[Archived] Football League Financial Fair Play Rules - Effect on Rovers

[ABBEY]

Relevance?

Relevant to the fact that keyboards on here are smoking over the finances but what will anyone do on sat ? Diddlyvenkysquat

[K-Hod]

Relevant to the fact that keyboards on here are smoking over the finances but what will anyone do on sat ? Diddlyvenkysquat

Not saying I disagree with the sentiment, I was just questioning the relevance to this thread...

[Rover_Shaun]

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/blackburn_rovers/news/10351443.Relegation_would_leave_Blackburn_Rovers__between_a_rock_and_a_hard_place__says_football_finance_expert/

Option 3 looks the Venky winner

[Stuart]

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/blackburn_rovers/news/10351443.Relegation_would_leave_Blackburn_Rovers__between_a_rock_and_a_hard_place__says_football_finance_expert/

Relegation will be the death of this club...

They are due £16m next season and then £8m for each of the two seasons after that.

They would still get the parachute payments and that would be a major advantage, because although some clubs do go from the Premier League to League One they are in the minority, he said.

But the Football League money is divided up as 80 per cent in the Championship, 12 per cent in League One and eight per cent in League Two, so its a big reduction in television money.

The second element is that crowds, which are already well down, would drop even further.

Then the other element is merchandise and sponsorship, because in League One you would get seconds on television compared to minutes in the Championship.

You would be getting about half the income you would get in the Championship.

The parachute payments will offset that, but obviously they would get those anyway if they stay in the Championship.

Relegation is never good news.

You're not keaning kidding.

[Majiball]

To give this a bit more perspective a promotion chasing league one clubs total spend on wages last season 1.3M.

Or Danny Murphy.

[TBTF]

Relegation will be the death of this club...

They are due £16m next season and then £8m for each of the two seasons after that.

They would still get the parachute payments and that would be a major advantage, because although some clubs do go from the Premier League to League One they are in the minority, he said.

But the Football League money is divided up as 80 per cent in the Championship, 12 per cent in League One and eight per cent in League Two, so its a big reduction in television money.

The second element is that crowds, which are already well down, would drop even further.

Then the other element is merchandise and sponsorship, because in League One you would get seconds on television compared to minutes in the Championship.

You would be getting about half the income you would get in the Championship.

The parachute payments will offset that, but obviously they would get those anyway if they stay in the Championship.

Relegation is never good news.

You're not keaning kidding.

Assuming they havent spent next years parachute money in advance-if they have then it really is a dark day with a black hat on!!

[rovers11]

It's sad times for the club. My worry is what happens to the club when the parachute payments run out. We haven't got a hope in hell of getting back to the premier league before the parachute payments run out so it's a real issue that has to be considered. This summer is huge for Rovers. The owners have a massive financial black hole they will need to cover, an even bigger one if/when we drop lge 1. Will they be prepared to cover that? Will new owners be prepared to cover that?

I think our youth/reserve team alone would do well Lge 1. Many have been on loan to lge 1 and 2 clubs and excelled, players such as Edwards, O'Connell etc and even players like Alan Judge and Nick Blackman who were at the club have done extremely well at lower league level. To be honest, getting out of lge 1 is far easier than getting out of the championship - an experienced manager could do it without spending a huge amount of money. To get out of the championship, you need to invest a lot of money.

It's all about the premiership for me, we got there because of Jack's money the 1st and 2nd time around. We don't have Jack's money anymore so the blue print will have to be different if we are to get back there this time. The current Rovers owners and management team won't have a clue about how to get this club back to the premier lge. It will have to be under new owners. My blue print would be: Bring through youth, experienced manager, and a sensible budget for more experienced players who can compliment the youth.

[ABBEY]

Ha first bit ... We got NO chance ever of seeing prem footy again at ewood .

[Tom]

To give this a bit more perspective a promotion chasing league one clubs total spend on wages last season 1.3M.

Or Danny Murphy.

Or 3 Shebby Singhs

[rovers11]

Ha first bit ... We got NO chance ever of seeing prem footy again at ewood .

I don't subscribe to that view. We won't see prem footy for a number of years at Ewood and most definitely not in Venky's reign. With an experienced manager, strong youth system plus decent funds to bring in experienced players, we can certainly reach the top again. Significant money to invest does certainly increase a clubs chances of going up - look at Cardiff and Forest this year. However, Watford and Palace have sustained a challenge based on good management, excellent recruitment, and introducing youth; they haven't spent fortunes.

Swansea, WBA, Blackpool, Southampton, Norwich etc all went up without spending huge amounts of money. We can't buy our way up this time, we have to follow a different model but it can be done. Imperative we get new owners for that to happen though.

This is all academic at the moment, anyway. Until off the field problems have been sorted (which ultimately means the ousting of Venky's) then we will have to keep watching this car crash unfold.

[thenodrog]

How can 60% be fair play? How are a Stanley supposed to compete with a city club like Sheffield United or Bradford other than one day hope a rich supporter bankrolls them?

Football is dying

C'mon B&W army..... Can you not see that the idea is to stop football dying. Football clubs in the lower leagues are starved of funding, this move is clearly to stop stupid owners playing to the agents tune and blowing their club's brains out financially. The majority of players in the lower leagues are worth about £1000-2000 pw tops. If they don't like it then they can hang your boots up and get a proper job. Lets be honest bog ordinary talents like our lot won't be missed and will easily be replaced.

Have you thought that if this had come in earlier the Walker Trust might not have felt it so necessary to sell the club? It also means of course that football minnows with poor support like ours will never sit at football's top table but there you go. The only other way is amalgamation of small clubs into viable financial entities capable of standing on their own feet without so many sugar daddy's.

You'll find another thread covering this inevitability with our local town clubs already open. Here....http://www.brfcs.com/mb/index.php/topic/29305-lancashire-united-pros-and-cons/page-1

May as well merge the threads and be done with it!

[Parsonblue]

I don't subscribe to that view. We won't see prem footy for a number of years at Ewood and most definitely not in Venky's reign. With an experienced manager, strong youth system plus decent funds to bring in experienced players, we can certainly reach the top again. Significant money to invest does certainly increase a clubs chances of going up - look at Cardiff and Forest this year. However, Watford and Palace have sustained a challenge based on good management, excellent recruitment, and introducing youth; they haven't spent fortunes.

Swansea, WBA, Blackpool, Southampton, Norwich etc all went up without spending huge amounts of money. We can't buy our way up this time, we have to follow a different model but it can be done. Imperative we get new owners for that to happen though.

This is all academic at the moment, anyway. Until off the field problems have been sorted (which ultimately means the ousting of Venky's) then we will have to keep watching this car crash unfold.

The only problem with that theory rovers11 is that we have been down that road before between 1966 and 1992. We developed any number of young players - Kevin Hird, John Bailey, Simon Barker but eventually they had to be sold to keep the club going. When we managed to turn up a decent player in the transfer market - Barrie Hole, Ken Knighton, Tony Field, Terry Garbutt etc. - they also had to be sold to cover the losses of being in Division Two and Division Three. To do it in the way you suggest requires a huge amount of luck. You have to have developed the young talent and have bought the right experienced players at the same time and you have to hang on to them for a season to have a crack at getting promotion. Will Palace be as good next year - I suspect not. Watford have got where they are by exploiting a loop hole in the rules and filling the team with loan players - all of whom will have to return to their parent clubs in the summer. After relegation from the top flight in 1966, a much better comparison with the present situation than 1999, it took a quarter of a century to get back. Look at Preston - relegated in 1960 and have yet to return to top flight football. Cardiff went down in 1962 and are only, hopefully, getting back to the top flight next season. It's a sobering thought to think our exile from top flight football may last 20, 30 or 40 years or more.

[USABlue]

Not sure why it's called fair play. Another way of giving the advantage to big city clubs.

[West Yorks Rover]

Im not convinced by the FFP rules tbh. It's just an escape clause for owners who don't want to invest in their club. If an owner does want to invest, what would stop them pumping in money via sponsorship? For instance, what if venkys sponsored our shirts next season and paid £10m for doing so. That would count as turnover rather than loss

£10m for shirt sponsorship in league1 would stand-out like a sore thumb, and would have the other 23 clubs crying foul

in unison, may be able to get away with it in the prem but I doubt the authorities would allow it in league 1..... maybe £500,000.

[Rover_Shaun]

FFP is about as beneficial as Lancashire United would be

[Stuart]

£10m for shirt sponsorship in league1 would stand-out like a sore thumb, and would have the other 23 clubs crying foul

in unison, may be able to get away with it in the prem but I doubt the authorities would allow it in league 1..... maybe £500,000.

Who decides what the space on the front of a football shirt is worth? It's worth what someone is prepared to pay for it.

[West Yorks Rover]

Who decides what the space on the front of a football shirt is worth? It's worth what someone is prepared to pay for it.

Yes but it would be the owners paying it, rather obvious don't you think ? its league 1 after all, if the FL

allowed it I think another rule change would be around the corner.

[Rover_Shaun]

According to Fifa sponsorship deals have to be based on market value

Yet a simple glance at City’s official website reveals the club’s
sponsors are predominantly linked to the owners. Shirt sponsor Etihad
Airways, telecommunications company Etisalat, Abu Dhabi Tourism
Authority and investment company AABAR are all based in the Middle East.
Even Ferrostaal, a virtually unknown German engineering company, have
been taken over by the Abu Dhabi government.

This has raised
suspicion that clubs such as City can bypass FFP rules by means such as
sponsorship. Not so, say Uefa, who stress all deals will be
market-tested for fair value.

“Nobody should try to be clever
about the possibility of circumnavigating the rules,” warned Infantino.
“If the panel have the feeling that the rules are circumnavigated, then
this corresponds to a violation.”

[imy9]

£10m for shirt sponsorship in league1 would stand-out like a sore thumb, and would have the other 23 clubs crying foul

in unison, may be able to get away with it in the prem but I doubt the authorities would allow it in league 1..... maybe £500,000.

As opposed to 570 million euros that Qatar are paying PSG over 4 years- this does not include shirt sponsorship or stadium rights lol!

There is always a way around things.

[West Yorks Rover]

As opposed to 570 million euros that Qatar are paying PSG over 4 years- this does not include shirt sponsorship or stadium rights lol!

There is always a way around things.

I still maintain they won't allow it in the 3rd division, just my opinion !

Of course they could always just open a secret off-shore bank account

for each of the players, nah ! they would'nt do that, would they ?

[Stuart]

Yes but it would be the owners paying it, rather obvious don't you think ? its league 1 after all, if the FL

allowed it I think another rule change would be around the corner.

What's obviousness got to do with it?

It's a loophole. Watford aren't sneaking around with their loanees.

If the owners want to sponsor their team, it isn't against the rules. Or is it? That's what I'd like clarified really.

[West Yorks Rover]

What's obviousness got to do with it?

It's a loophole. Watford aren't sneaking around with their loanees.

If the owners want to sponsor their team, it isn't against the rules. Or is it? That's what I'd like clarified really.

Just looked at the investigation thread, sounds like some pretty serious stuff could be about to be exposed,

What are the rules for the Blue Square Bet, any idea ?

[Stuart]

Just looked at the investigation thread, sounds like some pretty serious stuff could be about to be exposed,

What are the rules for the Blue Square Bet, any idea ?

Let's wait and see how explosive. If it makes the curtains twitch at Lancaster Gate then maybe it'll be worth waiting for.

[West Yorks Rover]

Let's wait and see how explosive. If it makes the curtains twitch at Lancaster Gate then maybe it'll be worth waiting for.

Indeed, lets have it all out in the open, I think we've all had enough now.

[Salgado Is A Hero]

What's obviousness got to do with it?

It's a loophole. Watford aren't sneaking around with their loanees.

If the owners want to sponsor their team, it isn't against the rules. Or is it? That's what I'd like clarified really.

I used to think it was but Stoke are sponsored by bet365 and the majority shareholders of both are the Coates family.