Are other Championship clubs taking FFP as seriously as us?

[Mellotron]

Are there any clubs that - from the outsider's point of view - seem to be completely ignoring it and carrying on regardless?

 

[mac04]

If FFP applied last season, then I doubt that our relevant loss for FFP would have been anywhere near £8M as there are some costs that don't count (Stadium improvements & Training centre) and others that are spread across several years. Having said that, I don't think that we should reply on Tony putting in £8m every year either.

So, I am happy for us to reduce the £8M loss but I don't think that FFP is the main reason that we have to do it. I guess other clubs don't use it as an excuse to reduce costs in the same way that we do.

 

[MattBackHome]

Good question.

Forest seem to be doing a football club version of 'pimp my ride'.

 

[SeagullSongs]

Our frugality is NOT about the FFP, it's about cutting our £8m losses.

With the biggest gates & amongst the most expensive ticket prices in the division, we are in an extremely comfortable position for the FFP.

It's also worth considering that the FFP doesn't come into action until January.

Well, that's news to me.



I found this article earlier, I'm not sure how old it is though.
It doesn't seem to make much sense to me, how can other clubs be falling in line and us not, considering many have much higher wage bills and lower incomes than us?

http://chairmansnotepad.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/financial-fair-play-brighton-will.html

 

[tinycowboy]

It seems like some are playing the Cardiff game of all or bust, or have some plan to circumnavigate the rules. I think we're right not to put ourselves in danger of sanctions and at the same time look at our cost base rather than stumble on. However, I think that most of us are feeling that there is a danger of goodwill being lost as more costs are passed on to us whilst the rich young men on the pitch carry on riding the gravy train. That's unlikely to change when we're all demanding new and better players at the club, so we're going to have to live with it unless a maximum wage is introduced (which I'm sure would not be legal, unless legalised by the EU).

 

[nwgull]

Our frugality is NOT about the FFP, it's about cutting our £8m losses.

With the biggest gates & amongst the most expensive ticket prices in the division, we are in an extremely comfortable position for the FFP.

It's also worth considering that the FFP doesn't come into action until January.

January? I've not heard that before. I thought it covered the whole 13-14 season for the first year. It wouldn't make sense to be a calendar year.

 

[Curious Orange]

A maximum wage per player would certainly be illegal, but a salary cap as per League 1 and League 2 would not be.

 

[Titanic]

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/resources/wsc0001.pdf

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/FLExplainedDetail/0,,10794~2748246,00.html

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

Well, that's news to me.



I found this article earlier, I'm not sure how old it is though.
It doesn't seem to make much sense to me, how can other clubs be falling in line and us not, considering many have much higher wage bills and lower incomes than us?

http://chairmansnotepad.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/financial-fair-play-brighton-will.html

It looks like that article is very recent judging by the preceeding posts, who knows why it gives a time and not a date posted though.

 

[SeagullSongs]

After reading the links above, I stand corrected - I actually read that on here!

Interesting that the FFP allows an £8m loss, which means that even if we didn't improve our financial situation (which we are), we would be OK.

Only for this season though, next season it drops to £5m.

 

[Mellotron]

That article seems to suggest Barber is the one doing all the spending, and we're having to rein HIM in. Err...

 

[gazingdown]

Well, that's news to me.



I found this article earlier, I'm not sure how old it is though.
It doesn't seem to make much sense to me, how can other clubs be falling in line and us not, considering many have much higher wage bills and lower incomes than us?

http://chairmansnotepad.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/financial-fair-play-brighton-will.html

The penultimate paragraph seems to contradict the tone of the whole article. i.e. if one off costs (refurbishing stadium and no doubt training ground admin costs as well) were removed, we would have been in the BLACK!!!!

If I read/understood that right, next/this season, those costs won't be there so we would not be making any loss at all?..........

 

[Stato]

There seems to be something sus. about that blog article. The quote from Stefan Swift has been lifted from the BBC article and is selectively edited. The full quote is:

"Before the £8 million loss was announced we were a bit in the dark as to the financial situation of the club. There are still many questions. We don't know whether that accounts for certain elements, such as the improvements to the stadium which are being undertaken already. The stark reality of being a football club chasing a place in the top flight is that prices will inevitably have to go up. I think the general consensus is that as the stadium is so good and the fans have never had it this good, the unintended consequence is that we have to pay a bit more."

Which shows a much deeper understanding of the challenges than the blog author is pretending.

The blog also labels Brighton as "One of the few Championship clubs who will struggle" without providing any analysis of the financial health of other clubs. A brief Google for club accounts would provide articles which suggest that quite a few others most recent accounts show bigger losses than Brighton: Leicester, Bolton, Forest, Blackburn, Ipswich for a start.

Furthermore, unless I have misunderstood, the large debts to Bloom for the stadium development are not included in the FFP calculation and would not be relevant to the article's discussion.

Although the club do face a challenge to meet FFP, the article seems to be a deliberate hatchet job on Brighton which ignores the challenge to other clubs, either because it suited the (anonymous) author's purpose, or because the article on the BBC's website provided easy backup for a lazy author who would have to dig further to root out the facts behind some of our competitor's approach to FFP.

 

[goldstone rocks]

After reading the links above, I stand corrected - I actually read that on here!

Interesting that the FFP allows an £8m loss, which means that even if we didn't improve our financial situation (which we are), we would be OK.

And who pays for the £8million loss the year before and the £8million loss last year?

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

There seems to be something sus. about that blog article. The quote from Stefan Swift has been lifted from the BBC article and is selectively edited. The full quote is:

"Before the £8 million loss was announced we were a bit in the dark as to the financial situation of the club. There are still many questions. We don't know whether that accounts for certain elements, such as the improvements to the stadium which are being undertaken already. The stark reality of being a football club chasing a place in the top flight is that prices will inevitably have to go up. I think the general consensus is that as the stadium is so good and the fans have never had it this good, the unintended consequence is that we have to pay a bit more."

Which shows a much deeper understanding of the challenges than the blog author is pretending.

The blog also labels Brighton as "One of the few Championship clubs who will struggle" without providing any analysis of the financial health of other clubs. A brief Google for club accounts would provide articles which suggest that quite a few others most recent accounts show bigger losses than Brighton: Leicester, Bolton, Forest, Blackburn, Ipswich for a start.

Furthermore, unless I have misunderstood, the large debts to Bloom for the stadium development are not included in the FFP calculation and would not be relevant to the article's discussion.

Although the club do face a challenge to meet FFP, the article seems to be a deliberate hatchet job on Brighton which ignores the challenge to other clubs, either because it suited the (anonymous) author's purpose, or because the article on the BBC's website provided easy backup for a lazy author who would have to dig further to root out the facts behind some of our competitor's approach to FFP.

My first thought when reading it was 'Palace' but glancing through the other reports it looks like a professional enough website. Agree that a lot of it does seem to be a bit of a hatchet job from the basis of someone with a chip on their shoulder.

 

[dadams2k11]

There seems to be something sus. about that blog article. The quote from Stefan Swift has been lifted from the BBC article and is selectively edited. The full quote is:

"Before the £8 million loss was announced we were a bit in the dark as to the financial situation of the club. There are still many questions. We don't know whether that accounts for certain elements, such as the improvements to the stadium which are being undertaken already. The stark reality of being a football club chasing a place in the top flight is that prices will inevitably have to go up. I think the general consensus is that as the stadium is so good and the fans have never had it this good, the unintended consequence is that we have to pay a bit more."

Which shows a much deeper understanding of the challenges than the blog author is pretending.

The blog also labels Brighton as "One of the few Championship clubs who will struggle" without providing any analysis of the financial health of other clubs. A brief Google for club accounts would provide articles which suggest that quite a few others most recent accounts show bigger losses than Brighton: Leicester, Bolton, Forest, Blackburn, Ipswich for a start.

Furthermore, unless I have misunderstood, the large debts to Bloom for the stadium development are not included in the FFP calculation and would not be relevant to the article's discussion.

Although the club do face a challenge to meet FFP, the article seems to be a deliberate hatchet job on Brighton which ignores the challenge to other clubs, either because it suited the (anonymous) author's purpose, or because the article on the BBC's website provided easy backup for a lazy author who would have to dig further to root out the facts behind some of our competitor's approach to FFP.

Or a Palarse fan.

Edit: See above

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

To be honest, I couldnt care if other clubs dont take it seriously - it will be their own fault when they get punished or eventually go bust.

 

[Mellotron]

To be honest, I couldnt care if other clubs dont take it seriously - it will be their own fault when they get punished or eventually go bust.

What about if - like practically all previous sanctions for overspending clubs - they just find a way to circumnavigate and avoid punishment by finding loopholes etc, and we get punished for being the only ones playing by the rules?

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

What about if - like practically all previous sanctions for overspending clubs - they just find a way to circumnavigate and avoid punishment by finding loopholes etc, and we get punished for being the only ones playing by the rules?

The loophole experts up at Watford will probably do that anyway, but we wouldnt get punished.

There wouldnt be a loophole for having a £20 Million loss though.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

And who pays for the £8million loss the year before and the £8million loss last year?

the bank probably