Jump to content

FFP has a lot to answer for


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, smhouston said:

So you believe the players performances have been of an acceptable standard for the past 3 years? As well as the various managers performances?



You're right - we must do anything we can not to criticise the chairman's running of the club

 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, smhouston said:

So you believe the players performances have been of an acceptable standard for the past 3 years? As well as the various managers performances?

 

The many many managers all brought in by Chancer ?

 

The squad that has been woefully maintained and managed by Chancer ?

 

More Apologist smoke to deflect from his failings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Lupoli said:

Nowhere the amount Wednesday are haemorrhaging, with no assets. Now in the league below.

Absolutely. But that’s where Football is backwards. Basically it’s ok to lose huge sums of money, but as long as it’s not as much as the EFL think is ok to lose. 

 

Meanwhile, transfer fees continue to rise, wages continue to rise. Not a lot being done to tackle that. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FFP is a rule that hurts the Efl not help it. I agree with the Derby fan the punishment should lie with the directors/owners not the  football club. But the EFL are useless and owners have the vote and would never vote for this.

The PL teams have fully protected themselves and hold all the power. Promotion places are now a closed shop for relegated teams which was always the PL want.

Its why I was happy for them teams to go to ESL, with them gone it forces the FA hand and it was the only way that domestic football was ever going to change. That won’t happen now so back to status quo, arguably with the big clubs now more determined than ever to protect themselves.

 

My problem with how we splashed the cash was that we bought some right rubbish with no resale value. Chansiri wrote the cheque but the ‘advisors’ or manager did us no favours

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, smhouston said:

So you believe the players performances have been of an acceptable standard for the past 3 years? As well as the various managers performances?

 

Who signed those managers and players?

 

You can't relentlessly micromanage every aspect of a business and then pass the buck for the catastrophic way it is being run.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I’m not sure the FFP rules are particularly helpful for football or achieve what they are intended to achieve they are the rules. I also dont think the UK tax system is fit for purpose but if I don’t follow it I pay the fines. The speed limits on motorways don’t make sense either. It should  be 80 IMO. But if I speed I get the points. That’s how rules work. You break them you are punished. Agreeing with them isn’t as important as following them. 
Chansiri gambled and lost. The price is demotion. There are no ‘no lose’ gambles. 
What happens next is absolutely critical for our clubs long term future. DC has to sell or change. Or this will just be the start. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, owlinexile said:

 

Who signed those managers and players?

 

You can't relentlessly micromanage every aspect of a business and then pass the buck for the catastrophic way it is being run.

It's not passing the buck, it's all parties admitting they had a part to play over the various seasons. 29 points we gave away this season....29! That is nothing to do with the chairmen. It's players performing below standard

 

Just like it isn't FFP that got us relegated

 

As for he's the one who signed them, the managers will have had a say who they wanted too. There is no way to guarantee how a player will perform once signed. They're professionals though and should always be turning up for games. The chairman does not pick the tactics or players on the pitch. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:



You're right - we must do anything we can not to criticise the chairman's running of the club

😂 what complete tosh and avoidance of the question

 

You're the one saying the chairmen is the only person to blame for all this. I see the chairman, as well as the players who decided which manager to play for, and managers who couldn't get the best out of the players, rubbish tactics and generally just rubbish overall (Monk / Pulis who you all wanted at the time)

 

Let's give all the players new contracts though because they've all been good enough hey....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real problem isn’t FFP.....it’s the massive differences regards how Sky money is shared out.

 

Isn’t the Sky prize money

Premier league clubs 110 million a season 

Championship clubs 7 million a season 

League 1 clubs 1 million a season

League 2 clubs £500K a season

 

The above table makes it a massive temptation to gamble trying to reach the PL.

However only 3 clubs can be promoted each season. So if half the league gamble then loads of clubs will go into admin and risk going out of business. FFP was voted in and agreed by the Championship clubs as a set of rules to protect the game.

 

FFP is like VAR...a brilliant idea in principle but it still needs tweaking to make it work better because there always seems to be inconsistencies shrouded by secrecy where punishments seem to be made up regards how the EFL feel at the time.

 

Appreciate there’s a lot of negativity regards FFP but it’s similar to setting a credit limit on a credit card.

Its designed to protect fans from having Chairmen who use theirs clubs as a play thing continuously gambling on the roulette table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP) explained 

 

Update: The EFL have now published more details on SCMP - click here and search for the term SCMP on the page.

Note The info that follows was published before the info from the EFL was made available:

Clubs in the League 1 and League 2 operate within a Spending Constraint framework termed Salary Cost Management Protocol (SMCP). SCMP limits spending on player wages to a percentage of club Turnover. In League 1 clubs can spend a maximum of 60% of their turnover on wages - in League 2, the limit is 55%. There are no restrictions (in themselves) on the amount a club can lose or spend on transfer fees. 

Initially introduced into League 2 in 2004/5 for guidance purposes, sanctions for breaching the SCMP thresholds were introduced during the 2011/12 season, with Swindon the first club to be sanctioned under the rules. 

The process is interactive with clubs providing the Football League with projections for the spending for the coming season. During the season the clubs provide regular updates on their Turnover and wage bill. Any club that is forecasting a wage spend within 5% of the figure will be scrutinised more closely. Where a club is on course to exceed the limits, the Football League will apply a Transfer Embargo. Crucially, a club doesn't have to overspend to incur the embargo, it only needs to shown to be heading for an overspend. This interactive approach enables clubs to increase their wage bill if their circumstances improve - a successful cup run will generate increased income and the Football League may be able to sanction additional wage spend. Because SCMP doesn't rely on the retrospective scrutiny of club accounts, it is also extremely effective at stopping overspend before the spending actually occurs (something that has been a problem for the Championship's version of FFP).

The Football League's website's explanation of the rules doesn't go into a great deal of detail about how they operate. However they have responded to enquiries and confirmed a number of areas that help us to better understand the rules. 

Relegated clubs 

The rules apply to all clubs and there is no moratorium for clubs relegated from the Championship. However, Transitional Arrangements are in place whereby clubs are allowed to exclude the wage costs of all players that the club signed pre September of the relegation season, if they were signed on contracts in excess of 3 seasons. 

Turnover definition 

Under the SCMP rules, the definition of 'Turnover' is particularly important as Turnover is used to determine the maximum wage-spend. Within a traditional accounting perspective, there are usually only three elements of turnover: 

Match-day Income 

Commercial Income (such as sponsorship) 

TV revenue (and any 'merit payments' based on league position)

However the Football League use a is broader definition of Turnover. Crucially, the FL Turnover figure includes donations from the owners to the club and injections of equity. Loans from club owners are understandably not included in the Turnover figure as these would result in growing club debts. up club debts.  In League 1 and League 2, a wealthy owner can therefore fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions. Manchester City and Leicester for example seem set for punishment for their excessive losses (from UEFA and the Championship respectively) despite the fact that the owners have injected hard cash into the club to finance the spending.

Profit on player sales

Any profit made on player sales is included withinTurnover on a cash basis when the instalments are received. 

Player Wages and deductions 

Under SCMP, 'Wages' relates to player wages only (director remuneration and general club staff wages are not included in the SCMP calculation). Player wages included in the SCMP calculation relate to all contract players (full contract, non-contract, multiplicity etc.) and loan players. Wage costs for players loaned out to other clubs are deducted for the period of the loan. Wage costs for Youth players on a professional contract are also excluded (i.e. players that have been in the club’s Youth Development scheme and have been given a pro contract); they must be 20 years of age or under at the start of the season to be discounted from the SCMP calculation. 

Direct Costs incurred within Turnover 

Within Turnover, clubs can include such things as Hospitality/Banqueting income (whether it is match day or non-match day income). The direct costs have to be deducted to reach a figure that is submitted on the SCMP return. For Hospitality/Banqueting for example, the Direct costs are all costs directly attributable to put on a hospitality/banqueting event. This would include food & beverage, direct staff and cleaning costs such as laundry etc.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, S72 Owl said:

You could also add that if the EFL hadn’t incorrectly docked us 12 points in the first place none of this would have happened. 

 

Equally you could say if Chansiri hadn't tried to pull a fast one to swerve FFP, none of this would have happened. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, no and thrice no!!!   FFP is not to blame for the s h i i t we find ourselves in.

 

Chansiri knew the rules, so either chose to ignore them or didn't understand them. So before blaming anyone or anything else, blame either his ignorance, his arrogance, or his failure to employ the right people to manage his business.

 

As said by others, plenty of other teams operate in FFP quite comfortably. Our problem is an owner who was so obsessed with getting to the PL, that he was willing to risk everything to get there. He is a gambler by hobby, and it would appear by profession.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, crookesowl said:

It’s absolutely crippled us. 
 

Yes we have an incompetent owner but the money he wanted to invest (but couldn’t) would have easily got us promoted before FFP. 

 

All those clubs in the PL should count themselves lucky they don’t have to deal with this poo . 

 

We get a 6 point deduction for trying to invest in the club. Arsenal, Spurs et al get a 5% fine on just one of their income lines for trying to start a coup. Fvxking pathetic. 
 

Football is rotten and we are now a textbook example at the wrong end. 
 

 

I agree completely on the point regarding FFP. Modern football is an uneven playing field by design - the traditional big clubs have ensured legislation and competition revenue are slanted in their favour whilst happily allowing the pyramid to scrabble around and survive on their scraps. FFP was specifically brought in to ensure another PSG, Man City or Chelsea wouldn’t rise from the lower reaches to threaten them by limiting owner ambition. The well trotted out story - to prevent another Portsmouth - was window dressing to ensure that these regulations were pushed through. Turkeys voting for xmas. Let’s face it, there were far more effective rules they could have brought in to ensure another Portsmouth rather than limiting owner investment. Primarily preventing  investment being converted into loans would have helped massively. FFP failed to prevent Bolton, Bury etc from being wrecked so it obviously wasn’t as fit for purpose as it was sold to us. 
Football is all about investment, If they really believed in FFP then trying to push it into the lower leagues without first dealing with the top leagues was an absolute disgrace. TV revenue distribution and parachute payments massively skewed the competition in favour of the haves whilst the have-nots were left with prospect of being left behind. More and more elaborate plans were hatched by various clubs to circumnavigate FFP in the EFL - some more successful than others - but all pretty dubious and definitely not as secure as the pre-FFP model of owner investment. 
Wednesday suffered transfer embargoes - not, at that time, because DC didn’t have the cash but because he couldn’t invest what he had into the playing side. His mistakes were numerous - high player wages, bad signings, a general inability to do his job, essentially - but with embargoes his hands were tied. Further along the line this eventually resulted in a points deduction - an arbitrary  punishment for exceeding investment by an arbitrary amount. Remember - this wasn’t an owner taking money out of football this was an owner with the means to do so investing into football. 
Relegation will cost us millions - some have said it could eventually lead to administration and maybe more. Why? Because the people in charge of protecting the game were enforcing fundamentally broken rules that were designed to limit competition and turn the lower leagues into a production line for the top leagues.

Yes, DC should take full responsibility for relegation - his investment was wasted and if he was allowed to spend more than it would have probably been on more useless dross - but football should be a meritocracy based on how good you are on the field - if you make bad signings, pay them too much so they’re lazy and not interested and you accumulate one of the 3 lowest point totals in the division then that’s why you go down - not because of an arbitrary points deduction for non compliance to an arbitrary rule.

I agree that football finances need a serious rebalancing but imho there are far more effective ways to do this - owner bonds, relegation contract clauses, fairer distribution of tv income throughout the leagues (and don’t get me started on player wages and agents). FFP was built on sand and fundamentally flawed from its inception. There’s a larger conversation to be had here about the effects of FFP on the EFL but to do so there would be the need to put aside Wednesday and the issues people have with DC and concentrate on what these rules have meant for the game as a whole.

 

  • Love 1
  • Thanks 1
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...