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

New FFP rules - can we go for it?



Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
49,985
Goldstone
Our club have consistently shown that they wish to operate within the FFP limits. However, the rules change for the next season.

The limit for £2015/16 was a loss of £13m
The limit for the next 3 seasons is a loss of £39m (if you stay in the Championship) and even more if you get promoted after one or two seasons - but you could lose all of that in the first year.

Does this mean we can go for it next season, but still stay within FFP limits?
 


Notters

Well-known member
Oct 20, 2003
24,865
Guiseley
Our club have consistently shown that they wish to operate within the FFP limits. However, the rules change for the next season.

The limit for £2015/16 was a loss of £13m
The limit for the next 3 seasons is a loss of £39m (if you stay in the Championship) and even more if you get promoted after one or two seasons - but you could lose all of that in the first year.

Does this mean we can go for it next season, but still stay within FFP limits?
Sound frightfully complicated. Does that mean two teams could meet in the playoff final, both of which have exceeded the limit, and the losing team gets punished where the winning one basks in glory and wealth?
 


perseus

Broad Blue & White stripe
Jul 5, 2003
23,454
Sūþseaxna
The £13m limit for the 2015/16 season is in line with the losses permitted under the new regulations which will permit a maximum loss of £39m over a rolling 3 season timeframe (compared to an equivalent figure of £105m in the Premier League). A club that moves between the Premier League and Championship will be assessed in accordance with the permitted loss in the relevant divisions played in during the three-year period in question. For example, a club that had played two seasons in the Championship and one in the Premier League would have a maximum permitted loss of £61m, consisting of one season at £35m and two at £13m.
Read more at http://www.football-league.co.uk/ne...al-fair-play-2867176.aspx#VMOcHKQlhqcLpe8Z.99
 


Goldstone1976

We Got Calde in!!
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patreon
Apr 30, 2013
13,763
Herts
I've always assumed that the new 3-year, £39m FFP loss rule meant that you could lose £39m in the first year and that, provided you got promoted to the PL at the end of that season, your new FFP limits would be whatever the PL impose. If, however, you were to fail to be promoted, you'd have to b/even for FFP purposes for the next year (2 years if you still stayed down) or you'd be hit with a transfer embargo.

One for [MENTION=31]El Presidente[/MENTION], I feel...
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
49,985
Goldstone
Sound frightfully complicated.
Not that complicated really.
"maximum loss of £39m over a rolling 3 season timeframe (compared to an equivalent figure of £105m in the Premier League). A club that moves between the Premier League and Championship will be assessed in accordance with the permitted loss in the relevant divisions played in during the three-year period in question. For example, a club that had played two seasons in the Championship and one in the Premier League would have a maximum permitted loss of £61m, consisting of one season at £35m and two at £13m.
"

Does that mean two teams could meet in the playoff final, both of which have exceeded the limit, and the losing team gets punished where the winning one basks in glory and wealth?
No, because both teams will have spent that season in the Championship. They will of course both have different income and allowance in the following season, so the promoted club can spend like crazy while the one that failed may have to sell off players to balance the books, as they 'went for it' in the first 2 seasons.
 




perseus

Broad Blue & White stripe
Jul 5, 2003
23,454
Sūþseaxna
Parachutes:

The new rules will not affect the three clubs most recently relegated from the top flight - Hull, QPR and Burnley. They will receive £64m split over four years - £24m in the first year, then £19.3m, then £9.6m for each of the next two years.

From the 2016/17 season, relegated clubs will receive 55 per cent of the equal share of broadcast revenue paid to Premier League clubs in the first year after relegation, 45 per cent the following year and 20 per cent in year three.


Clubs relegated after a single season will receive 55 per cent and 45 per cent over two seasons with the third payment eliminated entirely.

http://www.skysports.com/football/n...-overhauled-for-promoted-premier-league-clubs

Comment: rumours of players coming in will be worthless. Eveything will have to be done in cold war secrecy. How can we compete with Villa, Newcastle and Norwich?
 


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
49,985
Goldstone
I've always assumed that the new 3-year, £39m FFP loss rule meant that you could lose £39m in the first year and that, provided you got promoted to the PL at the end of that season, your new FFP limits would be whatever the PL impose. If, however, you were to fail to be promoted, you'd have to b/even for FFP purposes for the next year (2 years if you still stayed down) or you'd be hit with a transfer embargo.
You might even be allowed to lose more the £39m in the first year, as it's only the total over the 3 years that counts. That's why I started the thread - we could actually spend big this coming season.
 


Bozza

You can change this
Helpful Moderator
Jul 4, 2003
55,575
Back in Sussex
To all intents and purposes the rules came in this past season because, as you say, there was a one-off allowable loss of £13m which is the mean average loss per season allowable under the new rules.

You would hazard a guess that is why both Derby and Boro "went for it" somewhat.
 




Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
49,985
Goldstone
To all intents and purposes the rules came in this past season because, as you say, there was a one-off allowable loss of £13m which is the mean average loss per season allowable under the new rules.

You would hazard a guess that is why both Derby and Boro "went for it" somewhat.
I don't think it's the same at all. This season past the allowable loss was £13m. Next season, I don't think there's a limit at all, you just have to have it balanced in 3 years. You could lose £40m next season, £40m the following, get promoted, and still pass FFP without having a fire sale.
 


Nixonator

Well-known member
Feb 8, 2016
6,733
Shoreham Beach
Do the prior 2 years count now then? So if we made 10m in losses last 2 years, in theory could TB could write off 19m and keep in line?

Or is it a fresh start, as in all clubs can write off 39m this year as long as they break even for the subsequent 2?
 


Bozza

You can change this
Helpful Moderator
Jul 4, 2003
55,575
Back in Sussex
I don't think it's the same at all. This season past the allowable loss was £13m. Next season, I don't think there's a limit at all, you just have to have it balanced in 3 years. You could lose £40m next season, £40m the following, get promoted, and still pass FFP without having a fire sale.

When I clicked 'Post Quick Reply' I thought "Why did I post this on the ultimate pedant's thread".

Bingo.
 






Bozza

You can change this
Helpful Moderator
Jul 4, 2003
55,575
Back in Sussex
I don't think it's the same at all. This season past the allowable loss was £13m. Next season, I don't think there's a limit at all, you just have to have it balanced in 3 years. You could lose £40m next season, £40m the following, get promoted, and still pass FFP without having a fire sale.

It depends on what you do in the third season:

"A club that moves between the Premier League and Championship will be assessed in accordance with the permitted loss in the relevant divisions played in during the three-year period in question. For example, a club that had played two seasons in the Championship and one in the Premier League would have a maximum permitted loss of £61m, consisting of one season at £35m and two at £13m."
 


BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
I would say yes go for it if TB can afford the losses as I thought the original FFP although well meant was fundamentally flawed in its application and not effective.
 






Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
49,985
Goldstone
When I clicked 'Post Quick Reply' I thought "Why did I post this on the ultimate pedant's thread".

Bingo.
I thought this was a good topic to discuss as we start the summer of player recruitment :shrug:

It depends on what you do in the third season:
Well if you got promoted, you'll earn a lot more in the season you're in the PL, which combined with the extra loss allowed, should make the books balance.
 




Nathan

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
3,749
I am sure we will play the game fairly, but there will be a lot of chairman that will be thinking '**** it, might as well go big this year'. The FA have no balls to impose any fines, so what is the point. The clubs that do over spend have lots of money, therefore a fine is worth the risk. If it was a points deduction the following season, then they might start to control the spending.
 




KZNSeagull

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
19,692
Wolsingham, County Durham
It certainly gives us scope to up salaries of key players if need be (assuming TB can afford to of course), so gives us a better chance of hanging onto players (not that I think any are desperate to leave - just in case their heads are turned or their Agents get twitchy **cough**Dunk**cough**).

I would still be wary of "going for it" though as this implies big transfer fees, which come with big salaries and are a very good way of ruining team spirit.

It's up to our Tone though, he knows what he is doing.
 


El Presidente

The ONLY Gay in Brighton
Helpful Moderator
Jul 5, 2003
39,689
Pattknull med Haksprut
I've always assumed that the new 3-year, £39m FFP loss rule meant that you could lose £39m in the first year and that, provided you got promoted to the PL at the end of that season, your new FFP limits would be whatever the PL impose. If, however, you were to fail to be promoted, you'd have to b/even for FFP purposes for the next year (2 years if you still stayed down) or you'd be hit with a transfer embargo.

One for [MENTION=31]El Presidente[/MENTION], I feel...

It's technically feasible to have a shit or bust approach in one season. But if you sign a few players for £10 million each, and incur losses in the region of £39 million in year 1, without achieving promotion then it would be almost impossible to achieve breakeven in years 2 and 3.

This is because either (a) the players signed are crap, but on stupid money, and so refuse to go elsewhere. An example of this is Zigic at Birmingham, who cost the club over £13.5 million in wages in his four years at the club, three of which were spent in the Championship. He scored 32 goals during those goals. He refused to move from Birmingham despite the club being desperate to offload him. Therefore you have high potential costs in years 2 and 3.

If the club does sell the players, there is a high chance they will be sold at a considerable loss, due to either not being as good as originally estimated, or being offered for fire sale prices. The losses on these sales would increase costs in years 2 and 3.

It's a spectacularly stupid way to do business. But that didn't stop QPR taking such an approach in 2013/4 in the Championship, running up losses of £70 million in the process.
 



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