[Archived] FFP to be reviewed

[USABlue]

On fees THAT season perhaps, but on wages and in the seasons leading up to it?

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/profile-money-money-money-man--jack-walker-1540594.html

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/money-men-watching-jacks-legacy-6308022.html

No sniping and no exaggerating, factor in what he spent and the losses in those couple of years after he passed and it's close to 200 million - without factoring in the PL TV revenues. Even the most conservative estimate puts it at 100 million before the losses in subsequent years. Like I say, not an issue but it's no good Rovers fans trying to point the finger at the Chelsea's and Man Cities of this world when you started that particular ball rolling.

So the Man U's, Chelseas, Liverpools, Newcastles were not spending anything until we did? Wow I did not know that. Perhaps oll be corrected but the latter three spent well and won sfa. Ah yes we bought the title. Funny dont recall hearing anything about the moisy neighbours buying the title.

I can understand why us being one of less than a handful of clubs to win it sticks in your throat. Possibly we will be the only town team to ever win it. Good luck and enjoy your time in the sun.

Bob the butcher with the back to front hat kept a small positive balance in your club selling all your best players. I am sure you remeber "the team of the seventies" until he lined his pockets and built a stand which he promptly named after himself. Yeah right good un that Bob.

[jim mk2]

I didn't say we would complain, didn't say it was wrong merely pointed out that whatever is claimed there was never a sugar daddy like Jack until Jack, changed the game and started the crazy wage spiral which City have taken to a new stratosphere.

For all his faults and mismanagement after we won the title, Jack Walker was ahead of his time in seeing the Sky money coming into football and the explosion in player wages - which would have happened anyway. To blame him for the subsequent wage spiral is complete nonsense.

[longsiders1882]

There are non so blind as those that won't see.

[yoda]

There are non so blind as those that won't see.

Hey, I used that line a few weeks ago

[ABBEY]

I didn't say we would complain, didn't say it was wrong merely pointed out that whatever is claimed there was never a sugar daddy like Jack until Jack, changed the game and started the crazy wage spiral which City have taken to a new stratosphere.

@#/? !!

[Al]

There are non so blind as those that won't see.

Perhaps you should read that again and apply it to yourself.

Had enough of you now. You've had sufficient gloating now go away.

[M-K]

Jimmy Hill started the wage spiral. Bosman, the abolition of the three foreigners rule, the Sky TV deal, Luciano Pavarotti - they're all to blame.

[ABBEY]

I blMe Trevor Francis

[JBiz]

The only thing that you can blame big wages on - the popularity of the sport.

If nobody was interested in it - it wouldn't get anywhere near the coverage it gets. Simply thinking, all the marketing (especially around World Cup time) is a moniker for the interest in the sport. Look at Pepsi, coke etc- always use the big players to promote their products.

As the world as became more "think Globally, @#/? locally" - businesses see a larger base of possible customers to sell their product to. Interrelationships are key to marketing- look at the success of products supported by popular sport.

This growing interest and sponsorship available, resulted in clubs desperate to be in the limelight, which in turn resulted in better players being more in demand and therefore higher wages.

Spin 20 years on, and the difference between the forth division and first (financially) is extremely large. I would argue that the quality isn't that different these days due to the sheer number of players who seek a high paid, fun and fulfilling lifestyle. That's a different issue though!!

As a sport- football is among the best to play (IMO) and most fun to watch. The other side of it though has switched off many fans, who see the inevitability of it all. It's simply a tool to sell sky packages these days. The agreement made in 91 ultimately caused this.

The premier league was the last nail in the local element coffin. Effectively negating the impact of even having the most local customers! The financial rewards of being in Europe (champions league as a name for a competition makes me laugh) have given such an advantage to the team finish fourth every season. What chance has a team like Newcastle (with a huge fanbase) got of catching up? Not a single chance without millions or possibly billions of investment.

The days of any club beating any other are over- at least when discussing the potential of being successful in trophies. Like any product- the more wisely you invest, the better the product.

So in summary, it was not BRFC who started the fire. The popularity of the sport and the scumbag businessmen who wanted to exploit it to make money started the fire. The fact it was a Burnley fan who brought it up makes sense- since we will be the last town team to win the league.

Something they could never take away from us. If I was a Brunlea fan, I would be eternally sour when considering this fact.

[Stuart]

Good post Jbizzle. Not sure I agree with all of it but still a good post. You've raised your standards in the last couple of weeks - long may it continue!

[K-Hod]

Ha, see Stuart, there's a sound lad within Joe there somewhere!!

[JBiz]

Had to edit the last bit - I meant I would be sour if I was longsiders. Thanks Stuart- I don't mind the patronising...

And Khod you bald git- hope life the other side of 30 isn't too harsh... Great party by the way, it took till Tuesday for the hangover to dissipate!

[K-Hod]

*Balding :-)

[Stuart]

Had to edit the last bit - I meant I would be sour if I was longsiders. Thanks Stuart- I don't mind the patronising...

And Khod you bald git- hope life the other side of 30 isn't too harsh... Great party by the way, it took till Tuesday for the hangover to dissipate!

I was being genuine as it goes. And there's nothing wrong with baldies!

[yoda's brother]

There are non so blind as those that won't see.

never had you down as a WUM

[Stuart]

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/11229930.Blackburn_Rovers_wait_on_FFP_rules_after_changes_rejected/?ref=nt

This doesn't really bode well.

A bad day to bury good news?

[darrenrover]

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/11229930.Blackburn_Rovers_wait_on_FFP_rules_after_changes_rejected/?ref=nt

This doesn't really bode well.

A bad day to bury good news?

Absolutely.

Makes you wonder about the timing.

[chaddyrovers]

The final FFP rules havent be finalise yet.

Lets wat and see what the final rules are

[yoda]

The final FFP rules havent be finalise yet.

Lets wat and see what the final rules are

They have, today was a rejection to amend the rules

[chaddyrovers]

They have, today was a rejection to amend the rules

So why is Shaun Harvey looking at other options now after these 4 proposals were rejected then???

[yoda]

So why is Shaun Harvey looking at other options now after these 4 proposals were rejected then???

Its called wriggling on the hook

[darrenrover]

The requirement of a 75% majority (18 clubs) to overturn/review the regulations is unlikely IMO. Who gets to vote? Is it clubs in Championship in 2013/14 or is it 2014/15?

[Baz]

I honestly dont understand why club owners cannot invest money into clubs through converting money into shares.

Thats real money. If they cant invest money into clubs then the clubs will build debt. How is that healthy?

Also in terms of a transfer embargo, is that incoming only? What about if Rovers got a bid of £15m for Rhodes, but couldnt either sell him, or we couldnt sell him as we werent allowed to pay £500k for a replacement, meaning we couldnt meet the next FFP ruling?

[darrenrover]

My understanding Baz is that owners can invest up to £8million annually if it's converted to share equity but not as debt.

I also think that the transfer embargo is incoming only and remains in force until the club becomes compliant with the regulations.

[Baz]

"The existing regulations permit Championship clubs to lose £6m next season, 2014-15, but £3m of that must be covered by owner investment."

So we are allowed to lose up to £6m next season, as long as £3m is covered by Venkys.

But if Venkys were willing to put £20m cash into the club, then we get a transfer embargo.Does investment in infrastructure count towards FFP? Imagine if you have to build a new stadium, how do you do that with FFP?

The wage to turnover ratio at BRFC for 12/13 was 136%, thats the problem here, not how much someone is willing to put into their club. Bring in an overall budget cap for the 1st team squad in each division, that'll bring about fair play.