You can view the page at http://www.northstandchat.com/content.php?316-The-new-FFP-rules
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Article: The new FFP rules
- Thread starter El Presidente
- Start date
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
This 'greater good' comment is perplexing - the only reason I can think is that the FL are trying to future proof the rules as far as possible. The original rules were created at a time when the parachute payments were considerably less, so to tie themselves into the original rules for the foreseeable future would have created a much greater disparity. For the club to agree suggests that TB is prepared to pump yet more money into the club so any suggestion otherwise could be a 'miserable lie'.
We all know that parachute payments do not necessarily help relegated teams at the moment, but that seems to be because they are losing a fortune in the PL anyway. If PL teams sort themselves out such that the relegated teams are reasonably financially sound, then these enormous parachute payments will give them a much healthier advantage in the Championship.
There is no compulsion for a Championship club to lose 39m over 3 years, but we all know that trying to get any club on a sound financial footing makes it highly unlikely that they will stay competitive - it can be done but it will get increasingly difficult over time. All I can see that these rules are doing is 'encouraging' clubs to get into more financial strife than they are already in and there are only a certain amount of sugar daddies around. Something has to give at some point and I hope that Brighton is not a club that is affected - we have to trust in the benevolence of TB, keep chanting the mantra 'please, please, please let me get what I want' and hope that we do not end up with a 'girlfriend in a coma'.
We all know that parachute payments do not necessarily help relegated teams at the moment, but that seems to be because they are losing a fortune in the PL anyway. If PL teams sort themselves out such that the relegated teams are reasonably financially sound, then these enormous parachute payments will give them a much healthier advantage in the Championship.
There is no compulsion for a Championship club to lose 39m over 3 years, but we all know that trying to get any club on a sound financial footing makes it highly unlikely that they will stay competitive - it can be done but it will get increasingly difficult over time. All I can see that these rules are doing is 'encouraging' clubs to get into more financial strife than they are already in and there are only a certain amount of sugar daddies around. Something has to give at some point and I hope that Brighton is not a club that is affected - we have to trust in the benevolence of TB, keep chanting the mantra 'please, please, please let me get what I want' and hope that we do not end up with a 'girlfriend in a coma'.
You have to feel for Tony Bloom. This charming man has sunk a fortune into the club to aim for top rank. He must despair at the ludicrous inreases in parachute payments - that joke isn't funny anymore. Against these, the club is getting nowhere fast.
Well I wonder, is there a limit to Bloom's benevolence? Will he one day think 'I started something, that I just couldn't finish', or will his view of his beloved Albion always be one of 'I won't share you'?
Either way he can safely think of Albion fans 'I don't owe you anything. You've got everything now'.
Well I wonder, is there a limit to Bloom's benevolence? Will he one day think 'I started something, that I just couldn't finish', or will his view of his beloved Albion always be one of 'I won't share you'?
Either way he can safely think of Albion fans 'I don't owe you anything. You've got everything now'.
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
Bravo! What (s)he said.
Football finances are still ill. Money changes everything - is it really so strange?. Spend ours wisely and with a rush and a push the land is ours, where we can enjoy our time in the golden lights and oscillate wildly. On the way we can perhaps enjoy(?) a trip back to the old house in south London, not far from the cemetry gates - sadly it paints a vulgar picture but we can wish them an unhappy birthday nonetheless. We just need to stretch out and wait as we clearly just haven't earned it yet baby.
The statement on the Football League website includes the following -
"From the beginning of the 2016/17 season, Championship clubs will have their financial performance continuously monitored over a three season timeframe and will be permitted to lose up to £15m during that period without having to be prescriptive over how that loss will be funded."
I can't see where the rule changes state that losses over £2 million pound have to be funded by equity purchase. The above statement seems to suggest that £15 million losses over 3 years, (i.e. £5 million per year), can be funded by any means.
"From the beginning of the 2016/17 season, Championship clubs will have their financial performance continuously monitored over a three season timeframe and will be permitted to lose up to £15m during that period without having to be prescriptive over how that loss will be funded."
I can't see where the rule changes state that losses over £2 million pound have to be funded by equity purchase. The above statement seems to suggest that £15 million losses over 3 years, (i.e. £5 million per year), can be funded by any means.
- Thread starter
- #6
Good point, well made, will check it out.
AZ Gull
@SeagullsAcademy @seagullsacademy.bsky.social
There is a bit more explanation from Paul Barber here - Albion reluctantly back Financial Fair Play changes for the 'greater good'. He sees a more consistent system between the PL and the FL as a good thing.
And based upon this additional information that came from Paul Barber on Thursday (that I haven't seen reported elsewhere) - Paul Barber details new proposals with regard to parachute payments and solidarity payments - it looks as if there is an attempt to mollify the effect of the parachute payments.