Jump to content

FFP (again, apologies)


Recommended Posts

Guest BRADFIELDOWLS

Appears Nixon got the Watford big money move correct with Abdi link to us gathering pace. Real quality.

 

But Che Adams? That said, Newcastle also rumoured to want.

 

1 Sept and The Owls will be awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bigrbuk said:

 

These are the old rules.

 

As things stand I haven't seen the new rules anywhere. So I don't know how right now the 3 year period works. 

 

The club will know, and will be planning for that.

 

If the 3 year period is backdated, and the 16/17 season is the third season in the current 3 year period, as assumed in my earlier post on this thread, then I estimate (if Fletcher's salary is GBP 2M per year) that the club can currently afford at least another 12M in transfer expenses (not transfer fees, as these don't all hit the books in the same season) and incremental salaries over the current situation in 16/17. If we get to that level, then the maximum FFP deviation allowed would be 6M in 17/18 and 13M in 18/19 (assuming we remain in this division), as 14/15 and 15/16 drop out of the reckoning.

 

This is the worst case scenario. There is no FFP panic. No one signing is going to tip us into breaching FFP.

 

On this issue, Nixon doesn't know what he's talking about. This is not intended in any way to impugn the qaulity of Nixon's inside info, just to note that he is not a lawyer or accountant.

Edited by WC1Owl
maths error
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Crewton Ram said:

[...] The new regulations kick in fully this season, and that means a £15m maximum permitted loss per season [...]

 

 

I think I've missed this. If this is the case (and this is the first time I've read it as far as I can recall) then subsitute 7M for 12M in my last post. It's hard to be defniitive on this when I can't see the actual rules.

 

McCormack could cost about 7M this year, feasibly.

 

 

Edited by WC1Owl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, S_W_F_C said:

 

Stop hanging on this blokes every word he is speaking complete balls.

 

The penalty is an embargo. Not a fine that is not an option.

 

Ask yourself this. Are the FL going to fine a club they are stating have already spent to much. Fines only apply, like Bournemouth, to teams that break the rules but go up.

 

Nixon genuinely has no idea about FFP. 

Cough Cough ! 

 

Penalties doesnt necessarily 

 

id id much rather listen to Nixon then you pal !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, S_W_F_C said:

 

Well if you think we can consider a fine as Nixon suggested (go and read his tweet that started this thread) then your as clueless as him.

 

Accepting a fine is not an option whilst you remain in the FL. 

 

3 minutes ago, S_W_F_C said:

 

Well if you think we can consider a fine as Nixon suggested (go and read his tweet that started this thread) then your as clueless as him.

 

Accepting a fine is not an option whilst you remain in the FL. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, S_W_F_C said:

 

Well if you think we can consider a fine as Nixon suggested (go and read his tweet that started this thread) then your as clueless as him.

 

Accepting a fine is not an option whilst you remain in the FL. 

Correct but it's still risking a fine because if we go up that's exactly what we will get if we fall foul of the rules.

 

Risk doesn't mean definitely 

 

cough !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If DC signs Abdi, it could be a good sign that he is willing to say "Sod FFP, we will try to do a Middlesbro and get automatic this season".

If there is a little wobble around Christmas, DC can then go out and make a "Rhodes/Ramirez-type double signing.

 

Edited by ReluctantNicko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, WC1Owl said:

 

 

I think I've missed this. If this is the case (and this is the first time I've read it as far as I can recall) then subsitute 7M for 12M in my last post. It's hard to be defniitive on this when I can't see the actual rules.

 

McCormack could cost about 7M this year, feasibly.

 

 

 

Trouble is, they don't seem to have the New Rules published on the EFL website and it's hard to find it confirmed, but I remember reading it in the original announcements and have found the following on Sky's website from the time of the original announcement that the rules were changing:

 

Quote

A Football League statement read: "From the beginning of the 2016/17 season, Championship clubs will have their financial performance continuously monitored over a three season timeframe and will be permitted to lose up to £15m during that period without having to be prescriptive over how that loss will be funded. In addition, they will be permitted to lose more than £15m, but not more than an aggregate of £39m (compared to an equivalent figure of £105m in the Premier League) but will be subject to additional regulation when doing so. This will include providing evidence of Secure Owner Funding and Future Financial Information for the two seasons ahead."

 

So about as clear as Snake Pass on an average day in January. However you interpret the above, it's hard to believe that SWFC are in danger of breaching FFP rules at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Crewton Ram said:

 

Trouble is, they don't seem to have the New Rules published on the EFL website and it's hard to find it confirmed, but I remember reading it in the original announcements and have found the following on Sky's website from the time of the original announcement that the rules were changing:

 

 

So about as clear as Snake Pass on an average day in January. However you interpret the above, it's hard to believe that SWFC are in danger of breaching FFP rules at the moment.

 

Based on the Swiss Ramble blog, I believe our income for 16/17 will be about 14M (assuming it is flat to the last few years, although it should probably actually increase), the wage bill is probably about 20M (could be as much as 25M including Fletcher, but 20M seems more likely), and "other expenses" should be about 6M. So we don't have a completely free hand, but there should be scope to make a couple more decent signings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I should note that my assumption that income will be flat at 14M is conservative. We don't know at this point how much the Chansiri shirt deal or the season ticket initiatives might have added to that, or the effect (negative or positive) of POTG prices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BRADFIELDOWLS

For 16 / 17 our income will be up near £20 million after this new Executive gets going, plus Sky matches, promotion and John West paying for privilege of re-naming Hillsborough.

 

Relax, FFP's important but didn't stop other lessser clubs from getting to promised land.

 

And the  relegated clubs appear to be struggling getting crap players on £70,000 per week off their books, so their parachute payments will disappear quickly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With abdi looking likely now I genuinely don't think ffp is a concern at the moment. With the fee being reported between £3-4 m and wages commensurate to that size of a transfer fee I hardly expect we'd splash all the cash we do have on an area that

looking at the current squad is not our main priority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can't sign any players because of FFP...our chairman doesn't know what he's doing....booooooooooooooooooooooo

Wednesday sign Abdi and Pudil

Abdi doesn't have a work permit....our Chairman doesn't know what he's doing...boooooooooooooooo

Other signings to follow   lol

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...