FFP

[Baldy]

I think there should be a mechanism in the P&S rules to claim back for long term injuries. Like for Mings and Buendia. Both of them are out for the entire season, yet they'll still be costing us a large amount of money for FFP themselves. Plus, on top of this we will have had to spend extra to get cover in.

If a player suffers long term injury that keeps them out for a season, you should be able to submit the relevant medical evidence and get an FFP credit.

I agree with this 100%

Yes, that seems a very sensible suggestion to me.

I'm only guessing, but players may be insured by the club against injury and any claims payment would go to the club to be included in FFP. Players could also take out their own private insurance to compensate for loss of revenue as the club is not likely to pay full whack (win bonuses etc).

[Sexual Ealing]

If there is insurance I'd guess (I know nothing of insurance. Don't believe in it. Consider it to be a scam) it would only cover the player wages. That still leaves the cost of replacing them with the club. I imagine.

[eamonn]

I was unimpressed by Digne from early on, didn't think he did anything to justify his overly-generous salary and was cursing Gerrard's vanity for our over-spending on him.

Now, I think he's an integral part of our squad and I love the way Emery manages his playing time with Moreno's - both offering different qualities and both still getting plenty of minutes on the pitch. Given Digne's age, we wouldn't get much for him and although his wages are still high, our additions and contract renewals since he signed probably mean that there's at least half a dozen earning more. I'd be inclined to keep him if we can.

[Drummond]

I think there should be a mechanism in the P&S rules to claim back for long term injuries. Like for Mings and Buendia. Both of them are out for the entire season, yet they'll still be costing us a large amount of money for FFP themselves. Plus, on top of this we will have had to spend extra to get cover in.

If a player suffers long term injury that keeps them out for a season, you should be able to submit the relevant medical evidence and get an FFP credit.

Sorry but that goes against the principle of FFP (P&S), because clubs would be making more of a loss. Other clubs would think it unfair and there would be shenanigans around declaring players unfit etc. as has been suggested.

The rules just need amending.

[OCD]

I was unimpressed by Digne from early on, didn't think he did anything to justify his overly-generous salary and was cursing Gerrard's vanity for our over-spending on him.

Now, I think he's an integral part of our squad and I love the way Emery manages his playing time with Moreno's - both offering different qualities and both still getting plenty of minutes on the pitch. Given Digne's age, we wouldn't get much for him and although his wages are still high, our additions and contract renewals since he signed probably mean that there's at least half a dozen earning more. I'd be inclined to keep him if we can.

Surely Gerrard would have only been involved as identifying players he wanted, and then it's up to the club to negotiate fee/wages so it would have been more on Purslow than Gerrard.

[Drummond]

I think the original idea of stopping the richest (i.e. the seemingly accepted thinking is that Platini did it to stop English clubs running away with everything) seems right. However, it doesn't work as what has happened is that the richest get richer and more successful.

Purslow's suggestion seems fair enough to me, in that owners should put money into escrow to cover all the contractual expenses they may have and meaning clubs wouldn't go out of existence- (and owners with money could still spend). But I'd also add a salary cap to ensure it allowed other clubs to find owners who were prepared to invest.

[Dogtanian]

I think there should be a mechanism in the P&S rules to claim back for long term injuries. Like for Mings and Buendia. Both of them are out for the entire season, yet they'll still be costing us a large amount of money for FFP themselves. Plus, on top of this we will have had to spend extra to get cover in.

If a player suffers long term injury that keeps them out for a season, you should be able to submit the relevant medical evidence and get an FFP credit.

Sorry but that goes against the principle of FFP (P&S), because clubs would be making more of a loss. Other clubs would think it unfair and there would be shenanigans around declaring players unfit etc. as has been suggested.

The rules just need amending.

If the principle you're on about is stopping clubs spending themselves into bankruptcy, then you're right. But as no Premier League club has actually gone under, then the rules themselves don't need amending at all as they are working.

The only reason to amend the rules is because the principle we actual want to enforce is that of a level playing field. In which case this would make perfect sense. A club that has worked hard to stay within the rules shouldn't then be derailed by a freak season-ending injury while other clubs can just go out and buy a replacement.

As for people exploiting it, absolutely there will be attempts. But the same goes for every single FFP rule or any other rule in football, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to introduce things.

[rob_bridge]

While Emery has certainly improved the value of multiple players, that doesn't matter for FFP it seems unless we sell them. Another huge flaw. The transfer/asset value of Watkins and Luiz this summer must be around 80m each.

That's a reason that FFP is seriously flawed. In most other industries, you have to revalue your assets at 'fair value' periodically, so if you have a building rising in value, that gets reflected in the accounts. It doesn't happen with footballers, so we've got Kamara valued at nowt, when in reality to buy a player of his standing we'd be looking at shelling out c. £70m. And you could say the same about Luiz, McGinn, Martinez etc.

Conversely the 2 who have been out for the season get valued at say 40% less? Mings value pre injury say 35m would be treated as 20m. Similar for Buendia.

There something in that

Only problem is it would need proper regulation - Liverpool would probably have valued Gerrard at 100m in 2010 even though he would have fetched 50m top

[paul_e]

As I've said before the biggest problem for me is that the £35m figure was set more than a decade ago and has never been revisited. It's clear that we've now reached a point in terms of wages, fees, etc where it needs to be revisited. Average wages and fees have more than doubled since it came into effect and even general inflation (roughly 48% from 2012 to 2024) should be considered. A simple increase from £35m per season to something around £50-55m should be a simple change that would help for clubs like us who are trying to bridge the gap and have the backing to do it.

[PeterWithe]

Mings value is pretty irrelevant for FFP isn't it? Unless he was sold.

[Drummond]

As I've said before the biggest problem for me is that the £35m figure was set more than a decade ago and has never been revisited. It's clear that we've now reached a point in terms of wages, fees, etc where it needs to be revisited. Average wages and fees have more than doubled since it came into effect and even general inflation (roughly 48% from 2012 to 2024) should be considered. A simple increase from £35m per season to something around £50-55m should be a simple change that would help for clubs like us who are trying to bridge the gap and have the backing to do it.

But if the point is sustainability, then letting clubs make more losses seems illogical, regardless of inflation.

[Drummond]

https://x.com/mattburton72/status/1765338645903347726?s=20

Nice thread and some calculations there...

[chrisw1]

I think the original idea of stopping the richest (i.e. the seemingly accepted thinking is that Platini did it to stop English clubs running away with everything) seems right. However, it doesn't work as what has happened is that the richest get richer and more successful.

Purslow's suggestion seems fair enough to me, in that owners should put money into escrow to cover all the contractual expenses they may have and meaning clubs wouldn't go out of existence- (and owners with money could still spend). But I'd also add a salary cap to ensure it allowed other clubs to find owners who were prepared to invest.

But them we have another Man City in Newcastle along with Chelsea firmly back in the game.

It's rock or hard place, but I fancy our chances of clawing ourselves into the elite through excellent management and shrewd commercial dealing better than going head on with three 'Man Cities'

edit - yes the salary cap would help, but I think the horse has bolted on that one.

[Risso]

The accounts are showing on Companies House, if anybody wants to see them.

[chrisw1]

As I've said before the biggest problem for me is that the £35m figure was set more than a decade ago and has never been revisited. It's clear that we've now reached a point in terms of wages, fees, etc where it needs to be revisited. Average wages and fees have more than doubled since it came into effect and even general inflation (roughly 48% from 2012 to 2024) should be considered. A simple increase from £35m per season to something around £50-55m should be a simple change that would help for clubs like us who are trying to bridge the gap and have the backing to do it.

But if the point is sustainability, then letting clubs make more losses seems illogical, regardless of inflation.

I think the regulations only apply to owner funded losses don't they?  So you'd just be increasing the threshold of what owners can inject back to the levels it was when FFP was first applied.