FFP

[amfy]

There’s a meeting in June regarding FFP and it’s “future”
It’s beyond clear current system isn’t fit for purpose

Yeah, that's pretty clear really.

Well they wouldn’t want to actually bring those 115 charges would they?

[DB]

There’s a meeting in June regarding FFP and it’s “future”
It’s beyond clear current system isn’t fit for purpose

Yeah, that's pretty clear really.

Well they wouldn’t want to actually bring those 115 charges would they?

I think some of those go beyond FFP.

[eamonn]

Just thinking of the £30m or so we got from our two brightest youth prospects last summer.

Does Cameron Archer come back to us automatically when t'Blades go down? If so, presumably at a similar price to what we sold him for but he'll probably be less in demand and we're unlikely to get a similar amount again from another club. And Aaron Ramsey is out for the rest of the season with a summer of rehab ahead of him - are we in danger of having to buy both these hitherto upwardly mobile lads back and then in a position where we struggle to get a similar fee for them but have outgrown both even to be retained as squad players? All the more frustrating that it's Philogene who we left for a song but is the one we'd prefer to come back. I wonder how much that will hamper us.

Also, will there be a selling frenzy from lots of clubs as soon as the season is over to get all the summer exits on the books before the end of those with financial year-ends, like us, of 30/06?

[Percy McCarthy]

^^ Archer will be back, as far as I know we haven’t heard the same about Middle Ramsay.

Philogene is quite the conundrum. It would be good if we could keep control of his future for a bit longer, until we see just how good he can be. I’ve said this before but he reminds me of Eze.

[PaulWinch again]

Yes Archer coming back is less than helpful from an FFP point of view.

[Clampy]

There’s a meeting in June regarding FFP and it’s “future”
It’s beyond clear current system isn’t fit for purpose

Yeah, that's pretty clear really.

Well they wouldn’t want to actually bring those 115 charges would they?

I think some of those go beyond FFP.

The fact that they won't even reveal the date/s these charges are being looked at is very odd indeed.

[dekko]

Yes Archer coming back is less than helpful from an FFP point of view.

Not ideal, but presumably if we have to buy him back for, say 15m on a 5 year deal, its only a 3m hit per year for ffp. So we're still better off for FFP than if we'd not sold him at all or just loaned him (obviously not taking into account what he could've done for us on the pitch).

[Demitri_C]

^^ Archer will be back, as far as I know we haven’t heard the same about Middle Ramsay.

Philogene is quite the conundrum. It would be good if we could keep control of his future for a bit longer, until we see just how good he can be. I’ve said this before but he reminds me of Eze.

He is more like bailey than eze in my opinion

[pauliewalnuts]

If Archer comes back, that's going to have an FFP impact.

[pablo_picasso]

^^ Archer will be back, as far as I know we haven’t heard the same about Middle Ramsay.

Philogene is quite the conundrum. It would be good if we could keep control of his future for a bit longer, until we see just how good he can be. I’ve said this before but he reminds me of Eze.

He is more like bailey than eze in my opinion

Those are my thoughts too.

A right footed Bailey.

[Goldenballs]

So is it a fact that we have to buy Archer back? And for the same we sold him for? Seems an odd arrangement if so.

[Dante Lavelli]

So is it a fact that we have to buy Archer back? And for the same we sold him for? Seems an odd arrangement if so.

Buy back yes - pretty sure that’s confirmed if they go down.  the general consensus is that we must buy him back for less than we sold him.

A transfer designed by FFP.  Instant cash on the income column whereas the (smaller) outgoings are spread over the duration of his contract.

[Percy McCarthy]

If Archer comes back, that's going to have an FFP impact.

Quite a small one though.

[Goldenballs]

So is it a fact that we have to buy Archer back? And for the same we sold him for? Seems an odd arrangement if so.

Buy back yes - pretty sure that’s confirmed if they go down.  the general consensus is that we must buy him back for less than we sold him.

A transfer designed by FFP.  Instant cash on the income column whereas the (smaller) outgoings are spread over the duration of his contract.

Unless they can get a higher offer than whatever we've already agreed to? I'm guessing there's a specific date that the automatic buy back kicks in.

There must already be agreed terms he comes back on?

[Matt C]

So is it a fact that we have to buy Archer back? And for the same we sold him for? Seems an odd arrangement if so.

Buy back yes - pretty sure that’s confirmed if they go down.  the general consensus is that we must buy him back for less than we sold him.

A transfer designed by FFP.  Instant cash on the income column whereas the (smaller) outgoings are spread over the duration of his contract.

Unless they can get a higher offer than whatever we've already agreed to? I'm guessing there's a specific date that the automatic buy back kicks in.

There must already be agreed terms he comes back on?

Think so, probably explains why it took a pretty long time to finalize the deal originally.

We sign him back for less than we sold him so it was basically a loan but we still book the full 15m transfer fee as profit for FFP. His return transfer fee will be spread over multiple years so not a massive short term impact (but still more millions that need to be offset).  On top of that we could then sell him again. I think.

I miss the days when you didn’t need to be accountant to understand the game.