EFL Financial Fair Play Rules

[Tollertonowl]

Why don't the EFL FFP rules just allow monies to be invested into football clubs at the risk of the investors rather than basing the rules on turnover?1? For example if someone buys a football club and then wants to £millions in the purchase of players then the EFL should just ensure that this money isn't borrowed against the club and putting it at risk... As all this turnover crap is just making football unaffordable due to inflated ticket prices and consolidating the difficulties of those clubs like us who failed to gamble on promotion to the point of non existence... Then those clubs who gamble and succeed like Leicester, Villa and Wolves are fined mediocre amounts if the gamble pays off... Plus the parachute payments for those demoted is hardly fair to other EFL clubs... It's just a joke and destroying football, as it's made the prices ridiculous, stopping clubs success and also consolidating their financial positions e.g. you are under embargo so can't sell players because you can't replace them and then they leave for free - so rather than recouping money from selling a player you lose more money and subsequently suffer further penalties...

[StudentOwl]

33 minutes ago, Tollertonowl said:

Why don't the EFL FFP rules just allow monies to be invested into football clubs at the risk of the investors rather than basing the rules on turnover?1? For example if someone buys a football club and then wants to £millions in the purchase of players then the EFL should just ensure that this money isn't borrowed against the club and putting it at risk... 

I'm not hot on finances in any way... but how would a sporting body be able to legally enforce this?

[Morepork]

I agree about investing albeit with an equal amount in Escrow to mitigate the financial risks. It’s important to note the scenario you mention has no relation to our plight, we are way past that.

[Manwë]

Stopped reading at "us who failed to gamble on promotion".  Also, to imply that ticket prices will come down if there is a free for all is ridiculous. 

 

[Sultan_Pepper]

The EFL and premier league say it's to prevent clubs getting themselves into a position where they are dependent on outside money coming in, which would be an issue should that money stop coming.

 

A cynic might say it's because the rules are made to protect the teams that already have huge turnover from champions league and premier league TV money etc. Ffp makes it nearly impossible for other teams to ever catch them without risking ending up where we are.

[Guest Mcguigan]

From 15/16  to 17/18 we spent £38m on transfer fees and our wage bill increased from £19m to £42.2m. 169% wages to turnover ratio.

 

The squad we assembled during that period, when we “gambled” had more than enough quality to gain promotion. It didn’t of course and it’s been all downhill since.

 

Had we have been promoted, I doubt your thread would have been posted.

 

Football’s not been destroyed, it’s never been more popular, outside of S6 of course.

[room0035]

4 hours ago, Tollertonowl said:

Why don't the EFL FFP rules just allow monies to be invested into football clubs at the risk of the investors rather than basing the rules on turnover?1? For example if someone buys a football club and then wants to £millions in the purchase of players then the EFL should just ensure that this money isn't borrowed against the club and putting it at risk... As all this turnover crap is just making football unaffordable due to inflated ticket prices and consolidating the difficulties of those clubs like us who failed to gamble on promotion to the point of non existence... Then those clubs who gamble and succeed like Leicester, Villa and Wolves are fined mediocre amounts if the gamble pays off... Plus the parachute payments for those demoted is hardly fair to other EFL clubs... It's just a joke and destroying football, as it's made the prices ridiculous, stopping clubs success and also consolidating their financial positions e.g. you are under embargo so can't sell players because you can't replace them and then they leave for free - so rather than recouping money from selling a player you lose more money and subsequently suffer further penalties...

Before FFP rules and Profit and Sustainability rules clubs were going into administration very frequently, Leeds United did it during a match.

 

The people losing out were not the clubs, the players or the fans but the small business that were getting screwed over so millionaire chairman could avoid paying debts they had built up.

 

Look at our situation had DC been left to his own devices, he is not competent to run a bath no matter a football club we would now have gone bust, we still could and you want to allow people like him to do what he wants with no constraints.

 

The system works its the parachute payment that need scrapping not the losses rules. Oh and there should be yearly checks of owners competent and that they still have the funds to run a football club.

 

 

[Guest Hornsby]

1 hour ago, room0035 said:

Before FFP rules and Profit and Sustainability rules clubs were going into administration very frequently, Leeds United did it during a match.

 

The people losing out were not the clubs, the players or the fans but the small business that were getting screwed over so millionaire chairman could avoid paying debts they had built up.

 

Look at our situation had DC been left to his own devices, he is not competent to run a bath no matter a football club we would now have gone bust, we still could and you want to allow people like him to do what he wants with no constraints.

 

The system works its the parachute payment that need scrapping not the losses rules. Oh and there should be yearly checks of owners competent and that they still have the funds to run a football club.

 

 

Good points but can't agree on Admin mate.

 

Clubs often come back stronger and employ same small entities they left with small debts , then they grow together.

 

And business is a risk you can often insure out.

 

Any Administrator could manage Owls better than present mob 

[Manwë]

18 minutes ago, Hornsby said:

Clubs often come back stronger and employ same small entities they left with small debts , then they grow together.

 

What rubbish.

 

Club pays company to provide service.

Company provides service.

Club pays company 1% of money owed.

Club and Company "grow together".

 

Pompey owed everyone from the Scouts, to their own Supporters Club.  They owed close to £18m in taxes.  That's £18m not spent on public services, on the NHS, on education, and the like.  They owed £20k to an ambulance service, £30k to Portsmouth Council.  They even owed £15k to a school, £11k to a community sports centre.

 

Administration is a cowards way out in times when you're simultaneously making a handful of employees millionaires.

[room0035]

29 minutes ago, Hornsby said:

Good points but can't agree on Admin mate.

 

Clubs often come back stronger and employ same small entities they left with small debts , then they grow together.

 

And business is a risk you can often insure out.

 

Any Administrator could manage Owls better than present mob 

When Leicester city went into admin they crippled a lot of small business that no longer exist now, the same with Leeds.

 

Football clubs always survive of late I really dont care about them, but when their actions put small business out of business, then the rules need to change to stop this.

 

And finally administration can only happen if the club creditors force the action as DC is the only significant creditor he would be beyond a muppet to do it and he would be writing of £100m loan account.

 

More chance of us signing a competent team before the season starts that DC going down the admin route.

[matthefish2002]

Fed up of FFP / P&S rules being used as an excuse for Wednesday present predicament.

I know the OP doesn't mention Wednesday at all but that is basically what is implied.

 

Yes FFP / P&S is flawed but Wednesdays mess is of 1 persons making nothing else.

 

[royalowlisback]

34 minutes ago, room0035 said:

When Leicester city went into admin they crippled a lot of small business that no longer exist now, the same with Leeds.

 

Football clubs always survive of late I really dont care about them, but when their actions put small business out of business, then the rules need to change to stop this.

 

And finally administration can only happen if the club creditors force the action as DC is the only significant creditor he would be beyond a muppet to do it and he would be writing of £100m loan account.

 

More chance of us signing a competent team before the season starts that DC going down the admin route.

This is what annoys me about Leicester's 'Fairytale' the other year, it was more like Brothers Grimm for the local businesses and community.

[nickywire]

6 hours ago, StudentOwl said:

I'm not hot on finances in any way... but how would a sporting body be able to legally enforce this?

via the annual accounts?

[Guest Hornsby]

1 hour ago, Manwë said:

 

What rubbish.

 

Club pays company to provide service.

Company provides service.

Club pays company 1% of money owed.

Club and Company "grow together".

 

Pompey owed everyone from the Scouts, to their own Supporters Club.  They owed close to £18m in taxes.  That's £18m not spent on public services, on the NHS, on education, and the like.  They owed £20k to an ambulance service, £30k to Portsmouth Council.  They even owed £15k to a school, £11k to a community sports centre.

 

Administration is a cowards way out in times when you're simultaneously making a handful of employees millionaires.

And nor thriving after fans bought and sold to Hollywood, no doubt with same local suppliers. Business is risky 

 

Footy fan not, except here when you need a refund.

[Guest Hornsby]

1 hour ago, room0035 said:

When Leicester city went into admin they crippled a lot of small business that no longer exist now, the same with Leeds.

 

Football clubs always survive of late I really dont care about them, but when their actions put small business out of business, then the rules need to change to stop this.

 

And finally administration can only happen if the club creditors force the action as DC is the only significant creditor he would be beyond a muppet to do it and he would be writing of £100m loan account.

 

More chance of us signing a competent team before the season starts that DC going down the admin route.

Players PFA , fans, stadium lender, Sheffield 3 ltd surely also creditors .

 

Wigan fans thought ,errr, same as you two days before Admin.

 

 

[Rogers]

3 hours ago, Mcguigan said:

From 15/16  to 17/18 we spent £38m on transfer fees and our wage bill increased from £19m to £42.2m. 169% wages to turnover ratio.

 

The squad we assembled during that period, when we “gambled” had more than enough quality to gain promotion. It didn’t of course and it’s been all downhill since.

 

Had we have been promoted, I doubt your thread would have been posted.

 

Football’s not been destroyed, it’s never been more popular, outside of S6 of course.

It would be interesting to compare the wage and transfer figures with other clubs. 
 

Villa for example, spent a similar amount in 3 flop strikers alone. (Villa may be a bad example)

 

£12m Hogan

£12m McCormack

£11m - £15m Kodjia

 

[@owlstalk]

7 hours ago, Tollertonowl said:

Why don't the EFL FFP rules just allow monies to be invested into football clubs at the risk of the investors rather than basing the rules on turnover?1? For example if someone buys a football club and then wants to £millions in the purchase of players then the EFL should just ensure that this money isn't borrowed against the club and putting it at risk... As all this turnover crap is just making football unaffordable due to inflated ticket prices and consolidating the difficulties of those clubs like us who failed to gamble on promotion to the point of non existence... Then those clubs who gamble and succeed like Leicester, Villa and Wolves are fined mediocre amounts if the gamble pays off... Plus the parachute payments for those demoted is hardly fair to other EFL clubs... It's just a joke and destroying football, as it's made the prices ridiculous, stopping clubs success and also consolidating their financial positions e.g. you are under embargo so can't sell players because you can't replace them and then they leave for free - so rather than recouping money from selling a player you lose more money and subsequently suffer further penalties...

 

 

Honeslty I’ve read this a few times to make sure I’m grasping what you’re suggesting 

 

If what you’re saying is what I think it is we would be sat here now without a football club

[sheffsteel]

9 hours ago, Tollertonowl said:

Why don't the EFL FFP rules just allow monies to be invested into football clubs at the risk of the investors rather than basing the rules on turnover?1? For example if someone buys a football club and then wants to £millions in the purchase of players then the EFL should just ensure that this money isn't borrowed against the club and putting it at risk... As all this turnover crap is just making football unaffordable due to inflated ticket prices and consolidating the difficulties of those clubs like us who failed to gamble on promotion to the point of non existence... Then those clubs who gamble and succeed like Leicester, Villa and Wolves are fined mediocre amounts if the gamble pays off... Plus the parachute payments for those demoted is hardly fair to other EFL clubs... It's just a joke and destroying football, as it's made the prices ridiculous, stopping clubs success and also consolidating their financial positions e.g. you are under embargo so can't sell players because you can't replace them and then they leave for free - so rather than recouping money from selling a player you lose more money and subsequently suffer further penalties...

Seems like common sense and there’s actually an answer to this question.

 

The EFL have the responsibility to enforce the rules however the rules are decided, voted on and agreed by the EFL clubs.

So you answer is…..the owners/ Chairman refuse to vote and agree a rule that they will be personally held liable for debts.

Its like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.

 

Also regards the parachute payments rule…it doesn’t come under the jurisdiction of the EFL.

The relegation payments were voted in and agreed by the majority of PL because it improves their league.

The parachute payments encourage promoted clubs to gamble and take risks buying better players on big contracts.

 

The root of the problem relates to our national game having 3 separate bodies…..when it should be 1 power controlling the game.

So you find the PL, EFL and FA protect their own interests and each body is riddled with self interest fighting for more power.

[Guest Mcguigan]

2 minutes ago, sheffsteel said:

Seems like common sense and there’s actually an answer to this question.

 

The EFL have the responsibility to enforce the rules however the rules are decided, voted on and agreed by the EFL clubs.

So you answer is…..the owners/ Chairman refuse to vote and agree a rule that they will be personally held liable for debts.

Its like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.

 

Also regards the parachute payments rule…it doesn’t come under the jurisdiction of the EFL.

The relegation payments were voted in and agreed by the majority of PL because it improves their league.

The parachute payments encourage promoted clubs to gamble and take risks buying better players on big contracts.

 

The root of the problem relates to our national game having 3 separate bodies…..when it should be 1 power controlling the game.

So you find the PL, EFL and FA protect their own interests and each body is riddled with self interest fighting for more power.

But surely every Championship club promoted to the PL needs to “gamble” on better players on bigger contracts, otherwise they’d come straight back down again. Look at WBA last season and Norwich season before.

 

At least £50m investment in players is needed, imo, to make a promotional Championship squad a PL one capable fighting relegation.

 

But a £50m investment in players also means a £50m investment in wages. Which Championship owner is going to invest that amount of money without PP’s.

[room0035]

4 hours ago, Hornsby said:

Players PFA , fans, stadium lender, Sheffield 3 ltd surely also creditors .

 

Wigan fans thought ,errr, same as you two days before Admin.

 

 

Why would a company owned by the chairman, for close on a debt owned by the football club owned by the chairman when it too owns money to the football club.

 

I really do wonder about people on here sometimes.

 

If the club was placed into administration creditors would likely get no more than 10% of their outstanding monies owed can you see football being happy to take a 90% loss - no me neither.

 

The only real loser would be the fans who have purchased future season tickets, as the new owner or entity could decide not to honour the DC deals, but equally for a football club, as a new owner on day one, to ******** off the fan base you won't be the new owner very long.

 

The only way that we could have any administration issues is if DC is not paying the PAYE/NIC and VAT then the government HMRC would have no qualms about taking us to court and issuing winding up orders. But in the current climate with the government trying to save business not end them it is very unlikely.