spanish flair
Well-known member
And now have 'Profitability and Sustainability' regulations rammed down our throats.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Thank Goodness we can say goodbye to FFP
- Thread starter spanish flair
- Start date
seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
I predict that Profit & Sustainability will only last 5 years max. It will be replaced by another plan.
spanish flair
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #3
Ah but just think what the title can be used for over those 5 years as a reason not to do this or that.
gripper stebson
Well-known member
- Jul 27, 2004
- 6,657
Call it what you like until players wages are brought under control it can't change.
£40,000 a month for a bang average Championship player is what is f**king our game.
£40,000 a month for a bang average Championship player is what is f**king our game.
spanish flair
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #5
I agree and was that not what FFP was all about and the Albion was seen by many as the champions of it.
So why did we not vote for no change along with 6 other clubs?
Last edited:
£40K a month offends far less than £40k a week for an average prem ****.[emoji35]
GT49er
Well-known member
'Profitability and Sustainability', aka FFP cop out.
spanish flair
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #8
Yes and we voted for it, I bet those other 6 clubs that didn't were surprised by us, us the ones who went constantly on the media saying the league must not weaken over the punishments.
lancyclaret
New member
- Jan 10, 2014
- 566
Burnley would have voted to keep the rules as they were if they had not been promoted - shame Brighton changed their mind.
If Brighton had stood firm, it would have screwed about 12/13 clubs, but most - like Boro, Bournemouth and Forest - have now been allowed to wriggle off the hook
If Brighton had stood firm, it would have screwed about 12/13 clubs, but most - like Boro, Bournemouth and Forest - have now been allowed to wriggle off the hook
This. My preference is to now just let clubs get on with it. Let them get hideously in debt and let the likes of Portsmouth and Leeds etc etc actually die off. Only when a few name clubs have died will people step back and take stock of the lunacy which is English football. Getting more and more in debt, laying people off, paying minimum wages to many of those you have to employ just to shovel eye-watering amounts of money into very average, if not crap, footballers pockets. Hoskins drove a Porsche, CMS has some fancy car which was the envy of others...how can failure be so well rewarded? I'm losing my interest in this.
nwgull
Well-known member
Burnley would have voted to keep the rules as they were if they had not been promoted - shame Brighton changed their mind.
If Brighton had stood firm, it would have screwed about 12/13 clubs, but most - like Boro, Bournemouth and Forest - have now been allowed to wriggle off the hook
No they haven't. Last year's limits will still be applied to the financial reports that are due to be subkitted at the end of this month. And, importantly, the transfer sanctions will also apply.
This. No doubt Barber is busy composing a 20,000 word explanation for his volte-face. Whilst I do not agree with his approach to business I liked his stance on FFP; it turned out to be bullshit.
Burnley would have voted to keep the rules as they were if they had not been promoted - shame Brighton changed their mind.
If Brighton had stood firm, it would have screwed about 12/13 clubs, but most - like Boro, Bournemouth and Forest - have now been allowed to wriggle off the hook
In theory though all the clubs that breached FFP last season will be subject to a transfer embargo in January though.
That just about sums up how I've been feeling about football the last couple of years.....
spanish flair
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #15
I have read somewhere, since the vote ( I wished I had bookmarked it) the Forest Chairman says, they can still deal in the transfer market as long as the squad does not rise above a certain number. And if it does they can transfer a player out and bring another in, but the player coming in has to be on 75% of the wage of the leaving player?
Correct, the FL definition of transfer embargo is as loose as the contents of my underpants after a prawn vindaloo.
spanish flair
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #17
Well thats easy got around then. We will sign you on this basic (75% less than the leaving player) but we will give you a large bonus for goals scored, clean sheets, wins, draws, points and position in the table. Sorted.
portslade seagull
Well-known member
Mmmm with the backtrack voted through I very much doubt it
24 registered players, Forest have that amount of forwards!
Just looked they have 27 in their 1st team squad so would have to go below 24 to buy and then at 75% of the 24th's wages
London Irish
Well-known member
So it seems pretty much certain that the demise of FFP won't depress the market for players. So the big question remains whether our board intend to fund a realistic promotion campaign