FFP

[Rory]

Someone’s posted a stat up on Facebook saying we’ve sold £262m of players in the last 13 months.  How on earth are we still not able to spend?!

Because wages to income ratio is the current issue, from what I understand?

Problem being that when we also need to break even on ingoing/outgoing player transfers, the most saleable assets are our youngsters who are at maximal potential and also on the lowest wages.

So every time we sell a low-wage squad player, we have to sign a player at the same level from elsewhere who is (understandably) holding out for higher wages to sign for us.

We as fans hope they are a sufficient improvement to justify the additional cost, but ultimately the wage bill will likely go up.

As others have said, we could really do with an outstanding crop of youngsters to come in and fill some places in the squad, if not the team.

[KevinGage]

Someone’s posted a stat up on Facebook saying we’ve sold £262m of players in the last 13 months.  How on earth are we still not able to spend?!

While the entire system does feel genuinely rigged we don't help ourselves when we sign the likes of Onana for £50 million and Maatsen for the best part of £40 mill.

[Rico]

This is the point. The system is rigged to protect the so called big 6. A similar system applies in European competitions to protect the European big clubs. We're just trying to play catch up and negotiating the rules as they are now. They're not fair and heavily biased against the likes of Villa, Forest or Brighton.

[DB]

It was mentioned before but, if any new or existing owner can put aside a lump sum to be used where it won’t be touched but used as financial security. If FFP really is about protect clubs from bad financial management…rather than stopping any other clubs breaking the existing status.

[PeterWithesShin]

Five and a half years later and we're still having the same conversations

I still think the basic idea of FFP is sound, stopping clubs spending money they don't have isn't a bad thing. But what about clubs/owners that do have the money, there has to be a way for them to invest the money. Whether it involves money going into escrow or what i'm not sure but stopping people spending their own money seems as bonkers as letting clubs spend money they didn't have.

[DB]

Five and a half years later and we're still having the same conversations

I still think the basic idea of FFP is sound, stopping clubs spending money they don't have isn't a bad thing. But what about clubs/owners that do have the money, there has to be a way for them to invest the money. Whether it involves money going into escrow or what i'm not sure but stopping people spending their own money seems as bonkers as letting clubs spend money they didn't have.

Cheers.
Prob will be in another five and a half years, plus asking when we find out about Citeh’s charges.

[brontebilly]

Someone’s posted a stat up on Facebook saying we’ve sold £262m of players in the last 13 months.  How on earth are we still not able to spend?!

While the entire system does feel genuinely rigged we don't help ourselves when we sign the likes of Onana for £50 million and Maatsen for the best part of £40 mill.

That's true, though we got up to some funny business last summer with the likes of Everton, Chelsea and Juve. Whether those fees are true or not is up for debate I suspect.

Did we really need to go all in last January with signing five players, two of which we didn't even register for European football, if income/wage ratio was under such pressure? If we didn't bottle it on the final day it would have been worth it I guess but it was a big gamble. Beating Brugge would have brought in some income I guess.

From the previous season when we did get over the line. I guess Zaniolo flopped but I don't recall that squad being overly bloated wage wise.

[lovejoy]

Our revenue being too low doesn’t help. Yet the system is so rigged that we earned less from Europe last season than Man City despite finishing above them in the table and going further in the competition. If that isn’t rigged I dont know what is.

[kippaxvilla2]

Forest are spending away knowing they are surely going to have problems with UEFA this season.  Which is another thing if uefa are so concerned then why don’t they look at the SCR breach ahead of a tournament rather than afterwards.  Eg if Forest were to win it this season and breach they’ll just get a fine not the cup taken away!

[Rico]

I've been saying for years that a simple solution to FFP would be to allow all clubs to spend £100m at the start of the season. For every 10m that you overspend then you get a three point deduction. Therefore if you want to spend big, then you know that you will start the season on negative points. It's a risk, but if you're willing to take the point deduction then so be it!

[Somniloquism]

I've mentioned before, can ANYONE actually point me to Chelsea having a 12 month extension? Several people have posted they have done this but I can't find any official mention at all. As they already have a bigger, and more extended punishment then we do fo 2 years of finance issues, I would be surprised if it was allowed to them and no-one else.

I've linked it before but if you look for the actual ruling from UEFA it says that years 2-4 they need to comply with the same restrictions we have but this season they have to meet targets set in an interim business plan that was agreed between UEFA and the club.

So not complete freedom to do whatever they want but clearly it allows them to throw money around again.

This is their ruling. Seems almost the same as ours in all text apart from their punishment has been greater due to more breaches. (bigger fines, they have the Squad cost rulings applied for two years no matter what and more if they don't reach the targets).

https://editorial.uefa.com/resources/029b-1e280acc9f0c-a8b2ed192749-1000/chelsea_summary_version_4-year_sa_20250704173903.pdf

[Tuscans]

https://x.com/i/status/1956633537412534620

[Somniloquism]

Did we really need to go all in last January with signing five players, two of which we didn't even register for European football, if income/wage ratio was under such pressure? If we didn't bottle it on the final day it would have been worth it I guess but it was a big gamble. Beating Brugge would have brought in some income I guess.

Higher league finish with about 2.5mil per position. Where would be have been without the boost of "fresh" players in the squad? So could have been £5mil minimum.

More TV coverage with Rashford being in the side and then our push for CL. I suspect some of those matches wouldn't have been shown if we hadn't improved positions since Jan. Another £3mil or so maybe?

Qualifying for the quarters of Champs league was about £10mil straight off with further TV and stadium income adding to that.

So I would say the gamble paid for itself even without CL again. Also as we would have been punished by UEFA either way, you could argue having the higher Rashford and Asensio wages on the board to them compare against Malen and Guessand for any cost analysis might fall in our favour more as well. (Depending on the actual UEFA costings).

[Percy McCarthy]

Forest are spending away knowing they are surely going to have problems with UEFA this season.  Which is another thing if uefa are so concerned then why don’t they look at the SCR breach ahead of a tournament rather than afterwards.  Eg if Forest were to win it this season and breach they’ll just get a fine not the cup taken away!

According to this bloke on twitter…

https://x.com/espenstrand/status/1956631165592342864?s=46&t=GdM6cpVxe5IloByNCRheWA

[paul_e]

I've mentioned before, can ANYONE actually point me to Chelsea having a 12 month extension? Several people have posted they have done this but I can't find any official mention at all. As they already have a bigger, and more extended punishment then we do fo 2 years of finance issues, I would be surprised if it was allowed to them and no-one else.

I've linked it before but if you look for the actual ruling from UEFA it says that years 2-4 they need to comply with the same restrictions we have but this season they have to meet targets set in an interim business plan that was agreed between UEFA and the club.

So not complete freedom to do whatever they want but clearly it allows them to throw money around again.

This is their ruling. Seems almost the same as ours in all text apart from their punishment has been greater due to more breaches. (bigger fines, they have the Squad cost rulings applied for two years no matter what and more if they don't reach the targets).

https://editorial.uefa.com/resources/029b-1e280acc9f0c-a8b2ed192749-1000/chelsea_summary_version_4-year_sa_20250704173903.pdf

As I said:

"In the 2025/26 season, the Club will have a maximum Football Earnings deficit for the
reporting period ending in 2025 equivalent to the projected deficit submitted in the
business plan (“2025 Target”)."

So this season they have a target that is set in a separate agreement with UEFA that allows them far higher losses than us but at the cost of being a year longer.