FFP

[Tuscans]

Dear, Meanie WalNuts

,Can, we please, start a new topic please, with the headliNe PSR as that is what,,,, it is called now FFP is not the correct,, name for the financial, woes ThiS would be great if we, can all decide ,do this so I will let you decide but I will do it now for everyone's pleasure anD convenience,

regards FootyVil and Tim

[Billy Walker]

In days gone by it was Doug Ellis that held us back, failed to kick us on when we had golden opportunities and so on. In the here and now it is football legislation that's suffocating the Club - this is all on FFP/PSR whatever you want to call it. It's decimating our squad, destroying player morale and giving the Boss a near impossible job. I'd imagine behind the scenes isn't great at the moment but we are fortunate that we have the international break now to regroup and refocus.  Window-wise tonight and tomorrow are huge for us now.

[Toronto Villa]

I don’t agree with a lot of what Simon Jordan has to say but I caught this clip and I agree with almost all of it. The bottom line is the current rules are the end of competitive football at the top end of the game.

[Crown Hill]

I don’t agree with a lot of what Simon Jordan has to say but I caught this clip and I agree with almost all of it. The bottom line is the current rules are the end of competitive football at the top end of the game.

Except he completely misunderstood what the issue affecting us is, why Unai spoke about it and when he said it,

[SamTheMouse]

Of course, there's a simple solution to all this, which is to bin PSR and ban all state ownership or involvement in football clubs.

[OzVilla]

Is the right answer. It’ll never happen though, makes too much sense.

[Dave]

Of course, there's a simple solution to all this, which is to bin PSR and ban all state ownership or involvement in football clubs.

Convenient how the "simple solution" is the precise one that means we're more financially powerful than  nearly every other club (until our ownership changes) but screws the very few clubs who we'd still not be able to compete with.

[aev]

It doesn't seem to be the PSR/FFP that is messing us up though, it is the positive net transfer spend punishment for the rules break that has done us in.

And I am still not clear if we need to be net positive for 3 yrs, or whether adhering to it in year 1 lets us spend what we want (obviously sticking to the existing rules that all clubs are sticking to)?

[SamTheMouse]

Of course, there's a simple solution to all this, which is to bin PSR and ban all state ownership or involvement in football clubs.

Convenient how the "simple solution" is the precise one that means we're more financially powerful than  nearly every other club (until our ownership changes) but screws the very few clubs who we'd still not be able to compete with.

Well, fancy that! ;-)

[Toronto Villa]

Of course, there's a simple solution to all this, which is to bin PSR and ban all state ownership or involvement in football clubs.

Convenient how the "simple solution" is the precise one that means we're more financially powerful than  nearly every other club (until our ownership changes) but screws the very few clubs who we'd still not be able to compete with.

He's arguing for a free market where clubs like us with rich owners aren't limited in what we can do. So yes Liverpool would still have spent 400M. It just means we could have spent 200M and not a negative net spend. The bigger point is under the current model because our commercial revenues will never be that of Man U or Liverpool we will never be able to catch up. And we will forever be selling our best players to essentially stand still.

[LeeS]

Of course, there's a simple solution to all this, which is to bin PSR and ban all state ownership or involvement in football clubs.

Convenient how the "simple solution" is the precise one that means we're more financially powerful than  nearly every other club (until our ownership changes) but screws the very few clubs who we'd still not be able to compete with.

He's arguing for a free market where clubs like us with rich owners aren't limited in what we can do. So yes Liverpool would still have spent 400M. It just means we could have spent 200M and not a negative net spend. The bigger point is under the current model because our commercial revenues will never be that of Man U or Liverpool we will never be able to catch up. And we will forever be selling our best players to essentially stand still.

We’d have spent £200m and added a fortune to our wage bill. So our BAU outgoings would be way way higher than our income. What happens if you still dont get champions league and the owners get bored? We’d be 2018 all over again.

I think all clubs should operate within their means. 

[PaulWinch again]

I’m assuming with any loan fees we’ve netted out positive on transfer spend.

[London Villan]

Soooo....with all the wheeling and dealing, does that get us off the hook from UEFA and mean we can spend in January?

[PaulWinch again]

I don’t think it gets us off the hook. But assuming spend is net positive we can register the new players.

[London Villan]

And spend (within reason)?