collapse collapse

Please donate to help towards the costs of keeping this site going. Thank You.

Recent Topics

Unai Emery - our manager by adrenachrome
[Today at 02:23:42 AM]


FFP by adrenachrome
[Today at 02:10:34 AM]


International Rugby by dcdavecollett
[Today at 01:12:03 AM]


UEFA Europa Conference League-Knockout stages (Lille) by DeKuip
[Today at 12:01:20 AM]


West Ham v Aston Villa post match by Pat McMahon
[March 18, 2024, 11:47:36 PM]


Games Moved for TV by Percy McCarthy
[March 18, 2024, 11:00:20 PM]


Press-ing on by Archbishop Herbert Cockthrottle
[March 18, 2024, 10:48:26 PM]


Luton A by purpletrousers
[March 18, 2024, 10:24:29 PM]

Recent Posts

Re: Unai Emery - our manager by adrenachrome
[Today at 02:23:42 AM]


Re: FFP by adrenachrome
[Today at 02:10:34 AM]


Re: Unai Emery - our manager by dcdavecollett
[Today at 01:38:48 AM]


Re: International Rugby by dcdavecollett
[Today at 01:12:03 AM]


Re: UEFA Europa Conference League-Knockout stages (Lille) by DeKuip
[Today at 12:01:20 AM]


Re: West Ham v Aston Villa post match by Pat McMahon
[March 18, 2024, 11:47:36 PM]


Re: West Ham v Aston Villa post match by olaftab
[March 18, 2024, 11:36:32 PM]


Re: West Ham v Aston Villa post match by olaftab
[March 18, 2024, 11:27:08 PM]

Follow us on...

Author Topic: Financial fair play  (Read 219641 times)

Offline Risso

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 84709
  • Location: Leics
  • GM : 04.03.2025
Re: Financial fair play
« Reply #120 on: May 28, 2018, 10:21:26 PM »
I think it's a bit of both, it must have been embarrassing for the leagues to have so many clubs going into administration. From 2008-20013 a quick Google and 20 clubs from the Conference North/South level upwards went into administration, 12 were league clubs, since 2013 i'm not sure any have. So something is working somewhere.

And they definitely always want Man Utd, Real, etc at the top of their leagues.

Trying to bring some sort of financial common sense into play was a good thing, but a one size fits all approach that tries to work for the Premier League with teams like Man U and Man City, and League 2 with teams like Scunthorpe and Hartlepool was always going to end with disparities.

Offline David_Nab

  • Member
  • Posts: 4260
  • Location: Luton
  • GM : 24.12.2015
Re: Financial fair play
« Reply #121 on: May 28, 2018, 10:25:03 PM »
FFP is also creating a new problem for the Premiership in that it is cementing small, unfashionable clubs in the league at the expense of others (like us) who pull in more viewers. I can't ses the Chinese paying a fortune to see  Bournemouth play Huddersfield or Watford play Brighton so the product will in time be less able to attract the big TV money of the past both at home and abroad. Last year, our games were often pulling better viewer numbers than many Premiership games.

Which is why the big clubs are now angling to tear up the TV deal that distrubutes money evenly and take more for themselves...basically the same as Real and Barca do in Spain.

FFP based on revenue just helps already established clubs who just use their name to sign more marketing deals..hence why Man United have official Paint and Mattress suppliers and Liverpool have their players shaving their chests on tv ads..


Offline Lastfootstamper

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11333
  • Age: 58
  • Location: Greater Birmingham
  • GM : PCM
Re: Financial fair play
« Reply #122 on: May 28, 2018, 10:34:08 PM »
They could've just borrowed ideas off the colonials, like global merchandising revenue redistribution and a salary cap.

Offline SoccerHQ

  • Member
  • Posts: 42391
  • Location: Down, down, deeper and Down.
  • GM : 19.06.2021
Re: Financial fair play
« Reply #123 on: May 29, 2018, 12:25:37 AM »
Fulham managed to hang to to Cairney last summer so I’m hopeful we can do the same with Jack

Fulham selling McCormack to us for 12m helped them balanced the books nicely and avoided FFP penalties.

Does show you can sell a big player which helps rebuild the first 11 at least.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/dec/15/leeds-blackburn-nottingham-forest-financial-fair-play-transfer-embargo

Forest, Leeds and Blackburn all punished in 2014 and restricted to free transfers and loans with special criteria.

Offline OzVilla

  • Member
  • Posts: 7886
  • Location: Sunshine Coast, Australia
  • GM : 16.08.2023
Re: Financial fair play
« Reply #124 on: May 29, 2018, 04:21:18 AM »
Is the Wolves style model out of the question?  I'm no expert on these things but you'd think an agent would rather his players be put in the shop window/earn him his return far more with us than with anybody else.  Larger fan base also provides greater return for commercial opportunities and merchandise. 

Offline IFWaters

  • Member
  • Posts: 1643
  • Location: down south
  • GM : Sep, 2012
Re: Financial fair play
« Reply #125 on: May 29, 2018, 06:32:04 AM »
If you look at the real problems in the finances it's the stupid long term contracts we entered into in the sherwood and rdm period that have given us unusable dross on megabucks for years.

Conversely SB's deals are loans and short-term (in the main) and don't leave us in financial meltdown. I think he's under-rated on this front.

Even if you look at some of his longer term deals like Lansbury or Bjarni they are usable or sellable. Hogan probably the worst panic buy but I can see him going, albeit at a significant loss.

We will just have to use some younger players, and I'm happy with that. Make do and mend.

Offline Matt Collins

  • Member
  • Posts: 10884
Re: Financial fair play
« Reply #126 on: May 29, 2018, 06:43:08 AM »
Fulham managed to hang to to Cairney last summer so I’m hopeful we can do the same with Jack

Fulham selling McCormack to us for 12m helped them balanced the books nicely and avoided FFP penalties.

Does show you can sell a big player which helps rebuild the first 11 at least.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/dec/15/leeds-blackburn-nottingham-forest-financial-fair-play-transfer-embargo

Forest, Leeds and Blackburn all punished in 2014 and restricted to free transfers and loans with special criteria.

McCormack is a good example. He'd been at Fulham for 2 years I believe, and they sold him to us for a similar price to what they paid.

Under most explanations of FFP I've seen thats only moderately helpful. Fulham would have an amortised cost of (12/4=) £3m pa, assuming a four year contract. So £6m outstanding after two years.

We pay £12m upfront. So the benefit to Fulham is only £6m for FFP purposes. It helps again next year when Fulham don't have to incur the extra £3m hit.

I'm not sure I'm convinced this is right yet. But I've seen this explanation in a few places.

If it is right, you really need to be selling home grown players, or those who've been with you a while, or who've massively increased their value, if you're trying to head off a crisis year.

But given that we only really have grealish in any of those categories, and at the start of the season he probably wasnt worth mega bucks or in that much demand, I'm thinking there must have been alternatives considered or the above is wrong somehow

Offline Matt Collins

  • Member
  • Posts: 10884
Re: Financial fair play
« Reply #127 on: May 29, 2018, 08:09:06 AM »
If you look at the real problems in the finances it's the stupid long term contracts we entered into in the sherwood and rdm period that have given us unusable dross on megabucks for years.

Conversely SB's deals are loans and short-term (in the main) and don't leave us in financial meltdown. I think he's under-rated on this front.

Even if you look at some of his longer term deals like Lansbury or Bjarni they are usable or sellable. Hogan probably the worst panic buy but I can see him going, albeit at a significant loss.

We will just have to use some younger players, and I'm happy with that. Make do and mend.

We should definitely sell Hogan and Lansbury if we can

But I think both are on 40k a week. Who do we think is going to pay that for guys who couldn't cut the mustard here? There's only really the relegated clubs who might feasibly consider it but thst would seem a stupid decision

Offline David_Nab

  • Member
  • Posts: 4260
  • Location: Luton
  • GM : 24.12.2015
Re: Financial fair play
« Reply #128 on: May 29, 2018, 09:48:48 AM »
Swiss Ramble

 
@SwissRamble
 13m13 minutes ago
More
For 2018/19, #AVFC parachute payment falls from £34m to £17m. If we assume no other changes and zero profit on player sales, we can see how much money Villa need to find to meet FFP limit of £39m. The shortfall is £45m, which must be made up by cuts in wage bill or player sales.

Doesn't sound too good ...

Offline Risso

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 84709
  • Location: Leics
  • GM : 04.03.2025
Re: Financial fair play
« Reply #129 on: May 29, 2018, 09:57:59 AM »
Fulham managed to hang to to Cairney last summer so I’m hopeful we can do the same with Jack

Fulham selling McCormack to us for 12m helped them balanced the books nicely and avoided FFP penalties.

Does show you can sell a big player which helps rebuild the first 11 at least.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/dec/15/leeds-blackburn-nottingham-forest-financial-fair-play-transfer-embargo

Forest, Leeds and Blackburn all punished in 2014 and restricted to free transfers and loans with special criteria.

McCormack is a good example. He'd been at Fulham for 2 years I believe, and they sold him to us for a similar price to what they paid.

Under most explanations of FFP I've seen thats only moderately helpful. Fulham would have an amortised cost of (12/4=) £3m pa, assuming a four year contract. So £6m outstanding after two years.

We pay £12m upfront. So the benefit to Fulham is only £6m for FFP purposes. It helps again next year when Fulham don't have to incur the extra £3m hit.

I'm not sure I'm convinced this is right yet. But I've seen this explanation in a few places.

If it is right, you really need to be selling home grown players, or those who've been with you a while, or who've massively increased their value, if you're trying to head off a crisis year.

But given that we only really have grealish in any of those categories, and at the start of the season he probably wasnt worth mega bucks or in that much demand, I'm thinking there must have been alternatives considered or the above is wrong somehow

You’re right that there’s a profit realised on the disposal of an asset, but also the saving on £2m worth of wages per annum is a big FFP bonus for subsequent years.

Offline phantom limb

  • Member
  • Posts: 1464
  • Location: Beep Street
  • GM : 05.02.2021
Re: Financial fair play
« Reply #130 on: May 29, 2018, 09:58:36 AM »
Is it possible to work out how much we are going to save on the wage bill from all of the out of contract players? I would assume that all of the loan players will go back to their respective clubs and we wouldn’t renew contracts for Agnonlahor, Terry, Hutton etc.

Offline Ads

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 39377
  • Location: The Breeze
  • GM : 17.04.2024
Re: Financial fair play
« Reply #131 on: May 29, 2018, 10:04:37 AM »
I guess around £10 million.

Offline SoccerHQ

  • Member
  • Posts: 42391
  • Location: Down, down, deeper and Down.
  • GM : 19.06.2021
Re: Financial fair play
« Reply #132 on: May 29, 2018, 10:18:28 AM »
I think it's a bit of both, it must have been embarrassing for the leagues to have so many clubs going into administration. From 2008-20013 a quick Google and 20 clubs from the Conference North/South level upwards went into administration, 12 were league clubs, since 2013 i'm not sure any have. So something is working somewhere.

And they definitely always want Man Utd, Real, etc at the top of their leagues.

Trying to bring some sort of financial common sense into play was a good thing, but a one size fits all approach that tries to work for the Premier League with teams like Man U and Man City, and League 2 with teams like Scunthorpe and Hartlepool was always going to end with disparities.

I always felt domestically Pompey were the textbook case for FFP.

A club with limit of 20k capacity, hardly any coporate cash coming in yet were paying players like Sol Campbell, Diarra and David James 80k a week (in 2007) and relied on TV money to do this. Think their wage bill after they won the cup in 2008 was 95% wages to income turnover.

Then said owner decides overnight he wants to sell club and dosen't want to put anything more in, huge firesale, relegation and then they fall down the divisions as Sunderland have also done and we could easily have done if Lerner hadn't sold us in 2016.

Of course Pompey were massively over achieving but they should never have over stretched themselves to end up as low as league 2. Anyone can see that although probably some on here would sign up for league 2 if it meant seeing us win the FA cup again! (wink)

I have a bit more leeway with this as it makes clubs think before splashing stupid amounts...or at least it should. We obviously gambled we'd get up within two years so will now have to face the consquences of failing to achieve that aim.

Problem now is with the ridiculous TV money in the premier league so many championship clubs will overspend to try to reach the milk and honey. If 10 + do that as seems the case only three can get promoted so very much odds against.

Once you're up in the prem the demand is then to spend 100m + as everyone else is doing it so your wage bill becomes stupid again.

I can see in ten years time every premier league club spending 200m in a summer. Three will still get relegated and 13/14 will finish out of european places so not really sure what the long term aim of all this is.

Offline Ads

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 39377
  • Location: The Breeze
  • GM : 17.04.2024
Re: Financial fair play
« Reply #133 on: May 29, 2018, 10:29:11 AM »
Terry - 60k p/w
Gabby - 30k p/w
Hutton - 30k p/w
Snoddy - 40k p/w
Johnston -  25k p/w
Grabban - 30k p/w
Onomah - 20k p/w
Axel - 10k p/w

Puts it closer to £12.5 million, plus £4-5 million from the potential disposal of McCormack, Tshibola, Gollini et al and possibly £4-5 million in wages saved. £8 million for Amavi [which I assume would be worth £5 million after amortization] and then anybody's guess on what the RECON commercial deals are worth.

I cannot envisage they're worth less than £12-15 million additionally on top of the [not a lot] value of the current shirt manufacturing and sponsorship. That would leave us neutral and not give us room to add. But then the punishments financially are scaled and its a question of how seriously do they want to take it and I have serious doubts if we'd be the worse offenders or even alone. SHA appear in far bigger difficulties.

I'm also unsure whether that hypothetical £39 million* includes the £8 million Xia is allowed to inject as equity.

* I say hypothetical as its based on nothing changing, when things already have. 
« Last Edit: May 29, 2018, 10:31:40 AM by Ads »

Offline SoccerHQ

  • Member
  • Posts: 42391
  • Location: Down, down, deeper and Down.
  • GM : 19.06.2021
Re: Financial fair play
« Reply #134 on: May 29, 2018, 10:32:32 AM »
Is the Wolves style model out of the question?  I'm no expert on these things but you'd think an agent would rather his players be put in the shop window/earn him his return far more with us than with anybody else.  Larger fan base also provides greater return for commercial opportunities and merchandise. 


I think we've passed that boat.

What's forgotten about Wolves is they were actually in year 2 of their project, the first year they just appointed poor managers like Walter Zenga and Paul Lambert which had them in the bottom half for most of that season.

They learnt from it, continued buying in good players and delivered in the second year. We didn't.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal