FFP

[Somniloquism]

Especially as the IFR offices happen to be in Manchester.........

[AV82EC]

Spurs debt is for their stadium though and probably had a business plan around it which meant it doesn’t overly affect their “football” performance.

[Dante Lavelli]

Spurs debt is for their stadium though and probably had a business plan around it which meant it doesn’t overly affect their “football” performance.

The debt increased £100m in their last set of accounts, so they’re not covering the interest payments at the moment. 

On paper, the stadium means the value of the club has increased and would cover the expenditure/debt.  We’ve had to cash in on Doug, Duran and Ramsey because the rules do not recognise their paper increase in value.

[London Villan]

So with all the improvements to Villa Park and the Warehouse, we could increase its book value?

[ChicagoLion]

Spurs debt is for their stadium though and probably had a business plan around it which meant it doesn’t overly affect their “football” performance.

The debt increased £100m in their last set of accounts, so they’re not covering the interest payments at the moment. 

On paper, the stadium means the value of the club has increased and would cover the expenditure/debt.  We’ve had to cash in on Doug, Duran and Ramsey because the rules do not recognise their paper increase in value.

Not sure what “ the rules do not recognise their paper increase in value” means.
Are you trying to compare a stadium with footballers?

[Dante Lavelli]

Spurs debt is for their stadium though and probably had a business plan around it which meant it doesn’t overly affect their “football” performance.

The debt increased £100m in their last set of accounts, so they’re not covering the interest payments at the moment. 

On paper, the stadium means the value of the club has increased and would cover the expenditure/debt.  We’ve had to cash in on Doug, Duran and Ramsey because the rules do not recognise their paper increase in value.

Not sure what “ the rules do not recognise their paper increase in value” means.
Are you trying to compare a stadium with footballers?

Pretty much.  Clubs are forced to crystalize a good scouting/buying approach by selling players that have increased in value to balance the books. 
Whereas, there's no penalty for building a stadium using debt, despite both approaches over-stretching a club beyond its natural income/expenditure position.

The new government body, mentioned above, has said debt will now be a consideration when controlling spending.

[Sexual Ealing]

A stadium will provide a repeatable income that a player won't though.

[Dante Lavelli]

A stadium will provide a repeatable income that a player won't though.

Fair point, I'm not even sure what I was trying to say now anyway.

[hipkiss92]

A stadium will provide a repeatable income that a player won't though.

Fair point, I'm not even sure what I was trying to say now anyway.

I suppose the point is you don't get any accounting benefit from your football department scouting and developing a player under the radar (like Brighton) unless you sell the player.

[paul_e]

It's fair that buying and selling players is only 1 off income but many teams have made it their entire business model and have largely been very successful with it. The issue is that even with a track record of selling for profit and with many players in their squad who have clearly increased in value none of that football specific financial excellence matters whereas standard commercial finances that would apply to any business are king. I don't know how else you could do it but I'm not a huge fan of pretending that football clubs are purely businesses and not really giving a shit about any sporting aspects.

[AV82EC]

It's fair that buying and selling players is only 1 off income but many teams have made it their entire business model and have largely been very successful with it. The issue is that even with a track record of selling for profit and with many players in their squad who have clearly increased in value none of that football specific financial excellence matters whereas standard commercial finances that would apply to any business are king. I don't know how else you could do it but I'm not a huge fan of pretending that football clubs are purely businesses and not really giving a shit about any sporting aspects.

In case it gets forgotten in the rush to all have a destination stadium but Spurs did this continually from the mid noughties through to the mid 2010’s before they got their shiny new stadium. They still won fuck all but they were considered to be in the greedy six.

[ChicagoLion]

It’s still a precarious business model, it’s like a manufacturer needing the highest quality raw materials but where there is uncertainty over  long term quality and quantity.
It’s  now Brighton Bournemouth it was Southampton, and this business model becomes even more difficult as more and more clubs are looking for the same resources.
Inevitably the cost of acquiring the resources will increase as will the risk of getting it wrong.

[paul_e]

Of course it's risky but so are plenty of things. I just think clubs like Bournemouth are currently being better run than man Utd but ffp doesn't consider that at all.

[jwarry]

Some interesting comments from Damian

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c93dv20llypo

[Stu82]

Some interesting comments from Damian

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c93dv20llypo

It was from the radio wm interview which is well worth a listen.