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

Financial Fair Play



Tim Over Whelmed

Well-known member
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Jul 24, 2007
10,160
Arundel
A quick question, the FFP is designed, I believe, to ensure clubs spend within their means? So it's based on expected revenue, i.e. TV rights, attendance, commercial opportunities, wage bill, overheads etc, I'm guessing? This is designed to stop Sugar Daddy Chairman just piling cash in to buy a route to the promised land?

With this is mind couldn't a club sign a mega over the top shirt sponsorship deal and therefore creating the same problem as cash being pushed into a club? i.e. a chairman owns Crappy Burgers plc, the club would expect a £1m a year shirt deal but they get say £50m over three years for a shirt deal? They've spent "within their means" and the chairman buys his way to the Premiership?

Just I'm being too simplistic?
 

Hotchilidog

Well-known member
Jan 24, 2009
8,624
A quick question, the FFP is designed, I believe, to ensure clubs spend within their means? So it's based on expected revenue, i.e. TV rights, attendance, commercial opportunities, wage bill, overheads etc, I'm guessing? This is designed to stop Sugar Daddy Chairman just piling cash in to buy a route to the promised land?

With this is mind couldn't a club sign a mega over the top shirt sponsorship deal and therefore creating the same problem as cash being pushed into a club? i.e. a chairman owns Crappy Burgers plc, the club would expect a £1m a year shirt deal but they get say £50m over three years for a shirt deal? They've spent "within their means" and the chairman buys his way to the Premiership?

Just I'm being too simplistic?

You mean like Nottingham Forest have done? Apparently what they have done is against FFP rules but I am struggling to see it. I think we are only going to find out what is and isn't allowed when next years figures are in and the Football League finally have to act.
 

symyjym

Banned
Nov 2, 2009
13,138
Brighton / Hove actually
A quick question, the FFP is designed, I believe, to ensure clubs spend within their means? So it's based on expected revenue, i.e. TV rights, attendance, commercial opportunities, wage bill, overheads etc, I'm guessing? This is designed to stop Sugar Daddy Chairman just piling cash in to buy a route to the promised land?

With this is mind couldn't a club sign a mega over the top shirt sponsorship deal and therefore creating the same problem as cash being pushed into a club? i.e. a chairman owns Crappy Burgers plc, the club would expect a £1m a year shirt deal but they get say £50m over three years for a shirt deal? They've spent "within their means" and the chairman buys his way to the Premiership?

Just I'm being too simplistic?

Would be difficult, because Crappy Burgers or any made up company name would have to be trading. And any funds that could be traced back to the owner would be illegal.
 

Tim Over Whelmed

Well-known member
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Jul 24, 2007
10,160
Arundel
Would be difficult, because Crappy Burgers or any made up company name would have to be trading. And any funds that could be traced back to the owner would be illegal.

That's what I mean, let's say I own Brighton and a Company called Crappy Burgers. What is the price of a three year deal? You could argue that market forces dictate this and I, as an owner of a Company wish to pay £50m because that's what I feel it's worth, who is to say it isn't and legally am I going outside of FFP. A Ltd Co is paying £50m for shirt sponsorship? The fact that I am the owner is, possibly, irrelevant, isn't it?
 

Tom Hark Preston Park

Will Post For Cash
Jul 6, 2003
69,788
FFP will probably be scrapped as a concept within two years, after which those who slavishly adhered to it will spend years in the courts trying and failing to get compo while those who just ignored it will carry on regardless. Them's the football rules sadly.
 


Ernest

Stupid IDIOT
Nov 8, 2003
42,739
LOONEY BIN
FFP will probably be scrapped as a concept within two years, after which those who slavishly adhered to it will spend years in the courts trying and failing to get compo while those who just ignored it will carry on regardless. Them's the football rules sadly.

Be before then, the Premier League are sticking their noses in saying it is unfair to their teams being relegated
 

B.W.

New member
Jul 5, 2003
13,666
The idea in the OP is outlawed by FFP. But do the FL have the balls to enforce the scheme? Who knows? I doubt it.
 


Pinkie Brown

I'll look after the skirt
Sep 5, 2007
3,532
Neues Zeitalter DDR
Would be difficult, because Crappy Burgers or any made up company name would have to be trading. And any funds that could be traced back to the owner would be illegal.


But as is the case with many shady companies and dodgy financial arrangements, Crap Burgers could be a trading name of a parent company, Salmonella Burgers, whose holding company, Puke Burgers, is based in some far off land and is in the name of the owners sister in laws second cousin, Abdul lodsadosh who in turn is related to the original owners brother in law etc etc. In short, they 'could' leave a complex paper trail to throw the FFP sleuths off the scent.

Or they could just set up a company in the South of France and put it in the name of somebodies dog. That would be stretching the imagination too far though.

Then again, if you believe what Richard Scudamore says, FFP is unworkable in its present form anyway. I do wonder if they are paving the way for a fudge as they may (?) think they are on dodgy ground with the potential legal challenge to FFP?
 

B.W.

New member
Jul 5, 2003
13,666
[/B]

But as is the case with many shady companies and dodgy financial arrangements, Crap Burgers could be a trading name of a parent company, Salmonella Burgers, whose holding company, Puke Burgers, is based in some far off land and is in the name of the owners sister in laws second cousin, Abdul lodsadosh who in turn is related to the original owners brother in law etc etc. In short, they 'could' leave a complex paper trail to throw the FFP sleuths off the scent.

Or they could just set up a company in the South of France and put it in the name of somebodies dog. That would be stretching the imagination too far though.

Then again, if you believe what Richard Scudamore says, FFP is unworkable in its present form anyway. I do wonder if they are paving the way for a fudge as they may (?) think they are on dodgy ground with the potential legal challenge to FFP?

... you are a fool...
 

Tim Over Whelmed

Well-known member
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Jul 24, 2007
10,160
Arundel
The idea in the OP is outlawed by FFP. But do the FL have the balls to enforce the scheme? Who knows? I doubt it.

Indeed, however, if Mrs O W owned Crappy Burgers and see decided to get sponsorship, that would be OK?
 


symyjym

Banned
Nov 2, 2009
13,138
Brighton / Hove actually
That's what I mean, let's say I own Brighton and a Company called Crappy Burgers. What is the price of a three year deal? You could argue that market forces dictate this and I, as an owner of a Company wish to pay £50m because that's what I feel it's worth, who is to say it isn't and legally am I going outside of FFP. A Ltd Co is paying £50m for shirt sponsorship? The fact that I am the owner is, possibly, irrelevant, isn't it?

But your company accounts would have to show that you are selling millions of Crappy Burgers. If you only had one burger van outside B&Q as a cover, it would be suspicious.
 

strings

Moving further North...
Feb 19, 2006
9,965
Barnsley
How do Ipswich sit within the rules, given their shirt sponsor is their owner?
 

Diego Napier

Well-known member
Mar 27, 2010
4,416
FFP will probably be scrapped as a concept within two years, after which those who slavishly adhered to it will spend years in the courts trying and failing to get compo while those who just ignored it will carry on regardless. Them's the football rules sadly.

On what basis could a football club challenge the FFP rules introduced by the Football League? (this is a genuine question!)

Assuming they have the balls, what law exists that would prevent the FL expelling a club if they refuse to comply wih FFP?
 


father_and_son

Well-known member
Jan 23, 2012
4,646
Under the Police Box
A quick question, the FFP is designed, I believe, to ensure clubs spend within their means? So it's based on expected revenue, i.e. TV rights, attendance, commercial opportunities, wage bill, overheads etc, I'm guessing? This is designed to stop Sugar Daddy Chairman just piling cash in to buy a route to the promised land?

With this is mind couldn't a club sign a mega over the top shirt sponsorship deal and therefore creating the same problem as cash being pushed into a club? i.e. a chairman owns Crappy Burgers plc, the club would expect a £1m a year shirt deal but they get say £50m over three years for a shirt deal? They've spent "within their means" and the chairman buys his way to the Premiership?

Just I'm being too simplistic?


The issue with the exact scenario you describe is that SD Chairman could decide he's bored playing with his new toy after a year and f*ck off back to Richiestan or wherever, breaking the shirt deal at the same time.
The club are now f*cked and end up in administration screwing over dozens if not hundreds of local companies (and other teams) left with bad debt. Mr SD Chairman II comes in and buys the assets for £1 but doesn't take on responsibility for the debt and the sport, the FA and the rest of the club look like d*cks.

This is the sort of thing FFP is trying to stop. Too many clubs are spending beyond their means, reliant on a fickle relationship with a single wealthy individual and it needs to be stopped for the good of the game and the economies that depend on the game.
 

nwgull

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2003
13,632
Manchester
How do Ipswich sit within the rules, given their shirt sponsor is their owner?

This isn't against the rules. However, as the shirt sponsor is a 'related party', the sponsorship deal is independently assessed to be at a fair market value.

The rules are fairly clear and explicit in relation to sponsorship deals with companies owned or related to the club owners. Forrest are likely to fall foul of this particular rule.
 

ack

New member
Apr 20, 2006
322
TBH its all pie in the sky until the likes of Forest or QPR miss out on promotion and all the legal battles to follow are resolved.
 


Blue Valkyrie

Not seen such Bravery!
Sep 1, 2012
32,165
Valhalla
Was always at risk of falling apart.

Wonder if Tony will be so pissed off with any u-turn that he'll spend big next season ???
 

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills


Top
Link Here