Dan Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 If you've ever had a firm go bust on you and gyp you out of the money you've earned, through no fault of your own, then you might be a little bit more sympathetic to what the League is trying to do. I agree but I still don't think the system is fair. QPR, Wigan & Reading all have an advantage over everyone else this year and whilst I don't agree with what Forest are doing, I think they're one of the other clubs who have a right to feel miffed. How can it apply to 21 clubs out of 24?
Strokes Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 I agree with the notion of financial fair play, if you consider football a sport. If you think its a business, really its anti-capitalist. The fact the premier league are dictating where the fines go, tells me the hierarchy in football needs reviewing asap.
Bert Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 We still need to prepare ourselves for around a £20m loss from last year I think.
Babylon Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 We still need to prepare ourselves for around a £20m loss from last year I think.If that's the case I fail to see how we can reach FFP this year... Would take a £12m drop from that kind of figure.
Foxes Blue Blood Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 Where do we stand with all this FFP? First punishments will be handed out in December 2014, We are allowed to make a £3 Million loss, another £5 Million can be added if the Owners are prepared to inject £5M equity into the club, (I believe our owners have already allowed for this). If we are promoted say with a loss of £18m we would have to pay a Fair Play Tax of £6,681,000, this money would go to charity. if we stay in the Championship a transfer embargo would be imposed on us on 1/1/2015 and would stay in place until the club can demonstrate it can run to a suitable level of losses or obviously profit. anyone wanting to read up on FFP http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php
beemeroo Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 I agree but I still don't think the system is fair. QPR, Wigan & Reading all have an advantage over everyone else this year and whilst I don't agree with what Forest are doing, I think they're one of the other clubs who have a right to feel miffed. How can it apply to 21 clubs out of 24? Is it not potentially 18/24 as the three who go up will be exempt, or did I dream that? Edit: Apologies, answered in the post directly above mine. In which case, I still find the idea of a fine is hardly the best way to assure financial compliance. Presumably that counts toward your losses the following year as well.
Bert Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 If that's the case I fail to see how we can reach FFP this year... Would take a £12m drop from that kind of figure.If it is £20m, then it's a £10m drop from the year before. Take that into this season without having really spent a penny (bar Mahrez) on transfer fees this season. Certainly feasible going by that. Is it not potentially 18/24 as the three who go up will be exempt, or did I dream that?If any of the 3 relegated clubs go up and are above the limit they will face sanctions then.
Manwell Pablo Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 From that I got. We dont know who it is but it must be leicester because they are rich. Plus in our position would we be a club who are worried by FFP? Nope Just because the owners wiped out the ten's of millions we owe them doesn't mean we wont make a loss for the financial year. I'd suggest if we are threatening legal action now we are more than likely not going to hit it, and by some distance, meaning a fine if we go up (quite possibly a significant one I think?)
Steven Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 I would just make sure that the owners of the Club were bonded for the full amount of any outstanding debt.
Dan Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 Is it not potentially 18/24 as the three who go up will be exempt, or did I dream that? Edit: Apologies, answered in the post directly above mine. In which case, I still find the idea of a fine is hardly the best way to assure financial compliance. Presumably that counts toward your losses the following year as well. It's hard to punish these clubs considering the entire game is based around money - it does seem pretty backwards to punish a club by failing to comply with regulations by actually adding to their costs although part of me doesn't sympathise. Would anyone really complain if QPR were fined? I certainly wouldn't. If they're the sort of club who are going to be hit by this then it strengthens FFP's case in general because they really are a disgrace. They make us under Sven look like tight spenders. I cannot make my mind up on FFP. I can't help but feel that a lot of the defence of it this season has come because the two biggest spenders (QPR & Forest) happen to be tailing off whilst Leicester and Burnley (two clubs with a minus net spend this season) are looking like finishing the top two. I can't help but feel that the way the table itself is panning is clouding the reality of it.
Babylon Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 If it is £20m, then it's a £10m drop from the year before. Take that into this season without having really spent a penny (bar Mahrez) on transfer fees this season. Certainly feasible going by that. If any of the 3 relegated clubs go up and are above the limit they will face sanctions then. Who have we got rid of that would save us £12m?
Bert Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 Who have we got rid of that would save us £12m?You know as well as me that we've not really got rid of anyone apart from them going out on loan. I'm sure you're knowledgable enough to also know that it just isn't transfers and wages that are accounted into FFP. It's the whole running of the club. Just trying to be positive about it all, as well as Susan Whelan saying we will certainly meet the FFP regulations I have no reason to believe that we won't do so.
Babylon Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 Daily Mail version says it's 10 clubs in the champ and one from league one.
Babylon Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 You know as well as me that we've not really got rid of anyone apart from them going out on loan. I'm sure you're knowledgable enough to also know that it just isn't transfers and wages that are accounted into FFP. It's the whole running of the club. Just trying to be positive about it all, as well as Susan Whelan saying we will certainly meet the FFP regulations I have no reason to believe that we won't do so. I must have missed the bit about Susan, when was that said?
ARTY_FOX Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 Just because the owners wiped out the ten's of millions we owe them doesn't mean we wont make a loss for the financial year. I'd suggest if we are threatening legal action now we are more than likely not going to hit it, and by some distance, meaning a fine if we go up (quite possibly a significant one I think?) I ment more along the lines of cutting the wage bill and not bringing players for large fee's. I am probably wrong though to be fair.
Bert Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 I must have missed the bit about Susan, when was that said?From Leicester Lass who is on the FCC a few posts up in this thread.Edit - Actually the first page of the thread Had an FCC meeting tonight, Susan Whelan 'guarantees' we will be FFP compliant.
MC Prussian Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 Has it been confirmed that we are one of the clubs involved in this appeal? As it stands, it's just hearsay. And that from the Guardian... Why would our club take this stance anyway, when we've just shrugged off that debt over several dozens of millions of pounds? What do we have to gain from loosening the screw - especially since we're likely to get promoted, earning a huge sum of (TV) money in the process? If at all, our progress in the last say two years should be proof enough that this club is on the right track in terms of expenses and has finally learnt its lesson from the administration days (not at last thanks to the generous owners), acting in more sustainable ways. QPR, Blackburn and Wolves' approach I can understand, because they've received a lot more parachute money than us following their respective relegations and still managed to add even more to their overall debt. FFP may not be perfect (as it is a rather young construct still), but it is a step in the right direction.
Babylon Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 From Leicester Lass who is on the FCC a few posts up in this thread. Edit - Actually the first page of the thread Sod the first page, go straight to the meaty stuff on page 2!! Ha
Manwell Pablo Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 I ment more along the lines of cutting the wage bill and not bringing players for large fee's. I am probably wrong though to be fair. Having read the rest of the thread the club seems confindent of hitting FFP by the sounds of it, so maybe I'm wrong. Why we care if that's the case I don't know.
Guest ttfn Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 Who have we got rid of that would save us £12m? We should save about £5 million on interest alone in 2013-14 compared with 2012-13. Beckford's wages Wellens' wages No loss on disposal of Mills (c. £1.5 mill in 2012-13). Increased ticket prices. That probably gets us to £10 million.
MooseBreath Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 Not sure the interest is relevant since I don't think the owners ever actually charged the interest so it wouldn't affect out accounts for the purposes of ffp. Season 2012/13 was one of significant change compared to this year. From memory didn't we sign the likes of Vards and knocks and maybe some others, with all the fees that entails, as well as still having a few unwanted high earners at the club. If bert is right and we're looking at a 20m loss for 12/13 then I can easily see us trimming that to below ffp this year
Guest ttfn Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 Not sure the interest is relevant since I don't think the owners ever actually charged the interest so it wouldn't affect out accounts for the purposes of ffp. Season 2012/13 was one of significant change compared to this year. From memory didn't we sign the likes of Vards and knocks and maybe some others, with all the fees that entails, as well as still having a few unwanted high earners at the club. If bert is right and we're looking at a 20m loss for 12/13 then I can easily see us trimming that to below ffp this year Of course the interest was relevant, it was hitting our P&L every year, regardless of whether it was paid.
5waller5 Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 The clubs involved are not even named in the letter, so how exactly is the "championship source " going to know. Seems to me they have just picked the clubs who posted big losses in their last accounts. I could see us opposing on the basis of it limiting what we can spend next year trying to stay up. This is where my understanding of FFP fizzles out ..... Are Premier league clubs bound by the same rules??? I thought not? If they are then £120m is the often touted prize of promotion so surely we could spend £120m and without bumping into any FFP problems ..... also isn't there a percentage loss that you're allowed??? If so the percentage loss of an additional £120m would make that figure £130m? £140m?? Do you, or anyone know for sure how this works and can answer those questions??
Babylon Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 This is where my understanding of FFP fizzles out ..... Are Premier league clubs bound by the same rules??? I thought not? If they are then £120m is the often touted prize of promotion so surely we could spend £120m and without bumping into any FFP problems ..... also isn't there a percentage loss that you're allowed??? If so the percentage loss of an additional £120m would make that figure £130m? £140m?? Do you, or anyone know for sure how this works and can answer those questions?? We could spend what we want next year, the point I was trying to make was that should you them come down you would get hammered by FFP.
5waller5 Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 We could spend what we want next year, the point I was trying to make was that should you them come down you would get hammered by FFP. This is presumably why they are joining in the campaign against it then?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.