EFL, LCFC and FFP

[Daz93]

39 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

That BBC article is better than the old Guardian one. Although the BBC article ignores Tresellar completely.

 

So the argument comes down to we didn't think "promotion costs" and "academy costs" fall under the FFP regulations? I can understand us thinking academy costs are "allowable" but what are promotion costs?

No idea and doubt we'll ever know. Could be things like improving the facilities to be up to Premier League standard?

[WigstonWanderer]

4 minutes ago, Daz93 said:

No idea and doubt we'll ever know. Could be things like improving the facilities to be up to Premier League standard?

Don’t they mean bonuses to players for getting promoted?

[Babylon]

44 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

That BBC article is better than the old Guardian one. Although the BBC article ignores Tresellar completely.

 

So the argument comes down to we didn't think "promotion costs" and "academy costs" fall under the FFP regulations? I can understand us thinking academy costs are "allowable" but what are promotion costs?

We paid £9.8m in promotion bonuses, if we'd not got promoted those bonuses wouldn't have been due. So you can wipe £10m off the loss for starters.

[Daz93]

6 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Don’t they mean bonuses to players for getting promoted?

Ah yes you're probably right. Meaning, if we hadn't got promoted we would have barely gone over the allowable loss. 

[Foxxed]

18 minutes ago, Babylon said:

We paid £9.8m in promotion bonuses, if we'd not got promoted those bonuses wouldn't have been due. So you can wipe £10m off the loss for starters.

Is that true? No, wait. Don't tell me if it's not. Providing I ignored the merchandising stuff, I'm starting to think this is all above board!

[Babylon]

19 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

Is that true? No, wait. Don't tell me if it's not. Providing I ignored the merchandising stuff, I'm starting to think this is all above board!

I'd suggest we were under £10m off being compliant, the trestrellar stuff was obviously to cover the shortfall. The £21m we're meant to have been over (if you ignore trestrellar) i think the club honestly believed was covered by all the other allowable stuff. £8m allowable losses for strters, £9.8m bonuses, ground and training facilities, youth costs. It soon adds up.

[Wymsey]

They really should scrap the Financial Fair Play debacle, and introduce a system that's both less-confusing and one that punishes those going over a certain limit via making them abide by the rules as strict as possible.

 

The bubble will burst soon with some big club for things to things imo.

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, Wymeswold fox said:

They really should scrap the Financial Fair Play debacle, and introduce a system that's both less-confusing and one that punishes those going over a certain limit via making them abide by the rules as strict as possible.

 

The bubble will burst soon with some big club for things to things imo.

It's quite simple, people can spend what the hell they want, but the money can't be in the form of loans.

 

FFP should be about protecting people from going bust and getting run into the ground and nothing more.

[Dan LCFC]

8 hours ago, StriderHiryu said:

Looking back I now think the failure of Sven and his signings was one of the best things that happened to the club. As you say it meant we re-evaluated our strategy to get promotion and build the club, resulting in a better team spirit that has achieved so much. 

Definitely taught us a big lesson. I've been sceptical of big spending ever since.

[Corky]

On 2/21/2018 at 16:54, Dan LCFC said:

Funnily enough the year we went up we hardly spent anything. 2012/13 we did spend a bit, and 2011/12 we spent an absolutely embarrassing amount (it was at the time) to achieve basically nothing. I assume it's those two seasons, 2011/12 in-particular, that have hit us.

In the Championship-winning season, we spent £450k on Mahrez (I think it's been mentioned since), Taylor-Fletcher and Phillips on frees and Miquel on loan. Most of the squad was already in place with only Kasper, Nugent and Konchesky featuring from Sven's signings, Dyer and King from before, Moore and Schlupp the youth team. The likes of Vardy, De Laet, James, Drinkwater, Morgan, Wood, Knockaert all came in during 2012 and 2013.

 

In terms of money spent to results produced, 2011/12 should be put into the most underwhelming and wasted opportunities category. Thankfully it didn't harm us too much in the long run.

[StriderHiryu]

40 minutes ago, Dan LCFC said:

Definitely taught us a big lesson. I've been sceptical of big spending ever since.

Teams that spend massively consistently and sustainably do tend to be the biggest teams. But those that just do it sporadically can put themselves in trouble like Leeds, Portsmouth and maybe Everton. It’s not the quick fix some think it is. 

 

I’ve said before and will say again that I don’t want us to be a club that just spends like mad every season. In fact the season we spent the most in was the most disastrous window we’ve ever had! None of those signings are currently training with the first team squad which says it all. 

 

I think the occasional “marquee” signing is needed every 18-24 months and we need to replace high profile departures appropriately (eg Mahrez). But I’d prefer to try to develop local talent or find players cheaply that have potential and want to wear the shirt. 

 

Luckily so far under Puel this seems to be the direction of the club and the new state of the art training ground seems to be inline with this strategy. 

[JerryLundegaard]

8 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

I do to a degree but as I've gotten older, and more cynical, I've started to think that the rules are in place simply to protect the establishment as it's in the best interests of those at the top to have these clubs as powerful as they can be. Financial Fair Play is a convenient way to control everyone's position / stature, hiding behind the idea that they're saving clubs from doing a Portsmouth.

 

Spending vast sums of money on players is stupid and unless you're right at the top, it isn't the way to go about things. When I see clubs fleecing their fans so they can spend more on poorly thought out transfers it makes me squirm. Clubs can bypass all of this just by scouting a bit better and using their brains.

Good points.

 

Perhaps a better control then might be a home grown restriction?  I believe that such rules are in place at the moment, but clearly they are not that restrictive as the mega money is still spent on the next hot thing from the continent when a new player is 'needed'.  While this would probably not stop all the best players accumulating at the biggest clubs, there would at least be a trickle down effect and a more level playing field could be generated.

[WigstonWanderer]

Under FFP, are owners allowed to give money to the club rather than loan it?