Financial Fair Play
Discussion
GMT13 said:
Do you think that exception detracts from my point? The relegated clubs are 1st, 3rd and 4th. The bookies make them the 3 favourites to go up despite ipswich's points gap over Southampton and Leeds
I felt similarly, but if you look at the stats it's not that clear cut.Whether it increases (promoted teams all going down, demoted all going up) we'll see.
Terry Winks said:
I really don't understand why the building of infrastructure comes under FFP. That is building something that is always going to be an asset and a complex building in construction can always be liable to fluctuations in cost. FFP should only focus on Football operating costs.
Because it's paid for with debt, so there's an ongoing obligation that is not an asset. If you excluded Stadium costs, you would also have to exclude Stadium revenue, otherwise you open the back-door to all sorts of wheezes. City would be putting ticket prices up by £1,000 then cutting a 'sponsorship' deal to sponsor the attending fans, you get a plastic flag to wave and a £1,000 discount on the ticket.
Terry Winks said:
I really don't understand why the building of infrastructure comes under FFP. That is building something that is always going to be an asset and a complex building in construction can always be liable to fluctuations in cost. FFP should only focus on Football operating costs.
For the vast majority of clubs infrastructure is excluded from FFP/PSR. However Evertons funding model for the new stadium is "quirky", therefore they have fallen foul of the rules because of their financial (mis)management.Lets not also forget that Everton have admitted the breaches as well
The Athletic have done a decent podcast on this with no real bias
Forest's argument has a lack of depth to it. They are saying that if they sold a player earlier that they'd get less money and that is why they sold him the following window. That's not an excuse. They knew the risk that they would take for that. There were no guarantee that they would get a higher price, anything could have happened from date X to date Y of the sale. Player could have broken his leg, died or just refused to leave the club. So Forest have only themselves to blame on that.
Everton's is harsh but again they knew about it. Even the Prem told them that they were going to fail. Yet they still went ahead.
End of the day using player sales as an excuse is not good enough. Their value as an asset varies and so nothing is certain with that. All the other clubs within the league were within the rules. I know that there's some serious questions about some of those clubs.
So who is to blame? Clearly it's the owners. If they can't manage their money then they should be punished. Punishing them financially wouldn't really do anything, so points deduction makes them seriously think and applies pressure from fans onto them.
Everton's is harsh but again they knew about it. Even the Prem told them that they were going to fail. Yet they still went ahead.
End of the day using player sales as an excuse is not good enough. Their value as an asset varies and so nothing is certain with that. All the other clubs within the league were within the rules. I know that there's some serious questions about some of those clubs.
So who is to blame? Clearly it's the owners. If they can't manage their money then they should be punished. Punishing them financially wouldn't really do anything, so points deduction makes them seriously think and applies pressure from fans onto them.
Ankh87 said:
Forest's argument has a lack of depth to it. They are saying that if they sold a player earlier that they'd get less money and that is why they sold him the following window. That's not an excuse. They knew the risk that they would take for that. There were no guarantee that they would get a higher price, anything could have happened from date X to date Y of the sale. Player could have broken his leg, died or just refused to leave the club. So Forest have only themselves to blame on that.
Everton's is harsh but again they knew about it. Even the Prem told them that they were going to fail. Yet they still went ahead.
End of the day using player sales as an excuse is not good enough. Their value as an asset varies and so nothing is certain with that. All the other clubs within the league were within the rules. I know that there's some serious questions about some of those clubs.
So who is to blame? Clearly it's the owners. If they can't manage their money then they should be punished. Punishing them financially wouldn't really do anything, so points deduction makes them seriously think and applies pressure from fans onto them.
And also using Everton as an example. Even with the adjustments, allowances and negotiations (which were probably a bit dubious) they still ended in breach which suggests their exec team are pretty hopeless with financial governance and following rulesEverton's is harsh but again they knew about it. Even the Prem told them that they were going to fail. Yet they still went ahead.
End of the day using player sales as an excuse is not good enough. Their value as an asset varies and so nothing is certain with that. All the other clubs within the league were within the rules. I know that there's some serious questions about some of those clubs.
So who is to blame? Clearly it's the owners. If they can't manage their money then they should be punished. Punishing them financially wouldn't really do anything, so points deduction makes them seriously think and applies pressure from fans onto them.
Ankh87 said:
Forest's argument has a lack of depth to it. They are saying that if they sold a player earlier that they'd get less money and that is why they sold him the following window. That's not an excuse. They knew the risk that they would take for that. There were no guarantee that they would get a higher price, anything could have happened from date X to date Y of the sale. Player could have broken his leg, died or just refused to leave the club. So Forest have only themselves to blame on that.
Everton's is harsh but again they knew about it. Even the Prem told them that they were going to fail. Yet they still went ahead.
End of the day using player sales as an excuse is not good enough. Their value as an asset varies and so nothing is certain with that. All the other clubs within the league were within the rules. I know that there's some serious questions about some of those clubs.
So who is to blame? Clearly it's the owners. If they can't manage their money then they should be punished. Punishing them financially wouldn't really do anything, so points deduction makes them seriously think and applies pressure from fans onto them.
How does selling a player for less money work for long term profit and sustainability? The sale to Spurs was something like 6 weeks later than the offer from Brentford. Whilst yes, the player could've been hit by a bus falling out of the sky being driven by Lord Lucan, but it's a short time frame.Everton's is harsh but again they knew about it. Even the Prem told them that they were going to fail. Yet they still went ahead.
End of the day using player sales as an excuse is not good enough. Their value as an asset varies and so nothing is certain with that. All the other clubs within the league were within the rules. I know that there's some serious questions about some of those clubs.
So who is to blame? Clearly it's the owners. If they can't manage their money then they should be punished. Punishing them financially wouldn't really do anything, so points deduction makes them seriously think and applies pressure from fans onto them.
In Everton's case we'd been presenting the books to the PL and they were approving signings before we made them to try and keep on the straight and narrow. As I understand it, we had no indication that the interest payments on the stadium costs would be included.
Regardless, I'm not sure that the punishment fits the crime. A system that's designed to stop clubs going in to administration dishing out higher penalties than to a club that actually went in to administration. And then being hit twice in the same season
Fast Bug said:
How does selling a player for less money work for long term profit and sustainability? The sale to Spurs was something like 6 weeks later than the offer from Brentford. Whilst yes, the player could've been hit by a bus falling out of the sky being driven by Lord Lucan, but it's a short time frame.
Forest bought an entire squad when they got promoted. They knew what needed to be done. They spend X amount and to be within the rule they needed to recoup Y amount. So it is their own fault for spending so much. If that means that they need to sell players earlier then so be it. That's the way it goes some times. Just like if clubs are relegated they are forced to sell players cheaper in most cases. Fast Bug said:
In Everton's case we'd been presenting the books to the PL and they were approving signings before we made them to try and keep on the straight and narrow. As I understand it, we had no indication that the interest payments on the stadium costs would be included.
The PL told them on several occasions that yes you can sign players but you need to recoup money somewhere. PL cannot stop Everton signing players unless there is a transfer embargo against the club. End of the day if you need a 3rd party to check what you're spending then who's fault is that. Everton has been run poorly. Even getting allowed all the debt wrote off due to Covid etc, they still couldn't fall in line.Fast Bug said:
Regardless, I'm not sure that the punishment fits the crime. A system that's designed to stop clubs going in to administration dishing out higher penalties than to a club that actually went in to administration. And then being hit twice in the same season
It isn't a higher penalty though. Administration can be up to -15 points I believe. So failing P&S is up to -12 points which is not a higher punishment is it.The problem is that Everton should have had their -10 points last season but because this has taken so long it has applied this season. They are now getting hit with this seasons rules so it is a double hit. What is the PL meant to do? Give another -10 points next season and if they fail it again, then what? Keep it rolling to the following season? No that's no fair on the other clubs in the league.
Ankh87 said:
Forest's argument has a lack of depth to it. They are saying that if they sold a player earlier that they'd get less money and that is why they sold him the following window. That's not an excuse. They knew the risk that they would take for that. There were no guarantee that they would get a higher price, anything could have happened from date X to date Y of the sale. Player could have broken his leg, died or just refused to leave the club. So Forest have only themselves to blame on that.
This would be Forest that got promoted with lots of loan players? The gulf between the PL and Championship is vast, you need to sign better quality players to surviveAnkh87 said:
The PL told them on several occasions that yes you can sign players but you need to recoup money somewhere. PL cannot stop Everton signing players unless there is a transfer embargo against the club. End of the day if you need a 3rd party to check what you're spending then who's fault is that. Everton has been run poorly. Even getting allowed all the debt wrote off due to Covid etc, they still couldn't fall in line.
The point is the club worked with the PL. The failings are clearly down to our useless owner (albeit with mitigating circumstances of losing sponsors etc), however to work with the league and be under the impression you're on the right side of the line isn't a one sided conversation.Ankh87 said:
It isn't a higher penalty though. Administration can be up to -15 points I believe. So failing P&S is up to -12 points which is not a higher punishment is it.
The problem is that Everton should have had their -10 points last season but because this has taken so long it has applied this season. They are now getting hit with this seasons rules so it is a double hit. What is the PL meant to do? Give another -10 points next season and if they fail it again, then what? Keep it rolling to the following season? No that's no fair on the other clubs in the league.
Actual points deduction for a club going in to administration - 9 points. Actual points deduction for a club falling foul of profit and sustainability rules - 10 points.The problem is that Everton should have had their -10 points last season but because this has taken so long it has applied this season. They are now getting hit with this seasons rules so it is a double hit. What is the PL meant to do? Give another -10 points next season and if they fail it again, then what? Keep it rolling to the following season? No that's no fair on the other clubs in the league.
The rules were designed to pull the draw bridge up after the likes of City and Chelsea gate crashed the party of the big boys. Look at Villa now, currently flying high and in a great position to finish top 4. But talk is they can't strengthen to keep pushing to the end of the season even though their owners can afford it.
Fast Bug said:
Actual points deduction for a club going in to administration - 9 points. Actual points deduction for a club falling foul of profit and sustainability rules - 10 points.
The rules were designed to pull the draw bridge up after the likes of City and Chelsea gate crashed the party of the big boys. Look at Villa now, currently flying high and in a great position to finish top 4. But talk is they can't strengthen to keep pushing to the end of the season even though their owners can afford it.
FA's rules actually state up to -10 points.The rules were designed to pull the draw bridge up after the likes of City and Chelsea gate crashed the party of the big boys. Look at Villa now, currently flying high and in a great position to finish top 4. But talk is they can't strengthen to keep pushing to the end of the season even though their owners can afford it.
14. INSOLVENCY PROVISIONS
14.A. SPORTING SANCTIONS
14.A.1 If an Insolvency Event shall occur in relation to any Club that Club shall be deducted 10 (ten)
points. The deduction shall be made forthwith on the happening of the first Insolvency
Event
So they got the same punishment. Now you could argue that Everton should have gone into Administration but that would mean that they would need to sell assets and stop the development of the new stadium. That means people lose their jobs, Everton has no players. etc
Ankh87 said:
Fast Bug said:
Actual points deduction for a club going in to administration - 9 points. Actual points deduction for a club falling foul of profit and sustainability rules - 10 points.
The rules were designed to pull the draw bridge up after the likes of City and Chelsea gate crashed the party of the big boys. Look at Villa now, currently flying high and in a great position to finish top 4. But talk is they can't strengthen to keep pushing to the end of the season even though their owners can afford it.
FA's rules actually state up to -10 points.The rules were designed to pull the draw bridge up after the likes of City and Chelsea gate crashed the party of the big boys. Look at Villa now, currently flying high and in a great position to finish top 4. But talk is they can't strengthen to keep pushing to the end of the season even though their owners can afford it.
14. INSOLVENCY PROVISIONS
14.A. SPORTING SANCTIONS
14.A.1 If an Insolvency Event shall occur in relation to any Club that Club shall be deducted 10 (ten)
points. The deduction shall be made forthwith on the happening of the first Insolvency
Event
So they got the same punishment. Now you could argue that Everton should have gone into Administration but that would mean that they would need to sell assets and stop the development of the new stadium. That means people lose their jobs, Everton has no players. etc
Quite disturbing that City have just had a meeting with the U.K. government ,when the government was pushed to explain why they refused to reply.
Now if one was a sceptic one may look at the orders a certain country gives to the U.K. and wonder if the U.K. government will put pressure on the premier league to ensure some very lucrative contracts are not cancelled and placed with other countries .
But I’m sure it was just a genuine friendly chat and probably has nothing to do with anything given the government often has meetings with individual clubs .
Now if one was a sceptic one may look at the orders a certain country gives to the U.K. and wonder if the U.K. government will put pressure on the premier league to ensure some very lucrative contracts are not cancelled and placed with other countries .
But I’m sure it was just a genuine friendly chat and probably has nothing to do with anything given the government often has meetings with individual clubs .
franki68 said:
Quite disturbing that City have just had a meeting with the U.K. government ,when the government was pushed to explain why they refused to reply.
Now if one was a sceptic one may look at the orders a certain country gives to the U.K. and wonder if the U.K. government will put pressure on the premier league to ensure some very lucrative contracts are not cancelled and placed with other countries .
But I’m sure it was just a genuine friendly chat and probably has nothing to do with anything given the government often has meetings with individual clubs .
blimey. when they send you the minutes, put them on here.Now if one was a sceptic one may look at the orders a certain country gives to the U.K. and wonder if the U.K. government will put pressure on the premier league to ensure some very lucrative contracts are not cancelled and placed with other countries .
But I’m sure it was just a genuine friendly chat and probably has nothing to do with anything given the government often has meetings with individual clubs .
franki68 said:
Quite disturbing that City have just had a meeting with the U.K. government ,when the government was pushed to explain why they refused to reply.
Now if one was a sceptic one may look at the orders a certain country gives to the U.K. and wonder if the U.K. government will put pressure on the premier league to ensure some very lucrative contracts are not cancelled and placed with other countries .
But I’m sure it was just a genuine friendly chat and probably has nothing to do with anything given the government often has meetings with individual clubs .
Don't think you need to be a sceptic....Now if one was a sceptic one may look at the orders a certain country gives to the U.K. and wonder if the U.K. government will put pressure on the premier league to ensure some very lucrative contracts are not cancelled and placed with other countries .
But I’m sure it was just a genuine friendly chat and probably has nothing to do with anything given the government often has meetings with individual clubs .
Blib said:
City's spending is actually reasonable compared to Man Utd's...it's just a case (amongst 114 others) of "did they tap up 14 year olds and sell for a profit in order to comply with FFP"?
Chuck out the silly charges, or issue 10k fines, or whatever. Stuff like the grass is too long and the like. Should leave you with a rump of 10-30 meaty charges...(Is the charge sheet available?)
What number my mind is that the PL obviously had the information in order to issue the charges (assuming they didn't pluck them out of thin air), so surely they could have set a date much earlier? Failure to respond by the due date, inferred guilt and punished in their absence. City's "overwhelming" evidence of innocence? I'd like to see it...
Not sure how much the money is for participating in the CL next season when it's expanded? Google suggests an extra 35m euros - That's a hell of an advantage those 4/5 teams have with regard to FFP (Given annual wage bills for most teams of 50-70m)
https://www.google.com/search?q=champions+league+p...
johnboy1975 said:
City's spending is actually reasonable compared to Man Utd's...it's just a case (amongst 114 others) of "did they tap up 14 year olds and sell for a profit in order to comply with FFP"?
Chuck out the silly charges, or issue 10k fines, or whatever. Stuff like the grass is too long and the like. Should leave you with a rump of 10-30 meaty charges...(Is the charge sheet available?)
What number my mind is that the PL obviously had the information in order to issue the charges (assuming they didn't pluck them out of thin air), so surely they could have set a date much earlier? Failure to respond by the due date, inferred guilt and punished in their absence. City's "overwhelming" evidence of innocence? I'd like to see it...
Not sure how much the money is for participating in the CL next season when it's expanded? Google suggests an extra 35m euros - That's a hell of an advantage those 4/5 teams have with regard to FFP (Given annual wage bills for most teams of 50-70m)
https://www.google.com/search?q=champions+league+p...
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff