FFP and all that.

[pgmetcalf]

The only people who want FFP are those standing to gain from it and that would have been us before the DC era. That said, the consequences didn't bother Wolves and they benefited by it

[Lord Nilsson]

https://twitter.com/kieranmaguire/status/1003183190054404096?s=21

[Mr Soul]

This may sound stupid on first reading but bare with me. FFP is there to encourage some kind of financial control to the league and as such should be commended. However it’s virtues are lost purely because 6 new teams replace 6 others each season (each with their own existing finances) . And so the ultimate goal of achieving financial fairness and balance is never going to be met.

surely I can’t be the only person that sees this? 

[ReluctantNicko]

Why bother with FFP etc?  With relegation, there are 3 Premier League places up for grabs every season so just have an auction and be done with it.

EFL clubs can then bid for the 3 "lots" with the successful bidders, who have the most money, taking up a place in the PL the following season.

Derby would have been promoted several years ago with Mel Morris bidding his entire fortune for perhaps only 1 season in the top flight.

 

 

Edited June 3, 2018 by ReluctantNicko

[Spuddy01]

On 01/06/2018 at 02:22, pazowl55 said:

With parachute payments they should some how only be given to clubs to cover their excess wage bills from the premier league. To stop them from financial ruin. Not to do what villa did and say thank you very much now we can spend 86 million pound on players.

Makes a total mockery of it. 

I agree.

 

I posted similar in another thread, if they’d used the parachute payments for what they’re there for (subsidising the wages of players already at the club) instead of going out and bringing more players in on big wages, then they wouldn’t be in the shït they’re in.

 

Tough shït I say.

[Whatahoot]

3 hours ago, Spuddy01 said:

I agree.

 

I posted similar in another thread, if they’d used the parachute payments for what they’re there for (subsidising the wages of players already at the club) instead of going out and bringing more players in on big wages, then they wouldn’t be in the shït they’re in.

 

Tough shït I say.

You and pazowl55 are right. Parachute payments were brought in to protect relegated clubs on ONLY their wage bills, not other spending on transfers in, which should be financed from player sales, if needs be. They shouldn't be able to do both from these protective payments. It means these payments are too high.

Secondly, imo, Championship Clubs, with wealthy owners, should be allowed to make losses, of whatever amount the chairman can cover himself, whilst attempting to reach the Premiership. Providing the chairman covers the loss amount of the previous season PRIOR to the next season starting. In other words they cover all losses of a season, before they start spending for the next. Cover the loss immediately. The clubs should have sufficient financial information, systems and accounting advice to know where they stand at ANY time. If the EFL do not trust the chairman to run financial models and they fear clubs being sent to financial demise, then get these chairman to cough up quicker to cover the position, with real cash input and don't allow them to run up a "tab" in losses and risk them walking away under fire sale conditions. Put THEIR money where THEIR mouth is so to speak.

[Spuddy01]

12 hours ago, Whatahoot said:

You and pazowl55 are right. Parachute payments were brought in to protect relegated clubs on ONLY their wage bills, not other spending on transfers in, which should be financed from player sales, if needs be. They shouldn't be able to do both from these protective payments. It means these payments are too high.

Secondly, imo, Championship Clubs, with wealthy owners, should be allowed to make losses, of whatever amount the chairman can cover himself, whilst attempting to reach the Premiership. Providing the chairman covers the loss amount of the previous season PRIOR to the next season starting. In other words they cover all losses of a season, before they start spending for the next. Cover the loss immediately. The clubs should have sufficient financial information, systems and accounting advice to know where they stand at ANY time. If the EFL do not trust the chairman to run financial models and they fear clubs being sent to financial demise, then get these chairman to cough up quicker to cover the position, with real cash input and don't allow them to run up a "tab" in losses and risk them walking away under fire sale conditions. Put THEIR money where THEIR mouth is so to speak.

Totally agree, if a chairman wants to spend his/her own money then let them. As long as it’s not just loans to the club and they’re not putting the club into financial difficulties then they should be able to spend their own money however they want.

[fred mciver]

4 hours ago, Spuddy01 said:

Totally agree, if a chairman wants to spend his/her own money then let them. As long as it’s not just loans to the club and they’re not putting the club into financial difficulties then they should be able to spend their own money however they want.

But the integrity of leagues are at stake. How refreshing it was when Leicester broke the monopoly.

 

While FFP's not perfect - should exclude parachute payments for a start- it does try to level the playing field.  

 

And you're right, like Chansiri most owners are just loaning club dosh and that's dangerous.

[Spuddy01]

A good way to keep parachute payments and stop them being abused like they do is say, the club don’t actually receive any money, the EFL or whoever pays them, pay the wages, or part of, to the players/staff, whoever it goes to for the first couple of years until the club gets itself sorted out.

 

That would stop the teams just going out and spending it all, if they can’t afford to buy, then they sell just like everyone else has to.

 

Not that any club will ever agree to that!

Edited June 4, 2018 by Spuddy01

[Anlaby Owl]

5 hours ago, Spuddy01 said:

A good way to keep parachute payments and stop them being abused like they do is say, the club don’t actually receive any money, the EFL or whoever pays them, pay the wages, or part of, to the players/staff, whoever it goes to for the first couple of years until the club gets itself sorted out.

 

That would stop the teams just going out and spending it all, if they can’t afford to buy, then they sell just like everyone else has to.

 

Not that any club will ever agree to that!

This is almost bang on...almost.  Players who are surplus to the clubs financial situation should have their contracts taken over by the f.a.  And then be farmed out/sold on to recoup some of the losses.  This would prevent any club from gaining an unfair advantage from the failure of relegation by being given millions to risk at the roulette wheel.