Guided Missile Posted 26 April, 2012 Share Posted 26 April, 2012 The Times this morning. Didn't see it posted elsewhere Championship clubs, whose combined losses reached £200 million last year, will face transfer embargoes and potentially fines for failing to live within their means under new regulations that will be phased in from the start of next season. Clubs will have two seasons to get their houses in order before sanctions begin in 2014-15. The rules are proposed to help clubs to come to terms with a 27 per cent reduction in television revenue next season, to about £4 million, and banks’ unwillingness to lend to clubs. Clarke said the clubs’ combined debt was likely to rise to £1.3 billion within five years but it could reach £2 billion, five times the level in 2005-06. “This is to keep our football clubs alive,” Clarke said. “The Championship is spending more on chasing the dream. We do not want to kill the dream. We want to ensure the price is not the destruction of clubs and three or four being liquidated.” Only Leicester City, Southampton and Reading, of the 24 clubs, voted against the introduction of a model that has been moulded in consultations over the past 18 months. A club’s financial accounts will be examined by the Football League each December, when they could be liable to face penalties for breaches in the previous campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 26 April, 2012 Share Posted 26 April, 2012 Of course we didn't, it would be hypocrisy to vote for this considering our strategy over the last 3 years. Of more surprise is that West Ham voted FOR it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 26 April, 2012 Share Posted 26 April, 2012 The Times this morning. Didn't see it posted elsewhere ....3 clubs with well healed owners.... who have promised capital investment.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 26 April, 2012 Share Posted 26 April, 2012 Of course we didn't, it would be hypocrisy to vote for this considering our strategy over the last 3 years. Of more surprise is that West Ham voted FOR it. Very true, but our investmnet in the last 3 years on teh playing side has been UNDER the current limit - probably around 5mil a season if you take out teh infrastructure improvements which dont count.. but you are right it would be hypocracy had we voted for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melmacian_saint Posted 26 April, 2012 Share Posted 26 April, 2012 Anyone finding weird that these news are coming out now? Call it conspiracy theory, but I find that a lot of circumstances are coming together at a very strange time. Saturday's refereeing (couldn't stop noticing the special treatment some Boro players recieved from the ref), Sky commentators' insistence on a final day battle and another team's chances, these news concerning financial fair play which clearly affect us more than the majority of the other teams... I'm starting to wonder if some team in London is not using its geographical (and therefore influential) position to try to create a "dirty" competitive advantage for this weekend's showdown... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodles34 Posted 26 April, 2012 Share Posted 26 April, 2012 turkeys voting for christmas or lambs voting for Edes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodles34 Posted 26 April, 2012 Share Posted 26 April, 2012 Anyone finding weird that these news are coming out now? Call it conspiracy theory, but I find that a lot of circumstances are coming together at a very strange time. Saturday's refereeing (couldn't stop noticing the special treatment some Boro players recieved from the ref), Sky commentators' insistence on a final day battle and another team's chances, these news concerning financial fair play which clearly affect us more than the majority of the other teams... I'm starting to wonder if some team in London is not using its geographical (and therefore influential) position to try to create a "dirty" competitive advantage for this weekend's showdown... yeah, and i bet West Ham were the ones that killed Diana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_southy Posted 26 April, 2012 Share Posted 26 April, 2012 What is to stop Championship clubs doing deals like Man City's big etihad deal? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/14080388 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 26 April, 2012 Share Posted 26 April, 2012 Of course we didn't, it would be hypocrisy to vote for this considering our strategy over the last 3 years. Of more surprise is that West Ham voted FOR it. Yes, surprised me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_southy Posted 26 April, 2012 Share Posted 26 April, 2012 What is to stop Championship clubs doing deals like Man City's big etihad deal? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/14080388 Whoops! Bad link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 26 April, 2012 Share Posted 26 April, 2012 Anyone finding weird that these news are coming out now? Call it conspiracy theory, but I find that a lot of circumstances are coming together at a very strange time. Saturday's refereeing (couldn't stop noticing the special treatment some Boro players recieved from the ref), Sky commentators' insistence on a final day battle and another team's chances, these news concerning financial fair play which clearly affect us more than the majority of the other teams... I'm starting to wonder if some team in London is not using its geographical (and therefore influential) position to try to create a "dirty" competitive advantage for this weekend's showdown... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 26 April, 2012 Share Posted 26 April, 2012 I'd find it totally logical if we voted against.Despite protests to the contrary I think that my resumé of the state of affairs is about right and we'd be right in the sh*tter next season if we didn't go up...which we will of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 26 April, 2012 Share Posted 26 April, 2012 The Football League (at long last) making a effort to sort out the financial mess it has long been mired in is surely a good thing for the health of the game. The reasons why the 3 wealthiest NPC clubs voted against reform are obvious - such a move might reduce the significant competitive advantage that generous financial backing gives them. Although I can easily see why we voted against it, I rather think this decision is both short sighted and self serving, in principle that must be a bad thing. But we've all enjoyed the fruits of a ample Liebherr money supply over the last few years, so it would be the very height of hypocrisy to start complaining about how unfair that is now. So lets just reflect on our good fortune and pray to the Gods of Football that it lasts. If we beat Coventry on Saturday of course it won't effect us for the time being anyway, and SFC will have a whole new set of problems to worry about next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Third Coming Posted 26 April, 2012 Share Posted 26 April, 2012 yeah, and i bet West Ham were the ones that killed Diana Depends, is Phil the Greek a Hammer.... oops. Hush my mouth. I'll never work for 6 again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 26 April, 2012 Share Posted 26 April, 2012 The Football League (at long last) making a effort to sort out the financial mess it has long been mired in is surely a good thing for the health of the game. The reasons why the 3 wealthiest NPC clubs voted against reform are obvious - such a move might reduce the significant competitive advantage that generous financial backing gives them. Although I can easily see why we voted against it, I rather think this decision is both short sighted and self serving, in principle that must be a bad thing. But we've all enjoyed the fruits of a ample Liebherr money supply over the last few years, so it would be the very height of hypocrisy to start complaining about how unfair that is now. So lets just reflect on our good fortune and pray to the Gods of Football that it lasts. If we beat Coventry on Saturday of course it won't effect us for the time being anyway, and SFC will have a whole new set of problems to worry about next season. The only thing about this though is that had Markus bought a debt free club, at the top of the championship about to be promoted for 33mil, then w woudl probably say its a good deal... the only difference is he paid 13 mil or so and spent an extra 17 over 3 year to get us to that position. Would we have been able to be as competitive as we are without what is in effct around 15 mil spent subsidising wages and bringing in players... well you could argue that when the 12 mil from the Oxo sale is factored in, we have only spent approx 3 mil over revenue on payers and salaries over 3 years.... not a geat deal considering how far we have come and how much more many of the others have spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horley CTFC Saint Posted 26 April, 2012 Share Posted 26 April, 2012 The Times this morning. Didn't see it posted elsewhere http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?37532-Financial-fair-play http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?37517-Another-reason-to-win-on-Saturday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 26 April, 2012 Share Posted 26 April, 2012 This is simply the start of the process that will result in Premier League 2 in about 3 years time which together with the PL will become a virtual closed shop, possibly with 1 team being relegated to the Football League, but probably only after a play-off. PL2 will include Celtic and the team formerly known as Rangers FC. My crystal ball only works in the distant future and is no good for seeing what will happen on Saturday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 26 April, 2012 Share Posted 26 April, 2012 This is simply the start of the process that will result in Premier League 2 in about 3 years time which together with the PL will become a virtual closed shop, possibly with 1 team being relegated to the Football League, but probably only after a play-off. PL2 will include Celtic and the team formerly known as Rangers FC. My crystal ball only works in the distant future and is no good for seeing what will happen on Saturday. I agree, one of the reasons the FL are doing it is to stop regulations being imposed on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 27 April, 2012 Share Posted 27 April, 2012 What about the £37m WHU have to give Sheffield Utd. If HMRC win the creditors ruling it will make the WHU situation interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chin Strain Posted 27 April, 2012 Share Posted 27 April, 2012 What about the £37m WHU have to give Sheffield Utd. If HMRC win the creditors ruling it will make the WHU situation interesting. The FL and PL will need some pretty draconian penalties ready to come into play should HMRC win. The first thing you'll see is WHU going into admin, quickly followed by Sheffield United, who will be dragged down by WHU. WHU can't go into admin now because 80% of their debts are football debts so, whilst I think it's right that HMRC should win, the short term issues will be big. After all, WHU would happily take a 10 point deduction to shed c. £100m of debt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 27 April, 2012 Share Posted 27 April, 2012 The FL and PL will need some pretty draconian penalties ready to come into play should HMRC win. The first thing you'll see is WHU going into admin, quickly followed by Sheffield United, who will be dragged down by WHU. WHU can't go into admin now because 80% of their debts are football debts so, whilst I think it's right that HMRC should win, the short term issues will be big. After all, WHU would happily take a 10 point deduction to shed c. £100m of debt[/quote If they are in the Premier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chin Strain Posted 27 April, 2012 Share Posted 27 April, 2012 If they are in the Premier? I don't think that matters - they'll still go into admin probably to get rid of the debt (depending if the penalty is harsher than 9 points) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 27 April, 2012 Share Posted 27 April, 2012 West Ham voted for it because they expect to be out of Championship before it happens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 27 April, 2012 Share Posted 27 April, 2012 I don't think that matters - they'll still go into admin probably to get rid of the debt (depending if the penalty is harsher than 9 points) If they default on football debt they will be expelled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintds Posted 27 April, 2012 Share Posted 27 April, 2012 What is to stop Championship clubs doing deals like Man City's big etihad deal? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/14080388 The fact that they are in the Championship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faz Posted 27 April, 2012 Share Posted 27 April, 2012 Even if HMRC win, what's to stop the FL charging the new entity an entry fee equivalent to the football debts? I don't think the FL will just let clubs jack off the football debts and then re-join with impunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 27 April, 2012 Share Posted 27 April, 2012 Leicester, Saints and Reading. Not much surprise there (other than Reading not actually having been taken over yet). Surprised that West Ham and Brum voted for, but then they've still got 3 years' worth of parachute payments to come and this would restrict the chances of anyone not falling out of the Prem, thus reducing the numbers they'd be competing with. It's taken me 12 months to realise that the reason neither of those sides is flapping about cost yet is because the parachutes are LOADS more than they were when we came down, and it probably allows two years of chasing the holy grail and maintaining Prem costs before financial collapse rather than the immediate U-turn we faced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 27 April, 2012 Share Posted 27 April, 2012 I'd find it totally logical if we voted against.Despite protests to the contrary I think that my resumé of the state of affairs is about right and we'd be right in the sh*tter next season if we didn't go up...which we will of course. Erm, we've got ownership worth £2.5bn and have a 5 year plan "with appropriate investment". I'd say we'll be fine until 2014 at the very least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now