| FFP for Dummies Please 09:48 - Jan 31 with 1197 views | GrahamHarbey |
Gents, can some explain to me the concept of FFP, for me I thought was essentially, 'cut your coat according to your cloth' and if you don;t we'll fine you, punish you etc.
So someone please tell me how Wolves have just spunked 13m on one player, there is no way they have generated that kind of dough?
Apologies if there is a really simple explanation for this, but I'd love to hear it.
|  | | |  |
| FFP for Dummies Please on 09:49 - Jan 31 with 1189 views | SWGF |
And while you're at it, can someone explain it to Milne and Evans. |  |
| |
| FFP for Dummies Please on 09:50 - Jan 31 with 1171 views | oldbluestu |
How do you know they haven't generated that, have you checked recent financial reports? |  | | |
| FFP for Dummies Please on 09:56 - Jan 31 with 1148 views | CaptainObvious |
Rules were put in place,
QPR ignored the rules and got promoted,
Leicester circumvented the rules and got promoted,
Ipswich said they couldn't spend because of ffp which was a lie as it now transpires they wouldn't be spending anyway
QPR just refuse to pay the massive fine,
Leicester didn't get punished at all,
everyone started ignoring the rules,
a few teams that had already bought loads of players were punished by not being able to buy some more for a bit,
the premier league massively increased parachute payments to render ffp even more useless so they changed the rules again so you can now spend loads
r.i.p. f.f.p. |  |
| |
| FFP for Dummies Please on 09:57 - Jan 31 with 1136 views | Swansea_Blue |
Losses of 13m per year are allowed, as long as the owner is putting in cash to cover some of the losses (£5m per season if not), and are cumulative over 3 years. So for this season's accounts the league will also look at the previous 2 seasons. They are allowed to make £39m loss over that 3 year period. So let's say they ran at exactly break even in the last 2 years, they could actually spent £39m on a single player (nb. purely hypothetical, as i expect they are running at a loss and wouldn't be daft enough to spend £39m on one player).
The recent change in the rules, increasing in maximum debt allowed, has suddenly opened up an extra chunk of losses you are allowed to accrue. So what's basically happening is that they are gambling by pushing closer to their maximum allowed losses.
That's great if they go up, but if not there's a risk they'lll end up like Bolton if they don't. So it's potentially allowable, but not necessarily sustainable. |  |
| |
| FFP for Dummies Please on 10:03 - Jan 31 with 1109 views | oldbluestu |
| FFP for Dummies Please on 09:56 - Jan 31 by CaptainObvious |
Rules were put in place,
QPR ignored the rules and got promoted,
Leicester circumvented the rules and got promoted,
Ipswich said they couldn't spend because of ffp which was a lie as it now transpires they wouldn't be spending anyway
QPR just refuse to pay the massive fine,
Leicester didn't get punished at all,
everyone started ignoring the rules,
a few teams that had already bought loads of players were punished by not being able to buy some more for a bit,
the premier league massively increased parachute payments to render ffp even more useless so they changed the rules again so you can now spend loads
r.i.p. f.f.p. |
They cannot punish Leicester because they're in the Prem and the Prem doesn't recognise the FL rules on FFP
That's why the FL in QPR's case had to wait for them to be relegated and as far as I know that legal case is still proceeding
Obviously when Leicester are relegated this season the FL can take action next season | | | |
| FFP for Dummies Please on 10:35 - Jan 31 with 1063 views | Basuco |
| FFP for Dummies Please on 10:03 - Jan 31 by oldbluestu |
They cannot punish Leicester because they're in the Prem and the Prem doesn't recognise the FL rules on FFP
That's why the FL in QPR's case had to wait for them to be relegated and as far as I know that legal case is still proceeding
Obviously when Leicester are relegated this season the FL can take action next season |
QPR case is going to a binding tribunal in due to be held in March, I think it is due to owners writing off debts and not counting it as income. There are quite a few clubs sweating on the outcome of that. |  | | |
| FFP for Dummies Please on 10:44 - Jan 31 with 1040 views | mutters |
| FFP for Dummies Please on 09:56 - Jan 31 by CaptainObvious |
Rules were put in place,
QPR ignored the rules and got promoted,
Leicester circumvented the rules and got promoted,
Ipswich said they couldn't spend because of ffp which was a lie as it now transpires they wouldn't be spending anyway
QPR just refuse to pay the massive fine,
Leicester didn't get punished at all,
everyone started ignoring the rules,
a few teams that had already bought loads of players were punished by not being able to buy some more for a bit,
the premier league massively increased parachute payments to render ffp even more useless so they changed the rules again so you can now spend loads
r.i.p. f.f.p. |
The disgrace here is that the Football League just let QPR back in after relegation without holding them to account. QPR was untouchable with respects to the fine when they were in the Premiership.
Its really the Football Leagues job to police and hold the clubs accountable. They are failing, and ultimately it will be clubs like us that try and do it the correct way that gets punished.
This is one of the many reasons why modern day football is getting more and more sucky. Sadly |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| FFP for Dummies Please on 10:46 - Jan 31 with 1024 views | PhilTWTD |
| FFP for Dummies Please on 10:44 - Jan 31 by mutters |
The disgrace here is that the Football League just let QPR back in after relegation without holding them to account. QPR was untouchable with respects to the fine when they were in the Premiership.
Its really the Football Leagues job to police and hold the clubs accountable. They are failing, and ultimately it will be clubs like us that try and do it the correct way that gets punished.
This is one of the many reasons why modern day football is getting more and more sucky. Sadly |
QPR situation is going to a tribunal, hearing is in Feb or March. They have agreed to abide by the ruling. |  | | |
| FFP for Dummies Please on 10:46 - Jan 31 with 1017 views | PhilTWTD |
| FFP for Dummies Please on 10:35 - Jan 31 by Basuco |
QPR case is going to a binding tribunal in due to be held in March, I think it is due to owners writing off debts and not counting it as income. There are quite a few clubs sweating on the outcome of that. |
Ah, didn't spot you'd already added this when I added my post. | | | |
| FFP for Dummies Please on 13:38 - Jan 31 with 946 views | mutters |
| FFP for Dummies Please on 10:46 - Jan 31 by PhilTWTD |
QPR situation is going to a tribunal, hearing is in Feb or March. They have agreed to abide by the ruling. |
Thanks Phil, didnt realise the FL were still pursuing QPR. Its good to know that they are doing something, but surely all they had to say was "cough up or you're not welcome back into the FL". They broke the rules, which were clearly laid out before they started spending money left, right and center | |
| |
| FFP for Dummies Please on 13:40 - Jan 31 with 939 views | GrahamHarbey |
| FFP for Dummies Please on 13:38 - Jan 31 by mutters |
Thanks Phil, didnt realise the FL were still pursuing QPR. Its good to know that they are doing something, but surely all they had to say was "cough up or you're not welcome back into the FL". They broke the rules, which were clearly laid out before they started spending money left, right and center |
This QPR saga seems like it has been going for for years and the FL are doing everything they can, to give them time to sort it. | | | |
| FFP for Dummies Please on 13:46 - Jan 31 with 924 views | DoobDude |
The point of FFP was so that skinflint owners could make an excuse as to why they weren't investing in the club. |  |
| |
| FFP for Dummies Please on 13:46 - Jan 31 with 925 views | mutters |
| FFP for Dummies Please on 13:40 - Jan 31 by GrahamHarbey |
This QPR saga seems like it has been going for for years and the FL are doing everything they can, to give them time to sort it. |
Yep a long time.
Its clear that QPR are not keen to pay, hence the tribunal rather than acceptance of the rules in place. I'd like the FL to be tougher, make examples of clubs that try to circumnavigate the rules, otherwise what is the point.
They didnt pay when they went up (due to them being outside the FL jurisdiction), and now they are back down they are dragging their heels. | |
| |
| FFP for Dummies Please on 13:54 - Jan 31 with 894 views | Radlett_blue |
| FFP for Dummies Please on 13:46 - Jan 31 by mutters |
Yep a long time.
Its clear that QPR are not keen to pay, hence the tribunal rather than acceptance of the rules in place. I'd like the FL to be tougher, make examples of clubs that try to circumnavigate the rules, otherwise what is the point.
They didnt pay when they went up (due to them being outside the FL jurisdiction), and now they are back down they are dragging their heels. |
It's not just about QPR, although as you say, they flouted the rules & hoped to remain outside the FL's jurisdiction. Fernandes was clearly prepared to got o court with expensive lawyers to contest the fine. The real pressure has come from other FL clubs, who felt the FFP rules were too restrictive in terms of allowing them to "invest" (i.e. lose lots of money) in order to compete with the parachute-rich clubs & get promoted. Hence the relaxation. Town & others were against the relaxation. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
