The Padster Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 That is for the 2014-15 season. It will be losses of £12m initially. Hopefully, we'll be in the PL by 2014-15, anyway. Further to this; For instance, QPR - who made a loss of £25.4m in their promotion season - would have been levied a fine of around £15m if the new regulations had been in place last year.
Lobsterboyuk Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 I'm completely for FFP - but against a backdrop of the credit crunch etc: What powers of investigation will the league have. Theoretical situation - Football Investor Ltd converts a loan to equity but funds the equity from a Bermudan holding company via a loan maybe add in several holdings in between to keep the trail cold. A box is ticked but nothing has really changed. Finance is global and complicated. are the league equipped to really deal with this beyond accounting trickery .
DorsetFox9 Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 Doesn't matter for a few years yet. Plus we'll find ways around it. I'm still baffled by the rules if I'm honest. We might as well just put the league in order of gate receipts and not bother playing any matches, because without outside investment the chances of long term upward mobilisation ate reduced to zero. my thoughts exactly!
seenitall Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 Seems fairly unsound logic to fine a team that has already lost too much money - all that is going to do is put them out of business quicker - points deduction would be better surely?
Captain... Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 We now see why tickets prices are going up the fans are having to pay for the Thais reckless extravagance. Don't you start Davie, you are one of the few posters that actually make the football forum bearable. We have known about these regulations for a while now, we have invested and spent heavily before they come in, now we have a much better infrastructure and playing squad, which is worth individually more than the um of it's parts at the moment. (By that I mean we have £20 million worth of talent, but performing more like a pub team). The players still carry, or have increased in market value from what we bought them for, unless FFP drives down transfer fees, in which case we could be looking at large losses on these players. I maintain the spending wasn't reckless but a calculated gamble, to get promotion before this came in, the gamble didn't pay off, now we need to look to cut costs whilst still building for the future, a tough job but it would have been regardless of how money had been spent over the last few years. Last Summer we spent a lot of money but we didn't overpay for anyone except Mills, as for wages, we are only speculating as to what they are on, but I have seen figures which say that we are not making a loss on a month by month basis, it is these large expenditures on players that have put is in debt. It is the first time I have read about not being able to fund through loans, I am assuming that is aimed at bank loans and not loans from your owners, but I guess they amount to the samething, and they will have to put more money in as equity, if they want to, but then they own the club so I'm not sure how that would work. All in all, anybody who doubts the owners will have to be reassured that the club is beingwell run financially, because it has to be, they will need to increase revenue streams, which they have been doing regularly with sponsorship deals. So lets just stop worrying about the owners and financial matters, we are not going to go into administration, lets get back to talking about matters on the pitch... ...oh...fvck it, anybody got a copy of the accounts.
unreachable Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 Doesn't matter for a few years yet. Plus we'll find ways around it. I'm still baffled by the rules if I'm honest. We might as well just put the league in order of gate receipts and not bother playing any matches, because without outside investment the chances of long term upward mobilisation ate reduced to zero. Clubs can generate cash by getting transfer fees by selling on youth players - Southampton have been doing well on this front.
Raw Dykes Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 Further to this; I know, but don't forget, these rules affect every club in the division. Clubs relegated from the PL will be at a slight advantage with their parachute payments, but I think we should be fine. We do have one of the biggest attendances in the league, and we do have a manager, and scouts, who can build a competitive team on a small budget.
Captain... Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 Seems fairly unsound logic to fine a team that has already lost too much money - all that is going to do is put them out of business quicker - points deduction would be better surely? I thought the same thing, it's like a payday loan.
nothin2seehere Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 The changes will also force owners to fund clubs with equity as opposed to loans, while youth investment and accounting charges from past spending on players and stadium-building will not be included. What does this mean... that what we're shelling out on players already signed won't be taken into account?
Happy Fox Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 2 seasons to get promotion than that is more than achievable imo.
ScouseFox Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 Are we fúcked or not? I don't get all this financial stuff, and I can't really be bothered to try and work it out. I assume we can't carry on as we are, correct?
Dan Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 Whilst it's a step forward, it's just going to make clubs even greedier unfortunately. No doubt this will hit the fans, again.
davieG Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 Don't you start Davie, you are one of the few posters that actually make the football forum bearable. We have known about these regulations for a while now, we have invested and spent heavily before they come in, now we have a much better infrastructure and playing squad, which is worth individually more than the um of it's parts at the moment. (By that I mean we have £20 million worth of talent, but performing more like a pub team). The players still carry, or have increased in market value from what we bought them for, unless FFP drives down transfer fees, in which case we could be looking at large losses on these players. I maintain the spending wasn't reckless but a calculated gamble, to get promotion before this came in, the gamble didn't pay off, now we need to look to cut costs whilst still building for the future, a tough job but it would have been regardless of how money had been spent over the last few years. Last Summer we spent a lot of money but we didn't overpay for anyone except Mills, as for wages, we are only speculating as to what they are on, but I have seen figures which say that we are not making a loss on a month by month basis, it is these large expenditures on players that have put is in debt. It is the first time I have read about not being able to fund through loans, I am assuming that is aimed at bank loans and not loans from your owners, but I guess they amount to the samething, and they will have to put more money in as equity, if they want to, but then they own the club so I'm not sure how that would work. All in all, anybody who doubts the owners will have to be reassured that the club is beingwell run financially, because it has to be, they will need to increase revenue streams, which they have been doing regularly with sponsorship deals. So lets just stop worrying about the owners and financial matters, we are not going to go into administration, lets get back to talking about matters on the pitch... ...oh...fvck it, anybody got a copy of the accounts. You're just trying to convince yourself "The players still carry, or have increased in market value from what we bought them for, unless FFP drives down transfer fees, in which case we could be looking at large losses on these players." So which is it greater value or big losses? "I maintain the spending wasn't reckless but a calculated gamble" Reckless or gamble, not a lot of difference for me it was reckless of them to gamble on the chance of being promoted especially when they knew the FFP was imminent, you have your view and I have mine, I'll stick with reckless.
Guesty Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 I don't know anything about this but surely they must have some sort of amnesty or allowence for a team in our position? Theres no way we can clear all the high earners out because they're not premiership quality and no-one else in this league is going to be able to afford them (not that there worth it). On the whole I think its good though. It's exactly what is needed to stop owners ruining football clubs like what happend to Portsmouth.
Happy Fox Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 I don't know anything about this but surely they must have some sort of amnesty or allowence for a team in our position? Theres no way we can clear all the high earners out because they're not premiership quality and no-one else in this league is going to be able to afford them (not that there worth it). On the whole I think its good though. It's exactly what is needed to stop owners ruining football clubs like what happend to Portsmouth. Cconspiracy theorists will say our man in the football league i.e Chairman Gregg Clarke will help us out seeing as he supports us.
m00nie Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 if no points deduction lets just carry on spending and take the fines..
Guest Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 Couldn't it have a never negative effect for league clubs? All the decent players will only play in the Prem and be unwilling to drop down to the championship as they won't be financially compensated for doing so. The gap in playing ability increases between the lower prem clubs and the league clubs and even when promoted the league clubs don't have the players to stay up - and if they pay them exorbitant wages they have a major problem with fines if they are relegated. What about the first 3 prem clubs relegated the year it comes into effect do they have to immediately get thier finances in order? With contracts that last more than 1 season that could be impossible ( and you can't just sell everybody - as we'll find out this off-season).
Guest MattP Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 Very happy, the funding of clubs through business loans is immoral and had to stop. Captain S you are a great poster but I can't go with you on this, blowing over 50million odd in just 18 months in a second tier is ridiculous and reckless, not a calculated gamble.
Guesty Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 Forgot to use the quote thing. QUOTE: {What about the first 3 prem clubs relegated the year it comes into effect do they have to immediately get thier finances in order? With contracts that last more than 1 season that could be impossible ( and you can't just sell everybody - as we'll find out this off-season).} Thats a very good point, they must have some sort of allowance for them, likewise I imagine they will for current teams as long as you are working towards the limits. I'm not gonna get too worried about this till I i know all the facts. That foxblogger just stuck up on Twitter that we would have been fined £10.25 mil last year with these rules, .
Happy Fox Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 NP is the best man for the job then in this climate. I think we will sell all our highest earners this summer so Mills, Pantsil, Beckford and maybe Konchesky will be gone imo, I cannot imagine we will be spending that much money this summer either, I think the approach of looking for young talent or players in the lower leagues is something that NP is relatively good at.
Babylon Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 That foxblogger just stuck up on Twitter that we would have been fined £10.25 mil last year with these rules, . Only if we got promoted.
Babylon Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 What about the first 3 prem clubs relegated the year it comes into effect do they have to immediately get thier finances in order? With contracts that last more than 1 season that could be impossible ( and you can't just sell everybody - as we'll find out this off-season). I think it said for the first year they don't have to abide by FFP. So basically they will have an even bigger advantage than relegated teams already do. Premier clubs need to start putting relegation clauses in ALL contracts, there should be no reason to no plan ahead for the worst case scenario.
Raw Dykes Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 Couldn't it have a never negative effect for league clubs? All the decent players will only play in the Prem and be unwilling to drop down to the championship as they won't be financially compensated for doing so. The gap in playing ability increases between the lower prem clubs and the league clubs and even when promoted the league clubs don't have the players to stay up - and if they pay them exorbitant wages they have a major problem with fines if they are relegated. Maybe, but each club only has so much money, so if they're forced to save some while outside the PL, they'll have more to spend once they reach the top flight. What about the first 3 prem clubs relegated the year it comes into effect do they have to immediately get thier finances in order? With contracts that last more than 1 season that could be impossible ( and you can't just sell everybody - as we'll find out this off-season). Not sure. It says that... The changes will also force owners to fund clubs with equity as opposed to loans, while youth investment and accounting charges from past spending on players and stadium-building will not be included. I'm not sure if this applies only for past spending before the rules are introduced, or for each season once they're in place.
Babylon Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 Maybe, but each club only has so much money, so if they're forced to save some while outside the PL, they'll have more to spend once they reach the top flight. Not sure. It says that... I'm not sure if this applies only for past spending before the rules are introduced, or for each season once they're in place. My interpretation was that it meant fees for players that are often spread out over a number of years.
LCFC_Peter Posted 25 April 2012 Posted 25 April 2012 King power sponsor the stadium so surely they will raise the sponsorship by 20mil to get round it!???
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.