Forest at it again with FFP

[El Presidente]

I understand why the costs increased and I support the decisions made which resulted in those increases.

It still begs the question as to how the club's executives can claim they are taking steps to match the FFP financial requirements whilst at the same time they are blatantly breaching the spirit of FFP.

There is no 'spirit of FFP'. That's nonsense, it's a financial rule, not an airy-fairy ambition. Like all financial rules it's easy to circumnavigate if that is what is wanted by the club owner.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

If we ever get to the Premier league, financially we should be in a great position compared to other clubs. At least we can use the money properly instead of it being used to plug a massive debt from the previous season. We are going the right way not the wrong way. It may seem bad, but compared to other clubs we have nothing to worry about.

 

[Creaky]

There is no 'spirit of FFP'. That's nonsense, it's a financial rule, not an airy-fairy ambition. Like all financial rules it's easy to circumnavigate if that is what is wanted by the club owner.

If that is the case then what is the point in the rules having a stated aim?

Without a stated aim I agree that FFP would be just a set of financial rules that clubs would be expectedd to blindly follow. Of course if that were the case then it is unlikely the regulations would ever have been voted for in the first place.

Of course there is a 'spirit of FFP' otherwise FFP is even more pointless than I already believe it to be!

 

[halbpro]

There is no 'spirit of FFP'. That's nonsense, it's a financial rule, not an airy-fairy ambition. Like all financial rules it's easy to circumnavigate if that is what is wanted by the club owner.

Of course there's a spirit of the regulation. Much like the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. It's the difference between what the intention of the regulation is and the original reasons for implementing it and the way in which the regulations are written/implemented.

 

[brightonrock]

IMO the true, measurable impact of FFP also won't come until next season. Although this is the first year that it "counts", clubs still don't really know how well/strictly it will be enforced. Several are gambling that if the punishments aren't that strict, they'll get away with it, especially if they go up and have 60m in TV money to play with. Until the first punishments are dished out, there's still incentive to throw money around. If it comes to punishment time and the FA/FL properly cane clubs who've overstepped the mark, we'll see a change in philosophy. Meanwhile players are in the same boat that they know if they can secure big 4 year deals now, they'll be cashing in before the clubs start to rein things in and play a tougher hand at the negotiating table. The fact Grabban manoeuvred a better deal out of Bournemouth is evidence of that. I'm glad we didn't overpay for him - 1m for a Championship striker is roughly the going rate but he's certainly not good enough to take the piss on wages and get away with it. Next season more clubs will have the same viewpoint.

 

[El Presidente]

If that is the case then what is the point in the rules having a stated aim?

Without a stated aim I agree that FFP would be just a set of financial rules that clubs would be expectedd to blindly follow. Of course if that were the case then it is unlikely the regulations would ever have been voted for in the first place.

Of course there is a 'spirit of FFP' otherwise FFP is even more pointless than I already believe it to be!

The point of the rules having a stated aim is that the smug blazer wearers who run football can pat themselves on the back about 'doing something' about football finance. Meanwhile in the real world those clubs who don't give a hoot about such issues simply recruit the accountants who devised the FFP rules as 'consultants' and pay them a big wedge to show how to evade the rules, such as selling intellectual property and image rights for £45 million, or a shirt sponsorship deal worth £200 million a year in respect of a tourism board in a country that has no tourism.

 

[Creaky]

The point of the rules having a stated aim is that the smug blazer wearers who run football can pat themselves on the back about 'doing something' about football finance. Meanwhile in the real world those clubs who don't give a hoot about such issues simply recruit the accountants who devised the FFP rules as 'consultants' and pay them a big wedge to show how to evade the rules, such as selling intellectual property and image rights for £45 million, or a shirt sponsorship deal worth £200 million a year in respect of a tourism board in a country that has no tourism.

It was the club chairmen who voted in the FFP regulations. What incentive would they have to place restrictions on the way in which they choose to run and finance their clubs if they didn't believe that in doing so it would reduce their costs?

I believe the FFP regulations were voted for on the basis that by ensuring a binding agreement between clubs, player costs would be reduced - the aim that is always quoted when asked what the purpose of the FFP regulations is.

Personally I think they are an absolute shambles which are likely to drive more clubs into financial difficulties than prior to the introduction of FFP. You plainly also see them as likely to be ineffective or at least take a somewhat jaundiced view of them.

I wonder what the majority of club chairmen really feel about them now and if a vote were taken tomorrow based on the regulations as they stand what the result would be.

To paraphrase a sentence from your 'Financial Report' - There's one word to describe where the Albion would be if FFP were in force before the Amex was built and that word is . . . . . . . .

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It's actually very easy to prove the commercial value based on historic trends and/or comparisons to others of the same ilk. Problem is we have a "tail wagging the dog" situation with toothless authorities and it will take years to sort out. FFP is well intended but badly implemented

And also used regularly in the non-football world. For example it's the reason you cannot by a house for £1 and the fixtures and fittings for 249,999 as a way of not paying duty.

 

[El Presidente]

It was the club chairmen who voted in the FFP regulations. What incentive would they have to place restrictions on the way in which they choose to run and finance their clubs if they didn't believe that in doing so it would reduce their costs?

I believe the FFP regulations were voted for on the basis that by ensuring a binding agreement between clubs, player costs would be reduced - the aim that is always quoted when asked what the purpose of the FFP regulations is.

Personally I think they are an absolute shambles which are likely to drive more clubs into financial difficulties than prior to the introduction of FFP. You plainly also see them as likely to be ineffective or at least take a somewhat jaundiced view of them.

I wonder what the majority of club chairmen really feel about them now and if a vote were taken tomorrow based on the regulations as they stand what the result would be.

To paraphrase a sentence from your 'Financial Report' - There's one word to describe where the Albion would be if FFP were in force before the Amex was built and that word is . . . . . . . .

1: if there is unanimous commitment amongst the chairmen to implement FFP it will work, but if it's only 22 out of 24 (for example), then I'm not so sure.

2: I like your paraphrasing, however the £150 million spent by TB on the Amex and Lancing is excluded for FFP purposes so I'm not sure you're 100% correct, but you certainly have a point.

 

[Mr Bridger]

Paul Barber and Tony Bloom seemed to be suggesting at the last fans forum that they thought most clubs are trying to comply.

It doesn't always look that way. With Forest, it feels as though they're bending the rules rather than directly breaking them- using excessively large sponsorship deals that don't necessary represent the true value of the deal.

I keep raising the issue with a queens pork banger mate of mine and he continues to poo poo the situation by saying that rangers will swallow any cost by saying its sponsorship. Kin annoys me if this will turn out to be the way round the issue as anything in the end can be sponsored.
Please let QPR be f"cked....

 

[edna krabappel]

I keep raising the issue with a queens pork banger mate of mine and he continues to poo poo the situation by saying that rangers will swallow any cost by saying its sponsorship. Kin annoys me if this will turn out to be the way round the issue as anything in the end can be sponsored.
Please let QPR be f"cked....

QPR have parachute payments though. Barber & Bloom were actually implying that there's only one club they believe to be going for the shit or bust approach (ie ignore FFP, gamble everything on promotion and hope it works out).

They didn't say which club, but my interpretation, rightly or wrongly, is that it was that it was Blackburn.

 

[Mr Bridger]

QPR have parachute payments though. Barber & Bloom were actually implying that there's only one club they believe to be going for the shit or bust approach (ie ignore FFP, gamble everything on promotion and hope it works out).

They didn't say which club, but my interpretation, rightly or wrongly, is that it was that it was Blackburn.

Ok , I can see that , but surely forest cannot be within those parameters?

 

[edna krabappel]

Ok , I can see that , but surely forest cannot be within those parameters?

I've no idea, you'd have to ask El Pres. I imagine Forest's income from crowds, merchandising, sponsorship etc is significantly higher than Blackburn's, though Rovers presumably have parachute payments still. Forest's must have run out by now?

 

[nwgull]

QPR have parachute payments though. Barber & Bloom were actually implying that there's only one club they believe to be going for the shit or bust approach (ie ignore FFP, gamble everything on promotion and hope it works out).

They didn't say which club, but my interpretation, rightly or wrongly, is that it was that it was Blackburn.

QPR's parachute payments won't even come close to covering their huge wage bill and transfer activity this season; it's estimated that they're on to make a 60m loss this year. Just look at Bolton's losses for last year for an example of the difficulty that relegated clubs will face.

 

[edna krabappel]

QPR's parachute payments won't even come close to covering their huge wage bill and transfer activity this season; it's estimated that they're on to make a 60m loss this year. Just look at Bolton's losses for last year for an example of the difficulty that relegated clubs will face.

I will honestly laugh my head off if QPR fail to go up this season with the squad they have.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

1: if there is unanimous commitment amongst the chairmen to implement FFP it will work, but if it's only 22 out of 24 (for example), then I'm not so sure.

This doesn't seem hinder all the other terms of FL membership which are voted through without all clubs voting yes.

 

[TopCat]

I don't think the fact that FFP is widely ignored by the mainstream media helps either. The only time I've heard anything about finances mentioned on the poor excuse of coverage which masquerades as the Football League Show was by Albion-hating tw@t and football bore Claridge.... who picked up on US needing to "cut our cloth" for next season after our recently posted losses. Not sure if his usual shoddy research is solely to blame but even he must be able to glance at the division and see other clubs spending huge amounts more on wages and signing on fees with lower crowds and cheaper prices. Just seems like wilful ignorance or a determination not to upset the 'big' clubs in the division.

 

[edna krabappel]

the accountants who devised the FFP rules as 'consultants' and pay them a big wedge to show how to evade the rules, such as selling intellectual property and image rights for £45 million, or a shirt sponsorship deal worth £200 million a year in respect of a tourism board in a country that has no tourism.

A country like- let's just pull a name out of the air here- Kuwait, perhaps? That sort of country?

 

[The Fifth Column]

Some of these clubs arranging artificially high sponsorship deals will possibly fall foul of this rule:

"UEFA are aware that owners of clubs could look to inflate a club’s profitability by injecting funds into clubs via artificially inflated commercial deals. Paris St-Germain recently announced a huge sponsorship deal via a body that is connected to the club owners. For this reason UEFA FFP rules require any transaction from a ‘related part’ (i.e. a company or body connected to the club owners) to be assessed to ensure it was a genuine transaction at a ‘fair value’. UEFA has the power to adjust any artificial ‘mates rates’ deals and apply a lower value to the Break Even calculation. This assessment will be carried out by the CFCB panel"

I know this specifically refers to UEFAs FFP rules but the Football Leagues FFP rules are based on the UEFA FFP model although I have yet been able to confirm if the FL are adopting this particular measure. If they are then dodgy sponsorship deals will be scrutinised and their value to the club concerned adjusted accordingly.

 

[The Fifth Column]

Of course we are all assuming that the enforcing of any FFP rules and sanctions will be free from outside influence or interference 'cough' corruption 'cough' bribery. As if any of that behaviour would get past the governing body FIFA, they would be all over that like a rash..........