Forest at it again with FFP

[AZ Gull]

Clubs may be trying to comply but I haven't noticed any obvious reduction in the size of transfer fees or player's wages

We have seen price increases in tickets and subsidiary income items though as well as job losses amongst non-playing staff - great stuff this FFP

What a ridiculous statement to make. Are you a football agent? The CFO of a football club? You have absolutely no idea what ANY footballer earns, let alone be able to assess the impact of FFP on player wages.

David Burke stated, when he was interviewed on Albion Roar, that (during last summer's transfer window) there were some indications that FFP HAD started to have an effect on wage demands; with all due respect, I'll be guided by the thoughts of our Head of Football Operations rather than you.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The other thing (As I see it) is the imbalance of clubs who are or will be receiving huge parachute payments when they are relegated from the Premier League. I assume these payments count as earned income when it comes to complying with FFP? Therefore there is nothing too fair about FFP when relegated clubs will always have a huge financial advantage.

Hardly the level playing field that FFP is meant to create?

The level playing field that parachute payments were intended to create was to ensure that teams that were relegated from the Premier League could quickly return. The mafia that control the money at the top end of the pyramid want to ensure that it stays with them. If teams like the Albion get promotion to the top flight, it ruins everything for them.

 

[Creaky]

What a ridiculous statement to make. Are you a football agent? The CFO of a football club? You have absolutely no idea what ANY footballer earns, let alone be able to assess the impact of FFP on player wages.

David Burke stated, when he was interviewed on Albion Roar, that (during last summer's transfer window) there were some indications that FFP HAD started to have an effect on wage demands; with all due respect, I'll be guided by the thoughts of our Head of Football Operations rather than you.

NOT a ridiculous statement at all!

The stated aim of FFP is to reduce the amount clubs spend on players - both in terms of wages and transfer fees.

David Burke may say he has noticed some indication that FFP has started to have an effect BUT Paul Barber stated specifically that our player budget increased last season by 41% and that this season we would spend even more.

We are lauded as a club that is striving to meet FFP requirements and yet are spending more on players - so who should you be guided by? DB or PB?

 

[AZ Gull]

NOT a ridiculous statement at all!

The stated aim of FFP is to reduce the amount clubs spend on players - both in terms of wages and transfer fees.

David Burke may say he has noticed some indication that FFP has started to have an effect BUT Paul Barber stated specifically that our player budget increased last season by 41% and that this season we would spend even more.

We are lauded as a club that is striving to meet FFP requirements and yet are spending more on players - so who should you be guided by? DB or PB?

This post could be entered into the dictionary for a definition of "fallacious argument".

When you significantly upgrade your playing staff in one season (as Albion did in 2012-13), of course there will be a significant increase in your wages cost - FFP or no FFP. There is no contradiction between what David Burke stated, and what Albion chose to do with their playing budget. And as El Pres alludes to in his article, Albion have not only grown their ticket revenue but, through new sponsorship and commercial deals, are growing other revenue streams. As revenue increases, so will there be the opportunity to increase the player budget (if the club chooses), whilst remaining within the FFP regulations.

It is simply not possible to look at a single player (or club), from one year to the next, and judge the effectiveness of FFP. We will only REALLY know when we look back (in future years) at the trends in player wages in the Championship.

 

[andy1980]

Surely the evidence will be more apparent with contract negotiations? Will kuszsack, Orlandi, Bruno and co be offered and accepting a pay-cut? Surely that will be the biggest indication that FFP is starting to have the desired affect. Not the fact that we have increased our wage budget on increased quality of players.

 

[Notters]

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/cardiff-city-debt-reaches-118million-6497122

I smell a Portsmouth.

 

[El Presidente]

NOT a ridiculous statement at all!

The stated aim of FFP is to reduce the amount clubs spend on players - both in terms of wages and transfer fees.

No it isn't, the stated aim is as follows, your ability to see a wrong tree and start barking up it knows no bounds.

The Championship

Financial Fair Play in the Championship will see the introduction of a breakeven model based on UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. It will require clubs to stay within pre-defined limits on losses and shareholder equity investment that will reduce significantly over the next five seasons.

The new system will require clubs to provide annual accounts to The Football League by December 1 every year, covering the previous season/financial year. Using this information a 'Fair Play Result' will be determined for each club that will equate to the club's profit/loss for the year, excluding investment in specific areas of club infrastructure or losses in certain extraordinary circumstances.

I'm with Lord B here, FFP is an attempt by the rich to stop anyone joining their cost cartel. What the clubs at the top of the money league fear most is the nouveau riche upsetting their self perpetuating, self preserving little gang. The thought of another Manchester City, or PSG, fuelled by new money, 'stealing' one of the their Champions League spots makes them go weak at the knees, and therefore they are doing their utmost to prevent it.

Businesses go bust due to lack of cash, not lack of profits, so the UEFA/FA?PL bigwigs who give their Cheshire Cat smiles and shed crocodile tears when clubs have financial problems are talking utter hogwash. Their tests for financial robustness are as hollow as their 'fit and proper' tests in relation to club owners.

You'll be claiming that the World Cup hosting awarded to Russia and Qatar are for footballing reasons next.

 

[andy1980]

No it isn't, the stated aim is as follows, your ability to see a wrong tree and start barking up it knows no bounds.



I'm with Lord B here, FFP is an attempt by the rich to stop anyone joining their cost cartel. What the clubs at the top of the money league fear most is the nouveau riche upsetting their self perpetuating, self preserving little gang. The thought of another Manchester City, or PSG, fuelled by new money, 'stealing' one of the their Champions League spots makes them go weak at the knees, and therefore they are doing their utmost to prevent it.

Businesses go bust due to lack of cash, not lack of profits, so the UEFA/FA?PL bigwigs who give their Cheshire Cat smiles and shed crocodile tears when clubs have financial problems are talking utter hogwash. Their tests for financial robustness are as hollow as their 'fit and proper' tests in relation to club owners.

You'll be claiming that the World Cup hosting awarded to Russia and Qatar are for footballing reasons next.

Why was it voted in by Championship clubs then if this is the case (unless you are onlytalking about the uefa version)

 

[Creaky]

No it isn't, the stated aim is as follows, your ability to see a wrong tree and start barking up it knows no bounds.

The Championship

Financial Fair Play in the Championship will see the introduction of a breakeven model based on UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. It will require clubs to stay within pre-defined limits on losses and shareholder equity investment that will reduce significantly over the next five seasons.

The new system will require clubs to provide annual accounts to The Football League by December 1 every year, covering the previous season/financial year. Using this information a 'Fair Play Result' will be determined for each club that will equate to the club's profit/loss for the year, excluding investment in specific areas of club infrastructure or losses in certain extraordinary circumstances.

Where in any of the above is the objective for the introduction of FFP? That is simply the requirements for complying with FFP - I may be barking up the wrong tree in my interpretation of what the aims of FFP are but you don't seem to have even found the forest!

Strangely enough there doesn't appear to be an official League position that I can find that lays out the aims of FFP other than generalisations about ensuring financial stability of member clubs. Most generally accept though that this means reducing the biggest cost clubs face, the amount spent on players.

FFP as it is formulated is doomed to failure because it doesn't address the problem directly nor give clubs striving to grow the opportunity to do so on a level playing field. Any business knows that if it wants to invest heavily in order to compete then its profits are likely to fall in the short term, (or in the case of football losses to grow), as has been clearly demonstrated by the BHAFC experience. The FFP requirements you quote above specifically set out to prevent this sort of investment and as such I agree does appear to be an attempt to stop the 'nouveau riche' from joining the big boys at the top table.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Where in any of the above is the objective for the introduction of FFP? That is simply the requirements for complying with FFP - I may be barking up the wrong tree in my interpretation of what the aims of FFP are but you don't seem to have even found the forest!

Strangely enough there doesn't appear to be an official League position that I can find that lays out the aims of FFP other than generalisations about ensuring financial stability of member clubs. Most generally accept though that this means reducing the biggest cost clubs face, the amount spent on players.

FFP as it is formulated is doomed to failure because it doesn't address the problem directly nor give clubs striving to grow the opportunity to do so on a level playing field. Any business knows that if it wants to invest heavily in order to compete then its profits are likely to fall in the short term, (or in the case of football losses to grow), as has been clearly demonstrated by the BHAFC experience. The FFP requirements you quote above specifically set out to prevent this sort of investment and as such I agree does appear to be an attempt to stop the 'nouveau riche' from joining the big boys at the top table.

What about this one:

Financial Fair Play in The Football League
Introduction
Following two years of detailed discussions, The Football League and its clubs have agreed a Financial Fair Play framework that will operate in all three of its divisions from the beginning of the 2012/13 season. It aims to reduce the levels of losses being incurred at some clubs and, over time, establish a league of financially self-sustaining professional football clubs.

The decision to adopt Financial Fair Play regulations follows a strategic review by The Football League Board which identified the state of club finances as the organisation's greatest challenge. During this process, each division has been given the flexibility to determine its own Fair Play regulations, given that clubs of different sizes face differing financial challenges.
In the Championship, clubs have agreed to introduce a breakeven approach based on the UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. Whilst in League 1 and League 2, clubs will implement the Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP) that has been in use in the latter division since 2004/05. The SCMP broadly limits spending on total player wages to a proportion of each club's turnover.

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/FLExplainedDetail/0,,10794~2748246,00.html

 

[spring hall convert]

I'm not sure it's even worth specualting on this any more. Let's just remove all traces on FFP and likely sanctions. Do we want a well run, solvent sustainable club or do we want to be a foreign owners toy to do with as he wishes and leave to the vultures once he gets fed up?

Forest are taking a HUGE risk FFP or no FFP. I'm not comfortable with us gambling our very bright looking future for short term success. TB knows this better than anyone else, a poker player knows his odds.

 

[Hotchilidog]

I'm not sure it's even worth specualting on this any more. Let's just remove all traces on FFP and likely sanctions. Do we want a well run, solvent sustainable club or do we want to be a foreign owners toy to do with as he wishes and leave to the vultures once he gets fed up?

Forest are taking a HUGE risk FFP or no FFP. I'm not comfortable with us gambling our very bright looking future for short term success. TB knows this better than anyone else, a poker player knows his odds.

I agree, I am happy that we are striving to become a sustainable club, regardless of the FFP 'restrictions' and whether other team are happy to flout the rules. We are trying to make sure that we do not end up returning to the mismanagement of the Archer era and the farcical situations at Pompey and Coventry etc. Even if the rules do not snare the likes of Forest QPR etc economics might.

 

[spring hall convert]

We are trying to make sure that we do not end up returning to the mismanagement of the Archer era.

*Shudder*

My point is we need to avoid the mismanagement of the pre-Archer era that allowed him to get his hands on the club in the first place.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

A side point is that if Burnley manage to finish top 2, then one of Forest or QPR at least will fail to go up.

The gamble will have failed.

For that reason I'm looking for Burnley wins all the way now.

 

[Rugrat]

FFP as it is formulated is doomed to failure because it doesn't address the problem directly nor give clubs striving to grow the opportunity to do so on a level playing field. Any business knows that if it wants to invest heavily in order to compete then its profits are likely to fall in the short term, (or in the case of football losses to grow), as has been clearly demonstrated by the BHAFC experience. The FFP requirements you quote above specifically set out to prevent this sort of investment and as such I agree does appear to be an attempt to stop the 'nouveau riche' from joining the big boys at the top table.

If you're saying FFP is a crock of shit and will never work then I agree. It's a airy fairy idea badly implemented and just makes the chasm between FL and PL even wider.

Unless TV money is distributed on a more equitable basis across all 4 leagues (more chance of me giving birth) then the professional game below PL will struggle and likely go into (further) decline

 

[El Presidente]

If you're saying FFP is a crock of shit and will never work then I agree. It's a airy fairy idea badly implemented and just makes the chasm between FL and PL even wider.

Unless TV money is distributed on a more equitable basis across all 4 leagues (more chance of me giving birth) then the professional game below PL will struggle and likely go into (further) decline

I agree with your FFP comments (but want the film rights to your pregnancy) but I love the Championship! No one would have predicted Hull and Palace going up, or Wolves being relegated, last season. Equally Burnley's success this season. There's more excitement and intrigue than in the PL where our aim each season is to avoid being bottom 3.

 

[amexee]

What if the club is promoted to the PL though?

In that scenario, fines seem a sensible way to go. As it stands if you gamble and go up, the prize for going up will cover the penalty, but if you stay down it looks like there is not really any punishment as long as you behave the next year.

 

[El Presidente]

In that scenario, fines seem a sensible way to go. As it stands if you gamble and go up, the prize for going up will cover the penalty, but if you stay down it looks like there is not really any punishment as long as you behave the next year.

The problem is that the accounts won't be ready until December, and the PL have already stated that FL rules don't apply to PL clubs.

 

[Rugrat]

I agree with your FFP comments (but want the film rights to your pregnancy) but I love the Championship! No one would have predicted Hull and Palace going up, or Wolves being relegated, last season. Equally Burnley's success this season. There's more excitement and intrigue than in the PL where our aim each season is to avoid being bottom 3.

Yes, the Championship is a brilliant, unpredictable and nail biting ride ... great for us fans but pretty crap for the money men I suspect. As long as it can survive then it's brilliant, let's hope it can continue

Currently working on a new fertility potion (in a pot on my kitchen window sill) and will give you a shout once I've conceived!

 

[DarrenFreemansPerm]

A side point is that if Burnley manage to finish top 2, then one of Forest or QPR at least will fail to go up.

The gamble will have failed.

For that reason I'm looking for Burnley wins all the way now.

Haven't Forest and QPR got ways to negate the FFP rules, QPR are subsidised by parachute payments and Forest are bending the sponsorship rules by receiving an inflated boost from Fawaz.