So Bournemouth did gamble big time

[B-right-on]

Tony Bloom's approach has been the exact opposite of Portsmouth's owners. He has secured the infrastructure first. Success on the pitch will come and go, but his funding of the stadium and the training complex interest free gives the club a stable footing to look towards sustainability in the medium to long term. You are right that promotion could bring this aim a lot closer and he has been covering losses to try to achieve this. Reaching a level of self sufficiency that would guarantee that Sussex's football team is secure for future generations is the dream of many of us who lived through the Archer years and, thankfully, I believe that includes Tony Bloom.

We are lucky to have TB owning the club and thinking of putting the future FIRST of BHA with the Amex and training facilities. Rather than getting in big money singings.

Dean Court has what, 11,000 capacity? How can they hope to generate anywhere near the revenue of BHA never mind the likes of Emerates/Old Trafford etc.. and play with the 'big boys'. A short circuit cheat/gamble of the FPP might win in the short term, but not on the long term IMO and that puts them always on the back foot, hoping their their wealthy owners and the TV rights foot the wages bill. Exactly what TB has not done. Wooks well until one day it doesn't, they get relegated and you end up wth a Blackpool/Portsmouth etc......

 

[Mellotron]

Leicester have won the PL by gambling, so if that's the reward why bother following the rules.

100 million just for TV money and that's before the CL money and prize money - it's worth the risk

Oh I agree, it's totally worth it. Therefore the system is broken. A system of rules where if you cheat the rewards are worth more than the penalties is a broken system. See also - the banking system.

 

[blockhseagull]

Football league say it's not been paid according to the beeb

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36189779

 

[Creaky]

At least they're paying their fine. Amongst all the Leicester loving, it's not being widely reported that they're still trying to avoid paying their fine (from 13/14) due to a dodgy deal between Leicester City and a company that, apart from an address of a small unit at a Sheffield business park, has no evidence of existence or trading, apart from on paper at Companies House and in Leicester's annual accounts.

I didn't realise that Leicester had actually been fined, let alone refused to pay - aren't the League still investigating' their accounts?

 

[Dick Head]

Bolton, go home, you're drunk.

 

[nwgull]

I didn't realise that Leicester had actually been fined, let alone refused to pay - aren't the League still investigating' their accounts?

You're right; they are still being investigated. However it seems fairly clear that there has been some creative accountancy going on with a company that doesn't really exist, so Leicester City are effectively trying to avoid having to pay up.

 

[Dick Head]

We're ~150m in debt to Bloom, so what happens if and when our ownership changes? We love Bloom and he's a local fan, but he's not going to be our owner forever.
Sadly, almost every club is dependent on their owner at that time and any change in ownership spells disruption and potential trouble.
I worry that some of our lot forget how much we owe (in thanks / gratitude) to Bloom, and we take his underwriting for granted, as we sit in his lovely stadium every other week, watching the team he has paid to build.

Of course, getting to the magical money tree that is the PL does change that formula, for as long as you can stay in it, because suddenly there is another source of massive money that isn't the individual owner. However that depends on how wisely the club spends that PL money. Maybe we'll get the chance to try that ourselves!

Yes he is.

 

[Brovion]

They were fined £7.6m, which is about right for their loss based on the rules published by Football League. Based on some quick spreadsheet work their fine is for a loss of ~£33.5m. Now, they actually lost £38.3m, but not all losses are factored into FFP calculations, so reducing the losses by £5m seems entirely probably. It would seem that the League haven't been gutless and have, probably, applied the rules that clubs agreed to correctly. I'm sure @El Presidente can shed more light, given his areas of expertise.

Bournemouth got 71.4 million for playing in the PL (Source: http://www.totalsportek.com/football/premier-league-prize-money-table-2015/). Well worth flouting the FFP rules, especially as they didn't get relegated and can expect to earn even more next year! No wonder they paid the tiny fine without complaining - they did it because our gutless administrators talk big but couldn't actually introduce a system that ensures Financial Fair Play. It's like the time that Chelsea player was finded £60 or whatever for parking in a disabled spot; it's no deterrent whatsoever.

 

[Scunner]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/leicester-face-10m-fine-for-huge-losses-7sh7tm59x

Like someone said earlier, if they or B'muff are relegated they should drop a division further...this is why my warmth towards Leicester is a little chillier than most...

 

[halbpro]

Bournemouth got 71.4 million for playing in the PL (Source: http://www.totalsportek.com/football/premier-league-prize-money-table-2015/). Well worth flouting the FFP rules, especially as they didn't get relegated and can expect to earn even more next year! No wonder they paid the tiny fine without complaining - they did it because our gutless administrators talk big but couldn't actually introduce a system that ensures Financial Fair Play. It's like the time that Chelsea player was finded £60 or whatever for parking in a disabled spot; it's no deterrent whatsoever.

Is it really "the gutless administrators" fault? Clubs vote on these rules, they have a hand in setting the punishment etc... It's not like the rules are just passed down from on high with no interference from the club. Additionally, the fines had to pass approval of the Premier League as well as the Football League, hence why they go to charity rather than being redistributed amongst complying clubs.

It's also worth pointing out that if you flout them to excess, like QPR, then you will end up with a potentially big fine. Of course that fine didn't stick, so if you want to call the league gutless in that instance I'm perfectly willing to accept that judgement. QPR should have lost their league status if they'd been unwilling to pay.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Portsmouth were a smaller club who could afford to spend... all the time that their foreign owners were interested. When they pulled the plug, the people of Portsmouth nearly lost their football club. The accusation against Blackpool's owners is that they got to the top division and them took the financial rewards for themselves. Both of these are risks that Bournemouth could face very easily should the ownership change. Given how close you have been to the cliff edge in the past, I can appreciate that you just want to enjoy the massive change in fortune. I just hope, when the inevitable relegation comes and the ride is over, that the fans of AFC Bournemouth are left with a club that can 'try to achieve something' at any level of football.

Well, it was more complicated than an owner staying interested. The whole P*rtsm**th ownership story involved a battle between Israeli business rivals and the money dried up when a court case in Israel froze the assets of the man who was ultimately bankrolling the club. And that's before you get into the money-laundering allegations.

#twats

 

[Brovion]

Is it really "the gutless administrators" fault? Clubs vote on these rules, they have a hand in setting the punishment etc... It's not like the rules are just passed down from on high with no interference from the club. Additionally, the fines had to pass approval of the Premier League as well as the Football League, hence why they go to charity rather than being redistributed amongst complying clubs.

It's also worth pointing out that if you flout them to excess, like QPR, then you will end up with a potentially big fine. Of course that fine didn't stick, so if you want to call the league gutless in that instance I'm perfectly willing to accept that judgement. QPR should have lost their league status if they'd been unwilling to pay.

It's their 'fault' inasmuch as they didn't have the guts to introduce (and then implement) a system with real sanctions for transgressors. The current system has no real sanctions, it's just window dressing. The proof being that Bournemouth were happy to accept their 'punishment' as it is no punishment at all. If it were really going to hurt them they'd have kicked up a fuss and what do you think the Authorities would have done then? As you say QPR were able to have their punishment reduced to a level where it became meaningless.

 

[nicko31]

I didn't realise that Leicester had actually been fined, let alone refused to pay - aren't the League still investigating' their accounts?

There seems to be a worldwide media blackout on this story