Town managing director Ian Milne believes the recent amendments to the Financial Fair Play rules when coupled with a reduction in Premier League parachute payments and an increase in solidarity payments to Football League clubs are a “move in the right direction”.

Milne said: “The club has taken note of the amendments to the Financial Fair Play rules which we understand coincides with a decision by the Premier League to reduce the number of years of parachute payment to relegated clubs and an increase in payments to Championship clubs.

“Whilst still leaving a huge gap between parachute and non-parachute clubs, it is a move in the right direction.

“In return, the Championship have increased the amount of allowable losses which will assist relegated clubs in balancing their books as they transition from Premier League to the Championship.

“The rules still commit clubs to, in effect, caps on squad expenditure and Ipswich Town will continued to work prudently in the developments of its squad to work within the rules.”

Town were amongst the six clubs to vote against the amendments, which will allow clubs to record losses of up to £39 million over three seasons from 2016/17, but Milne says this was more as the club was happy with the current arrangements rather than hostility towards the new proposals.

“We like the existing rules and we wanted to see them through and we think that’s the right way to go ahead, so we were against it,” he said.

“But I think we can say that we were a weak no. We would have preferred the other rules but we go ahead with these.”

He doesn't believe the increase in allowable losses will make a significant difference to clubs’ recruiting power: “It’s gone up another £7 million. Over the past two or three years, and certainly this year, you look at the price of Championship players, how much can you buy for that sort of money?

“Also considering that on average a Championship player’s salary was £400,000 or £500,000 a year.

“If you put all these sums together, you’re not going to buy a new squad out of £7 million. In your analysis you’ve got to look at how much extra it does mean."

He added: “There is a point of view, which was expressed to me by one chief executive, that because of this increase a player that you’re paying £7,000 a week, their agent will come round and say ‘You’ve got more money, you can afford to pay him £14,000 a week’. There is that risk of that happening.”

The amendments have also seen FFP renamed Profitability and Sustainability, although Milne isn’t sure that’s an entire appropriate title: “They talk about sustainability, that’s the new phrase. Is increasing your losses a sustainable idea? I think the terms cut across one another.”

He believes one of the main reasons some clubs voted in favour of the changes was that for the first time they are guaranteed receiving the annual solidarity payments from the Premier League, which are currently worth £2.3 million a season to Championship sides.

“A lot of clubs wanted this to be put in place primarily because they wanted to stop the ‘gift’ element of the solidarity payment,” he said.

“It was always a gift that the Premier League could take away if they wanted to or if they felt that we were doing things that they didn’t want us to do. This will make it contractual.

“A lot of clubs find it financially difficult and they need that solidarity payment to make ends meet, we’re talking some in the Championship. And we mustn’t forget League One and League Two.

“It makes it certain that when they look at next year’s budget they are going to get that money. It’s not a case of them not knowing whether they are going to get that money.”

He continued: “And the other thing that a lot of the clubs wanted is that that payment will be pegged to how much media income the Premier League gets.

“So, if in the next round of talks with Sky or BT or whoever else, it goes up, this payment will increase.

“We aren’t talking extra mega-bucks, it could be from £2.3 million to £3 million. But it all depends on what the media payments will be.

“Everybody thinks that media money will go up, it normally does, but if BT pull out, I don’t know what effect that will have. But the point for clubs is the contractual solidarity.”

He says the increase in allowable losses may make Championship clubs more attractive to potential buyers: “The old FFP rules meant you would get investors who would want to come in and want to just spend, spend, spend and if it was too low an allowable loss then those investors wouldn’t be interested.

“That probably releases that a bit but not a lot with the way prices in the transfer market are going.”

Milne says the Premier League clubs’ agreement to reduce parachute payments - currently worth £60 million over four seasons - is also a significant step, although with the details of the changes yet to be confirmed: “The agreement has still got to be put into place, as I understand it from the last announcement.

“But they have voted on that. I don’t think they’ve actually put pen to paper on the detail, the Football League and the Premier League.

“The plan is to move it from four years to three years and if a club goes up and then the next season comes down they only get two years’ parachute payments.”

Town and all the other Championship clubs file their accounts for 2013/14 with the Football League at the start of December with the Blues’ results inside the required parameters.

“We’ll be within FFP. We won’t face any embargoes,” Milne confirmed. “I think there’s another story in the Championship about FFP in December once we hear from the Football League what they’re going to do.

“The big story is how they’re going to impose the fines. We’re very interested in that, and the embargoes as well. That’s the bigger story.

“All the clubs agreed it, 75 per cent is quite a big hurdle to get over. They signed up to it and from what I’ve been told by the Football League lawyers this is enforceable, and all clubs will be expecting them to enforce it. This is quite a major test for the Football League.”

Milne says clubs need to be sustainable to ensure their long-term futures and admits that the new situation isn’t ideal, although believes Town are in a better position than most: “You’ve got to have some financial stability on it. Are we there? Probably not.

“We think Ipswich Town have got it right, we’re in a good place, both in the table and also financially.”

Last year’s accounts showed Town’s debt to have risen to £82.44 million but Milne says this shouldn’t be viewed as a concern with all but a fraction owed to Evans - “This is no third party debt” - and with owners in his position well aware that they’re unlikely to see the money they have invested via loans ever again.

“We’re not selling but how much can you get for a football club?” he said. “The money that an owner has put into a club, he’s never going to see that back, unless maybe it goes up [to the Premier League]. But even then I doubt he’ll see that return.

“They’re never going to get their money back. Unless there’s a buyer who wants that particular club and is desperate for it and there’s also somebody else out there who feels equally the same and there’s a bidding war.”

He added: “Marcus really wants to see the club promoted, he’s genuinely in a good place. Great manager, great team.

“I think the performances are now showing through to attendances and that’s a great place for Mick and Marcus to be in.”

Meanwhile, Milne believes the Football League needs to sell itself better than it has in the recent past: “I think what is important now, and I and a number of chief executives are very adamant on this, the Football League has now got to get its own commercial deals in order.

“There were a number of commercial deals which were done three or four years ago which weren’t very good, the media deals.

“I think there’s a lot more money that we as a league - and as a Championship as well - can negotiate from TV companies from overseas.

“I think the Championship product has got a high value overseas and I think if they get it right this could bring a lot of money into the Championship and hopefully the contractual solidarity payment should actually be quite a small part. That would be the ideal because things have changed.

“I think we’ve got brands, both the Ipswich Town brand and a Championship brand, to sell and market.”

He says the current Football League chief executive Shaun Harvey is moving things in the right direction: “Shaun Harvey, to give him his due, has got a totally new commercial team in there and they know what they’ve got to do and quite a number of us are going to make sure that they do it.

“That’s what I call sustainability. Getting value for the product that we produce on a long-term basis.”

Milne believes the play-offs in particular have a great deal of potential: “As a number of chief executives have said, the play-offs are a fantastic tournament and there’s a lot more money we should be able to get for that, a lot more sponsorship, and I think that’s an area which we haven’t really pushed forward as a group."

Photo: Action Images

Suffolk_n_Good added 07:04 - Nov 19 To be fair he speaks more sense than Simon Clegg ever did!!!
12

Ipswich_Loyal added 07:24 - Nov 19 I quite like this Milne chap.
3

wilnisfan added 07:45 - Nov 19 I'm glad someone has a handle on the bigger picture. He also seems to communicate well with all the important people at the appropriate times. Is it me or are we finally getting a decent management team together.
1

Marcus_Evans added 07:59 - Nov 19 Ian is very much a sensible chap and good to hear him being so open. Onwards and upwards!
2

Marcus_Evans added 07:59 - Nov 19 Ian is very much a sensible chap and good to hear him being so open. Onwards and upwards!
0

BlueandTruesince82 added 09:47 - Nov 19 Can someone tell me why, if this is a step in the right direction, did the club vote against the changes? (I though it was because as a club we have stuck to the rules and to have them then changed is a kick in the b******s). Just seems contradictorary
0

Guthrum added 10:21 - Nov 19 Blueandtrue - He's basically saying that there are some parts which are good (contractural solidarity payments, reduction in parachute payments), but that the increased debt allowances are not (much like you said). Therefore, having to go one way or the other, ITFC came down marginally on the 'no' side.
1

SouperJim added 10:43 - Nov 19 Spot on Guthrum, or to put it another way, actually read the story. Milne comes across very well, he's far more media savvy than Clegg was. Yes he's the business side of the club, but he also appears in touch with the fan base and aware of how his comments will be received. I'd like to see more of him, as we still lack that public figurehead somewhat and a real feeling of connection between the owner and the fanbase.

1

Stato added 16:12 - Nov 19 Does anyone know who the other 5 clubs were that voted no. My guess would be 5 other small clubs with no ambition and no money to spend. The new rules allow more spending and by definition will therefore bring more benefit to those clubs who are willing and able to run larger losses in an attempt to get promotion. There is no such thing as a marginal no in this context and it's just spin which won't wash with me. The popular view on here is to never challenge anything the club does and that is part of the reason we are in such deep trouble.

-1

BlueandTruesince82 added 19:26 - Nov 19 Thanks Jim, it hadnt occured to me to read the story, just saying to vote no and then say it is a step in the right direction is an example of a statement which contradicts the clubs action (i'm not saying they were right or wrong, just saying). Bossman, Yeah deep trouble in 4th! Would a club with no ambtion reject 10 million pounds worth of offers? 10 mill taht would have represented 9.9 million in profit?

0

Blogs 298 bloggers

Ipswich Town Polls