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

Financial Fair Play penalties?



drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,007
Burgess Hill
Having watched Attilla's onstage interview with Paul Barber I was intrigued to understand what the penalties are for clubs if they if they fail the FFP test.

Seems that if you gamble and overspend in an attempt to get out of the division and succeed, you are rewarded for your endeavours. This is on the basis that, apparently with the agreement of the Premier League, if you overspend then you are fined the equivalent of the difference between the overspend and whatever FFP limit is applicable. For example, the limit this season, assuming the a chairman covers losses above £3m is £8m. If you spend £30m in getting promoted then you are fined £22m. However, the gamble has paid off because of the mega money you are now getting in the Premiership! Add into that the fact that you are exempt in the first year you get relegated, you are quids in.

What would make sense is that, coupled with the fine, you have a transfer embargo imposed for your first season in the premiership, almost guaranteeing relegation. You will probably still be financially better off in the interim but it seems better than a paltry fine!

Personally, I think FFP is the way forward but the sanctions against clubs that gamble and succeed are not severe enough to act as a deterrent!

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/resources/wsc0001.pdf
 


happypig

Staring at the rude boys
May 23, 2009
7,935
Eastbourne
It should simply be that if you break FFP by more than a set amount, then you cannot be promoted.
 


Gazwag

5 millionth post poster
Mar 4, 2004
30,093
Bexhill-on-Sea
I don't understand why relegated club are exempt for the first season - surely that's what the parachute payments are for?
 




Creaky

Well-known member
Mar 26, 2013
3,835
Hookwood - Nr Horley
The whole concept of FFP is a total nonsense!

We should be welcoming investment in our home leagues rather than discouraging it and we certainly shouldn't be worrying about domestic teams flouting the system but be far more concerned with European clubs outside of those leagues. If the FFP penalties do discourage investors in English clubs that doesn't mean they won't be investing in clubs outside of those leagues - especially if strangling the quality of players in the lower leagues means that the chance of survival for those that are promoted to the EPL, (the real 'glamour' aim of big investors), is made less likely than they are even now.

Anyone who thinks that it will be possible to sustain the quality of the English leagues whilst at the same time having all the clubs trading profitably is, in my opinion,1 living in cloud cuckoo land!
 




yxee

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2011
2,521
Manchester
The whole concept of FFP is a total nonsense!

We should be welcoming investment in our home leagues rather than discouraging it and we certainly shouldn't be worrying about domestic teams flouting the system but be far more concerned with European clubs outside of those leagues. If the FFP penalties do discourage investors in English clubs that doesn't mean they won't be investing in clubs outside of those leagues - especially if strangling the quality of players in the lower leagues means that the chance of survival for those that are promoted to the EPL, (the real 'glamour' aim of big investors), is made less likely than they are even now.

Anyone who thinks that it will be possible to sustain the quality of the English leagues whilst at the same time having all the clubs trading profitably is, in my opinion,1 living in cloud cuckoo land!

"Investment" is a slippery word in football. Can anyone honestly say the investment at Chelsea did anything for home grown talent? All they have is an artificially superior team until Abramovic gets bored. Real investment - building academies and training grounds and improving coaching - is not even considered a cost by FFP. That still pays dividends to the right type of investor. Surely that is the right way to do things.
 


Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Nov 15, 2008
31,765
Brighton
I don't understand why relegated club are exempt for the first season - surely that's what the parachute payments are for?

I suppose an (admittedly poorly thought out) argument would be that the team coming down might not be one of the teams that went up the season before and in such a case would be a club that hadn't voted for and prepared for the championship. i.e. if Sunderland come down, they weren't there to vote, they haven't had a couple of seasons to prepare and make efforts to get in line.
 
Last edited:


SI 4 BHA

Active member
Nov 12, 2003
728
westdene, brighton
I suppose an (admittedly poorly thought out) argument would be that the team coming down might not be one of the teams that went up the season before and in such a case would be a club that hadn't voted for and prepared for the championship. i.e. if Sunderland come down, they weren't there to vote, they haven't had a couple of seasons to prepare and make efforts to get in line.

I think the real problem is the timing of a club publishing its accounts. Until the accounts are published, no decision can be made about whether FFP has been breached so if a club's accounts run to say 30 June 2014 there is no way the accounts will be published until after the 2014/15 season has started and you have to know who has been promoted by around the end of June when the fixtures come out. I think that is why it is a financial penalty rather than a ban on promotion.
 




Creaky

Well-known member
Mar 26, 2013
3,835
Hookwood - Nr Horley
"Investment" is a slippery word in football. Can anyone honestly say the investment at Chelsea did anything for home grown talent? All they have is an artificially superior team until Abramovic gets bored. Real investment - building academies and training grounds and improving coaching - is not even considered a cost by FFP. That still pays dividends to the right type of investor. Surely that is the right way to do things.

Whether or not Abramovich levels of investment in the EPL are good for either 'home grown talent' or the league itself has little to do with the effect of investment in English Football League clubs. The EPL is the top of the tree and is a world apart from the Champuionship. Placing restrictions on the lower leagues will only widen that gap.
 


Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
61,673
Location Location
A good penalty would be any team breaking FFP rules isn't allowed any penalties for the following season.

I like that. You could hack down their forwards in the box with complete impunity.
 






Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Nov 15, 2008
31,765
Brighton
I think the real problem is the timing of a club publishing its accounts. Until the accounts are published, no decision can be made about whether FFP has been breached so if a club's accounts run to say 30 June 2014 there is no way the accounts will be published until after the 2014/15 season has started and you have to know who has been promoted by around the end of June when the fixtures come out. I think that is why it is a financial penalty rather than a ban on promotion.

Sorry, I quoted the wrong post (have corrected) my point was meant in response to why a relegated team is exempt for their first season (back) in the championship.
 


Creaky

Well-known member
Mar 26, 2013
3,835
Hookwood - Nr Horley
Is there not a similar scheme coming into effect in the Premier league? UEFA's version?

Yes there are but the restrictions on losses is far looser, (higher permitted loss levels), than those in the lower leagues, which even if all clubs comply will widen the gap in real terms between the EPL and the lower clubs.

I can't think of any other regulated industry where the bigger you are then the less you are regulated and the smaller you are the less you are allowed to invest in order to compete with the 'big boys'.
 






Shropshire Seagull

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2004
8,477
Telford
A good penalty would be any team breaking FFP rules isn't allowed any penalties for the following season.

I like that. You could hack down their forwards in the box with complete impunity.

Hey Easy, what about the straight red? Should that also not be awarded along with the pen?
 


mwrpoole

Well-known member
Sep 10, 2010
1,504
Sevenoaks
This only a decent argument if ONE team breaks the rules and gets promoted. If five teams break the rules and three manage to go up then 2 are ****ed. This is probably more likely. I don't think teams are going to politely take it in turns three at a time to break the rules and get promoted.

And not all the owners of these clubs are life long fans, some will cut their loses and walk away if it doesn't pay off. FFP is designed to stop another Pompey happening but clubs like Forest & Leicester could easily follow suit, their annual loss's dwarf ours.
 


GreersElbow

New member
Jan 5, 2012
4,870
A Northern Outpost
Ultimately, the price of FFP will be paid for by the spectator. I can imagine smaller clubs having to up their ticket sales in order to keep afloat. FFP is undoubtedly aimed at stifling the progress of English football, but will effect most of Europe.
 


sparkie

Well-known member
Jul 17, 2003
12,466
Hove
The fine for FFP should match the amount of TV money the club gains by promotion to the Premier League ( 63 million ). If the club finishes above last place it will gain more TV money. This should be fined in the following season when the amount is known.

Unfortunately I think this would just send a club into administration, but only a rule-breaker so I have little sympathy.
 




drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,007
Burgess Hill
I think the real problem is the timing of a club publishing its accounts. Until the accounts are published, no decision can be made about whether FFP has been breached so if a club's accounts run to say 30 June 2014 there is no way the accounts will be published until after the 2014/15 season has started and you have to know who has been promoted by around the end of June when the fixtures come out. I think that is why it is a financial penalty rather than a ban on promotion.

Not relevant as clubs now have to submit accounts to the league by 1st of December.
 


Thunder Bolt

Ordinary Supporter
Having watched Attilla's onstage interview with Paul Barber I was intrigued to understand what the penalties are for clubs if they if they fail the FFP test.

Seems that if you gamble and overspend in an attempt to get out of the division and succeed, you are rewarded for your endeavours. This is on the basis that, apparently with the agreement of the Premier League, if you overspend then you are fined the equivalent of the difference between the overspend and whatever FFP limit is applicable. For example, the limit this season, assuming the a chairman covers losses above £3m is £8m. If you spend £30m in getting promoted then you are fined £22m. However, the gamble has paid off because of the mega money you are now getting in the Premiership! Add into that the fact that you are exempt in the first year you get relegated, you are quids in.

What would make sense is that, coupled with the fine, you have a transfer embargo imposed for your first season in the premiership, almost guaranteeing relegation. You will probably still be financially better off in the interim but it seems better than a paltry fine!

Personally, I think FFP is the way forward but the sanctions against clubs that gamble and succeed are not severe enough to act as a deterrent!

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/resources/wsc0001.pdf

A transfer embargo won't guarantee relegation. You can still buy players but need league permission.
 



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