Rogers Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, oh_weds_we_love_you said: Assume the club has to prove it received offers of X, Y and Z for sponsorship, for example, and went with Z. If X and Y were half £50k a year and Z was £1m a year, then we would be found to be flaunting the rules. But as you say, whoever implements FFP - do they have the resources and the power to inspect the accounts and force through a punishment? A few fake quotes from our friends in Thailand and elsewhere, easy life. The FA can't even pick a decent football manager, nevermind organise a forensic search through a clubs paper trail We could get Dave Richards doing it; he owes us one. Edited July 25, 2017 by Rogers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pazowl55 Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 2 minutes ago, oh_weds_we_love_you said: @ Rhodes!! In that case, as football player assets are difficult to value, surely would could inflate the valuation of the player - ie say Rhodes is actually worth £20m to us and reason why (he's a 20+ goal a season striker and 95% of the world believes these win you promotion, which is worth £200m)... If someone is willing to pay £20m for Rhodes then perfect. Whether we agree of not Kyle Walker was a 50 million pound asset to Tottenham, but he ain't to Man City as no one will be stupid enough to pay that again. I could also have an old bit of junk at home that is worth thounds to me but if no one else's thinks it is I can't claim to have thounds of pounds of assets in that bit of junk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pazowl55 Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, oh_weds_we_love_you said: And that's the key part - whoever is responsible for FFP, do they have the clout that the tax man at the HMRC has? I guess not. Not a government rule it's a Football one. But if you play in their league you play by there rules. Edited July 25, 2017 by pazowl55 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oh_weds_we_love_you Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 Just now, pazowl55 said: If someone is willing to pay £20m for Rhodes then perfect. Whether we agree of not Kyle Walker was a 50 million pound asset to Tottenham, but he ain't to Man City as no one will be stupid enough to pay that again. I could also have an old bit of junk at home that is worth thounds to me but if no one else's thinks it is I can't claim to have thounds of pounds of assets in that bit of junk. I assume then that when the club produces its accounts, it has to estimate a player's worth as an asset based on market value? Assume there is some penalty for clubs (or businesses in general) who over-value their assets? In the Kyle Walker example, I would expect City have insured him for £50m and they'll use that valuation as an asset in their accounts... I know nowt about accounting by the way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOwl Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 7 minutes ago, oh_weds_we_love_you said: Can you also ask them what was Forest's punishment and did Forest challenge it as far as they could? Don't suppose you have any QPR fans you can ask too? Don't recall their punishment for having a bigger wage bill than the then Champions League finalists, Borussia Dortmund. Forest's punishment was a transfer embargo, ditto Bolton. Both have been crippled by that quite extensively https://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/aug/18/qpr-fine-financial-fair-play-8m Details on QPR's avoidance of the full wrath of FFP... seems to have avoided the full brunt due to technicalities and arguments of existing overheads they couldn't work to get rid of fast enough apparently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogers Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 This is getting tight off topic..but at least it's mildly interesting. In relation to FFP, if the club was owned by one holding company and the players where owned by another (or an agent as is the case with many players now - noting Wolves involvement with super agent Mendes); how could the club be breaking FFP? I obviously need to read the FFP rule book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogers Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 6 minutes ago, pazowl55 said: I guess not. Not a government rule it's a Football one. But if you play in their league you play by there rules. They only find things out when the newspapers do an undercover expose! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oh_weds_we_love_you Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 1 minute ago, StudentOwl said: Forest's punishment was a transfer embargo, ditto Bolton. Both have been crippled by that quite extensively https://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/aug/18/qpr-fine-financial-fair-play-8m Details on QPR's avoidance of the full wrath of FFP... seems to have avoided the full brunt due to technicalities and arguments of existing overheads they couldn't work to get rid of fast enough apparently So, Forest got a transfer embargo. What's the point in that if you've already collected a squad of players capable of challenging for promotion? FFP - "Look, you've broken the rules, you can't buy any more players." Club - "Reight bothered, we didn't plan on buying anyone else anyway because we've built our squad". FFP - *goes all quiet*. Forest didn't appear to appeal the decision either, perhaps the owner - who has wanted out for some time - just isn't bothered? Happy to get his own cash back flogging everyone and anyone...? Blackburn appear to be a carbon copy. QPR were fined £8m the day after they received £8m sell-on from the Sterling to Man City deal. How very convenient! So, QPR stood up to FFP and won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oh_weds_we_love_you Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 5 minutes ago, Rogers said: This is getting tight off topic..but at least it's mildly interesting. In relation to FFP, if the club was owned by one holding company and the players where owned by another (or an agent as is the case with many players now - noting Wolves involvement with super agent Mendes); how could the club be breaking FFP? I obviously need to read the FFP rule book. Agreed. And our transfer business is non-existent, yet made 350 pages! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOwl Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 Just now, oh_weds_we_love_you said: So, Forest got a transfer embargo. What's the point in that if you've already collected a squad of players capable of challenging for promotion? FFP - "Look, you've broken the rules, you can't buy any more players." Club - "Reight bothered, we didn't plan on buying anyone else anyway because we've built our squad". FFP - *goes all quiet*. Forest didn't appear to appeal the decision either, perhaps the owner - who has wanted out for some time - just isn't bothered? Happy to get his own cash back flogging everyone and anyone...? Blackburn appear to be a carbon copy. QPR were fined £8m the day after they received £8m sell-on from the Sterling to Man City deal. How very convenient! So, QPR stood up to FFP and won. It's swings and roundabouts. There's absolutely no doubt that FFP hit Forest hard and impeded them, although they already had a good squad, they couldn't build on it any more, and as we've seen this league improves year on year. You also have to actively look to rectify a breach in FFP else you're hit with further fines/longer transfer embargos... so falling foul of FFP you at best stand still until you look to fix the problem by selling players etc. Equally, it seems once you've reached the Premier League, it doesn't matter if you've fallen foul of the rules. One rule for us, one rule for them type of mentality it seems, hence QPR managing to avoid so many issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogers Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, oh_weds_we_love_you said: Agreed. And our transfer business is non-existent, yet made 350 pages! I think this must break the record for the longest thread with least activity..it's like a transcript from a group of alco's on a street corner. Edited July 25, 2017 by Rogers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogers Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 2 minutes ago, StudentOwl said: It's swings and roundabouts. There's absolutely no doubt that FFP hit Forest hard and impeded them, although they already had a good squad, they couldn't build on it any more, and as we've seen this league improves year on year. You also have to actively look to rectify a breach in FFP else you're hit with further fines/longer transfer embargos... so falling foul of FFP you at best stand still until you look to fix the problem by selling players etc. Equally, it seems once you've reached the Premier League, it doesn't matter if you've fallen foul of the rules. One rule for us, one rule for them type of mentality it seems, hence QPR managing to avoid so many issues. I think that Forest owner was probably happy with the embargo. Fans moaning about the squad and lack of signings; he's got the best excuse not to spend money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred mciver Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 So, it appears you gotta be extreme - a Bolton - to have any FFP problems. It's a non -issue. What is a problem is finding quality centre halves, then driving down costs so you can sign them. It takes time. Don't worry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oh_weds_we_love_you Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 Just now, StudentOwl said: It's swings and roundabouts. There's absolutely no doubt that FFP hit Forest hard and impeded them, although they already had a good squad, they couldn't build on it any more, and as we've seen this league improves year on year. You also have to actively look to rectify a breach in FFP else you're hit with further fines/longer transfer embargos... so falling foul of FFP you at best stand still until you look to fix the problem by selling players etc. Equally, it seems once you've reached the Premier League, it doesn't matter if you've fallen foul of the rules. One rule for us, one rule for them type of mentality it seems, hence QPR managing to avoid so many issues. Think Forest's problems was the owner lost interest when Pearce and McLeish didn't work out and they got hit with FFP embargo. Had he appointed a good manager in the first place and built a squad capable of winning promotion, then they would be in a different position now - FFP or no FFP. Obviously, FFP rules have changed since Forest too. Clubs now have 3 seasons before the embargo comes, and that is plenty of time for owners who want to go for it and spend to get promoted. Forest only got 1 season. Agreed with the last paragraph - nowt can really be done if you win promotion and that to me suggests FFP wouldn't have any real force even if a Championship team challenged the embargo all the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oh_weds_we_love_you Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 3 minutes ago, fred mciver said: So, it appears you gotta be extreme - a Bolton - to have any FFP problems. It's a non -issue. What is a problem is finding quality centre halves, then driving down costs so you can sign them. It takes time. Don't worry. This is my take on it. A transfer embargo wouldn't come our way for at least another year (if at all), but clubs are asking for stupid money for players. Our owner is using FFP concerns to drive down prices of the players the club wants. Some times it'll work and we'll get the player at a reasonable price, others won't and the player may end up going to another club for more than we were prepared to pay. Other clubs will have seen we are prepared to spend money and set a high asking price for their players we are after. We need to negotiate and have to have some leverage to get the price down - going to clubs saying "We want player X, but FFP will mean we only have £3m to spend, so can't meet your £5m asking price. We'll have to look at other targets"... If no other clubs come forward for player X, we might get a deal sorted. Job done! If the club had any genuine FFP concerns, I doubt we wouldn't have spent the last two years carrying expensive players and signing expense cover that was rarely used. Be interesting to see how it plays out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogbad Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 19 minutes ago, Rogers said: This is getting tight off topic..but at least it's mildly interesting. In relation to FFP, if the club was owned by one holding company and the players where owned by another (or an agent as is the case with many players now - noting Wolves involvement with super agent Mendes); how could the club be breaking FFP? I obviously need to read the FFP rule book. Again I'm no expert here but I didn't think players were allowed to be owned by a 3rd party such as an agent in the UK. When we signed Lucas Joao & Marco Matias only a fraction of the transfer fee went to the clubs we signed them from. The rest went to Doyen Sports who effectively owned both players but we had to buy out that ownership in order to comply with our rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twolaptops Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 FFP rules can be ignored for any team south of Watford and if you've any connections to "Arry" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesteel Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 49 minutes ago, oh_weds_we_love_you said: That's what I suspected, it would become far too messy if FFP wasn't connected to the original contract! There are probably all sorts of loop holes that we will try and exploit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 1 hour ago, Rogers said: A few fake quotes from our friends in Thailand and elsewhere, easy life. Perhaps the club could start filing fake accounts to get HMRC off our backs. Or we could just follow the rules and not cheat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S36 OWL Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 4 hours ago, Pulcinella said: To be honest, Wolves really worries me. Are we getting overtaken by a team willing to make greater financial risks in order to get promoted. I know it's high risk for them. But wow! What players they are signing. Lets see if these players fancy it on a cold ,wet november night in Burton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts