| FFP 18:57 - Jan 31 with 2225 views | pennblue |
Protects the elite clubs right. I mean you have to build a huge income to compete but cannot build a huge income without serious investment
So on this particular point, it is a farce |  |
| |  |
| FFP on 19:10 - Jan 31 with 2135 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
Surely there must be ways around it (Man City/Chelsea?!). Brum’s owners have gone down the route of a huge ground naming deal. Whilst I’d hate something like that for PR, could Gamechanger not just do a ridiculous sponsor of our shirts or a stand for example in order to inject capital? | | | |
| FFP on 19:21 - Jan 31 with 2057 views | jayessess |
Think the reality is that whatever you do the biggest budgets will dominate. Within that your only choices are really whether "biggest budget" means richest owner or most revenue. |  |
| |
| FFP on 19:25 - Jan 31 with 2015 views | Dubtractor |
| FFP on 19:10 - Jan 31 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Surely there must be ways around it (Man City/Chelsea?!). Brum’s owners have gone down the route of a huge ground naming deal. Whilst I’d hate something like that for PR, could Gamechanger not just do a ridiculous sponsor of our shirts or a stand for example in order to inject capital? |
I'm a little surprised we seem so close to our limit - on the surface of it we must be raking it in from ticket sales, we've broken records on shirt sales, and I don't think we've spent especially big since getting promoted.
Not sure what our wage bill is, though assume we probably had a few promotion increases to players we tempted down to League 1? |  |
| |
| FFP on 19:28 - Jan 31 with 1985 views | homer_123 |
Were you moaning about FFP last season? |  |
| |
| FFP on 19:35 - Jan 31 with 1919 views | jayessess |
| FFP on 19:25 - Jan 31 by Dubtractor |
I'm a little surprised we seem so close to our limit - on the surface of it we must be raking it in from ticket sales, we've broken records on shirt sales, and I don't think we've spent especially big since getting promoted.
Not sure what our wage bill is, though assume we probably had a few promotion increases to players we tempted down to League 1? |
Wage bill will have gone up in the Summer, promotion wage increases are pretty standard I think. We have also paid out £4m+ in fees for permanent transfers this season without making a significant sale. We've also paid loan fees and wages for Williams, Hutchinson, Scarlett, Sarmiento and Travis, plus wages and a sign-on fee for Tuanzebe. So I don't think we should imagine there's a huge pile of unspent money knocking about.
Not sure how close exactly we'll be to the FFP limit. We're still clearly in a position to pay up to £2m plus substantial wages to Sam Gallagher but Blackburn decided he wasn't for sale. | |
| |
| FFP on 19:38 - Jan 31 with 1901 views | norfsufblue |
| FFP on 19:25 - Jan 31 by Dubtractor |
I'm a little surprised we seem so close to our limit - on the surface of it we must be raking it in from ticket sales, we've broken records on shirt sales, and I don't think we've spent especially big since getting promoted.
Not sure what our wage bill is, though assume we probably had a few promotion increases to players we tempted down to League 1? |
Tbf it would be madness for the club to be making it obvious we are rolling in it... thats only going to inflate prices quoted to us, its already proving difficult when we are apparently " constrained" in offers we can make. |  | | |
| FFP on 19:42 - Jan 31 with 1862 views | Exiled2Surrey |
Or have an academy that churns out £20m players every other year… | | | |
| FFP on 19:56 - Jan 31 with 1794 views | SmithersJones |
| FFP on 19:35 - Jan 31 by jayessess |
Wage bill will have gone up in the Summer, promotion wage increases are pretty standard I think. We have also paid out £4m+ in fees for permanent transfers this season without making a significant sale. We've also paid loan fees and wages for Williams, Hutchinson, Scarlett, Sarmiento and Travis, plus wages and a sign-on fee for Tuanzebe. So I don't think we should imagine there's a huge pile of unspent money knocking about.
Not sure how close exactly we'll be to the FFP limit. We're still clearly in a position to pay up to £2m plus substantial wages to Sam Gallagher but Blackburn decided he wasn't for sale. |
The other issue is that it’s a three year rolling period and the allowable losses for league 1 seasons are lower than for the Championship, so we’re up against a tougher standard than our closest competitors. It’s the same thing that has done for Forest in the Prem. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| FFP on 19:59 - Jan 31 with 1766 views | jayessess |
| FFP on 19:56 - Jan 31 by SmithersJones |
The other issue is that it’s a three year rolling period and the allowable losses for league 1 seasons are lower than for the Championship, so we’re up against a tougher standard than our closest competitors. It’s the same thing that has done for Forest in the Prem. |
Is that the case?
My understanding was that all the EFL divisions had the same allowable losses (and same criteria), just that L1/L2 had additional rules specifically controlling the wage bill. | |
| |
| FFP on 20:02 - Jan 31 with 1738 views | LankHenners |
| FFP on 19:25 - Jan 31 by Dubtractor |
I'm a little surprised we seem so close to our limit - on the surface of it we must be raking it in from ticket sales, we've broken records on shirt sales, and I don't think we've spent especially big since getting promoted.
Not sure what our wage bill is, though assume we probably had a few promotion increases to players we tempted down to League 1? |
Suspect it's less that we're scraping around counting the pennies, more that what we're prepared to spend doesn't give us many options with what's available out there. If we're happy to spend £3m+ on Al-Hadami and Gallagher then there's a decent chunk of change to play with but seems clubs either don't want to sell or are asking way above what we consider fair value. |  |
| |
| FFP on 20:25 - Jan 31 with 1611 views | SmithersJones |
| FFP on 19:59 - Jan 31 by jayessess |
Is that the case?
My understanding was that all the EFL divisions had the same allowable losses (and same criteria), just that L1/L2 had additional rules specifically controlling the wage bill. |
I thought it was (the figure of £5m per year in League 1 rang a bell) but I’ve just been skimming thorough the regs - exciting life that I lead - and I think you’re right. | | | |
| FFP on 20:45 - Jan 31 with 1501 views | jayessess |
But without it you'd just have a different cartel, wouldn't you?
Don't know why a cartel of teams owned by petrochemical barons is any better than what we have now. | |
| |
| FFP on 21:02 - Jan 31 with 1412 views | xrayspecs |
| FFP on 19:56 - Jan 31 by SmithersJones |
The other issue is that it’s a three year rolling period and the allowable losses for league 1 seasons are lower than for the Championship, so we’re up against a tougher standard than our closest competitors. It’s the same thing that has done for Forest in the Prem. |
In the championship it is a cumulative three year loss of £39m. We lost £12m the season before last. Last season would likely have been similar given the increased wages and transfer fees being offset by increased ticket sales and merchandise revenue.
This year the TV money is about £8m higher, but again as others have said, our wage bill has gone up again and we have been net spenders on transfer fees.
It is a little more nunanced in practice - not all our losses count - but ball park we have limited headroom this season. It ties in with club comments about FFP and why we are not spending £5m+ on players.
At some point we will need big transfer sales to allow us to reinvest. Which is what MA has been talking about since he joined the club. [Post edited 31 Jan 21:04]
| | | |
| FFP on 21:30 - Jan 31 with 1303 views | Powrigan |
Just funny that it is called “fair play” when it is anything but!! |  | | |
| FFP on 21:31 - Jan 31 with 1290 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| FFP on 20:45 - Jan 31 by jayessess |
But without it you'd just have a different cartel, wouldn't you?
Don't know why a cartel of teams owned by petrochemical barons is any better than what we have now. |
I think having the new money mix it up with the old money, is better than just having the old money teams. |  |
| |
| FFP on 21:44 - Jan 31 with 1222 views | AlanG296 |
The biggest anti-competitive factor we have to face is Trampoline Payments, we are doing remarkably well to compete so we'll with the latest 3 failures from the level above | | | |
| FFP on 21:49 - Jan 31 with 1205 views | jayessess |
| FFP on 21:31 - Jan 31 by Marshalls_Mullet |
I think having the new money mix it up with the old money, is better than just having the old money teams. |
I suppose a bit of variety is nice, but I can't see that it makes much difference to me whether Newcastle can crack the Top 6.
Plus, there's enough reckless owners endangering the existence of football clubs even now, imagine everyone just had carte blanche to spend whatever they like with zero connection to sustainable income. | |
| |
| FFP on 07:59 - Feb 1 with 972 views | Pinewoodblue |
The only way we would be able to spend big would be by selling an asset.
Another problem is we have to take into account we could be spending next season in The Championship and money could be tight next season. |  |
| |
| FFP on 08:22 - Feb 1 with 900 views | pennblue |
| FFP on 20:45 - Jan 31 by jayessess |
But without it you'd just have a different cartel, wouldn't you?
Don't know why a cartel of teams owned by petrochemical barons is any better than what we have now. |
Well you would have a different cartel, but at least anyone could join it, anyone with enough money that is. That is how Man City + Chelsea managed to break into it, but now the rules have changed, it looks pretty difficult to do what they did.
That means we are left in the Newcastle scenario, or assuming we have not got that sort of dosh to throw at it, at best, we are looking at a Brighton / Bournemouth scenario.
Brighton: Won 8, Drawn 8, Lost 6
If we are to ever return to former glory, we would have to start by filling a 60k stadium week in, week out. I personally think that is possible, but we would need to really start thinking outside the box to achieve that, because our offering would need to extend beyond football. Maybe a shopping mall / dining experience / spa mixed football experience, so those who are not interested in football, can still go and spend money. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
