sir albion
New member
Maybe if we had decent scouts that could find young talented players it wouldn't be such an issue
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Paul Barber on today's FFP vote
- Thread starter Goldstone1976
- Start date
seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
Just need another £199,999,990 ? Anyone else ?
Lower West Stander
Well-known member
FFP is never, ever going to work until football clubs have sustainable business models.
The whole idea of running a business is to make a profit, but the way the game is set up there is no way this is going to happen unless you are a massive organisation with different revenue streams. Man U are the best example of this where only a third of their revenue stream is from match day income. The rest is from advertising, sponsorship etc. If you aren't Man U, the only way you are going to get on is by spending money outside of the revenue capacity of the business which means rich owners chucking money around in the form of interest fee shareholder loans. This is not how business works.
So we either have to look at the fair division of revenues in the US system (ie much tighter regulation) or just let teams get on with it and accept that each club is going to have different owners who can do what they want. Does anyone really think Man City's performance improved on the back of its business model?
I was never convinced that using p&l was the best way to measure the financial performance of a club (why not use cashflow? - much better pointer), but now these numbers have been changed anyway, it makes the whole thing a complete joke. Where have these numbers come from? £13m, £39m they are all unsustainable losses in the medium term. Given Barber is a CEO with a good understanding of financial management, I have never understood his constant reference to FFP as something which is sustainable and needs to be adhered to. It is not sustainable and it already hasn't been!
I also don't understand why the club voted to increase the loss "for the greater good". What "greater good"??
The whole idea of running a business is to make a profit, but the way the game is set up there is no way this is going to happen unless you are a massive organisation with different revenue streams. Man U are the best example of this where only a third of their revenue stream is from match day income. The rest is from advertising, sponsorship etc. If you aren't Man U, the only way you are going to get on is by spending money outside of the revenue capacity of the business which means rich owners chucking money around in the form of interest fee shareholder loans. This is not how business works.
So we either have to look at the fair division of revenues in the US system (ie much tighter regulation) or just let teams get on with it and accept that each club is going to have different owners who can do what they want. Does anyone really think Man City's performance improved on the back of its business model?
I was never convinced that using p&l was the best way to measure the financial performance of a club (why not use cashflow? - much better pointer), but now these numbers have been changed anyway, it makes the whole thing a complete joke. Where have these numbers come from? £13m, £39m they are all unsustainable losses in the medium term. Given Barber is a CEO with a good understanding of financial management, I have never understood his constant reference to FFP as something which is sustainable and needs to be adhered to. It is not sustainable and it already hasn't been!
I also don't understand why the club voted to increase the loss "for the greater good". What "greater good"??
- Thread starter
- #44
M
The club were prepared to agree to an (unspecified) increase on its own merits due to the parachute payments having increased so much since the original allowable losses were agreed. It was only the element of the £13m allowable loss above the club's preferred level that was for the greater good. This latter element was agreed to in the interests of getting an agreement. The fact that an agreement was reached is the greater good.
The club were prepared to agree to an (unspecified) increase on its own merits due to the parachute payments having increased so much since the original allowable losses were agreed. It was only the element of the £13m allowable loss above the club's preferred level that was for the greater good. This latter element was agreed to in the interests of getting an agreement. The fact that an agreement was reached is the greater good.
Lower West Stander
Well-known member
But doesn't that negate everything the club has previously been saying? Parachute payments are a big part of the overall problem......
A mex eyecan
Well-known member
- Nov 3, 2011
- 3,315
I reckon I could muster the £0 bit
- Thread starter
- #47
I've received email from PB on the greater good point. It was sent to me before your post, so wasn't made in response to your concerns. Rather, it was anticipating them.
"It's worth noting that this isn't in any way a "one way" deal designed to further ease a relegated PL club's transition to the Championship.
Subject to final ratification by the Premier League:
- football league clubs, including Championship clubs, will see annual solidarity payments (currently a "gift" from the Premier League) increase in value, become guaranteed and contractual and, significantly, index linked to future PL TV deals
- parachute payment terms for relegated PL clubs will be reduced from 4 years to 3 years (for clubs spending 2 or more consecutive seasons in the PL) and to just 2 years (for those spending just 1 season in the PL)
This package of measures has been very skilfully negotiated by The FL to:
- ensure greater financial stability for all 72 FL clubs (solidarity payments are worth a lot to us but they are worth even more to smaller league 1 and league 2 clubs)
- create an even more competitive championship (in time, the maximum number of clubs with parachute payments at any one time/season will reduce to 7 - from 10/11)
- deliver an FFP framework that, for the first time, is bought in to by Championship clubs AND PL clubs so that future arguments should, in theory, be irrelevant and avoided
When you consider this wider package of changes that, I stress, remain subject to final agreement with the PL, hopefully you can see why we talk about considering the "greater good" in our decision to vote in favour of change.
I hope this helps provide more important perspective."
Not Andy Naylor
Well-known member
Surely "uninterested" rather than "disinterested" in the original post?
Lower West Stander
Well-known member
Looks like a cop out to me. They've got to make a stand at some point and who's to stop this being renegotiated again.
Thanks for the info though - and its good he is at least communicating this stuff.
Del Fenner
Because of Boxing Day
How can Tony Bloom, a very wealthy man, be expected to write off the £120 million cost of the stadium?
Mackenzie
Old Brightonian
- Thread starter
- #52
Good spot - yes, I should have said "uninterested", rather than "disinterested". You grammar pedant, you.
- Thread starter
- #53
When I received the email from PB that I posted earlier, I asked him what changes to the total £ value of parachute payments had been agreed, as he had talked about the time period that they would be payable, but hadn't commented on value. He responded as follows:
"That's still to be debated but I would certainly expect a reduction in overall value.
The key point here is that there is value in this package for all clubs, hence my earlier comment about the greater good."
Out of courtesy, I provided him with a link to this thread, so he could check whether I had misquoted him in my OP - it was a telephone call, so I might have misheard. It's clear that he's read at least some of the responses as I have another input from him:
"Finally, I'm attending a dinner for the club tonight so haven't had time to read all of the thread you attached but I saw the comment about the general financial management of clubs and questioning why we hold FFP up as good thing, so here's a few notes in reply:
- it's long been acknowledged that the business model for Championship clubs is loss making; owners know this when taking over a club
- FFP was designed to LIMIT/ put a cap on those losses to reduce/eliminate the risk of clubs going in to administration
- capping losses also means that potential owners - and the football industry needs more people like Tony Bloom not less - can have some comfort that losses are capped by regulation
- of course FFP doesn't mean that clubs give up the ghost of becoming self sustaining!
- the initial aim of ALL Europe-wide FFP regulations is for clubs to aim to break even as a minimum
- well managed clubs (eg, from my previous experience, Tottenham) CAN make money in the Premier League, and did so before and without FFP regulations
- finally, FFP isn't and can never be a panacea; it's a direction that to all businesses - with the possible exception of football - would simply be sensible and logical. Regardless, the responsibility of all clubs and their Chairman/CEO/boards to take responsibility for ensuring their business is run sensibly"
"That's still to be debated but I would certainly expect a reduction in overall value.
The key point here is that there is value in this package for all clubs, hence my earlier comment about the greater good."
Out of courtesy, I provided him with a link to this thread, so he could check whether I had misquoted him in my OP - it was a telephone call, so I might have misheard. It's clear that he's read at least some of the responses as I have another input from him:
"Finally, I'm attending a dinner for the club tonight so haven't had time to read all of the thread you attached but I saw the comment about the general financial management of clubs and questioning why we hold FFP up as good thing, so here's a few notes in reply:
- it's long been acknowledged that the business model for Championship clubs is loss making; owners know this when taking over a club
- FFP was designed to LIMIT/ put a cap on those losses to reduce/eliminate the risk of clubs going in to administration
- capping losses also means that potential owners - and the football industry needs more people like Tony Bloom not less - can have some comfort that losses are capped by regulation
- of course FFP doesn't mean that clubs give up the ghost of becoming self sustaining!
- the initial aim of ALL Europe-wide FFP regulations is for clubs to aim to break even as a minimum
- well managed clubs (eg, from my previous experience, Tottenham) CAN make money in the Premier League, and did so before and without FFP regulations
- finally, FFP isn't and can never be a panacea; it's a direction that to all businesses - with the possible exception of football - would simply be sensible and logical. Regardless, the responsibility of all clubs and their Chairman/CEO/boards to take responsibility for ensuring their business is run sensibly"
BensGrandad
New member
I am told that Burnley have a clause in their players agreement that wages go back to the previous level if relegated. Why cant the Premier League and Football League insist on that clause in all contracts then there would be no need for parachute payments at all.
ewe2
Well-known member
Mr Bloom i thought wants to lose less money .....not more !
nwgull
Well-known member
What difference does it make to us? Either the relegated team takes a pay cut and parachute payments aren't needed, or the relegated team keeps it's PL sized wages, which are covered by parachute payments. It's still the same set of players; they're no better or worse.
Besides, how many of us would whine about the unfairness of parachute payments if we got promoted and needed that safety net to be able to recruit some new players?
Blues Rock DJ
New member
does FFP count in L1 ?
HawkTheSeagull
New member
Walton, Ince, Caskey, March, Dunk - to name a couple of our young talented players around the first team, not including those currently showing promise in the DS.
With our Under 18s beating the likes of Chelsea and Tottenham and also gaining youth international caps - id say our academy is coming on nicely and the youth recruitment is going nicely. It was all well and good trying to sign youngsters before Lancing, but other clubs with better facilities came in and took them. Things are changing now and our academy will start producing the goods now the right facilities and staff are there.
You could also argue that if we stick with playing young players and developing them by keeping them around the first team, they can further develop and not only become top players, but probably earn the club millions.
BensGrandad
New member
If it would make no difference to us why do the likes of PB keep on about the advantage given to relegated teams via parachute payments
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
FFP is a joke because of parachute payments which are a reward for failure and bad planning. Clubs should be made to adjust players pay according to division not adjust prices fans play according to how much relegated clubs can get.
Would be better if the championship clubs either got rid of FFP or refused to admit teams that accepted parachute payments. the set up of this is all wrong and thats the fault of all the championships management teams.