paulsherwood1 Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 I don't like the idea of this rule restricting businesses, however I'm not sure how much it's actually effected us. I think the Thai owners learnt a lot from the Sven days, and looking at last summer we hardly bought a load of expensive players. We finished 6th with a team that could and really should have finished at least 2nd, and we have sold none of those players. The effects of FFP have meant that virtually no one ( bar the relegated clubs ) have added to their squad in anyway that can be called significant. If anything teams like Watford will be weaker, Brighton have an unknown new manager, and parachute payments don't mean certain success ( ask last seasons favourites to win the league - wolves ). We assume Bolton and forest will be better, but so should we be if we listen to those who suggest that Pearson and his team needed time. Well here is his chance to prove it. I certainly don't think we needed to go out and spend cash on players, if NP uses players like St Ledger and Danns i Beleive they are both good enough for us, and will be like improvements to the squad anyway. So I don't see FFP being a big issue to be honest.
nickm Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 they havent pumped any money in ! they loAned Leicester the money !!! thats the point .... here here! people really think the thais love Leicester City and give a toss what happens to us-it won't become apparent just how much the thais have f****d us over until they've gone and we're still millions in debt with no ground to play at!
sylofox Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 FFP is also set up to protect the clubs from being the next Portsmouth. Which is the same road we were on rich owners lendig the club money with intrest. Then walking away.
Babylon Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 I've said it before ..... But I find it very difficult to believe we've sold as many season tickets as we say we have..... Selling a few thousand to your Thai mates that aren't likely to turn up must have at least crossed eur mind!!! Why? In reality there are very few people who throw and strop and say they aren't going again because of the manager. You'll see next year anyway... presuming you are there.
MooseBreath Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 Most of the obvious things like inflated sponsorship are already covered by FFP. False ticket sales is a possibility but again you'd expect the FFP bods to be quite tight on that. No-one will really know what it's possible to get away with until the first year is done. As for the "omgz 8% loans" crap. The owners have said they'll convert the debt to equity so there is nothing to worry about.
_Fatboyslow_ Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 We need a couple of experienced players to help our own kids. Totally agree with this. This became quite obvious last season BUT, yes it is a big but this type of player would be hard to get.
Babylon Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 As for the "omgz 8% loans" crap. The owners have said they'll convert the debt to equity so there is nothing to worry about. I think they said they were looking at it, not that they were.
Callabinho Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 The main problem with us is that we have a manager who isn't prepared to bend the rules, we know Nigel too well now and we know that whatever rules and regulations are put in place by the owners he shall adhere to. If the FL are going to be so strict with their rules they should come up with a rewards system for those clubs who meet the criteria, we are not going to benefit from the current FFP at all unless we completely strip the side down and start again, and I'm not saying we will but in football anything is possible....If we were to go down, it would be because of FFP, so is it even worth it?
Babylon Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 The main problem with us is that we have a manager who isn't prepared to bend the rules, we know Nigel too well now and we know that whatever rules and regulations are put in place by the owners he shall adhere to. Are you suggesting another manager might somehow sneak into their offices, forge signatures on cheques, negotiate with players, sort out the paper work and register them with the FA, without the owners knowing?
Guest ttfn Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 The simplest way around it is to ignore it. The punishment is a fine, structured in such a way that if you get promoted you still end up making a profit on your promotion in year one (albeit smaller than if you had complied). Hence clubs like Foresr ignoring it.
Callabinho Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 Are you suggesting another manager might somehow sneak into their offices, forge signatures on cheques, negotiate with players, sort out the paper work and register them with the FA, without the owners knowing? I thinking more like managers totally disregarding the FFP rules and in agreement with their owners invest more money than they should to achieve promotion. After all what's a fine compared to the £120 million or whatever it is prize money for promotion.
Babylon Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 I thinking more like managers totally disregarding the FFP rules and in agreement with their owners invest more money than they should to achieve promotion. After all what's a fine compared to the £120 million or whatever it is prize money for promotion. And if the owners wanted to carry on spending I'm sure Pearson would have obliged, seeing as he's in his last year there would have been nothing to lose for him.
Guest MattP Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 Its not just ffp. The thais have clearly pulled the plug on any sort of extravagant spending after finally appearing to realise you can seriously get your fingers burnt in thus game. They aren't going to invest another fortune knowing a massive fine is on the way as well if we fcuk up.
Loggy88 Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 Just want the season to start and hopefully be talking about what's happening on the pitch rather than this boring financial stuff off it.
Jon the Hat Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 Would never happen in a million years and we'd get loads of stick for it. Charity's supposed to help the needy, not prop up the lifestyle of overpaid footballers. Plus, like others have said, the Thais don't want to give us any money, they want to loan it to us at a massive rate of interest, so any scenario where they give us money without any chance of getting it back is a complete non-starter. 8% is not a massive rate of interest. In fact I would doubt if we could borrow at 8% from a bank given our history and football in general's shite record of repaying debt. Also assuming the owners have lent money from overseas on an intercompany basis - ie from one part of the King Power group to another, they are also subject to transfer pricing rules, whereby they must pay a market comparable rate of interest to ensure they are not moving profit overseas.
Ashley Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 I've said it before. Just look at the Manchester City situation. Signed a deal with Eithad for the Ground naming rights & shirt sponsor, I believe the deal was in the region of £400M for 10 years/seasons. So roughly that's £40M per yer/season they will recieve. I wonder if our club have thought about doing something similar with King Power Holdings?
MrSpaM Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 So people want us to be in even deeper s**t if the owners decide to leave then? Im disappointed weve only made one signing as well, but we cant really afford as a club to be borrowing any more money from king power.
Guest MattP Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 No chance. The Shiekhs genuinely want to give Man City money. Fact our lot lent us ours shows their intention.
berniethebolt Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 Yes when does the transfer window shut again? Doesn't it usually "Slam" shut? Once everyone has 'Swooped' and 'Snapped' up their final deals. On FFP I understand the rules to allow you to post a €45 million euro loss, but the owners have to cover anything over 5 million. which they can not do with loans (it need to be capital injected), so they are not going to do that, were are not their toy we are clearly a business to them. Sponsorship is another loophole, but then if they sponsor the training ground for say £100 million (aka Man city) then they post a profit in the year and lose a chunk through corporation tax. Not something a sheikh is too concerned about. I think the owners will invest but want to bring things back in line a bit. I see them here for long term but have realised its not easy to buy your way into the premier league. It needs a slow building process, hence all the effort in developing a first class academy (which is exempt from FFP).
MooseBreath Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 Its not just ffp. The thais have clearly pulled the plug on any sort of extravagant spending after finally appearing to realise you can seriously get your fingers burnt in thus game. They aren't going to invest another fortune knowing a massive fine is on the way as well if we fcuk up. Didn't they just buy the stadium a few weeks back? Seems to me they're putting money in wherever they can.
Guest MattP Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 Didn't they just buy the stadium a few weeks back? Seems to me they're putting money in wherever they can. Yeah for themselves though. It's owned by ASI not LCFC. When they go they will own it and we'll have to buy it back again.
MooseBreath Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 Yeah for themselves though. It's owned by ASI not LCFC. When they go they will own it and we'll have to buy it back again. They own the club for themselves too. If they want to sell the club without the stadium then that will be factored into the price. It's not as if they'll be able to force any new owner into a bad deal.
Babylon Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 Didn't they just buy the stadium a few weeks back? Seems to me they're putting money in wherever they can. Means we can pay them £1m a season rent/mortgage instead of teachers. Bargain.
Guest MattP Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 They own the club for themselves too. If they want to sell the club without the stadium then that will be factored into the price. It's not as if they'll be able to force any new owner into a bad deal. Exactly, they will more than make the money on that if they want too. Saves on the rent prices as well. No idea why they didn't do it at the start.
MooseBreath Posted 30 July 2013 Posted 30 July 2013 Means we can pay them £1m a season rent/mortgage instead of teachers. Bargain. It's the whole "we" and "them" thing again. There is no us and them, it is them and them. Every penny of debt they accumulate as owners of the club is another penny the future owners will take off the purchase price. If the owners charge themselves rent on the stadium, they gain nothing except perhaps some tax advantage or other.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.