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

Register Log in

This FFP meeting TB is going to



casbom

casbom

Well-known member
Jul 24, 2007
2,581
When is it?

Also what are they actually voting on? Anyone know?

I would of thought that if it was THAT important there would be more news about it, such as whether it's going to be amended to give Clubs more time to hit deadlines or scrapped completely?

If it's already been discussed elsewhere can someone post a link? Ta
 






Seagulltonian

Seagulltonian

C'mon the Albion!
Oct 2, 2003
2,773
Still Somewhere in Sussex!
He mentioned it in the interview with him last week on YouTube/Seagulls Player.

Depending on the outcome of the meeting, said it would have some sort of effect on the playing budget for next season.
 


KZNSeagull

KZNSeagull

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
19,799
Wolsingham, County Durham
It won't be scrapped, that's for sure. The way TB was talking (ie it may impact on next year's budget) I would suggest that they may be discussing changing the allowable loss limits. I have not seen anything about it at all though.
 










Not Andy Naylor

Not Andy Naylor

Well-known member
Dec 12, 2007
8,798
Seven Dials
Maybe it's me being cynical again, but the clubs with parachute payments would probably vote to make the limits even tighter for the ones without ...
 




Mackenzie

Mackenzie

Old Brightonian
Nov 7, 2003
33,535
East Wales
Not Andy Naylor said:
Maybe it's me being cynical again, but the clubs with parachute payments would probably vote to make the limits even tighter for the ones without ...
Click to expand...
Almost certainly. The more of a closed shop the PL is the better it is for those guys. They can be seen to take the high moral ground to boot.

Football is to cock at the moment.
 


Goldstone1976

Goldstone1976

We Got Calde in!!
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patron
Apr 30, 2013
13,783
Herts
From the FL website, following the last meeting, posed on the website on 10 April:

"In particular, there was a focus on maintaining fair competition between clubs, in light of the substantial increase in Premier League parachute payments brought in since the introduction of FFP. Clubs also considered the introduction of a 'real time' approach to financial reporting instead of the current retrospective analysis of club accounts.

"The League and Championship clubs will continue developing this work in order to achieve consensus, as any changes to the current regulations will require support from 75 per cent of clubs in order to be approved."

My reading of that is that one of the main proposals surrounds the issue of how do they create a (more?) level playing field between those clubs with parachute payments and those without. That could easily explain TB's comment that he can't finalise the budget until after the upcoming vote.

TB's comment strongly implies that if the allowed loss level increases, he will fund at least some more losses above the current limits. If he was only prepared to fund the existing levels of allowable loss, he could finalise our budget now.
 


Blue Valkyrie

Blue Valkyrie

Not seen such Bravery!
Sep 1, 2012
32,165
Valhalla
Not Andy Naylor said:
Maybe it's me being cynical again, but the clubs with parachute payments would probably vote to make the limits even tighter for the ones without ...
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that as the season isn't over, Norwich, Fulham and Cardiff won't be involved in this voting strategy, meaning the parachute teams are in a minority.
 






nwgull

nwgull

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2003
13,756
Manchester
Not Andy Naylor said:
Maybe it's me being cynical again, but the clubs with parachute payments would probably vote to make the limits even tighter for the ones without ...
Click to expand...

Not so sure that that would be in their best interests. Take last season's freshly relegated teams as an example: Bolton, Blackburn and Wolves all reported huge losses in 12/13.
 


strings

strings

Moving further North...
Feb 19, 2006
9,965
Barnsley
I honestly don't know where I stand on FFP.

I do think it gives a massive advantage to the relegated clubs, however I strongly believe that football clubs should not spend beyond their means. I really admire what Bloom is trying to do in creating a club that is sustainable in the long term.
 




Blue Valkyrie

Blue Valkyrie

Not seen such Bravery!
Sep 1, 2012
32,165
Valhalla
Is it possible that if we don't get the results Tony wants from this meeting, he'll fund a massive spending spree to get out of this league asap ???
 


Arkwright

Arkwright

Arkwright
Oct 26, 2010
2,790
Caterham, Surrey
Blue Valkyrie said:
Is it possible that if we don't get the results Tony wants from this meeting, he'll fund a massive spending spree to get out of this league asap ???
Click to expand...
I think that is wishful thinking, TB seems to want to run a tight ship which is fair enough.

The difference in budgets between relegated sides and Championship clubs is just far to big. The meeting should be with the Premiership and to not reward failure.
 


DavidinSouthampton

DavidinSouthampton

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 3, 2012
16,580
strings said:
I honestly don't know where I stand on FFP.

I do think it gives a massive advantage to the relegated clubs, however I strongly believe that football clubs should not spend beyond their means. I really admire what Bloom is trying to do in creating a club that is sustainable in the long term.
Click to expand...

Totally agree about Mr Bloom and our clubs approach.

Is there a dilemma that FFP is needed (in my view anyway), that parachute payments are needed and that the two are incompatible, or should we just work on the basis that relegated clubs just have to look out for themselves and so stop parachute payments. I was going to say that they make the premiership a closed shop, but there are a number of clubs who have been relegated and stayed relegated, or even been relegated the following season.
 


A

ants4t

New member
Jun 17, 2011
128
The premiership funds the parachute payments to let those newly promoted teams go for it knowing that their new level of spending should have a buffer if they get relegated. It isn't in the Premierships interest to get rid of parachute payments as the promoted teams will be more cautious with budgets and spending making them less competitive.
 




sparkie

sparkie

Well-known member
Jul 17, 2003
12,504
Hove
All that is needed is for different FFP limits to be applied to parachute teams, and non-parachute teams.

ie

Parachute team 1 has a permitted loss of 8 million pounds.
Non-Parachute team 2 has a permitted loss of 31 million pounds ( 8 million + 23 million ).

A level playing field once more. Job done.
 


S

sten_super

Brain Surgeon
Jul 28, 2005
5,945
Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom
sparkie said:
All that is needed is for different FFP limits to be applied to parachute teams, and non-parachute teams.

ie

Parachute team 1 has a permitted loss of 8 million pounds.
Non-Parachute team 2 has a permitted loss of 31 million pounds ( 8 million + 23 million ).

A level playing field once more. Job done.
Click to expand...

What you're talking about there though is a slight weird version of an absolute, rather than relative, limit. The problem is that allows us to compete on an even keel with the likes of Norwich, but not for say Rotherham (if they come up) to compete with either. If you want to go down the absolute limit angle, then simply set a total wage bill that no club is allowed to exceed; e.g. £20m per annum. Make it a condition of membership that wage bills are capped at that much (obviously with a tapered introduction to allow contracts to run out, etc.) by requiring each team to name a maximum squad of 25 (or whatever number) meeting that condition. Then owners can run up as big a loss as they like, but they won't (easily) be improving the competitiveness of the team versus the other top teams.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here