| Birmingham and FFP 09:19 - Aug 31 with 1553 views | Keno |
can anyone explain to me how Birmingham are positioned now with regards to FFP rules?
|  |
| |  |
| Birmingham and FFP on 09:23 - Aug 31 with 1509 views | SheffordBlue |
From memory when we were in League One the criteria is based on wages as a % of revenue rather than losses.
Their issue might come if/when they get promoted when it becomes a 3 year rolling period for losses which will include this seasons figures. Ashton talked about this when we were in League One - about making sure we'd meet League One's rules but still be okay when we went up. |  |
| |
| Birmingham and FFP on 09:27 - Aug 31 with 1482 views | MK1 |
Don't think they give a sh1t. Seen Man city, Chelsea, Everton, Leicester, Leeds, Notts Forest and countless others getting away with it, (or minimal punishment) so thought sod it, let's spend what we've got. |  |
| |
| Birmingham and FFP on 09:28 - Aug 31 with 1457 views | Pinewoodblue |
Shouldn’t cause a problem this season but will handicap then next season if they are promoted. |  |
| |
| Birmingham and FFP on 10:15 - Aug 31 with 1299 views | HighgateBlue |
Unless we know how much they are paying their players, there's no way anyone can answer that question.
If you are referring to the enormous transfer fee that they are said to have recently paid, there are (strangely) no restrictions on transfer fees in league one.
As Birmingham are in League One, the P&S rules do not apply to them. They have to comply with the SCMP rules. These place limits on Player Related Expenditure, which includes expenditure such as player wages, by reference to different measures of turnover.
Unlike in higher divisions, a benefactor can inject as much cash as they like, and this injection counts towards one of the relevant turnover measures. However, as I do not believe that transfer fees constitute Player Related Expenditure, they are not relevant in any event.
The relevant regulations are here:
https://www.efl.com/governance/regulations/
Assuming they get back into the Championship, they will be faced with a different regime. Given that they made a £25m loss in 2022/23 (and the current permissible loss in the championship is £39m over 3 seasons), it would appear that they take the view that either:
i) the Championship rules will not be held by an arbitration panel to apply retrospectively to a period when they were in league one; or
ii) the likely punishment they will face in the Championship will be weak and ineffectual (and/or hugely delayed), and they'll be able to absorb it without any negative effects.
The simple truth is that there are only a limited number of places in the Premier League, and the Premier League is the only place where these crazy fees can ever be recouped (and even then, only after a good solid period - we're not as crazy as Brum, and we've just spent £100m...). At some point, even within the current rules, there is surely going to be a high profile financial casualty. Yes we've said this for a long time, but the madness is spreading downwards yet further. There is no relation between what Birmingham have spent and what they can ever hope to recoup. Given how important football clubs are to communities, we need a regulator now. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
