The General FFP (Financial Fair Play) Thread

[Zatman]

Its quite worrying

 

[MrBlack]

23 hours ago, Zatman said:

Its quite worrying

 

But FFP and P&S surely mean nothing bad can come of this.

[jimmygreaves]

On 06/11/2023 at 20:51, Zatman said:

Its quite worrying

 

Isn't this how Leeds and others nearly went bust and their financial gambling was one of the original drivers for the creation of the FFP rules?

[oishiiniku_uk]

Darren 'I just talk common sense' Fletcher on 5 Live last night was asking how Newcastle loaning Neves from Al Hilal would be any different from Forest or anyone else in the PL loaning a player to another one in their organization. The difference, Darren is that PIF own FOUR clubs in the a league with no FFP (a league that they also control cos Saudi). It would be like if the owners of Manchester United also owned Inter, Juventus, Napoli and Roma and made the rules in Serie A and then decided to loan Benjamin Pavard to Man Utd in January. 

No other PL club (at least yet) is using another one in their network to buy a player for £50 million and then attempting to loan them back to the 'crown jewel' club six months later - financial constraints/regulations within most of those leagues make it prohibitive. People can grumble about City Group all they want, and I think it's very problematic for football that they own 13 clubs, but you look at how they've transformed Girona for instance without massive spending and you have to be (begrudgingly) impressed. The Saudis seem to have looked at City's playbook and thought 'nah, we're not waiting 10 years to establish an empire, we'll just flood the market with money and disrupt it that way.'

Edited November 11, 2023 by oishiiniku_uk

[villa4europe]

Record revenue and profits for man city

Record revenue for utd too

Getting close to 4x ours

[The_Steve]

All totally legit figures from city - no cooking the books still 

[KAZZAM]

So City have made more than United. 

How?? 

Surely United's kit deals and match day income would beat off winning the champions league. 

 

[LondonLax]

2 minutes ago, KAZZAM said:

So City have made more than United. 

How?? 

Surely United's kit deals and match day income would beat off winning the champions league. 

 

Surely if you are a potential sponsor you’d rather associate your brand with Man City than Man U these days?

City are actual winners and United are a bit of a joke. 

[The_Steve]

5 minutes ago, KAZZAM said:

So City have made more than United. 

How?? 

Surely United's kit deals and match day income would beat off winning the champions league. 

 

The CL money is huge and they've had sales to be fair but everything about their real income avenues is sus 

[BleedClaretAndBlue]

 

[villa4europe]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

Surely if you are a potential sponsor you’d rather associate your brand with Man City than Man U these days?

City are actual winners and United are a bit of a joke. 

yep, the crazy thing is more that utd carry on making so much despite falling off

city obviously have the inflated etihad deals and then a couple of partners who are friends of a friend but by now they should also have a fair few legitimate deals

[BleedClaretAndBlue]

About right

[villa4europe]

That clever lad with the spreadsheet who left? 

Works for man city now... 

[blandy]

29 minutes ago, DaveAV1 said:

So suddenly stadium costs count towards FFP and Man City got a stadium for nothing. I hope I’m not just being cynical but…………

Man City don't own their stadium, they lease it. Initially they paid the council (who own it) half of everything from tickets sold above the 35K capacity of their old stadium. That was then changed to a fixed yearly rental plus inflation - 3 million a year, I think it was at the start of that agreement, and it's now about double that figure - so roughly £6 million a year. Because they've got it on such a long lease (200 years or whatever) and because they're loaded and because stadium development costs don't count for FFP they've expanded the capacity and are expanding it further by knocking down the family stand (opposite the away end) and making it into a big single tier stand like the one at Spurs, and the income from all that and the similar thing they are doing to Villa of a kind of Box park and wotnot behind it should help them with FFP, eventually.

I dunno whether really expensive lawyers fees to defend themselves against FFP charges brought by the Premier League can be excluded from general FFP compliance, mind.

[DaveAV1]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Man City don't own their stadium, they lease it. Initially they paid the council (who own it) half of everything from tickets sold above the 35K capacity of their old stadium. That was then changed to a fixed yearly rental plus inflation - 3 million a year, I think it was at the start of that agreement, and it's now about double that figure - so roughly £6 million a year. Because they've got it on such a long lease (200 years or whatever) and because they're loaded and because stadium development costs don't count for FFP they've expanded the capacity and are expanding it further by knocking down the family stand (opposite the away end) and making it into a big single tier stand like the one at Spurs, and the income from all that and the similar thing they are doing to Villa of a kind of Box park and wotnot behind it should help them with FFP, eventually.

I dunno whether really expensive lawyers fees to defend themselves against FFP charges brought by the Premier League can be excluded from general FFP compliance, mind.

Sounds like about half of Jack’s wages a week. So that’s a fair amount…….  They’re obviously still minted since expanding the ground was unnecessary since they can’t fill the seats they already had anyway. Then again their fancy lawyer probably manages to convince the PL that they have the capacity to earn loads of dosh and tells a similar story when they’re negotiating sponsorship deals with some company that doesn’t really exist but the PL are happy to tick another box in their investigation anyway. If I was a really cynical old Brummy I’d say the whole thing is bent and stinks to high heaven. Then again the financiers of the PL aka Sky also have a gambling department and yet the PL managed to ban a significant Brentford player for gambling! How does thst work then? I suppose we need to cut them some slack since there would be no football if Sky hadn’t invented it in 1992. Despite what that Scotsman, William Mc someone claims!  It gets worse, getting into the PL is the holly grail for those that aren’t already in it and remaining there is for those that are. But what about the BIG clubs what do they get?  Welcome to the chanpions League and even more riches, don’t worry if you’re already got more money than you could ever need, we’ll invent some rules to keep the “other clubs noses out of the trough. Don’t worry the rules don’t apply to everyone, we’ll give the cheat codes to your lawyers when you need them. Please look under our FAQs in the international section if you happen to be a Middle East state. We won’t let you down if you don’t let us down, we have the same bank account in Switzerland as I’m sure you all have, brown envelopes are so 1970s the world has moved on!  We appologise for the Leicester cock up a few years ago but we thought you were all going to have a year off and didn’t spot that sneaky move. It won’t happen again, we’ve already made an example of Everton to discourage any others getting above themselves. We’re keeping an eye on B6, they blindsided us in the early 80s but we’re on to them this time. Our friends at VAR will take care of them!!

[DaveAV1]

7 minutes ago, DaveAV1 said:

Sounds like about half of Jack’s wages a week. So that’s a fair amount…….  They’re obviously still minted since expanding the ground was unnecessary since they can’t fill the seats they already had anyway. Then again their fancy lawyer probably manages to convince the PL that they have the capacity to earn loads of dosh and tells a similar story when they’re negotiating sponsorship deals with some company that doesn’t really exist but the PL are happy to tick another box in their investigation anyway. If I was a really cynical old Brummy I’d say the whole thing is bent and stinks to high heaven. Then again the financiers of the PL aka Sky also have a gambling department and yet the PL managed to ban a significant Brentford player for gambling! How does thst work then? I suppose we need to cut them some slack since there would be no football if Sky hadn’t invented it in 1992. Despite what that Scotsman, William Mc someone claims!  It gets worse, getting into the PL is the holly grail for those that aren’t already in it and remaining there is for those that are. But what about the BIG clubs what do they get?  Welcome to the chanpions League and even more riches, don’t worry if you’re already got more money than you could ever need, we’ll invent some rules to keep the “other clubs noses out of the trough. Don’t worry the rules don’t apply to everyone, we’ll give the cheat codes to your lawyers when you need them. Please look under our FAQs in the international section if you happen to be a Middle East state. We won’t let you down if you don’t let us down, we have the same bank account in Switzerland as I’m sure you all have, brown envelopes are so 1970s the world has moved on!  We appologise for the Leicester cock up a few years ago but we thought you were all going to have a year off and didn’t spot that sneaky move. It won’t happen again, we’ve already made an example of Everton to discourage any others getting above themselves. We’re keeping an eye on B6, they blindsided us in the early 80s but we’re on to them this time. Our friends at VAR will take care of them!!

P. S. We hadn’t even invented football in the 80s and managed to sort them out once we were running things. Just ask anyone at old Trafford when they got a bit uppity in the early years we shut down them with a hand from the FA who appointed their manager, that Taylor bloke, for the national job. We won’t trouble anyone who knows what he’s doing from your clubs as we’re happy with the nice chap we’ve got now and we’re sure nobody else wants him. Unless the BBC have a work’s team!

[grantholtgolazo]

It’s a shame that financial rules incentivize selling on homegrown talent, takes a lot out of the game for me. 

[Pongo Waring]

 

 

[Nicho]

7 minutes ago, Pongo Waring said:

 

 

I genuinely don’t think it was put in to protect the big clubs its just a happy bi-product for them. 

Stopping the likes of Leeds, Portsmouth and us run yourselves into the ground was the noble reason for it. The fact that the main part of FFP is driven towards a loss as base proves this, you just can’t be too red on the balance sheet.

However if an owner wants to put in ridiculous amounts of money then that should be up to them as long it’s not loaned to the club or secured against the club in anyway. If you want to waste a fortune like Jack Walker in the 90s then go for it.

I don’t think our owners want to hold us up but I’m sure they would put their hands in pockets to accelerate our growth, not being able to do that does protect the big teams we’re challenging against but ultimately that money would go on our balance sheet somewhere when our current income can’t deliver it. That’s FFP outside of all of the other commercial stuff. 

[The_Steve]

43 minutes ago, Pongo Waring said:

 

 

Newcastle voted for FFP in its current form - they are only crying now because they can’t keep spending that Saudi money.  They can't have their cake and eat it now.