KIRBYFOX93 Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 All this bollox about ffp affecting us as a club and other clubs is a load of crap. If any of you actually understand what it actually is then you will agree with me that it is not a problem. Finanacial fair play is a turnover to spending based agreement that fifa have brought in across into the footballing world. It is supposed to be there to cut spendings of clubs who have wealthy owners that give a disadvantage to clubs with not as fortunate pots of money. This however is a load of tosh and has loop holes in left right and centre, these so called 'sponsorship deals' that happen for training kits, shirt sponsor, stand sponsors, club events, matchdays, player sponsors, stadium sponsors and many others add to this pot of non existant cash that the clubs refer to the tax man to indicate turnover to warrant high spending. so clubs like Manchester United who have 250 million pound shirt sponsors disregarding shirt sales and other sources of turnover have already hit a target where they can show that they can spend as much as they produce therefore still paying out sums as big as 60 million for anyone they wish. People fail to realise that city have a training ground sponsors who gives us 5 million a year to advertise there and people forget how much money we actually can spend and are worrying that we will end up in recievership. we are not in a bad position the owners have a huge agreement abroad with thai sponsors across there country via advertising shirts sales there. so for all you people think we are in the shit we are most certainly not, people will put the question of saying 'well why have we not purchased any new players then?' well look at our team we were on the verge of autos last year until a bad period that seriously affected our season in which we enetered the lottery of play offs by which we were robbed in the semis. Pearson will rectify last years errors and will make this season a GREAT season for all of us at LCFC... UTB!!!!!
Guest MattP Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 We have a sponsor who gives us 5million a year to sponsor the training ground? That's the biggest piece of bollocks I've read, we didn't get 5million a year from Walkers for the stadium and shirt put together.
SmithyFox12 Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 Not another pile of shite about this FFP, fed up of hearing about it.
XLM Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 With all due respect, I fail to see how you hold a better understanding of the implications of FFP than the club themselves. We obviously were in a bit of a pickle financially - hence we didn't sign anyone. Only a manager with no funds to spare would openly state that even if he wanted players, he will not be getting any. I think you'd agree that based on the previous performances of Whitbread and St Ledger, we're hoping to god that our attack forms the best defence this season. FFP isn't full of loopholes - The relegated teams hold far more freedom because of parachute payments - and for a reason I can't even begin to understand, Watford have got away with making the most of having the type of ownership they do. I do agree with you that we are a financially strong team - the increase in wealth of our owners puts us in a relatively good position in terms of future investment.
Vlad The Impaler Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 Just a quick one.. If we were to spend 5 million on signings this summer and we ended up being promoted, would we be penalized by the football league or would the money won from promotion prevent this?
davieG Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 Just a quick one.. If we were to spend 5 million on signings this summer and we ended up being promoted, would we be penalized by the football league or would the money won from promotion prevent this? As I understand it yes we could probably afford to pay any fine although that might still be counted towards the PL FFP rules but the big problem is a transfer embargo which would take place whichever league you were in. Getting to the PL without the option to strengthen the team would be a nightmare.
Vlad The Impaler Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 As I understand it yes we could probably afford to pay any fine although that might still be counted towards the PL FFP rules but the big problem is a transfer embargo which would take place whichever league you were in. Getting to the PL without the option to strengthen the team would be a nightmare. But wouldn't promotion leave us with a positive turnover for the season? I mean the money you get for being promoted now is ridiculous, granted if we took this approach it would be a huge risk.
StanSP Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 How long before we have more threads on FFP than actual money to spend?
Hollism Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 But wouldn't promotion leave us with a positive turnover for the season? I mean the money you get for being promoted now is ridiculous, granted if we took this approach it would be a huge risk. I thought the prize money wasn't loads, but the real money comes from TV, increased ticket and merch sales, and the parachute payments if/when we get relegated.
davieG Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 But wouldn't promotion leave us with a positive turnover for the season? I mean the money you get for being promoted now is ridiculous, granted if we took this approach it would be a huge risk. The FFP relates to a period before any actual promotion can be achieved.
Danizen Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 As I understand it yes we could probably afford to pay any fine although that might still be counted towards the PL FFP rules but the big problem is a transfer embargo which would take place whichever league you were in. Getting to the PL without the option to strengthen the team would be a nightmare.There isn't a transfer embargo in the Premier League. Just a fine depending on how much you overspent.
Callabinho Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 Mike McCarthy has explained already all about it and how it WILL effect us as a football club. This article is complete bollocks.
Swiss_tony Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 dear kirby, the epl and champ have different FFP rules, comparing apples and oranges is pointless. you can't agree a fake sponsorship deal in the champ and get away with it. the deal has to be assesed as fair market value to pass FFP exemption. as for promotion, you pay a tax if you break the rules and get promotion, none if you don't.
Vlad The Impaler Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 The FFP relates to a period before any actual promotion can be achieved. Oh right, that wouldn't be an option then. Thanks davieG!
Vale Blue Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 All we do know as fact is what our owners have told us: We lost 30 million 2011/2012 season First 7 months of 2012/2013 season we lost 13.6million The FFP budget is 8million loss for 2014 so we need to reduce outgoings by 17million to comply.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 All this bollox about ffp affecting us as a club and other clubs is a load of crap. If any of you actually understand what it actually is then you will agree with me that it is not a problem. Finanacial fair play is a turnover to spending based agreement that fifa have brought in across into the footballing world. It is supposed to be there to cut spendings of clubs who have wealthy owners that give a disadvantage to clubs with not as fortunate pots of money. This however is a load of tosh and has loop holes in left right and centre, these so called 'sponsorship deals' that happen for training kits, shirt sponsor, stand sponsors, club events, matchdays, player sponsors, stadium sponsors and many others add to this pot of non existant cash that the clubs refer to the tax man to indicate turnover to warrant high spending. so clubs like Manchester United who have 250 million pound shirt sponsors disregarding shirt sales and other sources of turnover have already hit a target where they can show that they can spend as much as they produce therefore still paying out sums as big as 60 million for anyone they wish. People fail to realise that city have a training ground sponsors who gives us 5 million a year to advertise there and people forget how much money we actually can spend and are worrying that we will end up in recievership. we are not in a bad position the owners have a huge agreement abroad with thai sponsors across there country via advertising shirts sales there. so for all you people think we are in the shit we are most certainly not, people will put the question of saying 'well why have we not purchased any new players then?' well look at our team we were on the verge of autos last year until a bad period that seriously affected our season in which we enetered the lottery of play offs by which we were robbed in the semis. Pearson will rectify last years errors and will make this season a GREAT season for all of us at LCFC... UTB!!!!! I can't believe I'm seeing this. Ten out of ten for effort. Nil out of ten for fact.
Guest MattP Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 So called "sponsorship deals" is my favourite part. I suppose they fund these so called "signings" and "wages" to help pay the "footballers".
sylofox Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 So good how some of our fans think FFP is an April fools joke HELLO IT'S JULY
Pookie Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 Want to share a little bit about amortisation which is a calculation within FFP and maybe a reason for our lack of spending this summer. Basically its the transfer fee divided by the number of years the player is contracted to the club. This hasn't anything to do with the when clubs receive money from each other, just how its accounted for on the balance sheet for the purposes of FFP. The table below is a rough guide (I mean a rough guide) as I don't claim that I know any actual transfer fees paid or received by the club, but hopefully it will give you an idea of how the transfer activity over the last couple of seasons has an effect. These fees apart from Beckfords Bolton fee has been taken from the transfer market website. Take Kasper Schmeichel (paid £1,500,000) in terms of accounting this on the books it will be £500,000 per season for his three year contract If we were to have sold Kasper this summer (still may do?) for the reported £2,500,000, in terms of reporting on the accounts it would be £2,500,000 less £500,000 for amortisation = £2,000,000. As he has served 2 of a 3 year contact then £1,000,000 of the transfer fee has been taken off the balance sheet. You see from the table above how the transfer dealings of the past couple of years in now having an impact on any further activity in the transfer market this summer, If Beckford cost £3,000,000 (May be a big IF) and we only got £1,000,000 from Bolton as far as amortisation is concerned with have added a further -£500,000 to break-even figure. Technically we have saved £250,000 this season as amortisation figure for Beckford was £750,000 for each of the two years he had remaining on his contract (£1,500,000 in total). But £1,500,000 less £1,000,000 fee received means -£500,000 going this years accounts. The good news is that £750,000 is wiped off next seasons - You have to forget what may or may not have been owed to Everton, its the balance sheet for FFP purposes. Back to Kasper; Many said that we should have cashed in on him given he can walk away for free at the end of the season, If we had sold for £2,500,000 we would have reduced the accountable break-even to £3.525,000, Given the spending over the previous couple of seasons I doubt whether we could go out and get a replacement keeper. Hence why the club decided not to cash in, given the potential amortisation going forward from next season. I think what my rough guide to amortisation on how it maybe impacting on the club highlights what a tough job Pearson and his staff have in trying to improve the squad and the overall balance sheet at the same time. I hope this helps example one aspect of FFP, if you need to know all about it, UEFA have published a massive document on the subject! One final thought: Amortisation doesn't take into account of any wages paid to the player!
Smudge Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 Want to share a little bit about amortisation which is a calculation within FFP and maybe a reason for our lack of spending this summer. First of all thank you for doing this. I do not understand how the FFP interpretation of the accounts work but in normal circumstances, the the capital expenditure amortization would run for the scheduled period and the sale of a player would come in as revenue not a reversed amortization. This would significantly change your numbers.
MrSpaM Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 I still dont understand why top dosnt just sponser a couple of seats in the ground for a couple of million each. I also dont understand how clubs like forest are getting away with signing whoever they like when they are in a similar situation to ourselves. I work with a few forest fans and they reckon theyve got money from sponsorship from their owners to get around the rules, so why arnt we doing the same if our owners are reported to be worth over a billion. Its looking more and more likely to me that the owners simply dont want to put any more money into the squad, which is worrying, and confusing. Either the forests and watfords of this world are taking a massive risk financially, or were in a worse position than we think we are.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.