The AVFC FFP thread

[flashingqwerty]

14 hours ago, blandy said:

It seems to me that would always be likely to be rejected - if clubs can demand to look at another club's books, then they might do so before making a bid for a player and see how much spare loot, or how skint they are, or what the wage bill is and be able to get themselves an advantageous negotiating position, so that' not gonna go through.

I have some sympathy with his grudge, as some clubs would seem to be playing less fairly than others, perhaps with FFP, but the timing's not a good look as posters have pointed out.

If you're a club with wealthy, ambitious and responsible owners you'll take a different view to one with no such advantages. For the likes of say Villa, the rules are unfit for purpose, for the likes of say Rotherham they're fine, because of our completely different circumstances. They're creaking at the seams because of the money some owners would like to be able to spend.

And for this reason, even had clubs voted in favour of doing so, it wouldn't be possible as it breaches UK trading regulations with respect of healthy competition.

[blandy]

15 hours ago, ciggiesnbeer said:

FFP needs to be abolished. A failed experiment which has achieved nothing but more distress for clubs already having financial difficulties. 

I totally disagree with this. The evidence shows the exact opposite. I'm not saying it's perfect, or shouldn't be adjusted further, but it has made a massive difference.

It used to be a regular, more than one club per season thing, where clubs were going into administration because of financial messes and overspending. FFP has pretty much put an end to that.

It's important not to confuse the flaws of the system in place and how they affect us, with the overall picture. No clubs in the last 6 years have gone into administration, more than 20 in the preceding 6. It's played a huge part in stopping the insane and irresponsible financial management that was going on 

Club	Entered administration	Exited administration	League(s)	Deduction(s)
Charlton Athletic	February 1984[24][25]	March 1984 [nb 1]	Second Division	None
Middlesbrough	21 May 1986	July 1986[26] [nb 2]	Third Division	None
Tranmere Rovers	1987[27]	1987[28]	Fourth Division	None
Newport County	1989[29]	February 1989 Dissolved[29]	Football Conference	None
Walsall	1990[citation needed]	−	−	None
Northampton Town	1992[citation needed]	−	−	None
Kettering Town	1992[citation needed]	−	−	None
Aldershot	1992[citation needed]	−	−	None
Maidstone United	1992[citation needed]	−	−	None
Hartlepool United	1994[citation needed]	−	−	None
Barnet	1994[citation needed]	−	−	None
Exeter United	1994[citation needed]	−	−	None
Gillingham	1995[citation needed]	−	−	None
Doncaster Rovers	1997[citation needed]	−	−	None
Millwall	21 January 1997	June 1997	Second Division	None
Bournemouth	1997[citation needed]	−	−	None
Crystal Palace	1998[citation needed]	July 2000	Second Division	None
Chester City	October 1998[30]	July 1999[31]	Third Division	None
Portsmouth	1998[citation needed]	1999	Second Division	None
Hull City	7 February 2001[32]	12 March 2001[33][nb 3]	Third Division	None
Queens Park Rangers	2 April 2001[35]	17 November 2002[36]	First Division	None
Halifax Town	9 April 2002[37]	March 2003[38]	Third Division Football Conference	None
Bradford City	16 May 2002[39]	1 August 2002[40]	First Division	None
Notts County	June 2002	December 1993	Third Division	None
Barnsley	3 October 2002[41]	25 October 2003[42]	Second Division	None
Leicester City	21 October 2002[43]	16 November 2004[44]	First Division	None
Port Vale	16 December 2002[45]	2003	Second Division	None
York City	18 December 2002[46]	26 March 2003[47]	Third Division	None
Derby County	20 October 2003[48]	20 October 2003[48]	Championship	None[nb 4]
Ipswich Town[nb 5]	10 February 2003[52]	30 May 2003[53]	First Division	None
Wimbledon	5 June 2003[54]	21 June 2004[55] (As MK Dons)	First Division	None
Darlington	23 December 2003[56]	26 May 2004[57]	Third Division	None
Bradford City	27 February 2004[58]	10 December 2004[59]	First Division League One	None
Wrexham	3 December 2004[14]	3 August 2006[60]	League One League Two	−10 pts
Cambridge United	29 April 2005[61]	22 July 2005[62]	League Two	−10 pts
Rotherham United	13 May 2006[63]	???	League One	−10 pts
Crawley Town	5 June 2006[64]	10 August 2007[65]	Conference National	−6 pts[nb 6]
Boston United	25 April 2007[67]	20 May 2008[68]	League Two	−10 pts[nb 7]
Leeds United	4 May 2007[70]	11 July 2007[71]	Championship League One	−10 pts −15 pts[nb 8]
Luton Town	22 November 2007[73]	28 July 2008[74]	League One League Two	−10 pts −20 pts[nb 9]
Bournemouth	8 February 2008[76]	18 July 2008[77]	League One League Two	−10 pts −17 pts[nb 10]
Rotherham United	18 March 2008[79]	2008[1]	League Two	−10 pts −17 pts[nb 11]
Halifax Town	26 March 2008[80]	13 June 2008[81]	Conference National	−10 pts
Darlington	25 February 2009[82]	7 August 2009[83]	League Two	−10 pts
Southampton	2 April 2009[84][85]	8 July 2009[86]	Championship League One	N/A −10 pts[nb 12]
Stockport County	30 April 2009[87]	18 June 2010[88]	League One	−10 pts
Chester City	17 May 2009[30]	10 March 2010[nb 13] Dissolved	Conference National	−25 pts[nb 14]
Northwich Victoria	15 May 2009[94]	16 May 2010[95][nb 15]	Conference National	−10 pts[nb 16]
Farsley Celtic	30 June 2009[99]	10 March 2010 Dissolved[100]	Conference North	−10 pts[101]
Salisbury City	3 September 2009[102]	26 February 2010[103][104]	Conference National	−10 pts[nb 17]
Weymouth	28 October 2009[106]	27 November 2009[107]	Conference South	None
Crystal Palace	26 January 2010[108]	20 August 2010[109]	Championship	−10 pts
Portsmouth	26 February 2010[17]	24 October 2010[110]	Premier League	−9 pts
Plymouth Argyle	4 March 2011[111]	31 October 2011[112]	League One	−10 pts
Rushden and Diamonds	7 July 2011[113]	8 July 2011 Dissolved[114]	Conference National	None
Darlington	3 January 2012[115]	21 June Dissolved 2012	Conference National	−10 pts
Portsmouth	17 February 2012[116]	19 April 2013[117]	Championship	−10 pts
Port Vale	9 March 2012[118]	20 November 2012[119]	League Two	−10 pts
Coventry City	21 March 2013[120]		League One League One	−10 pts[120][121] −10 pts[122]
Aldershot Town	2 May 2013[123]		League Two

[Demitri_C]

The biggest issue for ffp for me is the gal between championship and Premier league. Its actually ridiculous how much protects the big clubs. 

[VILLAMARV]

get all the prize monies. divide by 92.

[mjmooney]

3 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

The biggest issue for ffp for me is the gal between championship and Premier league. 

Oh, I dunno, I think she's quite cute. 

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Oh, I dunno, I think she's quite cute. 

Does she keep going down?

[mattyg38]

4 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

The biggest issue for ffp for me is the gal between championship and Premier league. Its actually ridiculous how much protects the big clubs. 

 I think you are confusing FFP with the TV money deal. Distributing the TV money more evenly across the leagues could reduce the chances of failing FFP for the lower league clubs as their income would be higher, however I suspect (no evidence for this) that this would just mean that the wages and transfer expenditure of the lower league clubs would increase.

The point is that simply increasing TV money will not remove the concerns that people have with FFP. I think the fundamental principle of clubs not spending more than they can bring in is sound. My concern with FFP is that should a rich owner(s) decide that they want to put there own money into the club in order to acheive what they want then this should be allowed as long as the debt does not become attached to the club, i.e. the money should be gifted. An owner may want to do this is they believe the club will be worth more if promotion is achieved, but does not tie the club to debt from their owner or investors if there is not promotion.

Edited April 25, 2019 by mattyg38

[terrytini]

@blandy - what are you playing at, clear off out of here with your “ facts” and your “research” !

[terrytini]

Hasn’t the declining number going into Administration been more to do with Harry Redknapp being less involved in Management ?

[ThunderPower_14]

I see no reason why FFP couldn't be softened from a hard cap to a soft cap.

Teams should be able to spend whatever they like, but if going over the soft cap, they need to demonstrate to the Football League that they can afford to cover all their financial liabilities if the owner suddenly stops investing. If that means the owner putting money into holding accounts to cover wages for a set period, fine.

Protecting clubs from folding is incredibly important, but it shouldn't come at the cost of stopping clubs that can afford to invest from doing so.

[TRO]

2 hours ago, VILLAMARV said:

get all the prize monies. divide by 92.

There is as much chance of them all agreeing to that, as Brexit going through.

and even if they did...it wouldn't go through.....its the modern way....its called " democrapy"

Edited April 25, 2019 by TRO

[ciggiesnbeer]

7 hours ago, blandy said:

I totally disagree with this. The evidence shows the exact opposite. I'm not saying it's perfect, or shouldn't be adjusted further, but it has made a massive difference.

It used to be a regular, more than one club per season thing, where clubs were going into administration because of financial messes and overspending. FFP has pretty much put an end to that.

It's important not to confuse the flaws of the system in place and how they affect us, with the overall picture. No clubs in the last 6 years have gone into administration, more than 20 in the preceding 6. It's played a huge part in stopping the insane and irresponsible financial management that was going on 

 

And I disagree with you That is not evidence. Where is the causal link? I do not see any link between that list and FFP.  FFP didnt exist before 1980's,  that list just coincides with the insolvency act and clubs still get very close to going out of business, as we know all too well. We got lucky, no thanks to FFP.

Points deductions existed before FFP for actual breaking of the rules (transfers etc) and they will exist afterwards. Clubs still overspent before FFP and they overspend now. The only difference is FFP makes it much harder for clubs trying to sort themselves out. FFP offers no actual help, just extra punishment for being unlucky.

But you dont have to take my word for it. Just ask the clubs themselves.  How many clubs today of any size are out there defending FFP? Vs a lot who see clearly its failure.

Voting against it was one of the very few good things our club did under the Lerner era. How right we were.

Not least because its completely illogical. Is it meant to help football as a business? Putting artificial limits on investment in any business limits that businesses opportunity. Or is it meant to retain clubs as cultural artifacts? Again limiting investment when you have a free market for assets (players) is completely illogical.

If we wanted to contain costs then we should introduce a salary and transfer cap. Not that I do recommend that as interfering with a market artificially  almost always ends badly, as FFP itself shows. 

Football is a business in the sports sector, it goes up and down, some businesses will succeed when they take risks others will fail. Thats not going to change. We could make it easier for new clubs to enter the business though, now that would help.

When FFP goes (and it will as more and more clubs are sick of its nonsense) football will be better for it.

 

Edited April 25, 2019 by ciggiesnbeer

[blandy]

51 minutes ago, ciggiesnbeer said:

FFP didnt exist before 1980's,  that list just coincides with the insolvency act

FFP was introduced to the EFL 6 years ago, IIRC. That list shows very clearly that no-one's gone insolvent since that time. I maintain that (as I said) " It's played a huge part in stopping the insane and irresponsible financial management that was going on " I think that not just because of the data I posted, but also because of the effect on culture it's had. There may well be an influence from the insolvency act, too, I have no idea - I bow to your knowledge there. But to say as you did that "A failed experiment which has achieved nothing but more distress for clubs already having financial difficulties. " I find completely unsupported by any evidence, or any correlation of data. I'd be interested to see any you can provide, genuinely - I'm more than willing to change my opinion if anyone can provide data to back up why it's "failed" in the aim of reducing or eliminating the reckless management that used to go on.

[Demitri_C]

When you think how many players Chelsea have out in loan you just realise what a joke ffp is. 

[ciggiesnbeer]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

FFP was introduced to the EFL 6 years ago, IIRC. That list shows very clearly that no-one's gone insolvent since that time. I maintain that (as I said) " It's played a huge part in stopping the insane and irresponsible financial management that was going on " I think that not just because of the data I posted, but also because of the effect on culture it's had. There may well be an influence from the insolvency act, too, I have no idea - I bow to your knowledge there. But to say as you did that "A failed experiment which has achieved nothing but more distress for clubs already having financial difficulties. " I find completely unsupported by any evidence, or any correlation of data. I'd be interested to see any you can provide, genuinely - I'm more than willing to change my opinion if anyone can provide data to back up why it's "failed" in the aim of reducing or eliminating the reckless management that used to go on.

Fair. Happy to have my mind changed as well. Whether FFP is a partial solution to the problems football have or an entirely wrong solutionis an interesting discussion.

 

[sidcow]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

When you think how many players Chelsea have out in loan you just realise what a joke ffp is. 

They definitely need to put in a quota of the number of players a club can have out on loan. A few big clubs just hoover up all the young talent which otherwise would be spread around the leagues. 

[Vive_La_Villa]

28 minutes ago, sidcow said:

They definitely need to put in a quota of the number of players a club can have out on loan. A few big clubs just hoover up all the young talent which otherwise would be spread around the leagues. 

New rule on this next season isn’t there? 

[Mazrim]

FFP doesn't really work, locks the door behind clubs who took the piss and have benefitted and is in reality nothing more than a restraint of trade. I agree that clubs need to be protected from financial disaster, I just dont think the current rules are correct.

I think something like the escrow idea is the fairest. Let ppl who have money spend it. Just have a system where that money is already secured before deals are ratified. No credit leveraged against a club, only individuals / companies etc.

[thabucks]

i really don’t see the issue with Chelsea”s business model of buying players for loan with the option he comes good great ... he does well but can’t get into the team so is  sold for a profit . Or they fall bag the wayside very much richer for it and hopefully A good footballing career ahead of them. Lukaku cost €12-14million ... played x10 times in 3 seasons with ZERO GOALS ... The two times went out on loan they got £3milion+ loan fee and his £3mill in wages paid in full meaning a on the books saving of £12mill and the. subsequently selling him for £30mill + sell on fees... over £30mill pure profit on a player who played 10 times and never scored. I digress from villa I know bit to bring it back round it is because when the crucial period we did have a financial advantage early Lerner we didn’t put in or built anything of lasting effect and wasted a golden opportunity. I’m ok with the rule change but can’t criticise Chelsea for exploiting it and say fair play to them .... I hope now this is not another false dawn (x3) in my villa supporting career of 29 years and this is what it actually seems and the new owners NSWE, Purslow, Suso and Dean are the real deal and the future starts now ... Please McGrath lead us to the promised land 

[JamesBCFC]

9 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

New rule on this next season isn’t there? 

There is.

12 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

When you think how many players Chelsea have out in loan you just realise what a joke ffp is. 

That's not an FFP issue as such. Academy spending is exempt from FFP, presumably the idea being that if a club is developing the players then they aren't spending a fortune to buy them- most will cost little to nothing (on a relative scale). However clubs attempting to horde as much young talent and then extort teams who want to loan one and using their academy status as a way to milk money from players they have no intention of using in the first team is an issue.

As an example Tomas Kalas is Chelsea's longest serving player, and has a total of 2 league appearences in 9 years. In that time they've charged a loan fee of at least £1-2m to Bristol City, Fulham (twice), Middlesbrough (twice) , FC Koln and possibly another team or two, as well as getting the club's to contribute to his wages which would be above what any of those clubs would have been paying at the time of him joining.

There's no intention of Chelsea using Kalas as a first teamer and since signing his last contract with them he has said he feels "like a training cone, moved around to wherever the club wants".

Thankfully there is a rule change coming in which I believe is limiting the amount of over 21* year old players a club can send out on loan.

 

*Might be over 23, as that's the max age for a 'Young player' award.