Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
happy85

FFP

By happy85, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Jawdee said:

I am puzzled by Chelsea's spending though. Did they just get a clean slate after Roman sold up?

to a degree,  yes - all the debt was wiped out by the previous owners.  If boehly had come in and had to clear the debt then I think it would have been a little different. 
In addition, their income of £450/500m per annum allows them to spend a lot. you will note that they are buying players on v long contracts atm which reduces the annual cost relative to the fee. there is wriggle room because of covid - I'm sure our issue is more the lack of outside funds rather than ffp (makes it easy to say that we aren’t going to sail close to the wind whereas our competitors are) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
KFS

KFS

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Jawdee said:

No idea what all of that is about, I don't pay any attention to the social media personalities linked to the club. Wrath, the Geordie Dentist, Pearson, etc. They're all absolute weapons.

 

I'm all for a wage and a spend cap, I'd ban state ownership too. It's a real shame that we didn't implement something similar to the Bundesliga's "50+1" before things became too far gone.  

 

The league is the way it is because the relevant authorities view the Premier League as a commodity , our ownership is just a symptom of that. 

Do you get any inclination a revised super league would be backed by your new owners? 
 

We’re in trouble if others start to jump I think. You don’t expect Bournemouth to be included but their Yank owner might want reforms

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coalvillefox

coalvillefox

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, KFS said:

Do you get any inclination a revised super league would be backed by your new owners? 
 

We’re in trouble if others start to jump I think. You don’t expect Bournemouth to be included but their Yank owner might want reforms

If the likes of Bournemouth and other bottom half clubs start to attrack billionaire owners they wont want their wealth to be throttled by the likes of FFP, so can see more backing a breakway league where money is power and they can set their own rules

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jawdee

Jawdee

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, KFS said:

Do you get any inclination a revised super league would be backed by your new owners? 
 

We’re in trouble if others start to jump I think. You don’t expect Bournemouth to be included but their Yank owner might want reforms

 

I honestly don't know. I don't think our minority owners would, but PIF call the shots and ultimately we're just an investment to them.

 

I think it'll be the US ownership the drives any Super League though. Chelsea, Arsenal, Man United, Liverpool are all US backed now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chrysalis

Chrysalis

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

to a degree,  yes - all the debt was wiped out by the previous owners.  If boehly had come in and had to clear the debt then I think it would have been a little different. 
In addition, their income of £450/500m per annum allows them to spend a lot. you will note that they are buying players on v long contracts atm which reduces the annual cost relative to the fee. there is wriggle room because of covid - I'm sure our issue is more the lack of outside funds rather than ffp (makes it easy to say that we aren’t going to sail close to the wind whereas our competitors are) 

This is what we should have been doing 6 years vs 4 contracts, not only is it better for annualised costs but it also means longer before giving out newer higher salary contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Number 6

Number 6

Posted
Posted

The motive was always to save the face of the big boys. Even if we look at Newcastle rather than us, if the owners said "We're willing to pay 10x average value for sponsorship, 10 year deal, money up front", only strengthens Newcastle's financial position. 

 

The wage% of turnover thing basically makes it impossible for a club like us to compete. Turnover basically defines position now, certainly in the long term. The only way we would be able to compete now would be to do what we did with Fofana but almost every single season. Nigh on impossible especially when the bigger clubs will know you have to sell.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

This is what we should have been doing 6 years vs 4 contracts, not only is it better for annualised costs but it also means longer before giving out newer higher salary contracts.

Players unlikely to sign up for that many years at a club our size.  Much easier to do that when you’re paying 150k/week plus ……..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chrysalis

Chrysalis

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Players unlikely to sign up for that many years at a club our size.  Much easier to do that when you’re paying 150k/week plus ……..

Well a 4 year contract is generally an expectation to move after 2 years, shows the problem with the sport if players think they should be moving every 2 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
ParkerPen

ParkerPen

Posted
Posted
On 10/01/2023 at 18:12, Chrysalis said:

Well a 4 year contract is generally an expectation to move after 2 years, shows the problem with the sport if players think they should be moving every 2 years.

driven by agent's requirements and greed, not necessarily player's

Link to comment
Share on other sites
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted (edited)

It depends how the owner wants to invest

if they are loading debt onto the club by loaning funds then it’s necessary to protect the club in the event that the owner decides to leave 

 

if it’s in exchange for shares in the club then it should be allowed 

 

The danger is that the big six could become the big 12 or big 16 re money pumped into clubs and then there are massive risks with inflationary pressures around a premier league that becomes Ben more detached from the pyramid 

Edited by st albans fox
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
  • 1 month later...
StanSP

StanSP

Posted
Posted

Chelsea are 'exemplar' lollol 

Quote

 

Manchester United have been fined 300,000 euros (£257,000) by Uefa for a "minor" breach of Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules.

They were one of a number of clubs sanctioned by Uefa under FFP rules in place between 2019 and 2022.

United said they were "disappointed by the outcome".

However, they added the club accepted the fine "for what Uefa acknowledges to be a minor technical breach of its previous Financial Fair Play rules".

In explaining the reason for the punishment, United continued that "this reflected a change in the way that Uefa adjusted for Covid-19 losses during the 2022 reporting period, which allowed us to recognise only 15m euros of the 281m euros of revenues lost due to the pandemic within the FFP calculation".

Barcelona were also fined 500,000 euros (£428,000) by European football's governing body.

Uefa said the Spanish club was guilty in 2022 of "wrongly reporting ... profits on disposal of intangible assets (other than player transfers) which are not a relevant income under the regulations".

AC Milan, Besiktas, Inter Milan, Marseille, Monaco, Paris St-Germain and Roma were found to have complied with FFP rules in 2022 but Uefa said it "will continue monitoring their compliance with the settlement agreement during next season". Chelsea were singled out for an award for following the rules with no breaches. A Uefa spokesperson said "They are the exemplar and we need other clubs to follow suit" 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/jul/14/manchester-united-fined-uefa-financial-fair-play-breaches

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...