Deucalion Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 We have yet to hear how we got on financially last season but I suspect we probably were there or thereabouts in regards to FFP. I understand that the details have to be sent to the Football League at the turn of the calendar year and usually things leak out if it is not good. It seems to me (without any particular research) that teams relegated from the PL don't do particularly well. There are the occasional successes such as West Ham and Newcastle in recent seasons, but most end up struggling. I think the reasons are; players not happy about being in the Championship, poor managerial changes, the physical nature of the Championship, and most importantly, the financial implications of relegation. We have spent some money this season and I would guess the wage bill is significantly higher. This is offset by TV money, increased attendances and merchandising, and we have the safety net of parachute payments. So my question is this: Will our season in the PL leave us in good financial shape for the future and able to keep at least some of our better players, or are we due a complete restructuring and all the upheaval that will necessarily cause?
cc_star Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 Dont' know Surely we have relegation wage reduction clauses in contracts coupled with parachute payments being astronomically better than ever along with zero debt thanks to the owners converting it into equity.... should mean we do not only ok, but fine
Matt Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 I just hope all the players were put on stupid bloody 4 year contracts have a wage cut in them because none of the deserve to stay on the money they're on.
ADK Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 I think we'll be in a strong position financially.
st albans fox Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 We are very well set (financially) for relegation - that's the least of our worries You might say that we set out to make sure we would be ok to be relegated re the wage structure and transfer fees paid If we fail to get promoted by season 2017/2018 then it may begin to look less rosy
MrSpaM Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 Considering we've spent practically F all this season, and only added a few additions the season before, I'd say were in a pretty good position if the worst happens
hackneyfox Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 Was told again last night that parachute payments don't count in FFP turnover figures. Is this true? If so surely the owners will just pocket the 60m a la Oysten.
Donut Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 Was told again last night that parachute payments don't count in FFP turnover figures. Is this true? If so surely the owners will just pocket the 60m a la Oysten. Cant be right can it? How does the parachute payment benefit the club otherwise?
MrSpaM Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 Was told again last night that parachute payments don't count in FFP turnover figures. Is this true? If so surely the owners will just pocket the 60m a la Oysten. You could basically spank the entire lot on players if you wanted to
cc_star Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 Was told again last night that parachute payments don't count in FFP turnover figures. Is this true? If so surely the owners will just pocket the 60m a la Oysten. A portion of them do, some was struck off when it went from £48m to £60m
Donut Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 You could basically spank the entire lot on players if you wanted to Parachute payment does NOT count in FFP budget, ie does not show up as income is what he said
MooseBreath Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 With relegation clauses, a few sales, and parachute payments there's really no reason why we shouldn't be markets ahead of the rest of the championship financially.
MrSpaM Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 Parachute payment does NOT count in FFP budget, ie does not show up as income is what he said Ah right, surely it doesn't count against your outgoings either then?
MooseBreath Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 Parachute payments do count as income. That might change in the future but any change won't effect us next season. We'll got the whole whack to spend on a Jamie Vardy party if that's what we want.
Donut Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 Ah right, surely it doesn't count against your outgoings either then? Im not sure whether Hackneyfox is correct, it just doesnt seem logical that the parachute payment cant be invested in the club. I could never imagine an Oyston situation down here though where an autocrat just pockets the money and leaves the team in portakabins on the training ground.
Benjani Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 With relegation clauses, a few sales, and parachute payments there's really no reason why we shouldn't be markets ahead of the rest of the championship financially. Fulham are streets ahead
cc_star Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 Fulham are streets ahead Yet another club with a joke owner
Donut Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 Fulham are streets ahead Blew £10+ mil on one plaer.
Donut Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 And we haven't? By "blowing" £10 million im talking about buying someone who is a useless asset like McCormack. Rubbish player who had a good season.
Benjani Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 By "blowing" £10 million im talking about buying someone who is a useless asset like McCormack. Rubbish player who had a good season. I would rather mccormack than ulloa
MooseBreath Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 Fulham are streets ahead Don't know much about Fulham's finances really but so what? Different club different circumstances. We were fine last year, next year we might have marginally higher wage bill but with tens of millions in parachute payments to cover it. Stands to reason we'll be absolutely fine unless we go on some crazy pre-season spending spree.
Donut Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 I would rather mccormack than ulloa Definitely not. Ok, i laughed in the other thread about the Ulloa/Sterling discussion, but no way would i take McCormack £10+ over £8 mill Ulloa.
Benjani Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 Definitely not. Ok, i laughed in the other thread about the Ulloa/Sterling discussion, but no way would i take McCormack £10+ over £8 mill Ulloa. McCormack didn't actually cost over 10 million. It could eventually reach that if every single clause happened. Fulham not getting promoted meant one of the clauses won't happen. It was about 7 Million plus loads of clauses. Mccormack would suit us way more than ulloa.
Benjani Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 'By Matt Law 11:48PM BST 08 Jul 2014 Scotland international joins for an initial £7 million as Leeds owner insists it was not possible to keep striker Fulham have agreed to pay an initial £7 million to sign striker Ross McCormack from Leeds United. Although the deal was initially quoted at £11 million, it is believed that the final figure can only hit that level if a series of add-ons are achieved. The size of the McCormack transfer fee is still a surprise, however, and represents a significant outlay by Fulham after their relegation from the Premier League last season'
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.