Financial Fair Play

[Tamesaint]

During this transfer window I have seen several comments about FFP restricting our options. Can anybody explain why and how close to the wire we are flying. 

[Turkish]

Yes basically if you’re a big club you can spend what you want if you’re not you’re fucked if you spend too much 

[S-Clarke]

Don't get me started on FFP, it's absolute nonsense and a way to protect the big clubs under the illusion that it's to help fair play.

But basically we spent a shed load in 2022, ABK, Lavia, DCC, Aribo etc - I think it was over £100m. Then we splurged another £40m odd in January on Onuachu and Sulemana - and we were relegated, so I think that's why we're sailing close to wind. For a club of our size in terms of revenue/incoming, we're not going to break even on that (especially with relegation) so we're not able to really spend at the moment - even if we brought in what we did in the summer.

Loans are the order of the day for the time being. It's not that we're skint, far from it.

Edited January 15 by S-Clarke

[Sheaf Saint]

It's about how much of a loss you are allowed over a rolling 3 year period. Yes, we spent a lot of money in the summer 2022 and January 2023 windows, but we recouped all of it and more in the summer of 2023. The sales of Lavia, Tino, JWP, Tella and Salisu brought in over £170m. 

Obviously you still have wages and other costs to consider, but then you also have TV money and gate receipts incoming to balance that out.

I don't think we are as cutting it as fine as some people are making out. At this stage, loans are just good business sense when the club will be reluctant to fork out large sums on transfer fees when it's unclear what division we will be in next season. 

[Harry_SFC]

25 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

Don't get me started on FFP, it's absolute nonsense and a way to protect the big clubs under the illusion that it's to help fair play.

But basically we spent a shed load in 2022, ABK, Lavia, DCC, Aribo etc - I think it was over £100m. Then we splurged another £40m odd in January on Onuachu and Sulemana - and we were relegated, so I think that's why we're sailing close to wind. For a club of our size in terms of revenue/incoming, we're not going to break even on that (especially with relegation) so we're not able to really spend at the moment - even if we brought in what we did in the summer.

Loans are the order of the day for the time being. It's not that we're skint, far from it.

It's measured on a 3 year basis, right? If we don't go up this season and our better players leave, we won't be able to spend much next year either. Imperative we go back up at the first time of asking. 

Edit - don't worry, just seen Sheaf Saints post. 

Edited January 15 by Harry_SFC

[whelk]

It is stopping Newcastle going mental so that is one good thing about it

[Ken Tone]

Looks like Forest and Everton again!) are at risk of being charged with breaching the rules soon. And Wolves are supposedly sailing close to the wind too.

Plus side is it  now stops filthy rich buyer spending huge sums beyond the club's income. Minus side,  it was introduced too late to easily stop eg Chelsea and Man City doing that. So those clubs that have bought success have effectively drawn up the ladder behind them, to stop others doing the same. 

Of course City are facing charges but delaying everything. 

[JRM]

2 hours ago, Ken Tone said:

Looks like Forest and Everton again!) are at risk of being charged with breaching the rules soon. And Wolves are supposedly sailing close to the wind too.

Plus side is it  now stops filthy rich buyer spending huge sums beyond the club's income. Minus side,  it was introduced too late to easily stop eg Chelsea and Man City doing that. So those clubs that have bought success have effectively drawn up the ladder behind them, to stop others doing the same. 

Of course City are facing charges but delaying everything. 

More points deduction for Everton and Forest would certainly make relegation battle interesting if that happens 

[Fan The Flames]

23 minutes ago, JRM said:

More points deduction for Everton and Forest would certainly make relegation battle interesting if that happens 

Both in my top five of clubs I hate, so that's nice.

[Farmer Saint]

6 hours ago, S-Clarke said:

Don't get me started on FFP, it's absolute nonsense and a way to protect the big clubs under the illusion that it's to help fair play.

But basically we spent a shed load in 2022, ABK, Lavia, DCC, Aribo etc - I think it was over £100m. Then we splurged another £40m odd in January on Onuachu and Sulemana - and we were relegated, so I think that's why we're sailing close to wind. For a club of our size in terms of revenue/incoming, we're not going to break even on that (especially with relegation) so we're not able to really spend at the moment - even if we brought in what we did in the summer.

Loans are the order of the day for the time being. It's not that we're skint, far from it.

This was the drum I was banging all off-season when fans were getting restless on sales and not bringing in many perms. 

It is genuinely crippling if you get relegated (and you spent a lot the season before). 

[Toadhall Saint]

1 hour ago, Fan The Flames said:

Both in my top five of clubs I hate, so that's nice.

One I like and one I don’t. Irrespective of that if they have done wrong then they get what they deserve.

[EssEffCee]

4 hours ago, Ken Tone said:

Looks like Forest and Everton again!) are at risk of being charged with breaching the rules soon. And Wolves are supposedly sailing close to the wind too.

Plus side is it  now stops filthy rich buyer spending huge sums beyond the club's income. Minus side,  it was introduced too late to easily stop eg Chelsea and Man City doing that. So those clubs that have bought success have effectively drawn up the ladder behind them, to stop others doing the same. 

Of course City are facing charges but delaying everything. 

I don't see it as plus at all to be honest. The rules are extremely anti competitive in nature and just ensures the big clubs now will always remain the big clubs.

[Pamplemousse]

We were one of the few clubs who voted against it at the time it was introduced.

[EssEffCee]

2 hours ago, JRM said:

More points deduction for Everton and Forest would certainly make relegation battle interesting if that happens 

Or makes the entire competition a bit of a farce.

[EssEffCee]

3 minutes ago, Pamplemousse said:

We were one of the few clubs who voted against it at the time it was introduced.

The very fact this was pushed by the American owners of the 3 biggest clubs in the country should have meant all smaller clubs were against it.

[badgerx16]

Everton and Forest "have confirmed they were in breach of the League's profitability and sustainability rules'.

[do i not like fizzy pop]

1 hour ago, Pamplemousse said:

We were one of the few clubs who voted against it at the time it was introduced.

From memory Cortese was quite open about having to spend above our means to get back to and survive in the Premier League and for him to vote in favour of FFP was pure hypocrisy. 

EDIT: Not a pop at Cortese, it was him that said to vote for FFP in our position would be hypocrisy 

Edited January 15 by do i not like fizzy pop

[Weston Super Saint]

7 hours ago, S-Clarke said:

Don't get me started on FFP, it's absolute nonsense and a way to protect the big clubs under the illusion that it's to help fair play.

But basically we spent a shed load in 2022, ABK, Lavia, DCC, Aribo etc - I think it was over £100m. Then we splurged another £40m odd in January on Onuachu and Sulemana - and we were relegated, so I think that's why we're sailing close to wind. For a club of our size in terms of revenue/incoming, we're not going to break even on that (especially with relegation) so we're not able to really spend at the moment - even if we brought in what we did in the summer.

Loans are the order of the day for the time being. It's not that we're skint, far from it.

So that's £140m summer 2022 and Jan 2023 combined.  Also £12m on Shea Charles & £9m on Stewart, gives circa £160m on transfers in.

Then there's :

Lavia - £53m

Tino - £32m

JWP - £30m

Tella - £20m

Salisu - £13m

Djenepo + Orsic - £5m

£4m for various loan fees.

That totals roughly £159m which pretty much covers the outgoings mentioned.

Looking at those figures there really doesn't seem to be an FFP issue, especially when parachute payments are factored in....  I suspect we are focussing on loans so that we can spend when back in the PL without worrying about FFP.

 

Edited January 15 by Weston Super Saint

[Charlie Wayman]

16 minutes ago, do i not like fizzy pop said:

From memory Cortese was quite open about having to spend above our means to get back to and survive in the Premier League, and for him to vote in favour of FFP was pure hypocrisy. 

Wrong thread! If you determined to have a  pop at Cortese then have the decency to do it on the Cortese thread where people can respond.

[do i not like fizzy pop]

2 minutes ago, Charlie Wayman said:

Wrong thread! If you determined to have a  pop at Cortese then have the decency to do it on the Cortese thread where people can respond.

That didn't come out quite right, Cortese said it would have been hypocrisy if he had voted in favour of FFP as we'd spent above our means. Might have to edit my comment 

[SotonianWill]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Everton and Forest "have confirmed they were in breach of the League's profitability and sustainability rules'.

Ridiculous Everton are still allowed in that league. Their issues have been known for years and having escaped relegation so narrowly they should've been relegated with docked points last year. Same goes for the Premier League taking ages to address the likes of Chelsea, City. In fact, it's quite astonishing Forest will probably face punishment first. 

[whelk]

Who knew Forest stumping up 40 signing on fees and agents’ cuts would bite them in the future. Owner is a twat

[Holmes_and_Watson]

I just hope that, if we go up, that we learn from the relegations of Everton, Forest and Man City.

Ideally they'd find some way to demote more than 3, allowing us up automatically.

Guy on Beeb saying that the consolidation of financial power with the big clubs, was some unforseen side effect of these things coming in. They couldn't wait to kick the ladder away behind them.

[Wade Garrett]

7 hours ago, Ken Tone said:

Looks like Forest and Everton again!) are at risk of being charged with breaching the rules soon. And Wolves are supposedly sailing close to the wind too.

Plus side is it  now stops filthy rich buyer spending huge sums beyond the club's income. Minus side,  it was introduced too late to easily stop eg Chelsea and Man City doing that. So those clubs that have bought success have effectively drawn up the ladder behind them, to stop others doing the same. 

Of course City are facing charges but delaying everything. 

Yet a buyer can purchase a club and leverage his debt for the purchase on the club itself.

[EssEffCee]

1 hour ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

I just hope that, if we go up, that we learn from the relegations of Everton, Forest and Man City.

Ideally they'd find some way to demote more than 3, allowing us up automatically.

Guy on Beeb saying that the consolidation of financial power with the big clubs, was some unforseen side effect of these things coming in. They couldn't wait to kick the ladder away behind them.

It's remarkable that there are grown adults who still believe it was brought in to protect clubs.

[Roo1976]

8 hours ago, Ken Tone said:

Looks like Forest and Everton again!) are at risk of being charged with breaching the rules soon. And Wolves are supposedly sailing close to the wind too.

Plus side is it  now stops filthy rich buyer spending huge sums beyond the club's income. Minus side,  it was introduced too late to easily stop eg Chelsea and Man City doing that. So those clubs that have bought success have effectively drawn up the ladder behind them, to stop others doing the same. 

Of course City are facing charges but delaying everything. 

its not stopped chelsea at all........................they have spent nearly a billion in 3 years under boehly.......................ffp my arse...........

[AlexLaw76]

The predictable whinging from the usual scouse loving media personalities is all too predictable.

Saying it is not fair they may have to sell branthwaite in the summer…

 

FML

[whelk]

10 hours ago, EssEffCee said:

It's remarkable that there are grown adults who still believe it was brought in to protect clubs.

Whereas clearly you know different? 

[Alanh]

11 hours ago, Roo1976 said:

its not stopped chelsea at all........................they have spent nearly a billion in 3 years under boehly.......................ffp my arse...........

FFP isn't about how much you spend, it's about putting a limit on how much you can lose over a 3 year period.  Chelsea have big revenues from sponsors and had a transfer ban for a couple of windows so their recent spending is only one part of the equation.

[Ekelund24]

20 minutes ago, Alanh said:

FFP isn't about how much you spend, it's about putting a limit on how much you can lose over a 3 year period.  Chelsea have big revenues from sponsors and had a transfer ban for a couple of windows so their recent spending is only one part of the equation.

Also, if Boehly's ownership model of the LA Dodgers is anything to go by, he has put some of the transfer fees in the next few years budget and the rest in 2030!! Also, they build in a depreciation accounting model so the value of the player goes down over the three years so I don't think it is as simple as the spend over the 3 years, if you have built in 100 million of depreciation then you can spend that on top.

[EssEffCee]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

Whereas clearly you know different? 

Well yes, anybody with a brain knows that it's primary goal was to keep the big clubs as the big clubs and kill off any potential competition. It was never about protecting smaller clubs from going bust that was just the spiel to get fans onside. 

As I alluded yesterday why do you think it's the Yank owners of United, Liverpool, and Arsenal who push this the most? It's because they have the most to lose from rich owners pumping money into other clubs to make them competitive. You think they give a fuck about the plights of Bury and Southend?

If you took away owners investing money into their clubs then those 3 clubs are the only ones who would have won the league in the PL era.

[OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint]

On 15/01/2024 at 14:59, Fan The Flames said:

Both in my top five of clubs I hate, so that's nice.

Everton and Forest, really? Guess it depends on your era - Man U, Liverpool, Leeds and Portsmouth surely take up four slots.

Must admit, I thought we could get walloped with FFP rules until we did some good business over the summer. Got rid of a load of high cost dross and made a lot on our quality players. Surely we must be well within acceptable limits at the moment and there's a few players that have built up their stock/price for the future.

[kitch]

On 15/01/2024 at 14:34, JRM said:

More points deduction for Everton and Forest would certainly make relegation battle interesting if that happens 

It would make it hilarious.

[gio1saints]

I suspect that FFP was brought in to counter the accusation that buying and selling football clubs had become a giant international money laundering scheme. And that FIFA UEFA the EPL etc were not only allowing it but complicit. It’s all corrupt as hell. 
 

Edited January 17 by gio1saints

[Saint86]

17 hours ago, OnceaSaintalwaysaSaint said:

Everton and Forest, really? Guess it depends on your era - Man U, Liverpool, Leeds and Portsmouth surely take up four slots.

Must admit, I thought we could get walloped with FFP rules until we did some good business over the summer. Got rid of a load of high cost dross and made a lot on our quality players. Surely we must be well within acceptable limits at the moment and there's a few players that have built up their stock/price for the future.

Liverpool, Everton, Portsmouth - they're my big 3.

Have developed quite a strong dislike of Leicester in recent years.

And i guess Newcastle, incredilbly toxic fanbase that seem to turn on every manager, they pissed and moaned about no investment under Ashley and how they had it worse than any other club (what was it £40M just on Joelinton?), then they dressed up in head scarves to celebrate being brought by one of the most vile regimes on the planet. Yeah, newcastle are in the 5.

[whelk]

Hats off to Sky for calling on Kevin Campbell to give his view. Doesn’t seem to understand any of it yet somehow someone thinks it is interesting to interview him. ‘I don’t understand how you can be charged with something twice it’s crazy’. Everton need to get him on their legal defence team

Edited January 18 by whelk

[whelk]

Although played the game so clearly better than some bird eh

[Charlie Wayman]

23 hours ago, gio1saints said:

I suspect that FFP was brought in to counter the accusation that buying and selling football clubs had become a giant international money laundering scheme. And that FIFA UEFA the EPL etc were not only allowing it but complicit. It’s all corrupt as hell. 
 

Best to stick with Occam's Razor. 

Edited January 18 by Charlie Wayman

[gio1saints]

2 minutes ago, Charlie Wayman said:

Best to stick with Ockham's Razor. 

It’s just my rather cynical view on the corruption that is modern football ownership and the facilitating role the governing bodies have played. You only have to look at how Worlds Cups were ( and are) awarded. Fish rot from the head down. FFP was one of those “ look we are not as corrupt as all that” ideas that helped mask the reality - when in fact it’s been manipulated endlessly and has not achieved anything. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

2 hours ago, whelk said:

Hats off to Sky for calling on Kevin Campbell to give his view. Doesn’t seem to understand any of it yet somehow someone thinks it is interesting to interview him. ‘I don’t understand how you can be charged with something twice it’s crazy’. Everton need to get him on their legal defence team

No change there. The last time, I was listening to a number of Beeb and Talksport interviews. No one had read the ruling, no one understood what exactly it was for, everyone thought it was far too harsh based on nothing. Our football experts at work.

That was when one of their supporter group guests, said the fans would be behind the club, because that's what they always do. That gave me a laugh.

[CylonKing]

Feel it's a little harsh on Forest. They have been charged due to waiting for a better price for one of their players so missed the accounting deadline. The fact that they then got +£10m more for said player a month later, making good business sense, balanced out the loss. Makes no business sense for them to sell at the lowest price. Surely FFP is there to protect these sorts of decisions?

Obviously, as they missed the accounting deadline, they are in breach, but I personally do think it's harsh and can see why they waited to sell.

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, gio1saints said:

and has not achieved anything. 

It’s achieved exactly what it was meant to.
 

It’s protected the established big clubs by making it damn hard for upstarts to gate crash their party. Look at Newcastle, probably the richest owners in world football. Of course there’s been a massive injection of cash & they’ve been propelled into a different level, but there’s a reason they’ve signed Dan Burn, Pope, Trippier & other good players instead of the worlds best which they can easily afford. 
 

FFP is a tool that protects the big clubs status. 

[gio1saints]

16 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

It’s achieved exactly what it was meant to.
 

It’s protected the established big clubs by making it damn hard for upstarts to gate crash their party. Look at Newcastle, probably the richest owners in world football. Of course there’s been a massive injection of cash & they’ve been propelled into a different level, but there’s a reason they’ve signed Dan Burn, Pope, Trippier & other good players instead of the worlds best which they can easily afford. 
 

FFP is a tool that protects the big clubs status. 

Which was the gist of my post. Nothing has changed. Real Madrid cannot go broke because they are backed by the Spanish government. Man City are 81% owned by the UAE. Paris SG etc etc etc. 

What has changed is that no new upstarts can join the club - which is I think your -and my - point. 
 

Give you example: In Italy there’s been a bunch of bribery scandals over the years. Juve got double demoted for it years back. Players get banned, key Directors disallowed and owners get sanctioned. But guess who are the top four clubs in Italy , still, despite “ crackdowns” on bribery?
Now guess who the top four clubs in all the top European leagues are x years after FFP came into practice? All FFP has done, arguably, is fund holiday homes for lawyers and crystallise decades of corruptly funded inequality in football club ownership.