[Archived] FFP. When does the transfer embargo end?

[joey_big_nose]

Can only think it's because they've made great strides into reducing their debt and most is owed to a long term reliable owner. The people who look into the embargo stuff behind the scenes will be privy to all the gory details of the financial side of clubs that we can only speculate about. No coincidence that Rovers/Leeds/Forest have all had shonky and rather dodgy foreign ownership in the past few years with odd goings on. If they've clamped down on us and them there is probably a good reason for it, sadly !

I think Kamy alluded to this above. Bolton had the foresight to look down the track and give their accounts the right treatment to pass the test. Rovers/Leeds/Forest due to incompetant owners and board failed to do the correct early recognition of debt etc so got hit. If we had our heads screwed on we wouldn't be in this situation. Truely laughable when you think we explicitly employed a consultancy to advise on the FFP issue.

[davulsukur]

Can only think it's because they've made great strides into reducing their debt and most is owed to a long term reliable owner. The people who look into the embargo stuff behind the scenes will be privy to all the gory details of the financial side of clubs that we can only speculate about. No coincidence that Rovers/Leeds/Forest have all had shonky and rather dodgy foreign ownership in the past few years with odd goings on. If they've clamped down on us and them there is probably a good reason for it, sadly !

It must be because they "had a right good go" at reducing their losses.

Didn't we post something like £42million losses? We weren't that far off £8million

A quick Google search shows Forest lost £22.9 million and Leeds about the same. Not sure how any of us will reduce those figures drastically enough to comply with FFP.

[perthblue02]

It must be because they "had a right good go" at reducing their losses.

Didn't we post something like £42million losses? We weren't that far off £8million

A quick Google search shows Forest lost £22.9 million and Leeds about the same. Not sure how any of us will reduce those figures drastically enough to comply with FFP.

Oh I don't know we have Shelfy he can make a couple of million dissappear with one swipe of his magic pen and he did a magnificent job of drastically reducing Nob End's share price

[1864roverite]

Khod

and labour are the shining example. Ruin the country thrice over, spend money we haven't got, hide paedophilia amongst them, have more skeletons than a normal size graveyard and you get the labour picture.

Back to reality they are all a poor bunch and we will never have an ironspined leader like Mrs T again such was her quality. None of these current idiots are worthy of mention amongst the same sentence as her.

Then again, we could all vote for Miss Dangerous who wants to totally disarm the UK and allow the scots to come over the hills for revenge from the 1700's !

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

Oh I don't know we have Shelfy he can make a couple of million dissappear with one swipe of his magic pen and he did a magnificent job of drastically reducing Nob End's share price

I thought we had taken the hit on our last accounts to help meet FFP this summer ?

[K-Hod]

Khod

and labour are the shining example. Ruin the country thrice over, spend money we haven't got, hide paedophilia amongst them, have more skeletons than a normal size graveyard and you get the labour picture.

Back to reality they are all a poor bunch and we will never have an ironspined leader like Mrs T again such was her quality. None of these current idiots are worthy of mention amongst the same sentence as her.

Then again, we could all vote for Miss Dangerous who wants to totally disarm the UK and allow the scots to come over the hills for revenge from the 1700's !

The only person worthy of mention in the same sentence as Margaret Thatcher is Satan.

[1864roverite]

Been there and done it KHod. Have served Q and C since 1983 and believe me I have seen it from both sides.

She may not have been perfect but believe me she is nowhere near as bad as the labour bunch of her time. Its all spilling out now and will continue to do so in the next 5 years as more papers are released.

Can you really imagine how our fabulous country will stand in the world with simple ED at the helm? No neither can I as he is quite simply labours best which puts into perspective their current standing.

I cant see many people standing up saying how they voted for the Ernie lookalike (other than Abbey !).

[K-Hod]

I'm no fan of Ed myself, the lad's a goon!

[den]

Been there and done it KHod. Have served Q and C since 1983 and believe me I have seen it from both sides.

She may not have been perfect but believe me she is nowhere near as bad as the labour bunch of her time. Its all spilling out now and will continue to do so in the next 5 years as more papers are released.

Can you really imagine how our fabulous country will stand in the world with simple ED at the helm? No neither can I as he is quite simply labours best which puts into perspective their current standing.

I cant see many people standing up saying how they voted for the Ernie lookalike (other than Abbey !).

"Eds current standing"? On a par with Cameron isn't it?

[47er]

Humerous how political parties always bang on about protecting minorities but who protects the people who earn 150k? Surely they constitute a minority but asfar as I can see they receive very little representation?

Easy question to answer, the Tories protect those earning 150k. They have the ear of the goverment though not so much as millionaires or billionaires, or course.

Cheat the welfare system out of 20k, you go to jail. As a banker, if you rip millions out of investors you MAY get fined (or knighted).

[Wiggy]

Moved

[thenodrog]

"Eds current standing"? On a par with Cameron isn't it?

Really odd eh? Miliband is a goon bereft of policy beyond some vague increase in NHS funding which doesn't stack up and zero hours contracts which 2/3rds of the poeple working them quite like. On the other hand Cameron's policies have improved just about everything else and rescued an economy severely holed beneath the waterline and sinking fast by the last Labour govt. The self same economy which completely funds everything else in the nation.

Just who contributes to these polls?

Easy question to answer, the Tories protect those earning 150k. They have the ear of the goverment though not so much as millionaires or billionaires, or course.

Crikey! Must be a lot of them about for the Tories to win the last election eh?

[DannyKeg]

The Tories didn't win the last election, they were well short of a majority.

[thenodrog]

The Tories didn't win the last election, they were well short of a majority.

So what? They don't need a majority to win more seats than every other party.

[OscarRaven]

The losses will have been over-stated as much as possible within accounting rules (hence the spate of pay-offs for the deadwood) but some things will have to have carried forward and my guess is we will fail to comply again next season.

Perhaps the repetitive and unoriginal political debate instigated usual crowd can be taken elsewhere? Football site remember. Personally I came to this thread to read about FFP, however it is no longer possible. Thanks for that.

[alcd]

It has been reported (Guardian 1 May) that QPR and their lawyers are in discussions with the Football League about the £65m loss in their promotion season - which should, according to the rules, result in a fine of an equivalent amount. However QPR have submitted accounts showing a "profit" arising on the release of loans from their owners (mainly Tony Fernandes) ie because he has waived repayment (and they still are shown as owing over £200m!) this "profit" reduces the overall loss below the FFP threshold so no fine (they say)!! It will be ludicrous and disgraceful if they get away with this as it makes a mockery of the the rules. If this works then Venkys should submit this season's accounts with an appropriate release of their own debt (which let's face they are never going to get repaid in a million years) I expect that the Football League will run scared of an expensive and protracted face-ff with QPR and no doubt will give in. Leicester City have submitted accounts showing (commercial income" of £20m to reduce their loss in the promotion season below the FFP loss threshold. However as the Guardian (again) has reported following their investigation, this "income" is simply an amount receivable forma shell company with a registered office on an industrial estate and which has not yet filed accounts with Companies House. Furthermore the only director of the company is Dave Richards who is a friend of the Leicester owners. Again the League is "in discussion" with the club about the submitted - before [presumably shoving the whole thing under the carpet. The way the FFP rules are being administered by the Football League absolutely stinks and it seems that Rovers and Leeds (no surprise there) being the only ones hung out to dry.

[Stuart]

Stinks is the word.

[Bucksrover]

It seems simple Shaw and co are the only ones not smart enough to find an angle to get their club out of FFP sanctions.

[Brfcrule1]

I know it's been a while just had a lot on with Brdsc & other things alcd is right it does stink. I have always maintained FFP is good in theory in life an individual can't spend more than they earn but the problem is the Football League are ignoramuses who have no idea on how to implement it effectively. I sent an email to the football league which Kamy has seen I was asking why Bolton were in 160.1 million of debt and there reply was less than satisfactory replying with something that came out of the rulebooks & hiding behind the rules they said that they were not looking at historical debt they were looking at accounts from last season so they say they want to avoid clubs going to the wall ala pompey style but surely the debt they have built up in the past affects a club in the future so in many ways the rules are very contradictory. There is also another point that occured to me listening to Shearer last night on radio Lancs @ the 20 year celebration he said success for Blackburn now would be getting back to the EPL sustaining our status & getting our embargo lifted & meeting FFP regulations because what Jack did 20 years ago can't be done now as FFP would prevent this and he said it only benefits the top clubs & small clubs can't compete. However the FL say FFP is designed to avoid a pompey style collapse but if you look at it you have 2 types of buyout a Man Utd style leveraged buyout by putting most debt on the club like Pompey when the owners don't put their own cash in & put the club at risk which the FL wants to avoid then you have owners like Soton who use their own money to buy a club invest in the infrastructure, academy, stadium who use their own money & who are responsible now I have no reason to doubt Nick Harris as he seems very thorough in his investigations with what their estimated wealth is they should be allowed to pay off the debt & get the embargo lifted as the clubs that should be targeted are those putting debt on the club not owners investing their own wealth in their club & one point that needs highlighting all the debt they have built up is secured against their OWN assets & their OWN land & not on BRFC. If anyone wants to see the email I got from the FL on FFP just ask.

[tomphil]

You mention they should be allowed to pay the debt off but half of it is on their books anyway and the other half they've allowed it to run up instead of paying it as they go along out of their own pockets. FFP goes on turnover and losses not debt but deep down there must be a good reason those applying it have applied it to Rovers. Maybe their ability to cover that debt and those losses isn't all that it seems ?

[Athlete]

You mention they should be allowed to pay the debt off but half of it is on their books anyway and the other half they've allowed it to run up instead of paying it as they go along out of their own pockets. FFP goes on turnover and losses not debt but deep down there must be a good reason those applying it have applied it to Rovers. Maybe their ability to cover that debt and those losses isn't all that it seems ?

Very good post.. Some posters on here can't seem to grasp the situation

[RevidgeBlue]

You mention they should be allowed to pay the debt off but half of it is on their books anyway and the other half they've allowed it to run up instead of paying it as they go along out of their own pockets. FFP goes on turnover and losses not debt but deep down there must be a good reason those applying it have applied it to Rovers. Maybe their ability to cover that debt and those losses isn't all that it seems ?

Doubt that's the case as the external creditors would not appear to be unduly concerned about the level of debt.

That's not to say that theoretically they could choose to not pay the debt at any point and could just up sticks overnight effectively ending the Club which has been in existence since 1875.

Which bizarrely some supporters seem to see as a favourable option.

[chris_h]

Very good post.. Some posters on here can't seem to grasp the situation

So you are saying that Venkys aren't worth upwards of £2b?

[ABBEY]

They are minted beyond belief don't you know and we have no worries

[Damien]

I know it's been a while just had a lot on with Brdsc & other things alcd is right it does stink. I have always maintained FFP is good in theory in life an individual can't spend more than they earn but the problem is the Football League are ignoramuses who have no idea on how to implement it effectively. I sent an email to the football league which Kamy has seen I was asking why Bolton were in 160.1 million of debt and there reply was less than satisfactory replying with something that came out of the rulebooks & hiding behind the rules they said that they were not looking at historical debt they were looking at accounts from last season so they say they want to avoid clubs going to the wall ala pompey style but surely the debt they have built up in the past affects a club in the future so in many ways the rules are very contradictory. There is also another point that occured to me listening to Shearer last night on radio Lancs @ the 20 year celebration he said success for Blackburn now would be getting back to the EPL sustaining our status & getting our embargo lifted & meeting FFP regulations because what Jack did 20 years ago can't be done now as FFP would prevent this and he said it only benefits the top clubs & small clubs can't compete. However the FL say FFP is designed to avoid a pompey style collapse but if you look at it you have 2 types of buyout a Man Utd style leveraged buyout by putting most debt on the club like Pompey when the owners don't put their own cash in & put the club at risk which the FL wants to avoid then you have owners like Soton who use their own money to buy a club invest in the infrastructure, academy, stadium who use their own money & who are responsible now I have no reason to doubt Nick Harris as he seems very thorough in his investigations with what their estimated wealth is they should be allowed to pay off the debt & get the embargo lifted as the clubs that should be targeted are those putting debt on the club not owners investing their own wealth in their club & one point that needs highlighting all the debt they have built up is secured against their OWN assets & their OWN land & not on BRFC. If anyone wants to see the email I got from the FL on FFP just ask.

Please!