FFP

[DB]

There has to be a way of promoting competition and not exploring the huge resources of the rich clubs, otherwise Newcastle could p*ss the league in a few years and take over from Citeh.

[Pat Mustard]

They'll sell Gallagher this summer for a decent fee, and that'll float it all for a bit longer.

They got 50 million for Mount because Man Utd were mugs. I can't see them getting anymore then 30mil for Gallagher at a push. Depending on how young they are bought before they become "free" money (Colwill, Chilwell were purchased from other clubs), the only other cash-in who came through their ranks is Reece James, but being as he has had to have surgery to fix a hamstring issue, I don't see him bringing in that much.

Not that I am advocating this, but what rules are in place to stop us selling Jacob Ramsey to Chelsea for £80 million, then buying Conor Gallagher from them for the same amount?  Both clubs book the £80 million profit in year one, then spread the cost over 5 years.

[rob_bridge]

Chelsea have brought in an insane amount of money from selling home grown players in recent years, though. I think they are alright for now, but pretty soon if they fail more than once to reach the champions league, or fail to find a home grown gem to sell, they're going to have problems.

The issue that they have with those eight year contracts is that to maintain their financial health they need to find an Abraham / Tomori / Mount / Guehi or two every season for the next decade.

And when you find yoursel as mediocre as Chelsea currently are, anything that they find like that is going to be going straight into the first team. Hopefully their commercial clout starts to dry up soon too, leaving them properly buggered.

Yeah. It'll be Gallagher this year, but then you do wonder at what point they run out of 'runway' like this.

PArt of me think Liverpool  giving airtime to so many youngsters is that they will flog them to the highest bidder. If they get to keep the best 1 or 2 and sell the others than all the better for them. Probably 100m saved up for a rainy day.

[lovejoy]

I do not think the Everton decision means you can piss all over the rules for a 6 point deduction. I would imagine the legal wranglings were a touch more nuanced than that.

[chrisw1]

Given these are Premier League rules, and the clubs that make up the Premier League decide jointly what the rules should be, isn't the most likely scenario here that the clubs between them decide that the current rules are too prohibitive and at some point in the next couple of years they're relaxed?

Before I'm guessing that some of the richer clubs were happy to restrict the likes of us and Newcastle, but with the likes of ManYoo, Chelsea, Arsenal etc suddenly finding themselves on the other side of that divide you'd think they'll find 14 clubs who would prefer not to have to sell youth team players every year?

Agree, it is a poor way of trying to govern the games excesses.
And I doubt they are far off getting 14 clubs to agree.

I honestly think it was far more about stopping any more Man Cities than protecting clubs financially. 

[Rigadon]

Chelsea have brought in an insane amount of money from selling home grown players in recent years, though. I think they are alright for now, but pretty soon if they fail more than once to reach the champions league, or fail to find a home grown gem to sell, they're going to have problems.

The issue that they have with those eight year contracts is that to maintain their financial health they need to find an Abraham / Tomori / Mount / Guehi or two every season for the next decade.

And when you find yoursel as mediocre as Chelsea currently are, anything that they find like that is going to be going straight into the first team. Hopefully their commercial clout starts to dry up soon too, leaving them properly buggered.

Yeah. It'll be Gallagher this year, but then you do wonder at what point they run out of 'runway' like this.

PArt of me think Liverpool  giving airtime to so many youngsters is that they will flog them to the highest bidder. If they get to keep the best 1 or 2 and sell the others than all the better for them. Probably 100m saved up for a rainy day.

You really do need to refer them as 'Klopp's kids'. 

[Monty]

Clubs winning the lottery was always annoying, but the problem was and is the state backing which creates such a ludicrous mismatch that it destroys the integrity of the competition.

[lovejoy]

Clubs winning the lottery was always annoying, but the problem was and is the state backing which creates such a ludicrous mismatch that it destroys the integrity of the competition.

and leaves political interference as another avenue of influence, if you don't let us off this FFP breach we will withdraw than defence contract.

[AV82EC]

I don’t think we can really talk about other clubs winning the lottery when our owners have a fortune in excess of £10bn between them and have been bankrolling the club to FFP limits for the past 5 and a half years, we’re the very definition of a lottery winning club. That’s not to say we haven’t gone about things in the right way but it’s a bit rich moaning about Cit£h etc when about 85 other clubs would give their left arm to be where we are and have our owners and finances.

[Monty]

I don’t think we can really talk about other clubs winning the lottery when our owners have a fortune in excess of £10bn between them and have been bankrolling the club to FFP limits for the past 5 and a half years, we’re the very definition of a lottery winning club. That’s not to say we haven’t gone about things in the right way but it’s a bit rich moaning about Cit£h etc when about 85 other clubs would give their left arm to be where we are and have our owners and finances.

Believe me, I was including how annoying it must be for everyone else when we win it.

[Rigadon]

Frankly, until 115 FC are dealt with, it's difficult to muster the appetite to care. 

[paul_e]

It shouldn't have been the intention of the rules but as soon as they linked it to income with no hard caps it was obvious that it was going to protect the big clubs as much as it stopped teams going to the wall.

Purslow was interviewed a week or two ago and said FFP was introduced to 'protect the long term sustainability of clubs but was never intended to 'stunt' the growth of well financed clubs' (words to that effect).

For consideration, he suggested that wealthy clubs should have the option to put 'a large sum of money into a holding account' to act as a security against any future financial hardship. In return, the club would get more flexibility with the FFP rules. It was only an idea, but he thinks its worthy of consideration and agreeing the finer details (small print). 

My head hurts after reading this thread. I know nothing about accounts I'm only an electrician. Are we in trouble and looking at points deductions this year or next?

No points this year. No points next year as long as we are smart which overall I think we have been.

We'll be pushing 250-260m income and probably a lower net spend on players.

However I still think we will need a prized asset sale - probably Luiz to balance the books comfortably. 

Can someone clarify are we allowed to deduct the 'investments' womens football, training ground from the losses?

Training ground and infrastructure investment is definitely deductable, and was highlighted as £13.5m in the club statement. Academy is also out of scope and is probably part of these accounts (I don't think they're posted seperately). The womens team is a seperate entity on companies house so won't be in these numbers.

[rob_bridge]

Clubs winning the lottery was always annoying, but the problem was and is the state backing which creates such a ludicrous mismatch that it destroys the integrity of the competition.

Mathhew Syed said Abramovic used Chelsea as vehicle to garner citizenship and gloss over shady dealings in acquiring Gazprom. Ooooo look isn't he great for English football.

[Monty]

Clubs winning the lottery was always annoying, but the problem was and is the state backing which creates such a ludicrous mismatch that it destroys the integrity of the competition.

Mathhew Syed said Abramovic used Chelsea as vehicle to garner citizenship and gloss over shady dealings in acquiring Gazprom. Ooooo look isn't he great for English football.

Chelsea are the purest grey-area example. Private or state? In Putin's Russia, such distinctions are so much jam.

[Somniloquism]

Clubs winning the lottery was always annoying, but the problem was and is the state backing which creates such a ludicrous mismatch that it destroys the integrity of the competition.

Mathhew Syed said Abramovic used Chelsea as vehicle to garner citizenship and gloss over shady dealings in acquiring Gazprom. Ooooo look isn't he great for English football.

Chelsea are the purest grey-area example. Private or state? In Putin's Russia, such distinctions are so much jam.

Did anyone check Doug's corpse with a Geiger counter?