Popular Post sne Posted October 15, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted October 15, 2018 FFP 4 16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted October 15, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted October 15, 2018 (edited) On 11/09/2018 at 21:58, sidcow said: This is purely conjecture from me but I wonder if the way FFP works is that you have the rules and formula which will put you into technical breach if you fail them. At that point the Championship officials will come to you for a meeting and review like they did with us and with them. At that meeting they will look at your books, listen to your business plan and agree a way forwards. If they feel your plan is sound then there are no sanctions. If you keep your nose clean and stick to the plan agreed with them, no sanctions. However if you agree a plan and way forward but then flout it and go against what you agreed at that time they will then impose the sanctions. They don't actually stop you flouting them but impose the sanctions they warned you were in danger of if you didn't stick to the agreed plan. So in our case they saw that the new owners were very wealthy and have been provided with a plan by them whereby they were OK with us continuing to spend. However they saw Blues didn't have a pot to piss in so they were supposed to have this embargo which blues have gone against so now get punished. I am 100% certain we would have had an embargo also if we hadn't had the takeover. That's the way I see it from the outside anyway. I wrote this a while ago in the scum thread and although it was as I said purely conjecture I wonder if there is some truth to it. I am sure if Xia was still in charge they would have paid a visit, looked at our books and our plan and realising we were up the creek without a paddle informed us we were not to make any signings as we were in no financial position to do so as it would put the club in danger. As it is they realise that the owners have very substantial funds and have injected them in the club so whilst we are in breach, as there is no danger to the club they let the owners carry on. They will undoubtedly have seen a proper business plan which if we are sticking to they will not punish us. It seems a sensible and pragmatic approach to me. It allows them to exert influence on reckless owners but allows them flexibility to let people who can afford it to invest in their businesses with a sensible plan. Edited October 15, 2018 by sidcow 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirSteveUK Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 Purslow actually we have a sound balance sheet - which I seem to recall is a statement of assets and liabilities - not what FFP is concerned with. FFP is concerned with income & expenditure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condimentalist Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 3 hours ago, romavillan said: Yeah it's bizarre that we can easily invest in the squad in Jan and still be within the rules, not sure how the loss over the last three years all of a sudden gets magicked away. Clearly it doesn't get magicked away. But it might get paid off. I can only assume that the news owners injections of cash are counted as legitimate sources of income. We should remember that the EFLs 'profit and sustainability' rules are about stopping clubs going bust. Financial fair play is to prevent 'financial doping'. Regardless, I trust that Purslow knows what he's doing. The first non-charlatan CEO for years and years. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrytini Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 So.......if the Club are confident they can bring players in legitimately, was Elphicks departure, stated to be to help us comply, actually because of that ? Or because of the row he had with Bruce ? Hmmmmm........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 48 minutes ago, sidcow said: I wrote this a while ago in the scum thread and although it was as I said purely conjecture I wonder if there is some truth to it. I am sure if Xia was still in charge they would have paid a visit, looked at our books and our plan and realising we were up the creek without a paddle informed us we were not to make any signings as we were in no financial position to do so as it would put the club in danger. As it is they realise that the owners have very substantial funds and have injected them in the club so whilst we are in breach, as there is no danger to the club they let the owners carry on. They will undoubtedly have seen a proper business plan which if we are sticking to they will not punish us. It seems a sensible and pragmatic approach to me. It allows them to exert influence on reckless owners but allows them flexibility to let people who can afford it to invest in their businesses with a sensible plan. Would explain the how the likes of City and PSG seem to get away with it. Has FFP punished or threatened to punish any owners that didn’t deserve it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 17 minutes ago, terrytini said: So.......if the Club are confident they can bring players in legitimately, was Elphicks departure, stated to be to help us comply, actually because of that ? Or because of the row he had with Bruce ? Hmmmmm........ Mission Pina Colada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Willard Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 Maybe the football league know they **** up letting a fraud buy our club. To repay us they're turning a blind eye to allowing to break the limits as we have a genuine plan this time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 8 minutes ago, Lord Willard said: Maybe the football league know they **** up letting a fraud buy our club. To repay us they're turning a blind eye to allowing to break the limits as we have a genuine plan this time On a serious note they should be held accountable for xia passing the fit and proper test. Nearly bankrupt the club. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 4 hours ago, blandy said: What's intriguing is that he's saying we can "easily" support (signings) and remain within the FFP rules. I can't see a full transcript (what the Mail says is one, isn't) but I recall a couple of comments about letting players go. Alongside the comments about respecting FFP and staying within the rules, I took that to mean player signings being made possible by disposals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, SirSteveUK said: Purslow actually we have a sound balance sheet - which I seem to recall is a statement of assets and liabilities - not what FFP is concerned with. FFP is concerned with income & expenditure. Purslow was involved when ffp was introduced im sure he knows this all better than all of us Edited October 15, 2018 by Demitri_C 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 (edited) On 27/09/2018 at 13:18, JamesBCFC said: Isn't that the core issue though? Many owners won't do that. Its rare to actually make money as a football club owner, and being an owner is a quick route to spending a fortune. Many of the richer owners outside the Premier League are someone who wants to see the team promoted and sell for more than they paid. Injecting all the money necessary to ensure the clubs stability means they have to recoup more money at the end. 21 clubs fail at going up each season, after a while said rich owner will want a way out. If they have injected a tonne of money they are going to be at a huge loss regardless. I believe this is partly why our owner has changed tack. In 2010 we signed Then England goalkeeper David James, which for a 'small club' in the Championship was quite a statement. In reality we were paying a fortune for someone who just wasn't interested. We slowly finished lower and lower every season before the inevitable relegation, at which point our wage bill for players alone was something like 110% of the clubs announced turnover. 5 years on from that relegation and we are back in the Championship, in a position 10x better than before. Stadium redeveloped and a brand new £100m complex about to be built for a Basketball arena, hotels and housing. (We have a somewhat unique structure- for U.K. clubs- where Lansdown owns multiple sports clubs under the umbrella of Bristol Sport, which also includes the Women's team, Bristol Bears (formerly Bristol Rugby), and Bristol Flyers (Basketball), but because it is all under Bristol Sport, Bristol City are able to use their income as additional for ourselves). We are fortunate however to have one of the few owners who would underwrite the extortionate losses we were making, and now he has invested a not insignificant amount in getting the Club into a position where it can support itself, though that doesn't mean he won't put some money in for transfers. As a comparison, Bristol Rovers had a new owner after their relegation to the Conference in 2014, a "billionaire" making them the "6th richest club in the country"*. The total amount he has put into the club is probably less than what we paid for our record signing (£5.3m). A few of our fans had looked at the accounts of Rovers, and I think they have predicted the end of next season as the point they enter administration, all the owner has done is take out loans against various assets and sign free transfers. *actual claims made by their fans and our local journos. Now it could be said that Steve Lansdown and the Rovers owner are at the opposite end of a spectrum*. But IMO most of the 'rich foreign owners' we see coming in now are nearer the latter than the former. *We're probably helped with the fact Lansdown is from Bristol, rather than a foreign owner who'd never heard of us before he wanted a football club as a toy. I personally like the way we are going about things now, and while it isn't perfect, I think FFP is a reasonable idea despite having a mega rich owner. I wouldn't wish for any club to go bust, but IMO that is what needs to happen before fans (in a broad sense) and football club owners wake up. I do want the TV money bubble to burst though, and sadly I suspect there would be a few clubs who would be casualties if/when that happens. The money thing will never change, its like trying to rewrite history.....we are always on one route, thats what the world thinks progress is. However, back to football.....We have proved more than most that throwing money at it ( in isolation)don't work...for sure money is needed in terms of liquidity and having the ability to buy....but its all about buying the right players that fit and add value to the overall. During our reign under Ron Saunders, nearly every player we bought, ( modestly)we improved individually and they subsequently improved the team collectively.....that has been a rare occurrence since. Here's hoping we get back to it with a pragmatic manager. Edited October 15, 2018 by TRO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted October 15, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted October 15, 2018 Purslow was very very firm in stating we would be supporting the manager with purchases in January AND keeping within FFP rules. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 15, 2018 Moderator Share Posted October 15, 2018 1 hour ago, peterms said: I can't see a full transcript (what the Mail says is one, isn't) but I recall a couple of comments about letting players go. Alongside the comments about respecting FFP and staying within the rules, I took that to mean player signings being made possible by disposals. That’s the sensible interpretation, the maths one, the accounting one. Totally. I’m concerned still that “sell to buy” is actually optimistic spin. All I’ve done is read the EFL FFP rules, read the accounts and concluded something different, something worse. The voices, the sums, the rules. They don’t match up. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junxs Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 I said this in the summer, and got into a bit of debate with someone (cant remember who now) but it does seem viable now after todays comments. Cant find my original post, but it was something like: Why would new owners ever buy a club if they knew they couldnt invest anything? I can only imagine with any takeover new owners can also buy out the debt of the previous regime. In essence creating a new 3 year cycle from year 1 without being punished for the previous regimes misspending. This allows the new regime a work towards a goal that they bought the club for in the first place. For example, as long as funds were added into the accounts for covering players contracts who the club purchased/renewed prior to new owners arrival on the promise that they wouldn't be used (eg Richards, McCormack) then these wouldn't be included in the figures for calculating future profit/loss against the club under the new owners in the coming years. There must be something like this in place for new owners otherwise we would never see new owners at any club ever, and if a club is struggling to pay even the tax bill then surely some sort of conversation would have been had with the FFP people to allow a bit of freedom for new owners, otherwise whats in it for them? So I think as long as the previous debt is paid off then its like a soft reboot of the FFP cycle. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Factory Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 I just hope Purslow has more of a plan over this than Wyness. I like to think he has but have to wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciggiesnbeer Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 (edited) Seems to me the new owners are just looking to emulate all the other ambitious clubs who ignore or bend the so called financial "fair" play scam. I very much approve. The more clubs that treat it with the contempt it richly deserves the sooner it will all go away. Maybe the club owners know something about that we dont? Interestingly Steve Bruce even mentioned last year that were was talk of FFP being abolished or reformed in the EFL sooner rather than later. I sure hope so because right now it is a hindrance to football clubs, never a help. Edited October 15, 2018 by ciggiesnbeer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 He did mention player sales. Let's not forget lansbury and jedinak between them is close to 100k. Of those two went it would help significantly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romavillan Posted October 16, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted October 16, 2018 7 hours ago, ciggiesnbeer said: Seems to me the new owners are just looking to emulate all the other ambitious clubs who ignore or bend the so called financial "fair" play scam. I very much approve. The more clubs that treat it with the contempt it richly deserves the sooner it will all go away. Maybe the club owners know something about that we dont? Interestingly Steve Bruce even mentioned last year that were was talk of FFP being abolished or reformed in the EFL sooner rather than later. I sure hope so because right now it is a hindrance to football clubs, never a help. Something to stop a Leeds and Portsmouth style debt fuelled disaster is good IMO. Purslow kinda linked the new lack of debt with the FFP stuff I think, might be we have got wind of things being modified so that if the EFL see you haven't mortgaged the tea lady, along with the ground and your future earnings just to stay afloat (*cough* Xia) then maybe they'll let you spend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted October 16, 2018 Share Posted October 16, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, ciggiesnbeer said: Seems to me the new owners are just looking to emulate all the other ambitious clubs who ignore or bend the so called financial "fair" play scam. I very much approve. The more clubs that treat it with the contempt it richly deserves the sooner it will all go away. Maybe the club owners know something about that we dont? Interestingly Steve Bruce even mentioned last year that were was talk of FFP being abolished or reformed in the EFL sooner rather than later. I sure hope so because right now it is a hindrance to football clubs, never a help. Yet it seems to be very well run or wealthy clubs that get away with big spending whilst those that seem to be hindered generally tend to be poorly run or have questionable owners. I don’t think FFP is as black and white as some think. Edited October 16, 2018 by Vive_La_Villa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts