonstrate that they meet the Financial Fair Play regulations.

Clubs winning promotion to the Premier League who breached the rules will be required to pay a 'Fair Play Tax' on the excess by which the club failed to fulfil the Fair Play requirement.

The 'tax' will range from 1% of the excess up to £100,000 to 100% on anything over £10m.

Any proceeds will be distributed equally amongst clubs that have complied with the Financial Fair Play regulations for the season in question.

"We know the ins and outs of every part of it and we have had to save about £3m in total across the club," Burke added.

"That has meant a huge effort from the club to reduce costs. It has enabled us to hit this first year with a player budget which is the same as last year.

"We at Brighton have been diligent and planned meticulously for this event so that we are in a strong position.

"The true impact won't be known until everybody posts their results in November 2014.

"We can then see who was within the financial limits."

However Burke believes other clubs may be pushing the boundaries of the Football League's rules.

"I don't know the finances of the other clubs but those clubs that appear to be spending a lot of money play a dangerous game," he said.

"They put their club at risk.

"The whole point of Financial Fair Play is to try and make it a more even playing field, which is questionable, but to also ensure we don't have a situation like at Portsmouth where lots of creditors aren't getting paid and clubs are on the brink of going out of business.

"The rules are good as it stops that type of accounting at clubs.

"My experience of the transfer window is that practically every club hasn't bought players and is trying to get rid of players - hence why the wages are coming down and there is a glut of players, especially midfielders.

"One or two are playing with the rules. Maybe historically they spent too much in the past and are still struggling to get their wage bill down, or because they want to take the gamble of spending as much as they can now [to try and get promotion].
Play media

"If they don't go up this season I think they will find themselves in a lot of trouble."

Brighton fans have seen ticket prices and some other costs increase following their move to the Amex Stadium as chief executive Paul Barber aims to increase commercial income, but Burke has called on supporters to "trust the club".

"The club is there for the long-run and stable," Burke said.

"Everything the chairman [Tony Bloom], the board and Paul Barber does has a long-term plan for the football club.

"Successful businesses are run on targets and at Brighton that foundation is in place.

"Whether we get in the Premier League this year or two, three or four years' time, that is the aim.

"Everything we do is to strive to get into the Premier League but we are constrained now by Financial Fair Play.

"Even if Tony wanted to lose more than £8m of his own money next year he can't do it as it takes us over the ceiling.

"You can't do it unless you want to take on the fines or the transfer embargo.

"Next season we will have to save money again and the season after."

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24024109
 






Rugrat

Well-known member
Mar 13, 2011
10,212
Seaford
I suspect this will take some time to settle. Forest are a good example, signing a nonsense sponsorship deal. That loophole will be closed and others will emerge. Then the fines have actually got to be imposed and collected.

Why points deductions weren't the punishment is mystifying
 


Giraffe

VERY part time moderator
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patreon
Aug 8, 2005
26,459
The problem with the rules is that they are very very easy to get round.

Real financial fair play would be to set a maximum budget budget for player wage spend (in total) for each club. That could be easily measured and tested.

Profit is a number that can be so easily manipulated that the measure is meaningless.
 




BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
I suspect this will take some time to settle. Forest are a good example, signing a nonsense sponsorship deal. That loophole will be closed and others will emerge. Then the fines have actually got to be imposed and collected.

Why points deductions weren't the punishment is mystifying

That is the logical answer but clubs will not publish their accounts until after the start of next season so it would mean a points deduction for a club in the premier but they would still have earned about £120m. It is all down to the financial regulations of the country which govern the timescale for lodging of accounts.
 


Rugrat

Well-known member
Mar 13, 2011
10,212
Seaford
That is the logical answer but clubs will not publish their accounts until after the start of next season so it would mean a points deduction for a club in the premier but they would still have earned about £120m. It is all down to the financial regulations of the country which govern the timescale for lodging of accounts.

Then the reporting period should be shorter or as Giraffe says some other more immediate and less manipulative measure used. It will be shambolic I'm sure. As is often the case, the intent is good but the method of execution piss poor
 


Surf's Up

Well-known member
Jul 17, 2011
10,147
Here
Clubs will continue to find ways around the rules and stay one step ahead of the game ( eg Watford, Forest) at no risk of being penalised. Others will just ignore the rules to try and get to the Premiership where the rewards will vastly outweigh any penalties they incur under FFP. Others will obey the rules and will probably suffer accordingly. A level playing field it ain't!!!
 




coagulantwolf

New member
Jun 21, 2012
716
The problem with the rules is that they are very very easy to get round.

Real financial fair play would be to set a maximum budget budget for player wage spend (in total) for each club. That could be easily measured and tested.

Profit is a number that can be so easily manipulated that the measure is meaningless.

Do you mean each maximum budget is in nominal terms? So a figure that is the same for each side, rather than a percentage of their income? Curiosity more than anything, as this is what I'm doing my dissertation on this year. Well; whether salary caps would be beneficial to the fans.
 


BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
Then the reporting period should be shorter or as Giraffe says some other more immediate and less manipulative measure used. It will be shambolic I'm sure. As is often the case, the intent is good but the method of execution piss poor

That cannot be implemented as regards reporting time as it is the law of the land as regards all businesses. The FL cannot bring in a rule that is in direct opposition to the law of the land as it would lead to large court action. The only reasonable answer is to make the fine equal to the financial gain of getting promoted taking into account increased revenue from increased gates against the top clubs but the FL wont have the balls to do that for fear of a legal challenge. It is very good making rules but first make sure that they can be implemented and that you are able to adequately punish offenders.
 






Driver8

On the road...
NSC Patreon
Jul 31, 2005
15,952
North Wales
I suspect this will take some time to settle. Forest are a good example, signing a nonsense sponsorship deal. That loophole will be closed and others will emerge. Then the fines have actually got to be imposed and collected.

Why points deductions weren't the punishment is mystifying

The sponsorship loophole was anticipated in the original rules and when their financial results are reviewed any artificial deals will be disregarded and treated as their real value.

Quite how this will work in practise remains to be seen and the Football League haven't exactly shown themselves to be tough on misdemeanours as shown by allowing Pompey to take the piss for years.
 


Rugrat

Well-known member
Mar 13, 2011
10,212
Seaford
That cannot be implemented as regards reporting time as it is the law of the land as regards all businesses. The FL cannot bring in a rule that is in direct opposition to the law of the land as it would lead to large court action. The only reasonable answer is to make the fine equal to the financial gain of getting promoted taking into account increased revenue from increased gates against the top clubs but the FL wont have the balls to do that for fear of a legal challenge. It is very good making rules but first make sure that they can be implemented and that you are able to adequately punish offenders.

I wasn't suggesting that the reporting period for accounts change but that clubs accounts are scrutinised on a more regular basis. Academic really given the loopholes that exist and until and unless they are plugged FFP will never really have any impact unless clubs simply don't have the means to operate outside the boundaries anyway
 


Rugrat

Well-known member
Mar 13, 2011
10,212
Seaford
The sponsorship loophole was anticipated in the original rules and when their financial results are reviewed any artificial deals will be disregarded and treated as their real value.

Quite how this will work in practise remains to be seen and the Football League haven't exactly shown themselves to be tough on misdemeanours as shown by allowing Pompey to take the piss for years.

It was, making Forest's attempt an even more a flagarant fingers up. I imagine the first culprits will have fines imposed and will then immediately appeal taking the whole thing into a circular process that could go on for years.
 




symyjym

Banned
Nov 2, 2009
13,138
Brighton / Hove actually
The sponsorship loophole was anticipated in the original rules and when their financial results are reviewed any artificial deals will be disregarded and treated as their real value.

Quite how this will work in practise remains to be seen and the Football League haven't exactly shown themselves to be tough on misdemeanours as shown by allowing Pompey to take the piss for years.

I wouldn't say that Portsmouth have got away scott free, they have had point deductions, administration and fines, and are currently 4pts off the bottom of league 2. This has been pre FFP and I don't think they could have been punished any more really.
 


KZNSeagull

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
19,694
Wolsingham, County Durham
It was, making Forest's attempt an even more a flagarant fingers up. I imagine the first culprits will have fines imposed and will then immediately appeal taking the whole thing into a circular process that could go on for years.

Appeal to whom? FFP was agreed and signed up to by all Football League clubs.
 



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