FFP

[sid1964]

It is so important that we increase our commercial revenue, to try and keep within FFP rules

I would imagine that each summer we may need to sell a player so we can then re-invest in the team

[Villan82]

It is so important that we increase our commercial revenue, to try and keep within FFP rules

I would imagine that each summer we may need to sell a player so we can then re-invest in the team

Which is why the development should have continued as planned!

[Ian.]

Maybe gone are the days a young local lad can dream to succeed at his local side as he’ll know he will have to be sold off. What a shame that it’s come to this.

Foden / Saka / Ramsey / Alexander-Arnold / Rashford suggest that they still could.

Our current "one" in Ramsey isn't wildly different to say, our '96 League Cup final side. And we had to buy Taylor. So have things really changed that much? If you're good enough you'll probably play. If you're not, then you'll probably be sold.

Yes but it’s changed again hasn’t it? In very recent times, last summer we’ve sold three players. If this carries on, my point stands, since the emergence of Foden and Saka and our Jacob, FFP is starting to bite more and more.

[Ads]

£80m over 8 years compared to £79m Spurs make additionally on old WHL, per season.

Ignoring inflation for yet more back of a fag packet maths, but £632m Spurs make in 8 years, our £80m net increase is piss in the wind whether it's there or not.

That right there is why a delay makes no material odds to catching our rivals up and why the North does not make any long term sense.

The case for a new ground couldn't be stronger.

[pauliewalnuts]

If a club, any club, can not redevelop one end of their ground because of the shorter term impact on FFP (ie the lost revenue) then that surely pushes them to building new stadiums instead, which you'd have thought is, when it's a historic venue, going to be detrimental to the historic nature of the league. It is very short termist.

[sid1964]

Looks as though Wolves could be the next club that may have a points deduction - it seems so unfair that Chelsea etc.. can spend with no issues regarding FFP

May be the reason for the stopping of the North Stand re-development is that the club could not afford to lose the revenue for a few seasons, whilst the stand was being rebuilt

I wonder if the extra seats could be achieved by filling in one of the corners by the North Stand

Newcastle director of football has already told their fans, that they will need to "player trade" in the summer, maybe we will have to do the same

[Risso]

£80m over 8 years compared to £79m Spurs make additionally on old WHL, per season.

Ignoring inflation for yet more back of a fag packet maths, but £632m Spurs make in 8 years, our £80m net increase is piss in the wind whether it's there or not.

That right there is why a delay makes no material odds to catching our rivals up and why the North does not make any long term sense.

The case for a new ground couldn't be stronger.

I think it could end up being more than that with European receipts on top, plus summer concerts etc, and also higher ticket prices. I reckon if you did that and the Witton plus corners, you could be looking at en extra £30m a year potentially. Still miles behind Spurs, but a) we'll never be able to charge as much as London clubs and b) it's a damn sight better than doing nothing for 10 years. If we rebuild elsewhere, you've got that massive wait, and would still only have a 60,000 seater stadium that isn't going to bring in as much as Spurs, however good it is.

[Risso]

Looks as though Wolves could be the next club that may have a points deduction - it seems so unfair that Chelsea etc.. can spend with no issues regarding FFP

May be the reason for the stopping of the North Stand re-development is that the club could not afford to lose the revenue for a few seasons, whilst the stand was being rebuilt

I wonder if the extra seats could be achieved by filling in one of the corners by the North Stand

Newcastle director of football has already told their fans, that they will need to "player trade" in the summer, maybe we will have to do the same

Loss of revenue due to building a new stand is an allowable "extraordinary cost" for FFP.

[LeeS]

Presumably if we host a concert we just get a fixed rental fee from the promotor, irrespective of tickets sold. If that is correct, then why doesn't a rich owner just rent out the stadium for his kids' to play in every day?

[Dave]

Maybe gone are the days a young local lad can dream to succeed at his local side as he’ll know he will have to be sold off. What a shame that it’s come to this.

Foden / Saka / Ramsey / Alexander-Arnold / Rashford suggest that they still could.

Our current "one" in Ramsey isn't wildly different to say, our '96 League Cup final side. And we had to buy Taylor. So have things really changed that much? If you're good enough you'll probably play. If you're not, then you'll probably be sold.

Yes but it’s changed again hasn’t it? In very recent times, last summer we’ve sold three players. If this carries on, my point stands, since the emergence of Foden and Saka and our Jacob, FFP is starting to bite more and more.

It definitely helps the FFP situation, but I'd say that it's incidental. We've sold them because other clubs offered us a value that we were happy to accept.

If Archer had properly broken through 18 months ago, displaced Watkins as our starting striker and scored 15 goals last season, we wouldn't have sold him just to make our FFP situation better.

The combination of the youth players we are developing now being better, more valuable and in demand than they were before, and us being better than we were so youth players will find it harder to break into our team mean that we will sell more of them than we did, for more money than we did.

But any that are good enough are still going to end up playing.

[olaftab]

From SQaF website.
#   Club   2019/20   2020/21   2021/22   3-Year P/L
1   Liverpool   -£9.5m   £69.1m   £7.5m   £67.1m
2   Sheffield United   £19m   £9.6m   £17.7m   £46.3m
3   Burnley   £0.5m   £0.2m   £31.2m   £31.9m
4   West Ham   £22.1m   -£8.6m   £12.3m   £25.8m
5   Tottenham   -£83.8m   £70m   £16m   £2.2m
6   Man City   £2.4m   -£44.6m   £41.7m   -£0.5m
7   Luton Town   £3m   -£1.9m   -£5.9m   -£4.8m
8   Newcastle   -£26m   £77.4m   -£70.7m   -£19.3m
9   Brentford   -£10.3m   -£53.2m   £25.1m   -£38.4m
10   Nottingham Forest   -£15.9m   -£15.5m   -£45.6m   -£77m
11   Bournemouth   -£60.1m   £17m   -£55.5m   -£98.6m
12   Arsenal   -£73.7m   £3.3m   -£45m   -£115.4m
13   Wolves   -£21.1m   -£112.1m   -£19m   -£152.2m
14   Crystal Palace   -£58m   -£75.7m   -£24.2m   -£157.9m
15   Brighton   -£67m   -£117.5m   £24.1m   -£160.4m
16   Fulham   -£45.2m   -£57.9m   -£94.4m   -£197.5m
17   Man United   -£92.9m   -£93.9m   -£115.5m   -£302.3m
18   Aston Villa   -£32.1m   -£274.9m   £0.4m   -£306.6m
19   Chelsea   -£145.6m   -£142.1m   -£121.3m   -£409m
20   Everton   -£120.9m   -£354.8m   -£44.7m   -£520.4m
As you can see in the table above, nine teams have spent over the permitted three-year loss limit of £105 million, with Everton racking up a scarcily believable loss of over half a billion.



However, the league has shown some flexibility regarding the punishments as the 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons were heavily impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. That said, Everton are under investigation for breaches of FFP rules, although it’s not clear what the potential punishment may be.

During the same period, Liverpool made an overall profit of £67.1million between 2019/20 and 2021/22 which puts them in the healthiest position.

West Ham and Tottenham also made a profit, albeit small ones, over the same time period, while Sheffield United and Burnley recorded positive tallies in each of the seasons accounted for.

Manchester City made profits in 2019/20 and 2021/22 with the club’s three-year rolling total just shy of break-even at -£500k.

2023/24 Financial Fair Play Report
As the table below shows, the 20 clubs that will play in the 2023/24 Premier League campaign made a total combined loss of -£465.8m in 2021/22

A deficit of close to half a billion highlights the giant cost in pursuing glory and in most cases, mere survival.

So, which clubs currently have issues and who is steering clear of possible FFP sanctions?

Everton, who recorded losses in each of the previous six seasons, including a giant £354.8m in 2020/21, were charged with alleged breaches of Financial Fair Play rules in March 2023 and referred to an independent commission.



The Toffees finances appear bleak and the club will likely have to continue shaving a considerable wage bill in order to adhere to FFP regulations.


Manchester City are another club to have been charged after allegedly breaking Financial Fair Play rules around 100 times over a nine-year period, starting in 2009.

In more recent times, the Premier League champions recorded a profit of nearly £42m in 2021/22. Winning the treble in 2023 pocketed the club a further £294m in prize money, according to The Telegraph, which will give City real wriggle room when it comes to further spending to boost their squad.

Chelsea, meanwhile, recorded major losses between 2019/20 and 2021/22, totalling £409m.



During the 2022/23 season, the Blues splurged more than half a billion pounds on players, with 16 new faces costing a total of £585.5m in transfer fees.

However, despite the frantic spending, the club insists they continue to comply with Premier League financial regulations and so there is no FFP issue.

The Stamford Bridge club were able to sign new players without falling foul of FFP regulations due to amortisation which means, rather than spending big in one go, they have spread transfer fees over a number of years and it is these figures that would be used in FFP calculations.

Manchester United have struggled to repeat the success the club enjoyed under Sir Alex Ferguson but have spent more than £1 billion trying.

Now with United in substantial debts – the club recorded a combined loss of £302.3m in the three seasons between 2019 and 2022 – Financial Fair Play is lurking.

Still one of the biggest clubs on the planet, the Red Devils’ revenue dwarfs some Premier League clubs but they must achieve success or cut costs if they are to avoid FFP ramifications.

Newcastle were taken over by Saudi Arabian state-funded new owners in 2021 and were expected to spend big. The Magpies’ accounts covering 2021/22 showed a loss of £70.7 million, a turnover of £180 million and a wages-to-turnover ratio of 94.6%, well above the previous year’s figure of 76.2%.

This sort of financial report, if repeated, would almost certainly see them fall foul of the EPL’s FFP rules. Competing in the Champions League, having qualified in 2023, will increase money coming into the club, however.

In August 2022, Arsenal were reportedly placed on a watchlist by UEFA after 20 clubs across the continent were identified by the football governing body as at risk of breaching FFP regulations in the year 2021-22.

The Gunners made combined losses of -£115.4m across the three seasons but, according to analysts, narrowly stayed within FFP limits.



Liverpool and Tottenham each recorded a profit between 2019/20 and 2021/22 standing the Reds and Spurs in a strong position both in terms of adhering to FFP rules and having the scope to make additions to their team.


West Ham smartly improved their squad and standing in recent seasons, culminating in the Hammers’ Europa Conference League triumph. The club from the capital recorded a total profit of £25.8m in the three seasons starting 2019/20 and will hope to continue their savvy upward trajectory.

Aston Villa recorded a small profit of £400k in 2021/22 after a loss of -£274.9 and will again be buoyed in 2023/24 after qualifying for Europe for the first time since 2010.

Sheffield United and Burnley built on three consecutive seasons of profit by securing automatic promotion to the Premier League a year later.



As recently as April 2022, Championship clubs had a £39million threshold for losses over a three-year period.

Luton Town spent all three seasons in the second tier from August 2019 to May 2022 and recorded a loss of just £4.8m in that time period.

Winning the play-off final, dubbed the richest game in football, by beating Coventry on penalties to earn a place in the top-flight, Luton stand to make at least £170, following their promotion.

Playing in the big time, all three clubs that went up in 2023 will now have to decide how to take the next step. Some promoted sides will spend vast sums on new players in a bid to avoid the drop, while others will try to remain frugal. It is a giant risk that can lead to a great reward but ultimately, FFP is designed so that club’s don’t put their future on the line for immediate success.

Brighton and Brentford were lauded for how they operated during the 2022/23 season. Handed particular kudos for how they recruit, the Seagulls qualified for Europe while the Bees secured a top-ten finish.

Looking at the figures for 2021/22, it is no surprise to see the two clubs make a £25m profit each.

It must be noted Brighton did make an overall loss between 2019 and 2022 but the East Sussex side have already cashed in on one of their main assets heading into the 2023/24 season and look to have a bright future if they continue on the same track.

Bournemouth, who were relegated from the Premier League in 2020 before securing their return two years later, lost nearly £100m during that time.

Fulham, meanwhile, who won the Championship title in 2022, bouncing straight back to the Premier League after being demoted, were in the red by nearly double the amount of the Cherries, recording three consecutive seasonal losses totalling £197.5m.



Nottingham Forest lost a total of £77m during the three seasons leading to their 2022 play-off final triumph which earned them a place in the top-flight. It will be interesting to see the club’s figures for 2022/23 after signing a total of 30 players during their first Premier League campaign in 23 years.

Crystal Palace are now an established Premier League club and the 2023/24 season will be their eleventh consecutive campaign in the top-flight. However, the stay hasn’t come cheaply with the Eagles recording a combined loss of £157.9m between 2019/20 and 2021/22.

Wolves are another club to make consecutive annual losses in recent times. Earning a profit the season they won the Championship title in 2018, the Midlands club have since lost money totalling £152.2million since 2019/20.

As the Premier League competition continues to grow ever fiercer, clubs will have to wrestle with soaring transfer costs while keeping to the parameters FFP imposes in what continues to be a challenging juggling act.

[Percy McCarthy]

According to the accounts, that £274m loss is bollocks.

Again on the accounts, last three years have been break even, £99m loss, and £37m loss.

[Smirker]

No way have we made a 300m loss over the last 3 years.

[Lastfootstamper]

I was thinking that. It wasn't compiled by a tinfoil-hat-wearing Bristolian, was it, by any chance?

[Beard82]

FFP isn’t fit for purpose.  It needs a serious revamp and look at things like how finance is funded - is it debt or equity.

Also 110m should be higher due to transfer and general inflation.

Finally no one should be subjected to any points deduction until Man City’s thing is resolved 9 years of cheating allegedly.  It’s not fair that some clubs should be fined and have deductions while Man City case remains open.

Finally it is anti competitive and causing clubs to make bad long term decisions for accounting reasons