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

FFP



wakeytom

New member
Apr 14, 2011
2,718
The Hacienda
I keep seeing in threads where people are talking about the need for new signings (which I agree is much needed) and others are coming on and rubbishing fees of £3/4m due to FFP which surely given the flow of money in to the club since Xmas from player sales cannot be hidden behind if say the club spent £6/7m of the recent transfers they received cash from they must surely still easily comply?

Basically I am saying it is something some fans are hiding behind and sticking up for the club when in reality even after a few signings you will still comply???
 


Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 11, 2003
73,382
West west west Sussex
I have no idea why FFP is just a big thing with the club and fans.

Irrespective of the existence of FFP or any other Mickey Mouse scheme dreamt up by the powers that be, Tony would be managing the finances of the club in a prudent fashion.

He has always maintained he can't/won't bank roll the club indefinitely.
He has built the very best infrastructure to put the club in a position to generate money.

The Albion is bound by Tony's FFP what everybody else is or isn't doing will not change the simple economics that the club cannot carry on losing multi millions of pounds per annum.
 


wakeytom

New member
Apr 14, 2011
2,718
The Hacienda
I have no idea why FFP is just a big thing with the club and fans.

Irrespective of the existence of FFP or any other Mickey Mouse scheme dreamt up by the powers that be, Tony would be managing the finances of the club in a prudent fashion.

He has always maintained he can't/won't bank roll the club indefinitely.
He has built the very best infrastructure to put the club in a position to generate money.

The Albion is bound by Tony's FFP what everybody else is or isn't doing will not change the simple economics that the club cannot carry on losing multi millions of pounds per annum.

Which in a roundabout way was my point, but still it would be a bit of a surprise to not see some of the money coming in strengthen the remaining squad
 


symyjym

Banned
Nov 2, 2009
13,138
Brighton / Hove actually
I keep seeing in threads where people are talking about the need for new signings (which I agree is much needed) and others are coming on and rubbishing fees of £3/4m due to FFP which surely given the flow of money in to the club since Xmas from player sales cannot be hidden behind if say the club spent £6/7m of the recent transfers they received cash from they must surely still easily comply?

Basically I am saying it is something some fans are hiding behind and sticking up for the club when in reality even after a few signings you will still comply???

Difficult to know for sure what cash we have, I think the Bridcutt and Barnes money are in different financial football years to the Ulloa and Buckley's.

At a guess, the Bridcutt and Barnes cash offset the FFP balance for last season so that money has probably gone. Out of Ulloa's and Buckleys cash, probably half of it will be used for the target of a £3m loss this season so we probably have £4m-£5m to spend. That said there could be a bigger price to pay by not investing in players over the summer and the club could lose more than it saves in the long run.

What we should be doing is trust a spend on good players and treat it as an investment that we will double or treble our money on if we sell them. Next season we won't even be able to sell any players to make the money to offset FFP.
 






warmleyseagull

Well-known member
Apr 17, 2011
4,201
Beaminster, Dorset
FFP limit for 14/15 (which we are now in) is £6m - was £8m for 13/14. Compares to £14m actual losses for 12/13 so we have some way to go - and remember these are the UPPER limits beyond which transfers are embargoed. The guidelines on http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/FLExplainedDetail/0,,10794~2748246,00.html suggest clubs should be making losses of no more than £3m in year to 30 June 2015, the balance of £3m having to be made up by equity investment.

I find the whole thing odd. Someone has got it wrong. Either TB/PB/DB are playing the rules because they are confident that once the embargoes start to be enforced then the club will be in a much stronger position as fees/wage demands tumble due to embargoed clubs get rid of players in a fire sale; or it is all a smokescreen because TB is sort of saying enough is enough and using FFP as an excuse; or both. Other clubs who are spending are either blinkered or playing hard ball with the rules as they believe FFP will in practice not be enforced.

This story has some way to run methinks.
 


Raleigh Chopper

New member
Sep 1, 2011
12,054
Plymouth
That seems bang on to me Warmley.
But may I add another idea that Tony is putting some of the money owed back in his wallet earlier than he said. Not likely but a possibility.
It was a hell of a lot of dosh for one man to cough up, rich he maybe but he is no Abromovich.
 






Bladders

Twats everywhere
Jun 22, 2012
13,672
The Troubadour
That's my thoughts as well , TB is waiting to see if the FL actually have the guts to go through with fines and transfer embargoes . If they do then players cost and wages will tumble and we would suddenly be in a very good position come the next window or two .
 


Acker79

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Nov 15, 2008
31,765
Brighton
Speaking of FFP, are the club aiming to meet next season's target this season? I mean this season the announced losses are allowed to be 8m. Next season they have to come down to 6m. If we sign a bunch of players to multi-year deals, we're unlikely to be able to reduce their wages for next season. Whereas if we sign them to the 6m loss limit budget, we save the issue of how to trim the playing budget next season.


Regarding the clubs position on budgets, I think they are desperate for FFP to stick, because if it doesn't, they will be at a serious disadvantage unless they fund losses. If FFP collapses, but Bloom et al say "well, we're still going to stick to budget as if the FFP limits count" we will struggle to sign players even more than we are, since all the other clubs throw off FFP limits and offer what they have to to bring in the better players.

That'll be the big test of Bloom's ideals.
 






CheeseRolls

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jan 27, 2009
5,922
Shoreham Beach
I keep seeing in threads where people are talking about the need for new signings (which I agree is much needed) and others are coming on and rubbishing fees of £3/4m due to FFP which surely given the flow of money in to the club since Xmas from player sales cannot be hidden behind if say the club spent £6/7m of the recent transfers they received cash from they must surely still easily comply?

Basically I am saying it is something some fans are hiding behind and sticking up for the club when in reality even after a few signings you will still comply???

I am not convinced the transfer fees are the sticking point. Wages are the key, just the two often go hand in hand.
 


One Teddy Maybank

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Aug 4, 2006
21,485
Worthing
we've still got the hotel to build unless the spat over Bennetts field has now scuppered that

Stuff the hotel and Bennetts' Field. If we can't get it right on the field, we won't need either of these things (although I accept the hotel not probably not football dependant). If we did go down, and I don't think for one minute we will, aren't the FFP levels even less in league 1?
 


nwgull

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2003
13,653
Manchester
Speaking of FFP, are the club aiming to meet next season's target this season? I mean this season the announced losses are allowed to be 8m. Next season they have to come down to 6m. If we sign a bunch of players to multi-year deals, we're unlikely to be able to reduce their wages for next season. Whereas if we sign them to the 6m loss limit budget, we save the issue of how to trim the playing budget next season.


Regarding the clubs position on budgets, I think they are desperate for FFP to stick, because if it doesn't, they will be at a serious disadvantage unless they fund losses. If FFP collapses, but Bloom et al say "well, we're still going to stick to budget as if the FFP limits count" we will struggle to sign players even more than we are, since all the other clubs throw off FFP limits and offer what they have to to bring in the better players.

That'll be the big test of Bloom's ideals.

The losses allowed for last season (to be announced in December this year) are a max of 8m. The max losses for this current season are 6m, and will be reducing to 5m for next season and onwards.

I'm not sure that failure of the above limits would be a big test of Bloom's ideals so much as a test of his ability to cover 10m+ annual losses indefinitely. If FFP doesn't work then loads of clubs will go under if and when their rich benefactors get bored.
 




Rugrat

Well-known member
Mar 13, 2011
10,212
Seaford
I have no idea why FFP is just a big thing with the club and fans.

Irrespective of the existence of FFP or any other Mickey Mouse scheme dreamt up by the powers that be, Tony would be managing the finances of the club in a prudent fashion.

He has always maintained he can't/won't bank roll the club indefinitely.
He has built the very best infrastructure to put the club in a position to generate money.

The Albion is bound by Tony's FFP what everybody else is or isn't doing will not change the simple economics that the club cannot carry on losing multi millions of pounds per annum.

Totally agree with this. TB's financial prudence is the key driver behind what the club does and doesn't do. I get the feeling FFP is an irrelevance
 






Feb 11, 2007
163
Brighton
FFP limit for 14/15 (which we are now in) is £6m - was £8m for 13/14. Compares to £14m actual losses for 12/13 so we have some way to go - and remember these are the UPPER limits beyond which transfers are embargoed. The guidelines on http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/FLExplainedDetail/0,,10794~2748246,00.html suggest clubs should be making losses of no more than £3m in year to 30 June 2015, the balance of £3m having to be made up by equity investment.

I find the whole thing odd. Someone has got it wrong. Either TB/PB/DB are playing the rules because they are confident that once the embargoes start to be enforced then the club will be in a much stronger position as fees/wage demands tumble due to embargoed clubs get rid of players in a fire sale; or it is all a smokescreen because TB is sort of saying enough is enough and using FFP as an excuse; or both. Other clubs who are spending are either blinkered or playing hard ball with the rules as they believe FFP will in practice not be enforced.

This story has some way to run methinks.

Absolutely. TB is probably taking the long term view, estimating what the state of football will be in five years time with the reducing levels of FFP debt and loss levels. Something is going on, that is clear, and what is more, we are not going to have four players who are going to bring £14m into the bank in the next 12 months, so TB needs to use this opportunity wisely. It's going to be a fine balancing act between financial prudence and keeping the club in this league.
 




Arkwright

Arkwright
Oct 26, 2010
2,786
Caterham, Surrey
I'm firmly in the camp that clubs expenditure should not exceed income and we should be run like any high street business unless the Board want to invest further funds. Far too many clubs have gone boom-bust and the authorities are right to bring in a form of FFP.

Like many others my concern is whether the Football League have the balls to enforce the punishment both financially and in the players market, if they do not then the last few years have been a complete waste of time. All we can do is wait until December (if think that's right) and see what profits and losses are announced and see what actions the authorities take if any.
 


portslade seagull

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2003
17,588
portslade
Stuff the hotel and Bennetts' Field. If we can't get it right on the field, we won't need either of these things (although I accept the hotel not probably not football dependant). If we did go down, and I don't think for one minute we will, aren't the FFP levels even less in league 1?

TB see's it as an integral part in the future of meeting FFP
 



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