FFP - potential January transfer bans
Comments
-
At least we know we'll never get done for over-spending...11
-
But surely whatever club it is will still be under embargos whilst any legal battles are on going ?HardyAddick said:0 -
"... Leeds’s income fell to £25.3m ... as gate money, TV money, commercial income and merchandise sales all fell. They made a ... post-tax loss of £22.9m."
Nothing against Leeds really, but, given where they finished, that's hilarious.0 -
It won't have any teeth. FFP is a shambles with people finding loopholes and governing bodies refusal to see it through5
-
FFP has gone a bit flaccid with the future financial loss limits being massively increased but the effect of this is not retrospective and, as sammy 391 says above, how are the current Championship clubs who are the subject of a transfer ban going to be able to mount a serious challenge to its legality in the time available - even in they had the inclination to do so (which I doubt) ? It's not like trying to collect very substantial fines from Premier League clubs, where there is no current jurisdiction - all the Football League has to do (assuming they cooperate) is simply to reject a player's registration.
I can't see any of the clubs who are likely to be affected rushing down to court for an injunction, unless they feel the powers that be are going to keel over. Let's hope that doesn't happen, as there are very sound policy reasons for some measure of financial prudence in this crazy division.0 -
Step 1. The fans demand the club goes out and spends ridiculous money on over-rated players.
Step 2. The fans moan about these restrictions, saying it's up to the chairman how much he wishes to spend on players.
Step 3. The fans all start protesting against the chairman when the club fall into administration.
Step 4. The fans are out at all the other league grounds with their collection buckets to help save "a great traditional club".
Step 5. The club is sold to a new owner and the fans demand he spends big money to replace the players they had to sell whilst in administration...........and the wheel keeps turning.
But it's never the fans fault..................14 -
The transfer bans will not happen. The league has bottled it and now not interested in making football financialy sound. Also clubs effected will appeal against the decisions and during the appeal they will not be banned from transfer buisness.0
-
Tango, how true. I was in the pub with a Leeds fan on Friday and he was genuinely disgusted that their owner was under the spot light again. His view was how could he be bad for Leeds given he was pumping money in, and if that was for the good of the club he should not fail a fit and proper even if he is a fraudster!
0 -
But is he pumping in money? Sure, he's keeping them afloat at the moment, but too many owners then want their money back when they sell on so that this pumping in of money just becomes a loan....Athletico Charlton said:Tango, how true. I was in the pub with a Leeds fan on Friday and he was genuinely disgusted that their owner was under the spot light again. His view was how could he be bad for Leeds given he was pumping money in, and if that was for the good of the club he should not fail a fit and proper even if he is a fraudster!
Clubs need to exist on as close to break even as they can, or play by the rules of FFP!0 -
imo FFP will never be enforced. Clubs will take it to the EC/EU/FIFA/EUFA/Society of Black Lawyers/High Court/Court of Arbitration for Sport/Opec/United Nations etc etc and it will be ruled unfair. I must admit I think 'isn't it a restraint of trade'? Look at Bosman. I don't ever see it working.1
-
Sponsored links:
-
Burnley's accounts for 2013-14 make interesting reading. The gist is as follows:
1 "Costs remain under control and have not increased since the 2012/13 financial year."
2 There was a £300,000 profit on turnover of £19.6 million BEFORE payment of bonuses of £7.9 million due to promotion.
3 However, their expenditure also included major payments towards eliminating debts. "Directors’ loans were repaid to the tune of £4m, with a further £4m paid out in other external loans, while around £4.5m of the Turf Moor ‘Buy-Back’ Bond – re-purchasing the stadium and Gawthorpe Training facility - was also repaid to make the debt easier to service."
There's definitely something wrong with that club. They actually publish their report and accounts online for all to see.
Source: burnleyfootballclub.com/club/Shareholders_Notice.aspx2 -
If FFP was not going to be enforced then they would not have gone to the trouble of changing the rules last month.
Local media reports and club statements have suggested that Ipswich and Brighton are just under the limits...and that Forest, Blackburn, Bolton, Leeds are over the limits and will face an embargo on signing player contracts in January. Same for Bournemouth except Southampton sold Lallana to Liverpool which led to a £6m "bonus" for them just as their year end closed in June.
There is no clarity on sanctions next December with the lower £6m loss limits this season but they have reiterated they will apply the rules this month.
Fines for overspends at promoted Leicester and QPR may well be challenged and go to legal hearings and compromises. But I'm more interested in seeing if Blackburn and Forest receive any sanctions as we are all very close in the table.
Having said this, I understand the cynicism re. Football administration - let's see what happens.0 -
If none of these work, take it to a court in South Africa, after the results of the last two high profile cases, (Dewani and Pistorious) they will get what they want.LargeAddick said:imo FFP will never be enforced. Clubs will take it to the EC/EU/FIFA/EUFA/Society of Black Lawyers/High Court/Court of Arbitration for Sport/Opec/United Nations etc etc and it will be ruled unfair. I must admit I think 'isn't it a restraint of trade'? Look at Bosman. I don't ever see it working.
1 -
Just come through now on skysports - Blackburn, Leeds & Forest fail0
-
So the two sides just above us and Leeds who are such a mess who knows what we happen this week, let alone over a season.
But the other 21 sides all OK to spend in January, including us. More than was being predicted.
Will be interesting to see how this pans out both with spending and what the three embargoed clubs do0 -
There's got to be more than those 3 surely?Henry Irving said:So the two sides just above us and Leeds who are such a mess who knows what we happen this week, let alone over a season.
But the other 21 sides all OK to spend in January, including us. More than was being predicted.
Will be interesting to see how this pans out both with spending and what the three embargoed clubs do0 -
I guess the likes of Cardiff and Wigan are protected because of the Parachute Payments0
-
cabbles said:
There's got to be more than those 3 surely?Henry Irving said:So the two sides just above us and Leeds who are such a mess who knows what we happen this week, let alone over a season.
But the other 21 sides all OK to spend in January, including us. More than was being predicted.
Will be interesting to see how this pans out both with spending and what the three embargoed clubs do
Could be. Article doesn't say that they are the only three which is what I originally took it to mean.0 -
I would be surprised if it was just those 3, that's for sure.Henry Irving said:cabbles said:
There's got to be more than those 3 surely?Henry Irving said:So the two sides just above us and Leeds who are such a mess who knows what we happen this week, let alone over a season.
But the other 21 sides all OK to spend in January, including us. More than was being predicted.
Will be interesting to see how this pans out both with spending and what the three embargoed clubs do
Could be. Article doesn't say that they are the only three which is what I originally took it to mean.0 -
This blogpost by someone with expertise outlines the most recent changes following the vote. However as I understand it, the new backsliding doesn't affect the evaluation of which clubs get caught this time round.0
-
Sponsored links:
-
From BBC article -
The clubs will still be allowed to sign players in January if they have 24 or fewer players over the age of 21 who have made at least five starting appearances for the club in total.
Any of these signings must not cost the club a transfer fee and must cost less than £600,000 a year.
Clubs with 24 or more players fitting the criteria will be allowed to trade players on a 'one out, one in' basis.
In addition:
Clubs under an FFP embargo will be permitted to sign a goalkeeper on an emergency basis, in line with existing regulations.
Clubs under an FFP embargo will not be permitted to pay transfer fees or compensation fees for professional players.
Clubs under an FFP embargo will not be permitted to pay a loan fee to another club, they may only pay the player's wage, or a contribution towards it.
For incoming players, clubs can only pay agents' fees as a benefit in kind to the player in question, as long as they do not exceed the £600,000 employee costs limit.
So it's not a full transfer embargo...0 -
Charlton voted against it?PragueAddick said:This blogpost by someone with expertise outlines the most recent changes following the vote. However as I understand it, the new backsliding doesn't affect the evaluation of which clubs get caught this time round.
0 -
The Red Robin said:
Charlton voted against it?PragueAddick said:This blogpost by someone with expertise outlines the most recent changes following the vote. However as I understand it, the new backsliding doesn't affect the evaluation of which clubs get caught this time round.
The Red Robin said:
Charlton voted against it?PragueAddick said:This blogpost by someone with expertise outlines the most recent changes following the vote. However as I understand it, the new backsliding doesn't affect the evaluation of which clubs get caught this time round.
YesThe Red Robin said:
Charlton voted against it?PragueAddick said:This blogpost by someone with expertise outlines the most recent changes following the vote. However as I understand it, the new backsliding doesn't affect the evaluation of which clubs get caught this time round.
0 -
So a club who can't stay with FFP can still sign a player (or even players) And pay £11.5k a week wages?0
-
Fixed that for you Prague. :-)PragueAddick said:The Red Robin said:
Charlton voted against it?PragueAddick said:This blogpost by someone with expertise outlines the most recent changes following the vote. However as I understand it, the new backsliding doesn't affect the evaluation of which clubs get caught this time round.
The Red Robin said:
Charlton voted against it?PragueAddick said:This blogpost by someone with expertise outlines the most recent changes following the vote. However as I understand it, the new backsliding doesn't affect the evaluation of which clubs get caught this time round.
Yes, yes and yes.The Red Robin said:
Charlton voted against it?PragueAddick said:This blogpost by someone with expertise outlines the most recent changes following the vote. However as I understand it, the new backsliding doesn't affect the evaluation of which clubs get caught this time round.
3 -
That is how I read it.DRAddick said:So a club who can't stay with FFP can still sign a player (or even players) And pay £11.5k a week wages?
I suppose the best you can say is, better than nothing.
0 -
And to make it even more idiotic, Leeds have only 19 players (according to their own website stats) that meet the criteria of being over 21, and have made at least five appearances. So, arguably, they can still sign another five players in January as long as they are only on about £10 grand a week each, and don't cost any signing or transfer fee...
Can't be bothered to look at Forest or Blackburn players, but suspect that they may have similar numbers, making the whole thing ridiculous!0 -
Not sure I have a problem per se with the free transfer exemption - if it allows otherwise out-of-work footballers to be signed by a club then that's good for them. The FFP is designed to stop a club from spending unsustainably in the short term as that distorts the financial playing field, for example, holding onto too many players or buying several decent players, denying other clubs the opportunity to bid on a level playing field. We're basically a few steps away from a wage cap or draft system (which will never happen in football), that can only be better than the previous situation we had when we had clubs splurging for short-term success and then going bust a few seasons later.0
-
Cardiff, Fulham and Norwich have just been relegated so they were exempt.ForeverAddickted said:I guess the likes of Cardiff and Wigan are protected because of the Parachute Payments
Wigan have parachute money to reduce losses so they comply for now. But they aren't going anywhere near promotion and this money runs out sooner or later. Bolton, Blackburn and Reading are in a similar position.
@Pedro45 looks like Forest and Blackburn both have more than 20 players (aged over 21) playing 5 games or more this season alone and a fair few who have not played much this season but have played a lot for them in the past.
Forest and Blackburn have been widely flagged as clubs who would fail - looks like they are allowed free transfers but there aren't too many of them in the January window.
If we were in a better position re. our own squad then this would be an advantage in trying to press for sixth place. Hence the real disappointment at rules changing for next season when more club would have had to cut back or fail.
0 -
I'd be shocked if Brighton pass.0
