Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

Financial Fair Play investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
nikom court said:
this why nothing will happen,
what city have done is 100 times worse than everton,
its all about the prem brand,they arent going to admit it is corrupt!
Click to expand...
it all comes down to accountability.
If the Prem punish us, they are essentially admitting to their own failings over several seasons.
We aren't City, we weren't winning titles, we don't have a stellar legal team tying Uefa and the Prem in knots. Our situation is completely different to them. We've submitted our accounts - that's our responsibility. We've been open, honest and transparent, supposedly cooperated with the Prem the last few seasons and they have signed off and approved our books.
That doesn't mean if we've broken the rules we're blameless because of course we're not but the Premierleague are just as accountable if they've given them the ok.
 
There isn’t effectively any way of introducing FFP type rules that will fit every football club . If you accept that then you won’t get too worked up when, as most supporters do, compare apples with pears.

For instance let’s look at the £105 million allowable loss over 3 years. That number will apply to say Bournemouth with circa £360 million turnover over a 3 year period or about 30% of turnover the same as it does with say Utd’s annual number of say £600 million or £1.8 billion over so they can only loose circa 9% of turnover & dependant on how you see the argument it could be said it well be more advantageous to Bournemouth.

Then you get the notion of a level playing field. Bear in mind FFP is a UEFA model so is everyone ok with that playing field to include say Holland, Belgium , Luxembourg or even Wales or come to that Gibraltar? The simple fact is that teams that finish in relegation positions in the PL earn far more than most teams in Europe.

I still haven’t seen the full details of the new UEFA FFP model but what I have read will change matters and the fact that the monitoring period is stated to be over a January to December period as opposed to a clubs accounting year is significant change and again from my limited reading those changes are already in place meaning failure to hit the 90% of income( after allowances) spent on wages/ amortisation/ agents fees certainly won’t hurt clubs with the bigger numbers in terms of income. Nor will they be too worried because the sanctions being suggested are minor fines because those fines have to be applied equitably throughout European football.

But forget all this the biggest threat in all this is that say Utd turnover £600 million and after the wages etc and other allowances there is £75 million still in the pot that money almost certainly will find its way into the owners pockets by way of dividends. Is that good for football?

It is inevitable that the PL rules will ultimately have to mirror UEFAs but till they do change what’s in place will be what clubs will be measured against. The Everton charge is about reported numbers and that will all most certainly be proven but the issue then won’t be about having a guilty finding it will be what the sanction is and my guess is will twofold 1) a fine and 2) a reduction in squad size. It certainly won’t be a points deduction

Then to City . Their charge centres around manipulating the numbers from disguised payments to the manager to disguised payments to player via ,it seems, outsourcing image rights payments.

Of course FFP and the PLs version were the reason why city took the approach suggested but they are charged with not just bending FA and PL rules they are charged with breaking them
 
WestStandLower said:
There isn’t effectively any way of introducing FFP type rules that will fit every football club . If you accept that then you won’t get too worked up when, as most supporters do, compare apples with pears.

For instance let’s look at the £105 million allowable loss over 3 years. That number will apply to say Bournemouth with circa £360 million turnover over a 3 year period or about 30% of turnover the same as it does with say Utd’s annual number of say £600 million or £1.8 billion over so they can only loose circa 9% of turnover & dependant on how you see the argument it could be said it well be more advantageous to Bournemouth.

Then you get the notion of a level playing field. Bear in mind FFP is a UEFA model so is everyone ok with that playing field to include say Holland, Belgium , Luxembourg or even Wales or come to that Gibraltar? The simple fact is that teams that finish in relegation positions in the PL earn far more than most teams in Europe.

I still haven’t seen the full details of the new UEFA FFP model but what I have read will change matters and the fact that the monitoring period is stated to be over a January to December period as opposed to a clubs accounting year is significant change and again from my limited reading those changes are already in place meaning failure to hit the 90% of income( after allowances) spent on wages/ amortisation/ agents fees certainly won’t hurt clubs with the bigger numbers in terms of income. Nor will they be too worried because the sanctions being suggested are minor fines because those fines have to be applied equitably throughout European football.

But forget all this the biggest threat in all this is that say Utd turnover £600 million and after the wages etc and other allowances there is £75 million still in the pot that money almost certainly will find its way into the owners pockets by way of dividends. Is that good for football?

It is inevitable that the PL rules will ultimately have to mirror UEFAs but till they do change what’s in place will be what clubs will be measured against. The Everton charge is about reported numbers and that will all most certainly be proven but the issue then won’t be about having a guilty finding it will be what the sanction is and my guess is will twofold 1) a fine and 2) a reduction in squad size. It certainly won’t be a points deduction

Then to City . Their charge centres around manipulating the numbers from disguised payments to the manager to disguised payments to player via ,it seems, outsourcing image rights payments.

Of course FFP and the PLs version were the reason why city took the approach suggested but they are charged with not just bending FA and PL rules they are charged with breaking them
Click to expand...
I don't know if wage bills come into these equations, but according to Planet Football Man Utd top the wage bill at £222.9 million, Chelsea 2nd at £169,7 mill,
Man City £163 mill, rs 4th at £141,7 mill, horse punchers at 10th with £62,6 mill. We're at 12th with just £43,1 mill.
 
bluenorsky said:
I don't know if wage bills come into these equations, but according to Planet Football Man Utd top the wage bill at £222.9 million, Chelsea 2nd at £169,7 mill,
Man City £163 mill, rs 4th at £141,7 mill, horse punchers at 10th with £62,6 mill. We're at 12th with just £43,1 mill.
Click to expand...
It will be the cost of the squad which includes wages, amortised fees and sums paid to agents.
 
bluenorsky said:
I don't know if wage bills come into these equations, but according to Planet Football Man Utd top the wage bill at £222.9 million, Chelsea 2nd at £169,7 mill,
Man City £163 mill, rs 4th at £141,7 mill, horse punchers at 10th with £62,6 mill. We're at 12th with just £43,1 mill.
Click to expand...
dunno where they got those figures from cos its baloney

our 21/22 accounts showed our wage to turnover ratio is 90%

turnover was 181 mil and staff costs were 162 mil

if you compare this to the previous season in 20/21 our turnover was 193 mil and staff costs were 182.6 mil

the massive jump in wages was in 17/18 season, we went from 105 mil to 145.5 mil and then it just keep rocketing upwards to the point of over 180 mil by 20/21
 

Maybe the new rules should be about fairness across the board. Not rules designed so the establish big clubs with massive revenue and massive debts can continue to spend 10/15x more than other clubs in the same division. Or pick off the best players in the league, whilst the smaller or less profitable clubs have to be focused on developing scouting and selling continuously to carry on.

Nothing about these current rules is fair.
 
I believe that all clubs in the EPL that dont qualify for Europe for the preseason transfer window should be allowed to spend up to an additional £200m or whatever up to that figure the owner wants to put in. If you qualify for Europe you dont get this opportunity and would definitely make the league better and more competitive.
 
Tin-Tin said:
Maybe the new rules should be about fairness across the board. Not rules designed so the establish big clubs with massive revenue and massive debts can continue to spend 10/15x more than other clubs in the same division. Or pick off the best players in the league, whilst the smaller or less profitable clubs have to be focused on developing scouting and selling continuously to carry on.

Nothing about these current rules is fair.
Click to expand...
It wasn't designed to be fair, it was designed to stop other teams joining the champions league gravy train.
 
jaspercabbage said:
It wasn't designed to be fair, it was designed to stop other teams joining the champions league gravy train.
Click to expand...
That is where I am too. It makes sense in the leagues below the Premier League to have financial controls that give similar opportunities to all teams to achieve promotion. But once you reach the Premier League, you should be able to spend whatever you want to try to stay there or win the league and qualify for Europe. If some multi-billionaire thinks he can make Burnley into Man City, let him. It is certainly more "fair" than letting the teams that have already reached the top to have a league enforced spending advantage that makes it nearly impossible to ever supplant them.
 
CalBuckeye_Rob said:
That is where I am too. It makes sense in the leagues below the Premier League to have financial controls that give similar opportunities to all teams to achieve promotion. But once you reach the Premier League, you should be able to spend whatever you want to try to stay there or win the league and qualify for Europe. If some multi-billionaire thinks he can make Burnley into Man City, let him. It is certainly more "fair" than letting the teams that have already reached the top to have a league enforced spending advantage that makes it nearly impossible to ever supplant them.
Click to expand...

It is more nuanced than that though. The bottom 4 clubs this season have all spent money. But all 4 have been dreadfully run. No amount of money trumps incompetence. The rules are far from perfect, granted, but even if every club was owned by a State, with unlimited money, 3 would still go down, and then get mashed by the far more severe restrictions in the EFL.
 

roydo said:
It is more nuanced than that though. The bottom 4 clubs this season have all spent money. But all 4 have been dreadfully run. No amount of money trumps incompetence. The rules are far from perfect, granted, but even if every club was owned by a State, with unlimited money, 3 would still go down, and then get mashed by the far more severe restrictions in the EFL.
Click to expand...
If you go down, you need to sell your high wage earners and reboot. The EFL does give the relegated a bit of a financial parachute to lessen the blow, but it is a risk you take when you spend and fail.
 
At the end of the day we were one of the 14 clubs who voted to introduce FFP into the league.

We have signed off on it and quite clearly broke the rules, if we get punished we get punished.
 
The rules as they exist are dreadfully skewed and unfair.
I can't help thinking, in contrast though, that some rules are necessary to limit the damage that can be done by careless and irresponsible owners.
It's the club and fans that suffer most, in the end.
Moshiri would have reined things in eventually, he had to with Russia / Ukraine, but he has brought us to a very sorry state as it is.
Punishments and sanctions should be aimed at owners and board members. Trustees should be appointed on a temporary basis if required.
The "fit and proper persons" regulation is a complete joke.
Some clubs need saving from themselves, but the regulations are designed to maintain the elite only. Genuine competition and sustainability has no part in it.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top