New FFP rules - can we go for it?

[Triggaaar]

Agreed, my error! Should have said May/June. No idea what Rotherham are up to though!

I assumed the FFP dates were the same for everyone, not dependent on a club's year end.

If it's down to your year end, surely you should have that when the transfer window is open, so that you can move purchases and sales between different seasons to cheat FFP.

 

[warmleyseagull]

I assumed the FFP dates were the same for everyone, not dependent on a club's year end.

If it's down to your year end, surely you should have that when the transfer window is open, so that you can move purchases and sales between different seasons to cheat FFP.

The regulations talk about losses in a 'season'. I would guess they would allow end May or end June for that purpose as few significant transactions occur in month of June. Rotherham will definitely have to produce additional figures, presumably aggregating two half years' results.

 

[Crewton Ram]

No they didn't. However for 2015/16 allowable FFP losses are £13 million. I think they will probably by okay, but they did gamble on Bradley Johnson (£6m) Ince (£5m) Butterfield (£4m), Shackell (£3m) Weimann (£2.8m) Blackman (£2.5m) plus paying Darren Bent a decent wedge on his Bosman deal.

Personally I'd rather the Albion build the infrastructure and go up on merit rather than chequebook.

I think we will just about be OK for 2015/16 : the quoted figures for a number of players include all the potential add-ons (appearances, gaining promotion etc) and the costs for FFP purposes can be spread over the length of the player's contract, which in the case of the most expensive signings is 4 years.

For next season, I'm expecting the squad to be trimmed a bit (we signed too many players in a reaction to long-term injuries); incoming transfers are likely to be in a more balanced fashion with expenditure being similar to income; I'm also expecting to see a couple more youngsters joining the 1st team squad - the U21s won their league this season so it would be mad if some of them weren't given a chance - Max Lowe would have been challenging for the LB position but for a serious injury and the likes of Jonathon Mitchell (GK), Farrend Rawson (CB), Timi Elsnick and Callum Guy (CM) and Efrende Zinzala have been on the first team bench already.

Much depends on what a new manager wants of course, but having sacked one manager for not following the agreed plan, I can't see Mel Morris being pushed into waving the cheque book around in the same fashion next season. I think most Derby fans will be relieved if that's the case too - the squad needs to settle down and become more integrated and too much change won't achieve that.

 

[El Presidente]

I assumed the FFP dates were the same for everyone, not dependent on a club's year end.

If it's down to your year end, surely you should have that when the transfer window is open, so that you can move purchases and sales between different seasons to cheat FFP.

I think FFP is to 30 June, as that would tie into the opening of the transfer window. I'll do some checking.

 

[Triggaaar]

I think FFP is to 30 June, as that would tie into the opening of the transfer window.

Yeah that's what I assumed, I got confused with all this talk of year-ends. What was that conversation about then, it makes no difference to us fans does it?

 

[KZNSeagull]

I think FFP is to 30 June, as that would tie into the opening of the transfer window. I'll do some checking.

Submissions to the FL by end November isn't it?

 

[El Presidente]

So before the transfer window opens. In which case I am sure that Hughton signing is a pretty good indication that the club have this all under control.

My hunch is that we are about to spend big this year. I think the Callieri attempt was a sign of things to come and Hughton would have needed some guarantees that the funds were in place to challenge next year. He has already talked about next seasons championship being tougher so his expectations in terms of funds available to him in the transfer window will have been reasonably high I would have thought.

For the Albion, with depreciation of £4.5, Youth development costs of (a guess) of £2.5 m and other allowable expenses of probs £500k they could make accounting losses of £20m a season and still comply with FFP.

I was teaching some SPIVS in the City recently, and one or two are involved in football deals and are on the lookout for clubs.

They were adamant that TB is a genius and is worth 'more than Bet365' as he has focussed on Asia, where they are gambling crazy, rather than the UK.

 

[El Presidente]

Submissions to the FL by end November isn't it?

Correct. That gives the FL a month to review them and decide if anyone needs to go on the naughty step.

 

[perseus]

I assumed the FFP dates were the same for everyone, not dependent on a club's year end.

If it's down to your year end, surely you should have that when the transfer window is open, so that you can move purchases and sales between different seasons to cheat FFP.

FFP is not the same as the accounts. Players are written off as expenses for the duration of their contract, over several years. I think (unsure) if a lump sum is paid it is deducted for FFP in one year. However if the contract is complicated with not all the transfer fee being paid upfront, it might appear in both sets and accounts as dribs and drabs. Players sold I asume if all the payment is received in full it is included in the current books.

The public are not party to the details, but I expect there is quite a bit of scope for creative accounting. The same applies ot sponsorship income and match day coroporate income. Not sure what the rules are for non-football related income, profits carried forward from previous years etc.

I don't think FFP would stop another Portsmouth scenario. More likely to make it happen?

 

[Triggaaar]

FFP is not the same as the accounts.

No I know. I wasn't sure why non FFP accounts were being discussed.

 

[martin tyler]

In essence this is a game for the wealthy chairmen and board men to ponder over.
You can "go or it" and try and get up spending a fortune knowing if you get up the permitted losses are higher and therefore with the additional moneys coming in you "should" be able to balance your books. On the flip side of this is you go mad and don't get up in the 1st 2 years your could be looking at some big problems coming your way unless you do manage to balance books year 3 by having a quick fire sale.
Personally I think we will continue along the sensible route of spending within the means allowed each season (EG roughly 13 million a season). I do not see us being reckless and spending massively one season and then falling foul of FFP.

 

[warmleyseagull]

No I know. I wasn't sure why non FFP accounts were being discussed.

They are not the same because of the adjustments for Youth dev etc are 'allowable deductions'. Reconciling from one set of accounts to a different answer for trade bodies' purposes is common - did a lot of it in my practice days. But they would almost invariably use the statutory accounts as the start point for simplicity's sake.

So the issue is not whether FFP are same as stat accounts - they are clearly not - but whether the loss per the stat accounts can act as the start point from which you adjust for allowables - this would be normal but clearly for Rotherham at least is not possible. It is a moot if somewhat predantic point whether accounts to end May or to end June are equally acceptable