Serious question relating to us and FFP(update P17)

Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

sir baconface said:
bobbyowenquiff said:
This deal effectively prevents external investment in those clubs who do not have global revenues. Anyone wanting to invest money in a club like Everton will not now be able to invest in the product (ie the squad). Without investment in any product it is impossible to grow revenues. Simply pumping money into infrastructure is not enough. It is success on the field that fuels growth. This means that football will not be an attractive prospect to external investors and guarantees that only the clubs with the biggest revenues (including City) can succeed. It does nothing to tackle debt and makes it easy for the owners of clubs like Arsenal to keep ripping off their fans. They will justify it by saying they have to maximise revenues to compete. It plays into the hands of the corrupt few who do not care about football but are driven purely by self-interest. It defies all business logic. It is impossible to grow any business without going through a period of investment when you have to make a loss (one of the best examples of this is SKY TV). In the long term this will destroy football in England and lead rapidly to a European super league.

Very good post.
Of course it is SB. What else do you expect from a poster with a username that has a player's name and a reference to hair in it, all in lower case and with no gaps?
 
Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

It prevents a new us. which is unfair and well played to our owners for not wanting to pull up the drawbridge and stop others.

As for these new regulations stopping clubs increasing wage bills from new TV revenue. How do they check whether the money they spent came from tv revenue?
 
Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

cookster said:
From what I have read there is no "related party" nonsense so nothing to worry about.

We have to comply for UEFA and this is a watered down version, piece of piss!
Exactly. We don't know the full details as yet but it seems as though allowable, owner-funded losses will be around £35m per year and that clubs will only be allowed to increase wages by 10% per annum, if their wage bill is over £52m. As our wage bill is the highest in the PL, plus we've got lots of people to get off it who don't need to be replaced, that's fantastic for us. Plus once our new kit deal and the new TV deal kick in next year we'll be breaking even anyway so we'll be laughing.
 
Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

Premier League clubs will face a points deduction if they breach new spending controls, chief executive Richard Scudamore has confirmed.

The 20 club chairmen agreed to two significant controls on Thursday - to limit players' wage bills from next season and to longer-term measures that will restrict the amount of losses clubs can make to £105million over three years.

Clubs whose total wage bill is more than £52m will only be allowed to increase their wages by £4m per season for the next three years, but the cap does not cover extra money coming in from increases in commercial or matchday income.

Scudamore said: "As all things in our rulebook you will subject to a disciplinary commission.

"The clubs understand that if people break the £105m we will look for the top-end ultimate sanction range - a points deduction.

"Normally we stay silent on sanctions as the commission has a free range but clearly if there is a material breach of that rule we will be asking the commission to consider top-end sanctions."

Scudamore said there would be an "absolute prohibition" on clubs reporting losses of more than £105m over the next three years with the first sanctions possible in 2016.

Of the 20 clubs in the top flight, only Manchester City,Chelsea and Liverpool have reported losses of more than £105m over the last three years, according to the most up-to-date published accounts.

Scudamore said that the measures would mean it will take longer for benefactor owners to achieve success, but that it would still be possible.

He said: "The balance we have tried to strike is that a new owner can still invest a decent amount of money to improve their club but they are not going to be throwing hundreds and hundreds of millions in a very short period of time.

"While it has worked for a couple of clubs in the last 10 years, and I am not critical of that, if that's going to be done in the future it's going to have to be over a slightly longer term without the huge losses being made.

"I think at £105m you can still build a very decent club with substantial owner funding but you have to do it over time, you can't do it in a season."

Chelsea won the Premier League two years after Roman Abramovich's takeover, and Manchester City's title success came three years after Sheikh Mansour's takeover.

Any club making any loss of over £5m a year will have guarantee those losses against the owner's assets.

"In some ways that's the most significant part; this is a three-year rolling system of secure funding - it's one year at the moment," added Scudamore.

The ceiling when the wage increase restrictions kick in will be £52m next season, £56m the following year and £60m in 2015-16. Only seven of the current top-flight clubs would be under that ceiling at the moment.
 
Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

gordondaviesmoustache said:
sir baconface said:
bobbyowenquiff said:
This deal effectively prevents external investment in those clubs who do not have global revenues. Anyone wanting to invest money in a club like Everton will not now be able to invest in the product (ie the squad). Without investment in any product it is impossible to grow revenues. Simply pumping money into infrastructure is not enough. It is success on the field that fuels growth. This means that football will not be an attractive prospect to external investors and guarantees that only the clubs with the biggest revenues (including City) can succeed. It does nothing to tackle debt and makes it easy for the owners of clubs like Arsenal to keep ripping off their fans. They will justify it by saying they have to maximise revenues to compete. It plays into the hands of the corrupt few who do not care about football but are driven purely by self-interest. It defies all business logic. It is impossible to grow any business without going through a period of investment when you have to make a loss (one of the best examples of this is SKY TV). In the long term this will destroy football in England and lead rapidly to a European super league.

Very good post.
Of course it is SB. What else do you expect from a poster with a username that has a player's name and a reference to hair in it, all in lower case and with no gaps?

Hecky me, GDM; I failed to spot the glaringly obvious. From this point on, please address me under my new user name: dannymillspubes.
 
Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

All these stupid fucking rules are going to ruin football. We go every week to be entertained and watch the worlds best players. We don't want to go watch a bunch of shit players because they are cheaper.
 
Re: Serious question relating to us and FFP

Hm so can this be used as an excuse when clubs value their players stupidly ? Tell them to fuck off and watch the player kick and scream and moan at not getting his move ? :)
 
Stuart Brennan ‏@StuBrennanMEN
City did NOT vote for the new FFP rules. They were one of six against it, with one abstention, so it squeaked through
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.