Jump to content

EFL + FFP = FFS?


Recommended Posts

Nope, that's not one of Dr Xia's formulas, he doesn't have to worry about that.

 

Ironic, that a system initially setup to preserve the financial health of football clubs and prevent ambitious owners from overextending themselves is now potentially doing more harm than good to some clubs.

 

Parachute payments made the job of competing incredibly difficult, now add to that the ever increasing transfer fees, limited revenue streams and the unrealistic constraints of FFP and it's evident that the mechanism currently in place is broken and actually holding clubs like our own back, massively so.

 

Either the allowed losses under FFP need to be increased, at which point you could argue its not worth having or there needs to be another mechanism for owners to inject funds through loans even if that means it has to be done through the EFL or another third party. Maybe even a second tier of FFP for clubs who have more financial muscle behind them?

 

I applaud the fact that we're working tirelessly to stick to the current rules, it's proof that DC's stewardship is sound but it's frustrating being shackled like this and it will continue to deteriorate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive said it for years untill FFP is scrapped us the fans will suffer by paying silly money to watch football.Clubs have to charge top $$$ to be able to compete under FFP something the likes of Collymore allways seem to overlook 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Morepork said:

Nope, that's not one of Dr Xia's formulas, he doesn't have to worry about that.

 

Ironic, that a system initially setup to preserve the financial health of football clubs and prevent ambitious owners from overextending themselves is now potentially doing more harm than good to some clubs.

 

Parachute payments made the job of competing incredibly difficult, now add to that the ever increasing transfer fees, limited revenue streams and the unrealistic constraints of FFP and it's evident that the mechanism currently in place is broken and actually holding clubs like our own back, massively so.

 

Either the allowed losses under FFP need to be increased, at which point you could argue its not worth having or there needs to be another mechanism for owners to inject funds through loans even if that means it has to be done through the EFL or another third party. Maybe even a second tier of FFP for clubs who have more financial muscle behind them?

 

I applaud the fact that we're working tirelessly to stick to the current rules, it's proof that DC's stewardship is sound but it's frustrating being shackled like this and it will continue to deteriorate.

Your owner has spent a small fortune trying to get you promoted, your wage bill for last season, outside of the relegated clubs, will have been right up there with highest in the division. The strength in depth and talent in that squad should have beaten both HTFC and RFC in the play offs and seen you promoted last season.

 

You were sat in 6th place in January and you bring in 3 PL players, £10m rated Jordan Rhodes, Mcmanamam and Buckley.

 

Is that the system holding you back?

 

In CC's two season's in charge you've posted losses of £4.4m and £11m and 16/17 season's will be even higher. He's probably spent upwards of £70m so far but you would like FFP relaxing so he can continue to lose millions each season. Maybe CC wants to see more bang from his buck from the clubs current players and more so, the manager.

 

No offence meant, just my outside opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, just visiting said:

Your owner has spent a small fortune trying to get you promoted, your wage bill for last season, outside of the relegated clubs, will have been right up there with highest in the division. The strength in depth and talent in that squad should have beaten both HTFC and RFC in the play offs and seen you promoted last season.

 

You were sat in 6th place in January and you bring in 3 PL players, £10m rated Jordan Rhodes, Mcmanamam and Buckley.

 

Is that the system holding you back?

 

In CC's two season's in charge you've posted losses of £4.4m and £11m and 16/17 season's will be even higher. He's probably spent upwards of £70m so far but you would like FFP relaxing so he can continue to lose millions each season. Maybe CC wants to see more bang from his buck from the clubs current players and more so, the manager.

 

No offence meant, just my outside opinion.

 

I see your point JV. If the figures you have posted for our losses over the past two seasons are accurate (and I know this info is in the public domain, but I haven't checked it myself), then that would mean we could lose a further £24M last season and still be within the FFP rules of £39M losses over a rolling 3 season period. This season we have whatever the difference is between the £39M cap, last seasons losses plus £11M for season before. If we lost £15M last season, that would still allow a loss of £13M this season. So it is holding us back? It doesn't seem so, but maybe it is.

 

Chansiri is extremely wealthy. I'm not sure if there is anyone else behind him financially, but my guess is that there is to some extent, so who knows what our true spending power is. If it wasn't for the FFP, I think we could have done what Newcastle did last season and blown £80M on transfers in the 1st season. Newcastle were obviously within FFP due to player sales, the ridiculous pat-on-the-back-for-failure in the form of parachute payments and then the normal allowed losses. Would this have gained us promotion? Who knows, but the chances are it would have given us a better chance within the past two seasons, but leaving us heavily exposed if we failed.

 

It's a balancing act, between building a squad capable of challenging while ensuring a club stays with the FFP rules. I personally think Chansiri is doing it the right way and I can honestly say there are very few Chairman around with his honesty and integrity. We are very lucky. We didn't perform anywhere near our best in the Play Offs, and Huddersfield deservedly went through against us, on a budget the same size as Rotherham's. While ever teams like Huddersfield are achieving this on smaller budgets, then £39M of losses over a rolling 3 season period seems extremely generous and it is not likely to change any time soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an idiotic rule brought in by the idiots running (ruining) the game.

 

Spending beyond your means makes me sick, clubs that go into administration should be heavily punished along with serious repercussions for the directors/owners/chairman.

 

Yet, if you can afford to spend big, why stop it?

 

Currently it just seems that us as fans are getting it in the neck 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think just visiting is missing the whole point.

We can lose 39M over three years, prem clubs come down with 100M to spend.

In my opinion this money should only be used to pay the wages of the players they come down with as this was the point for which it was set up so clubs did not go bust for paying stupid wages.

The money should not be allowed to be used for funding player purchases and wages to get them back in the premier league, what’s fair about that !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, just visiting said:

Your owner has spent a small fortune trying to get you promoted, your wage bill for last season, outside of the relegated clubs, will have been right up there with highest in the division. The strength in depth and talent in that squad should have beaten both HTFC and RFC in the play offs and seen you promoted last season.

 

You were sat in 6th place in January and you bring in 3 PL players, £10m rated Jordan Rhodes, Mcmanamam and Buckley.

 

Is that the system holding you back?

 

In CC's two season's in charge you've posted losses of £4.4m and £11m and 16/17 season's will be even higher. He's probably spent upwards of £70m so far but you would like FFP relaxing so he can continue to lose millions each season. Maybe CC wants to see more bang from his buck from the clubs current players and more so, the manager.

 

No offence meant, just my outside opinion.

 

Well said JV, we spent plenty enough to get us promoted last year. At the end of the season we just didn't seem to have the legs to get past Hudds and they deserved to go through on a shoe string budget.

 

I find it quite alarming how relaxed society in general has become on the subject of debt. It's not just football that's up to its ears in debt, our whole economy and public finances are as well. The age old concept of running a business or economy in the black doesn't seem to be fashionable anymore, but as Wednesday fans we must have pretty short memories if all of a sudden we've become complacent about our club gambling our finances on future promotion.  I appreciate that DC might be the owner writing the cheques, but the losses are appearing on our club's annual accounts each year.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ChapSmurf said:

 

I see your point JV. If the figures you have posted for our losses over the past two seasons are accurate (and I know this info is in the public domain, but I haven't checked it myself), then that would mean we could lose a further £24M last season and still be within the FFP rules of £39M losses over a rolling 3 season period. This season we have whatever the difference is between the £39M cap, last seasons losses plus £11M for season before. If we lost £15M last season, that would still allow a loss of £13M this season. So it is holding us back? It doesn't seem so, but maybe it is.

 

Chansiri is extremely wealthy. I'm not sure if there is anyone else behind him financially, but my guess is that there is to some extent, so who knows what our true spending power is. If it wasn't for the FFP, I think we could have done what Newcastle did last season and blown £80M on transfers in the 1st season. Newcastle were obviously within FFP due to player sales, the ridiculous pat-on-the-back-for-failure in the form of parachute payments and then the normal allowed losses. Would this have gained us promotion? Who knows, but the chances are it would have given us a better chance within the past two seasons, but leaving us heavily exposed if we failed.

 

It's a balancing act, between building a squad capable of challenging while ensuring a club stays with the FFP rules. I personally think Chansiri is doing it the right way and I can honestly say there are very few Chairman around with his honesty and integrity. We are very lucky. We didn't perform anywhere near our best in the Play Offs, and Huddersfield deservedly went through against us, on a budget the same size as Rotherham's. While ever teams like Huddersfield are achieving this on smaller budgets, then £39M of losses over a rolling 3 season period seems extremely generous and it is not likely to change any time soon.

 

Great response, I think we have an owner that is ambitious and responsible, he wouldn't blow mega bucks in this league but he's certainly spend more than we currently can.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, paul92vr6 said:

I think just visiting is missing the whole point.

We can lose 39M over three years, prem clubs come down with 100M to spend.

In my opinion this money should only be used to pay the wages of the players they come down with as this was the point for which it was set up so clubs did not go bust for paying stupid wages.

The money should not be allowed to be used for funding player purchases and wages to get them back in the premier league, what’s fair about that !!

Not missing the point at all, the parachute payments make a mockery of the whole thing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Verily it was Sam Alllardyce who pointed out the problem with FFP for ambitious Championship clubs (I thInk) even before he went back into it with West Ham.

When I was growing up of course I realised we weren't as big as Man U or Liverpool but I used to have us in the same bracket as Chelsea and Man City in terms of crowds etc. They are now forces in the world game because of sugar daddy investment at the right time spending more In a transfer window than we have turnover.

Either EFL FFP should be ditched or parachutes should be.

Edited by Rogerwyldesmullet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, ChapSmurf said:

 

I see your point JV. If the figures you have posted for our losses over the past two seasons are accurate (and I know this info is in the public domain, but I haven't checked it myself), then that would mean we could lose a further £24M last season and still be within the FFP rules of £39M losses over a rolling 3 season period. This season we have whatever the difference is between the £39M cap, last seasons losses plus £11M for season before. If we lost £15M last season, that would still allow a loss of £13M this season. So it is holding us back? It doesn't seem so, but maybe it is.

 

Chansiri is extremely wealthy. I'm not sure if there is anyone else behind him financially, but my guess is that there is to some extent, so who knows what our true spending power is. If it wasn't for the FFP, I think we could have done what Newcastle did last season and blown £80M on transfers in the 1st season. Newcastle were obviously within FFP due to player sales, the ridiculous pat-on-the-back-for-failure in the form of parachute payments and then the normal allowed losses. Would this have gained us promotion? Who knows, but the chances are it would have given us a better chance within the past two seasons, but leaving us heavily exposed if we failed.

 

It's a balancing act, between building a squad capable of challenging while ensuring a club stays with the FFP rules. I personally think Chansiri is doing it the right way and I can honestly say there are very few Chairman around with his honesty and integrity. We are very lucky. We didn't perform anywhere near our best in the Play Offs, and Huddersfield deservedly went through against us, on a budget the same size as Rotherham's. While ever teams like Huddersfield are achieving this on smaller budgets, then £39M of losses over a rolling 3 season period seems extremely generous and it is not likely to change any time soon.

 

 

There bloody well has to be (not that i'm complaining) Let's not forget the huge TUF billboard behind him at his very first press conference. I would be surprised if DC's personal wealth is as much as Milan Mandaric's, for instance. 

 

 

Edited by Almat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, ChapSmurf said:

 

I see your point JV. If the figures you have posted for our losses over the past two seasons are accurate (and I know this info is in the public domain, but I haven't checked it myself), then that would mean we could lose a further £24M last season and still be within the FFP rules of £39M losses over a rolling 3 season period. This season we have whatever the difference is between the £39M cap, last seasons losses plus £11M for season before. If we lost £15M last season, that would still allow a loss of £13M this season. So it is holding us back? It doesn't seem so, but maybe it is.

 

Chansiri is extremely wealthy. I'm not sure if there is anyone else behind him financially, but my guess is that there is to some extent, so who knows what our true spending power is. If it wasn't for the FFP, I think we could have done what Newcastle did last season and blown £80M on transfers in the 1st season. Newcastle were obviously within FFP due to player sales, the ridiculous pat-on-the-back-for-failure in the form of parachute payments and then the normal allowed losses. Would this have gained us promotion? Who knows, but the chances are it would have given us a better chance within the past two seasons, but leaving us heavily exposed if we failed.

 

It's a balancing act, between building a squad capable of challenging while ensuring a club stays with the FFP rules. I personally think Chansiri is doing it the right way and I can honestly say there are very few Chairman around with his honesty and integrity. We are very lucky. We didn't perform anywhere near our best in the Play Offs, and Huddersfield deservedly went through against us, on a budget the same size as Rotherham's. While ever teams like Huddersfield are achieving this on smaller budgets, then £39M of losses over a rolling 3 season period seems extremely generous and it is not likely to change any time soon.

 

 

There bloody well has to be (not that i'm complaining) Let's not forget the huge TUF billboard behind him at his very first press conference. I would be surprised if DC's personal wealth is as much as Milan Mandaric's, for instance. 

 

PS agreed about parachute payments, but should we go up next season and come straight back down I do wonder if we will get any threads on here complaining how unfair it is on our Champ rivals that we are getting them lol...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think the whole FFP has now become defunct, the principles behind it were initially sound, but like with most principles they get pushed aside by commercialism in time. The amount of money that huge TV deals and mega rich owners who are backed by not only companies but in some cases actual countries has just made the whole thing so biased and means even a wealthy owner like DC is hamstrung as to what he spends. If he wants to spend 100m that should be his call, time to end this FFP.

I know the debt in football is a problem but the world has changed, football is now just another business. Not saying it is right but if you want a club to be run just purely for football then we had better just become a non league team.

Scrap FFP means nothing anyway, look at QPR did they ever pay what they should have done?

     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not an idiotic rule.  it's been brought in to try and stop clubs getting to the messes we're all too familiar with.  Funny how the opinions change when we're in a different position to what we were before.

 

For what it's worth I think it's being managed well.  If we were to keep on chucking millions at it and we don't make it again next season then we risk a transfer embargo and nobody wants that.  From the outside looking in you can imagine other fans making out that we're in financial limbo again but that's really not the case.  We're just balancing the books, and we aren't doing that with a mid table squad that isn't capable, we're doing that with an already promotion capable squad, with Jordan Rhodes playing up top for us.  I'm reliably informed that the JR fee it initially £8m paid in installments of £2m a year for the duration of his contract.  There'll be add ons if we go up but that really isn't a bank busting deal so the 'you spent all your money on Rhodes' thing really isn't a thing.  You have to cater for wages of course but still.

Keep balancing the books DC.  We'll pick up a CB on loan and we'll be in a really good position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Almat said:

 

 

There bloody well has to be (not that i'm complaining) Let's not forget the huge TUF billboard behind him at his very first press conference. I would be surprised if DC's personal wealth is as much as Milan Mandaric's, for instance. 

 

PS agreed about parachute payments, but should we go up next season and come straight back down I do wonder if we will get any threads on here complaining how unfair it is on our Champ rivals that we are getting them lol...

 

DC is personally worth (to my knowledge) at least 7 times more than MM (around £400M). TUF are a company worth £12Bn and are owned in part by the Chansiri's. So yes, this is who I am referring to, but it's pure guess work on my part due to the obvious link. I'm know I'm not the only one who sees this link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard on the radio the other day that EFL TV rights are going to be put up for tender next month and they are not taking the extension on the sky deal that still has two season left to run. I would think the new deal will mean a fair bit more money for the clubs -  so that should ease FFP ..... in two years time :columbo:

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...