duke313 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 I know practically nothing about FFP, other than what I’ve read here and online. But is debt taken into consideration? Man Utd for example have huge debt, if their massive revenue was curtailed by their debt, this would go someway to levelling the playing field. But I suppose they don’t want a level playing field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted March 12 Moderator Share Posted March 12 Just now, duke313 said: I know practically nothing about FFP, other than what I’ve read here and online. But is debt taken into consideration? Man Utd for example have huge debt, if their massive revenue was curtailed by their debt, this would go someway to levelling the playing field. But I suppose they don’t want a level playing field. It is not and the reason for that is that Man Utd have huge debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 On 11/03/2024 at 18:44, MaVilla said: so, if its a salary to turnover % type thing, where are we in terms of turnover compared to other PL clubs?, we are probably mid table? (so, unless we can increase revenue massively, this will limit us as well) is this type of limitation, better than the current FFP tho!? I thought we were worst in the league on this metric? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 if they change the rules 'from the summer', what does that mean for teams that have broken this season's rules? What about if we would have found out they had broken this season's rules next season, when they file this year's accounts? Or is it just completely blank slate? (Great news for Chelsea if the latter) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinebro Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 It is absolutely hilarious to me the fact that Bournemouth voted against the EFL deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 34 minutes ago, Pinebro said: It is absolutely hilarious to me the fact that Bournemouth voted against the EFL deal Yep. Financial cheats. Shame on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 3 hours ago, Pinebro said: It is absolutely hilarious to me the fact that Bournemouth voted against the EFL deal Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 1 hour ago, duke313 said: Why? Bournemouth climbed all the way up the period(through cheating) so should know what hardship is like down the leagues Also they are a team that probably will be down in the Championship again in the near future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 Forest as well. You'll probably be down there next year lads Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoelVilla Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 16 minutes ago, Zatman said: Bournemouth climbed all the way up the period(through cheating) so should know what hardship is like down the leagues Also they are a team that probably will be down in the Championship again in the near future But they didn't do that with Bill Foley as owner. Saying that Foley will probably cheat if given the chance. His hockey franchise do it every year. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 14 Moderator Share Posted March 14 (edited) On 12/03/2024 at 20:58, OutByEaster? said: If the new rules are only based on a revenue vs wages calculation - does that means you can spend £500m on players as long as you don't pay them very much? The question, I believe is void, because the new rules include transfer costs (I assume as amortisation, rather than fee paid all in one go). So if you buy a player for 50 mill and pay them 5 mill a year on a 5 year deal, their "hit" to your (new rules allowance) is 15 million per year, so you need (depending on the % figure in the rules, but say 70% of revenue is the allowance, to earn at least £21.4 million in revenue to make it "OK" within the new rules. I don't know whether their wage costs will include stuff like employer NI contributions and any employer pension contributions on top of their pay packet, or transfer tax, or various other costs like agents fees and so on. Edited March 15 by blandy Maths error corrected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted March 14 Moderator Share Posted March 14 5 hours ago, blandy said: The question, I believe is void, because the new rules include transfer costs (I assume as amortisation, rather than fee paid all in one go). So if you buy a player for 50 mill and pay them 5 mill a year on a 5 year deal, their "hit" to your (new rules allowance) is 11 million per year, so you need (depending on the % figure in the rules, but say 70% of revenue is the allowance, to earn at least £15.7 million in revenue to make it "OK" within the new rules. I don't know whether their wage costs will include stuff like employer NI contributions and any employer pension contributions on top of their pay packet, or transfer tax, or various other costs like agents fees and so on. Ah, that's a relief, for a minute there I thought they'd make it complicated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 15 Moderator Share Posted March 15 My Maths error corrected above. Doh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 14 hours ago, Zatman said: Bournemouth climbed all the way up the period(through cheating) so should know what hardship is like down the leagues Also they are a team that probably will be down in the Championship again in the near future Therefore, probably don't want to fund their rivals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 17 hours ago, blandy said: The question, I believe is void, because the new rules include transfer costs (I assume as amortisation, rather than fee paid all in one go). So if you buy a player for 50 mill and pay them 5 mill a year on a 5 year deal, their "hit" to your (new rules allowance) is 15 million per year, so you need (depending on the % figure in the rules, but say 70% of revenue is the allowance, to earn at least £21.4 million in revenue to make it "OK" within the new rules. I don't know whether their wage costs will include stuff like employer NI contributions and any employer pension contributions on top of their pay packet, or transfer tax, or various other costs like agents fees and so on. Yes, the "wages" part of the Squad Ratio calculation is really wages + NI + pension + agent fees + bonuses + amortisation + signing on fees + transfer tax. Basically anything that is part of the cost of having a player or football staff (ie: manager) at your club. What i'm unsure about is whether it includes costs for the CEO or Doris the tea lady? I would assume not as they are not footballing staff. But then again some are more footballing than others - so for example Monchi, the random scout in Asia, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderPower_14 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 On 13/03/2024 at 07:41, duke313 said: I know practically nothing about FFP, other than what I’ve read here and online. But is debt taken into consideration? Man Utd for example have huge debt, if their massive revenue was curtailed by their debt, this would go someway to levelling the playing field. But I suppose they don’t want a level playing field. It's nuts isn't it. They talk about sustainability but don't care at all if clubs go into enormous levels of debt. They could have just based the entire rule off of debt as a percentage of turnover and it would have protected clubs just as well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted March 15 Moderator Share Posted March 15 2 hours ago, ender4 said: Yes, the "wages" part of the Squad Ratio calculation is really wages + NI + pension + agent fees + bonuses + amortisation + signing on fees + transfer tax. Basically anything that is part of the cost of having a player or football staff (ie: manager) at your club. What i'm unsure about is whether it includes costs for the CEO or Doris the tea lady? I would assume not as they are not footballing staff. But then again some are more footballing than others - so for example Monchi, the random scout in Asia, etc. That seems the most likely way they will write the new rules, I agree. I guess clubs will try and weedle some support staff off the costs, by giving them job title roles which are, what's the word?, ambiguous or obfuscating - it'll be hard to write a list of what is and isn't "Football role" - Manager - easy, yes. First team coach - ditto. But other coaches, say for the Under 21s or youth team - what if they do coaching of both the youth and first team, or the goalkeeper coach also works with the women once a week? or if the analyst also works on the women's games... some of the costs can be hidden/excluded, no doubt. Scouts - are they looking for youth team players (excluded) and then they "just happen" to have spotted an older player...Does the video analysis team also make the odd promo video for marketing and so the club might try and say "oh, him, he does our social media video editing...so doesn't count." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 (edited) This is turning into a complete shambles, Everton deducted points, then given back on appeal. Forest deducted a different amount of points to a Everton. And Everton waiting to hear if they’re deducting more points. Scrap the whole thing, a complete farce Edited March 19 by duke313 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PieFacE Posted March 19 VT Supporter Share Posted March 19 They should just put a point total to deduct per million overspend so everyone knows where they stand. Something like 1 point deducted per £2m overspend. Or whatever numbers make sense. It feels like they're making it up as they go along atm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuwabatake Sanjuro Posted April 2 Share Posted April 2 Just goes to show the bad company we have been keeping, if we had made a less inspired appointment after Gerrard we'd definitely be facing serious issues. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts