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

***The OFFICIAL who has complied with FFP thread***



Philzo-93

Well-known member
Jan 17, 2009
2,797
North Stand
Thank christ we have complied with FFP and fair play to Barber! As far as I'm concerned that is a HUGE bit of skepticism of us supporters, for the time being anyway. Fair play to Bloom and Barber but I think it is time to remind Bloom that he DID in fact say he is willing to spend!

With the announcement that we have complied with FFP it is time to see whether or not we will come out top trumps in this scenario.

Teams who have complied:
Brighton and Hove Albion :amex:

Teams who have not:


Teams who have been fined:


Teams who have a transfer embargo:


TBC:
Birmingham City
Blackburn
Blackpool
Bolton Wanderers
Bournemouth
Brentford
Cardiff City
Charlton Athletic
Derby County
Fulham
Huddersfield Town
Ipswich Town
Leeds United
Middlesbrough
Millwall
Norwich City
Notts Forest
Reading
Rotherham United
Sheffield Wednesday
Watford
Wigan Atheltic
Wolves
 
Last edited:


severnside gull

Well-known member
May 16, 2007
24,540
By the seaside in West Somerset
The last two sections are likely to be pretty much redundant methinks, especially if clubs like Forest are confident they have fiddled (sorry "found") a way round the rules........
 




Surf's Up

Well-known member
Jul 17, 2011
10,147
Here
Charlton voted against the new rules but of course they have also found a way round the rules so they would vote against the change wouldn't they!!
 


supaseagull

Well-known member
Feb 19, 2004
9,609
The United Kingdom of Mile Oak
Thank christ we have complied with FFP and fair play to Barber! As far as I'm concerned that is a HUGE bit of skepticism of us supporters, for the time being anyway. Fair play to Bloom and Barber but I think it is time to remind Bloom that he DID in fact say he is willing to spend!

With the announcement that we have complied with FFP it is time to see whether or not we will come out top trumps in this scenario.

Teams who have complied:
Brighton and Hove Albion :amex:

Teams who have not:


Teams who have been fined:


Teams who have a transfer embargo:


TBC:
Birmingham City
Blackburn
Blackpool
Bolton Wanderers
Bournemouth
Brentford
Cardiff City
Charlton Athletic
Derby County
Fulham
Huddersfield Town
Ipswich Town
Leeds United
Middlesbrough
Millwall
Norwich City
Notts Forest
Reading
Rotherham United
Sheffield Wednesday
Watford
Wigan Atheltic
Wolves

It only applies to teams in the Championship and below in the 2013/14 season so add Burnley, QPR and Leicester and take away Fulham, Cardiff and Norwich
 






BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
Good accountants will circumvent the rules so I do not see it as a great achievement especially as the standard of the squad has fallen because of it. Contrary to what TB says but he probably knows in his heart it has. Teams with a transfer embargo, if there are any, will not be concerned as they have already signed the players they wanted. I think that because of the recent vote any action against clubs who failed to reach it will be minimal and of no consequence.

This post is based on the fact that TB can afford the losses, if he cant we have a problem.
 








seagullsovergrimsby

#cpfctinpotclub
Aug 21, 2005
43,690
Crap Town
Good accountants will circumvent the rules so I do not see it as a great achievement especially as the standard of the squad has fallen because of it. Contrary to what TB says but he probably knows in his heart it has. Teams with a transfer embargo, if there are any, will not be concerned as they have already signed the players they wanted. I think that because of the recent vote any action against clubs who failed to reach it will be minimal and of no consequence.

This post is based on the fact that TB can afford the losses, if he cant we have a problem.

The transfer embargo doesn't actually block any non compliant club from signing players. The FL will still allow clubs to buy players on a one in - one out basis so long as the incoming players cost less than those leaving.
 


BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
The transfer embargo doesn't actually block any non compliant club from signing players. The FL will still allow clubs to buy players on a one in - one out basis so long as the incoming players cost less than those leaving.

We have done that all season anyway, so what is the difference. As I said if TB can afford it why bother?
 




Rugrat

Well-known member
Mar 13, 2011
10,212
Seaford
Thank christ we have complied with FFP and fair play to Barber ...

... who had SFA all to do with any profit we made on Ulloa, Bridcutt or Buckley, it was those sales that got us on the right side of the line. I accept that he and his team may have negotiated the final prices but that wasn't the difference between compliance or not
 


Spun Cuppa

Thanks Greens :(
A good way to 'level the playing field' would be divvy up the pound for pound overspend fines of non-compliant clubs on a sliding scale, with the most compliant getting the biggest share, and so on...

It would work a bit like the NFL draft. The most advantaged, due to non-compliance, would be the most disadvantaged (last draft pick) in the shake-up, and the most initally disadvantaged due to compliance, would be most advantaged (first draft pick), come the day of reckoning...

If the maths works out, every team will have the same overspend...

Simples
 


saafend_seagull

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
13,883
BN1
Whoever identified ulloa has made us meet it.

Pointless anyway as will now be relegated with entirely different ffp rules in league 1.
 




nwgull

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2003
13,653
Manchester
... who had SFA all to do with any profit we made on Ulloa, Bridcutt or Buckley, it was those sales that got us on the right side of the line. I accept that he and his team may have negotiated the final prices but that wasn't the difference between compliance or not

The sales of Ulloa and Buckley had SFA to do with us meeting the FFP target for 13/14; the money from them will go into this year's calculation.
 


Rugrat

Well-known member
Mar 13, 2011
10,212
Seaford
The sales of Ulloa and Buckley had SFA to do with us meeting the FFP target for 13/14; the money from them will go into this year's calculation.

In which case I'll eat my humble pie and apol's to [MENTION=12817]Philzo-93[/MENTION]
 


Thunder Bolt

Ordinary Supporter
The transfer embargo doesn't actually block any non compliant club from signing players. The FL will still allow clubs to buy players on a one in - one out basis so long as the incoming players cost less than those leaving.

Doesn't it also cover contract extensions, ie. existing players can't sign them, as there is a transfer embargo?
 


Blue Valkyrie

Not seen such Bravery!
Sep 1, 2012
32,165
Valhalla
The silence is deafening about which other teams have met FFP :nono:
 




Postman Pat

Well-known member
Jul 24, 2007
6,971
Coldean
Queens Park Rangers have sent the Football League their accounts for 2013-14, the period covered by new financial fair play rules expected to result in the club being hit with a multimillion-pound fine. QPR and the league confirmed that the accounts were sent on time on 1 December but neither would discuss the financial position disclosed.

Financial fair play rules in the Championship, aimed at encouraging clubs to live within their means, impose escalating fines on those clubs that won promotion to the Premier League while making significant losses. Clubs that made losses but stayed in the Championship will have points deducted. QPR are expected to face a large fine because in the previous season, 2012-13, which resulted in relegation to the Championship, the club lost £65m despite earning Premier League income of £61m. QPR paid their staff, including players, £78m in the year to 31 May 2013.

If in their promotion season QPR did not cut their wage bill enough to compensate for the dramatic loss of Premier League income, and made a loss as high as the previous year, they could face a fine of £54m. The rules impose a fine of approximately £7m for a loss to £18m, then pound for pound above that.

All 30 clubs required to file their accounts by 1 December – last season’s Championship clubs, plus the three relegated from the Premier League and the three promoted from League One – have now sent them, the League confirmed. Sanctions will be determined by 1 January.
 


Postman Pat

Well-known member
Jul 24, 2007
6,971
Coldean
Nottingham Forest will still be able to sign a minimum of two players in January, even as they prepare themselves to work under the constraints of a transfer embargo.

But they, along with the rest of the clubs in the Championship, are keeping a careful eye on the fate of Premier League Queens Park Rangers – which could have far reaching implications for the viability of FFP rules.

Rangers are preparing legal action against the Football League, over a proposed fine of £50m to £60m, for failing to fall within allowable losses during the 2013/14 season, when they secured their top flight place.

That case is unlikely to be heard until next summer.

But the big question will be whether the Football League, in the meantime, are willing to risk the prospect of further legal action in the future.

If QPR are successful in contesting their punishment it would, in theory, set a precedent and open up the door for any Championship clubs who are hit with a transfer embargo, and, beyond that, fines, in the coming months to take similar action further down the line.

Forest are resigned to the fact they have bust their allowable losses of £8m for the 2013/14 season by some distance in the figures they submitted to the Football League last month.

And they are ready to work under the constraints of an embargo, which currently should be enforced from January.

But, even if that does prove to be the case, Forest will still immediately be able to sign two players, either on loan or on free transfers, when the window opens on January 1.

Under the tweaked FFP regulations approved in November, Championship clubs are permitted to retain a squad of 24 'established' professional players, beyond January.

Currently Stuart Pearce's squad has 22 men who fall into that category of 'established' players who are over the age of 21 and have made five or more starts for the first team.

Beyond those two additions, Forest would subsequently be able to make further signings on a one in, one out basis, within certain parameters.

But, with the football hierarchy having moved the goalposts once, with a far more flexible set of guidelines set to be introduced for the 2015/16 campaign following a recent vote to change the original blueprint for FFP, there is already doubt over whether the new rules will be fully implemented.

If the Football League reaches an agreement with QPR over their fine, things will immediately become clearer. But if the case does go to court, it will only add further confusion to the issue

Read more: http://www.nottinghampost.com/Notti...ory-25068743-detail/story.html?#ixzz3KpBUq1cc
 



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