[Archived] FFP in the Football League

[MrT]

Thought I'd post this as a lot of people seem confused about what FFP actually entails

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/FLExplainedDetail/0,,10794~2748246,00.html

Hopefully after reading this ppl will understand it a bit more....

[TBTF]

Thought I'd post this as a lot of people seem confused about what FFP actually entails

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/FLExplainedDetail/0,,10794~2748246,00.html

Hopefully after reading this ppl will understand it a bit more....

Thanks Mr T , very useful.

Clearly this does not make for happy reading for any Rovers fan as we are miles adrift of the FFP rules and without doubt facing the maximum fine which will be over £10 million. The fact this is then shared by anybody who does comply in the Champoinship is a bit ironic. I bet Venkys really look forward to contributing to other clubs too !!

In fairness to Mercerman ,who gets slaughtered on here for commenting on our financial shambles, it is beyong any dispute that we are a train wreck.And the fact that Venkys are not allowed to cover our losses , even if they wanted to ,points to something extremely bleak for our Club.

Given that this was on the cards in 2012/13 it is remarkable that they let Shebby run riot with the wage bill , signing duds on long contracts that they cant now afford or get rid of. We have that many to shift that will need paying off before they go, that we are going to miss this FFP target for anything up to 3 yrs as i read it.

You wouldnt have to let your imagination run riot to see Venkys chucking the towel in once they understand they have a horrific loss making machine that they cant switch off.

This is truly quite scary folks. The hope is that nobody can comply and it gets amended or binned pronto.

[Baz]

"Failure to stay within the defined limits will lead to the imposition of sanctions. However, there will be no sanctions implemented during the first two seasons (2012/13 and 2013/14) in order to give clubs a sensible period of transition."

Thats why Bolton and other clubs in this league aren't scared.

[Waggy76]

It wont be worth the paper it is written on when the legals get to grips with it !

[bob fleming]

I just don't get it at all. How much have Monaco spent this summer? More to the point, how much are the wages? This on their first season back in the French top tier and on average gates just below 6k. Now don't get me wrong,I don't know how much ST's are but it seems to me that some clubs are paying attention and others are just ignoring it all.

What are the spending at City and Chelsea this close season as well? That all OK is it?

I can only see this rule getting binned.

[chaddyrovers]

Bob, this Football league FFP and bought in by the FL not UEFA/PL

so this FLFFP has nothing to do with UEFA or PL.

I think these rules were voted in by the 72 league club at the time this rule was bought in.

[bob fleming]

Are you sure chaddy ? A very quick google...

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/protectingthegame/financialfairplay/index.html

http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2865/comment/2013/08/15/4188108/financial-fair-play-is-making-the-rich-richer-and-keeping

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Financial_Fair_Play_Regulations

Edit: Apologies, you're quite right Chaddy. http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php

[chaddyrovers]

Yeah I am.

Football league voted these rules in. all clubs would have to have a vote. I remember them doing this.

The rules are based on what UEFA are bring in. The PL FFP is slighty different to the FL and UEFA, but are all based roughly on the same rules.

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/ffp-summary-table

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23669759

Also, I think BRFCS/Kamy are going to have a FFP expert in a podcast shortly. hopefully this will be soon and explain it properly to us.

[Stuart]

Seems to me it is all about avoiding clubs getting into debt.

I see nothing about bringing in sponsorship (and barring certain people or values from getting involved in sponsorship). In fact, a major sponsor could even default on their payment and the losses could be covered by owners and excluded from FFP.

FFP is not our real concern, IMO.

I see one of the following two scenarios:

1) Venkys are covering our losses with 'no strings attached' cash injections which only serve to cover losses - on a break even basis. These payments 'prove' that Venkys do care about the club because they are writing off money (allegedly £2m) every month and will find a way of continuing to provide this money through sponsoring the bogs or whatever.

2) The losses are being covered by 'loans' which Venkys expect to be paid back from at some point. This will fall foul of FFP rules and will have to cease by season 2014/15. This scenario means that not only will we be facing crippling losses each month but that we will be saddled with debt (unless Venkys write this off - which seems unlikely in this scenario).

If Venkys were to write off all of our debt, and then try to sell the club, it could be argued that the club is not really a going concern but surely any prospective buyers would spot this on the balance sheet and walk away?

Maybe it really is Venkys or bust, regardless...?

[Amo]

The FFP was always something that was going to be broken in gradually, anyway. This would explain why a lot of clubs are choosing to splooge their money now before the restrictions become tighter.

[Stuart]

Also, I think BRFCS/Kamy are going to have a FFP expert in a podcast shortly. hopefully this will be soon and explain it properly to us.

It might be a good idea for this thread to be used to gather together some very specific questions.

Mine would be:

- How does FFP prevent Venkys (or related company) from sponsoring Ewood Park for £200m? There is no other Ewood Park so it's a completely unique commercial opportunity - meaning we could name our price.

[West Yorks Rover]

See that the sanctions include a transfer ban.

Perhaps that's why they think we need such a big squad.

[Baz]

It might be a good idea for this thread to be used to gather together some very specific questions.

Mine would be:

- How does FFP prevent Venkys (or related company) from sponsoring Ewood Park for £200m? There is no other Ewood Park so it's a completely unique commercial opportunity - meaning we could name our price.

I doubt the problem with Venkys is how to get the money into the club.

[Stuart]

I doubt the problem with Venkys is how to get the money into the club.

So do I but I'd simply like to rule out the FFP 'excuse'.

[Brfcrule1]

Very good idea Stuart to get specific questions to be put to the FFP expert my questions would be:

1. What is the FFP's opinion on watford's stance of saying 8 players were free transfers when every man & his dog knows free players don't get you to the play off final and according to their market value they are worth 9 Million?

2. How do they explain this away?

[Paul]

To answer Stuart's question on sponsorship I understood owners cannot sponsor their own club. Simply because if allowed it drives a coach and horses through the whole concept of FFP.

Not sure where I read this but its been lodged in the memory for a while.

[Paul]

The one which makes me smile is the Fair Play Tax on clubs promoted to the PL. This demonstrates how pointless the attempts to introduce FFP are.

A club gets promoted to the PL and faces a "tax" for overspending. Say this is by £10m and the maximum tax is imposed. I think it's generally recognised a season in the PL is worth £100m.

One of two things is likely, the club pays up on the basis it was a worthwhile risk or tells the FL to p1ss off. I think I know the more likely.

Meanwhile a club which remains in the FL will face greater sanctions through a transfer embargo.

Financial FAIR Play should mean the emphasis is on fair. Unless this is agreed by every football structure, probably throughout Europe, it isn't going to work.

Wasted effort and money by the authorities who would be better spending their time investigating and exposing the corruption which exists within the game. But then we wouldn't want to frighten off all those nice sponsors and that nice Mr Sky, would we?

[arbitro]

To answer Stuart's question on sponsorship I understood owners cannot sponsor their own club. Simply because if allowed it drives a coach and horses through the whole concept of FFP.

Not sure where I read this but its been lodged in the memory for a while.

I recall reading that the brother of Mansoor at Man City sponsored the stadium for a vastly inflated amount to circumvent UEFA FFP. This was because the owner couldn't directly do it. Monaco I understand are also being very creative. The mealy mouthed Platini has been surprisingly quiet about this.

[Stuart]

I recall reading that the brother of Mansoor at Man City sponsored the stadium for a vastly inflated amount to circumvent UEFA FFP. This was because the owner couldn't directly do it. Monaco I understand are also being very creative. The mealy mouthed Platini has been surprisingly quiet about this.

This is how I see it being done, and very easily.

Paul, this is why I said (or related company). I've not yet seen a specific rule stating that an owner cannot sponsor their own club and I don't see how that would be legally enforceable. If this is all about avoiding debt then I don't see a problem with sponsorship anyway.

Do you have a link to where you have read this? Are you sure it wasn't just a journalist's early interpretation?

[Kamy100]

I have some free time coming up in early September and will be going down to London to do an interview with the football league on what is FFP and what it means for clubs in the Championship, I will also be putting certain scenarios to them!

[EgyptianPete]

This is how I see it being done, and very easily.

Paul, this is why I said (or related company). I've not yet seen a specific rule stating that an owner cannot sponsor their own club and I don't see how that would be legally enforceable. If this is all about avoiding debt then I don't see a problem with sponsorship anyway.

Do you have a link to where you have read this? Are you sure it wasn't just a journalist's early interpretation?

Well when you really get into this it isn't really fair play,how can it be, if a club like ours have owners who lets say are minted and they wanted to buy the best players it looks like on the outset that cant happen, now if a club had no dosh how is that our fault. i keep seeing in the LET that the owners want to put money in but cant due to FFP, its just a nonsense and keeps a club like ours in the championship or worse.

If we average 10.0000 and say Leeds which is a bigger catchment area average 25 or even 30.000 per match then they have a greater chance of success due to the revenue acquired over the season, this is where it becomes unfair, if we have owners who can lets say outbid Leeds for a player we would not be allowed to because we didn't generate enough income, by the way i am only using Leeds as an example of a team that has a much larger catchment area than us. I would even go as far to say i bet whoever dreamed this up never even thought of fan-base and potential catchment areas.

[DannyKeg]

I am not a financial expert, but couldn't a club's owner have a Rights Issue of shares (as I think Jack did ?) and put money into the club in that way ?

[Stuart]

Well when you really get into this it isn't really fair play,how can it be, if a club like ours have owners who lets say are minted and they wanted to buy the best players it looks like on the outset that cant happen, now if a club had no dosh how is that our fault. i keep seeing in the LET that the owners want to put money in but cant due to FFP, its just a nonsense and keeps a club like ours in the championship or worse.

If we average 10.0000 and say Leeds which is a bigger catchment area average 25 or even 30.000 per match then they have a greater chance of success due to the revenue acquired over the season, this is where it becomes unfair, if we have owners who can lets say outbid Leeds for a player we would not be allowed to because we didn't generate enough income, by the way i am only using Leeds as an example of a team that has a much larger catchment area than us. I would even go as far to say i bet whoever dreamed this up never even thought of fan-base and potential catchment areas.

On the face of it, the footballing authorities are saying that clubs can only be successful if they a.) have the most fans or b.) are the most commercially attractive.

Chelsea, pre-Abramovic, would be nowhere near where they are now had the been forced to adhere to an FFP scenario. Yet because they are successful and now commercially attractive, perpetuated by Champions League income, they are effectively locked in. That could have been us if we had seen winning the PL as the start on an era rather than the end of one.

But I don't see how anyone can stop somebody giving money to a club.

"Sit in the directors box" special match ticket for £5m per game.

"The £10m pie and pint deal"

"Get yer Rovers readies, only £1m a go - top prize 10p"

Venkys-logo sponsored urinals

It's just income. For the FL to outlaw or even limit that is surely a restriction of trade.

[Parsonblue]

To be honest Stuart I think the Football League are more concerned about keeping 72 clubs under their umbrella rather than worrying about how they are creating an unequal playing field. They are protecting the weakest but it also means limiting the ambitions of those with wealthy owners. The Premier League clubs who are relegated this time will arrive in the Championship something like £63 million due to the new Sky deal. They will be allowed to spend that money whilst the Rovers will be asked to compete on attendances of ten to twelve thousand, the cheapest tickets in the League and very limited commercial income. We will do well to survive in the Championship and one suspects that it won't be long before League One becomes our natural home. It would appear that Venky's have destroyed us and FFP will ensure there is no long term recovery.

[Stuart]

To be honest Stuart I think the Football League are more concerned about keeping 72 clubs under their umbrella rather than worrying about how they are creating an unequal playing field. They are protecting the weakest but it also means limiting the ambitions of those with wealthy owners. The Premier League clubs who are relegated this time will arrive in the Championship something like £63 million due to the new Sky deal. They will be allowed to spend that money whilst the Rovers will be asked to compete on attendances of ten to twelve thousand, the cheapest tickets in the League and very limited commercial income. We will do well to survive in the Championship and one suspects that it won't be long before League One becomes our natural home. It would appear that Venky's have destroyed us and FFP will ensure there is no long term recovery.

I give up.

FFP isn't the problem, Venkys are.