jamie the seagull
Well-known member
- Jul 27, 2011
- 2,803
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Championship clubs rack up £1bn debt prompting financial fair play rules
- Thread starter jamie the seagull
- Start date
Mental Lental
Well-known member
Lol love the description of Bloom in that second link!
Significantly higher than the other clubs.
Ex-Staffs Gull
New member
Also shows our wage bill as 8th highest. I expected to be lower than that after all the comments about uncompetative budgets etc.
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
Interesting that Barnsley have issued a legal challenge to FFP, yet support the rules!
So based on those figures, at least 6 clubs will have transfer embargoes under FFP (assuming we have reduced our losses and others have not). Add Bournemouth to that probably. It seems likely that Leicester will be fined, Burnley won't and neither will Derby if they go up by the looks of things. Reading, Wigan and QPR (when they lose) will be excused this time around, sadly.
Be interesting to see what comes out of this meeting today.
So based on those figures, at least 6 clubs will have transfer embargoes under FFP (assuming we have reduced our losses and others have not). Add Bournemouth to that probably. It seems likely that Leicester will be fined, Burnley won't and neither will Derby if they go up by the looks of things. Reading, Wigan and QPR (when they lose) will be excused this time around, sadly.
Be interesting to see what comes out of this meeting today.
Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
The figures in the article are surely from last year, so no penalties for anyone on those results.
Reading, Wigan and QPR are not excused. This is a common misunderstanding.
It is their figures for their final year in the Premier League which are ( sensibly ) not penalized when they are being assessed one year later as a Championship club.
Also I think the meeting was yesterday, and the 75% majority for changes to FFP was not reached. So expect legal challenges from FFP breakers if they are penalized, or legal challenges from FFP compliant clubs if the transgressors are let off. Mess.
The way I read it, it's the Barnsley Chairman Maurice Watkins' law firm (Brabners) that is challenging the Football League over FFP (presumably on behalf of another club), whereas Barnsley supports FFP. That legal challenge has nothing to do with Barnsley aside from the fact that it's Chairman is a partner (managing partner?) at the firm.
Interesting article!
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
I know of one prominent fan who has been fairly critical of Paul Barber's renumeration.
Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
Surely it's a bit simplistic to look at his salary in isolation.
If someone brings in a few millions in new sponsorship deals or is able to save the club millions with the minimal impact, then it is worth paying the going rate to employ them
Also, Tony is losing 8 million+ per year, it's really up to him how he choses to spend this loss.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Surely it's a bit simplistic to look at his salary in isolation.
If someone brings in a few millions in new sponsorship deals or is able to save the club millions with the minimal impact, then it is worth paying the going rate to employ them
Also, Tony is losing 8 million+ per year, it's really up to him how he choses to spend this loss.
It is. I hate to say it, but look at Palace's directors.
Silverhatch
Well-known member
Yep, but Barber is running a newly formed, multi-million pound, rapidly developing business that employs hundreds of people that has firmly nailed its colours to being self-sustaining. People who can do this successfully do not come cheap. And our man was voted CEO of the year by the entire football industry.
keaton
Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls
- Nov 18, 2004
- 9,972
Surely it's a bit simplistic to look at his salary in isolation.
If someone brings in a few millions in new sponsorship deals or is able to save the club millions with the minimal impact, then it is worth paying the going rate to employ them
Also, Tony is losing 8 million+ per year, it's really up to him how he choses to spend this loss.
But we are close to London, in one of the few remaining affluent parts of the country, with no big clubs anywhere near to us, in a brand-new stadium with a lot of good press. We should be getting good sponsorship deals
ElectricNaz
Well-known member
With Kuz, Orlandi and Upson all gone, i'd imagine that's one hell of a dent into that wage bill. Vicente was still with us in 12-13 as well, so that's 4 players on big money gone since that financial report.
keaton
Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls
- Nov 18, 2004
- 9,972
As long as we cut back on player wages and keeping rewarding our directors the most in the division i'm happy
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
Yes, that's what I meant - based on those figures. We will not know this seasons figures until December, but I was just taking those as a guide.
Re the relegated clubs, I thought they were excused in the first year unless they got promoted? That is what is says here (http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/FLExplainedDetail/0,,10794~2748246,00.html) unless this is out of date:
Clubs relegated from the Premier League will not be subject to sanctions in their first season in the Championship as long as they have met their financial obligations under Premier League regulations. They would, however, be subject to the potential of a Fair Play Tax if they achieved promotion in their first season in the Championship whilst not complying with the FFP regulations.
Found this about yesterday:
http://www.ciderspace.co.uk/ASP/news/news.asp?NewsItemId=21739
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/sport/11231718._/?
http://footballleagueworld.co.uk/championship-club-reject-ffp-proposed-rule-changes/?
A mess indeed, but I still do not see how it can be successfully challenged if the majority of clubs have agreed to it.
Yes, you are probably right!
Monsieur Le Plonk
Lethargy in motion
National media have calculated that if Queens Park Rangers win their Play-Off Final match against Derby County but subsequently repeat their eye-watering 2012-13 losses of £65 million, then they would face a fine of £48 million. Any such fines would ultimately be shared out amongst those clubs that have adhered to the FFP rules
Plucked that from one of the links above. I thought it had been decided that the fines were NOT going to be distributed to other clubs after all
Plucked that from one of the links above. I thought it had been decided that the fines were NOT going to be distributed to other clubs after all