FFP latest predictions

[El Presidente]

No, and I fully understand that. Whether it's a good rule or not isn't my argument here though. The pisser for me is that we seem to be one of the few clubs that have actually taken it seriously, once it was imposed, trying to get our house in order, whilst a number of others have carried on regardless, spending what they liked. Inevitably, we'd have been at something of a competitive disadvantage as a result.

Whilst we don't yet know what they've voted for, it nonetheless bites that certain clubs can just- so it seems- say a great big "**** you" to the regulations and possibly walk away without a care in the world, simply by voting to change the rules to suit them better.

We lost £14.7 million in the last year before FFP sanctions kicked in though, a clear disregard for the 'principles' behind it.

 

[El Presidente]

So all the hard work the club has done to keep in line FFP wasn't necessary. Let's be honest did we expect any different? At least the club can hold it's head high on this one and say we kept in line with the rules.

I think if you are TB the hard work was necessary though as he isn't prepared to subsidise the club to the tune of £15 million a year.

 

[Superphil]

I think if you are TB the hard work was necessary though as he isn't prepared to subsidise the club to the tune of £15 million a year.

Does this now put him in a position where he can justifiably sell the club to a foreign investor with squillions to pump in whilst maintaining his status as club legend?

 

[Deleted member 22389]

I think if you are TB the hard work was necessary though as he isn't prepared to subsidise the club to the tune of £15 million a year.

Just hope the supporters don't use this excuse now to bash the club and ask for more money to be spent on players. Whatever happens we are still spending more than we are getting in, even with the numbers of season ticket holders we have, and 1901 members. It's proof of how ridiculous money in football has become. If we are suffering then I can guarantee most of the clubs around us are.

Hope the club continue down the path of creating something sustainable and being sensible. I can handle the club dropping down, what I can't handle is the thought of losing a stadium and a training complex because the club spent big and are unable to claw the money back.

 

[El Turi]

Looking at the new rules, clubs can basically lose what they want from 2016-17 so FFP has pretty much been scrapped.

 

[Surf's Up]

Does this now put him in a position where he can justifiably sell the club to a foreign investor with squillions to pump in whilst maintaining his status as club legend?

Now that is an interesting question!!

 

[Everest]

http://www1.skysports.com/football/...nship-clubs-are-set-to-change-their-ffp-rules

 

[Superphil]

Looking at the new rules, clubs can basically lose what they want from 2016-17 so FFP has pretty much been scrapped.

Where are you seeing the new rules, I can only see on the SSN page, which doesn't go into that much detail

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

According to Sky at least 80% of clubs voted for the changes which were a reduction in amount of annual Premier parachute payments and an increase in the amount an owner can subsidise losses.

Surely the reduction in parachute payments is only acceptable if the difference is handed over in the form of solidarity payments ?

 

[Everest]

http://www.football-league.co.uk/ne...hip-financial-fair-play-rules-rg-2066799.aspx

At an EGM at Derby County, Championship clubs have agreed a new set of ‘Profitability and Sustainability’ Regulations that will bring the division’s approach to Financial Fair Play into line with that used by the Premier League.

From the beginning of the 2016/17 season, Championship clubs will have their financial performance continuously monitored over a three season timeframe and will be permitted to lose up to £15m during that period without having to be prescriptive over how that loss will be funded. In addition, they will be permitted to lose more than £15m, but not more than an aggregate of £39m (compared to an equivalent figure of £105m in the Premier League) but will be subject to additional regulation when doing so. This will include providing evidence of Secure Owner Funding and Future Financial Information for the two seasons ahead.

A club that moves between the Premier League and Championship will be assessed in accordance with the average allowance that is permitted in the relevant division (for example, a club that had played two seasons in the Championship and one in the Premier League would have a maximum permitted loss of £61m - consisting of one season at £35m and two at £13m).

Clubs also agreed transitional arrangements for the period leading up the introduction of the new regulations in 2016. These can be summarised as follows:
•The existing Championship FFP framework will remain in place for the 2014/15 and 2015/16 seasons.
•Any sanctions for accounts relating to the 2013/14 season will continue to take effect as intended (and in accordance with the amounts specified at the time).
•The maximum deviation under the regulations will remain at £6m for 2014/15 and will increase to £13m in 2015/16, in line with the maximum loss (£39m over 3 seasons) permitted under the new rules.
Following the Championship’s decision, The Board of The Football League has been given a mandate by its clubs to complete a new financial solidarity arrangement with the Premier League in accordance with that currently under discussion between the two leagues.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Looking at the new rules, clubs can basically lose what they want from 2016-17 so FFP has pretty much been scrapped.

Bloody irresponsible decision if you ask me. Spend what you want but never pay it back, that's what they are really saying.

 

[Pavilionaire]

1. I presume that the changes agreed today by the Championship clubs will NOT be retrospective.

2. The FFP table makes for interesting reading and, I suspect, will be very good news for the Albion.

3. With FFP in place certain clubs seem almost unsellable, i.e. Bolton, Blackburn, Birmingham, Fulham. I wouldn't be surprised if part of the reason clubs have voted to increase the amount of loss that can be covered by owner's equity is to give some sort of carrot to new owners.

4. There's a number of promotion contenders who could now stall - Bournemouth, Wolves, Forest, Middlesbrough.

5. This is when well-run clubs who get relegated from the Prem can really take advantage - plenty of parachute cash whilst those around them are hamstrung by the embargo. This means we should really want Leicester and QPR to come down this season because they both face massive FFP penalties in the next 12 months.

6. Obviously we want Palace to come down as well so this means our second team should now be Sunderland.

 

[El Turi]

Where are you seeing the new rules, I can only see on the SSN page, which doesn't go into that much detail

They are on the football league site. I misread it as clubs can now make an aggregate loss of £39 million over a 3 year period, which is still a very different principle to the original FFP rules.

 

[spence]

Two years of cut backs on the pitch and hiking prices in other departments completely wasted then? Now we are playing catch up with the rest and that's if we don't get relegated because we stuck to FFP at a cost.
I was really looking forward to seeing clubs hit hard who deliberately ignored the rules.

 

[Bozza]

Two years of cut backs on the pitch and hiking prices in other departments completely wasted then? Now we are playing catch up with the rest and that's if we don't get relegated because we stuck to FFP at a cost.
I was really looking forward to seeing clubs hit hard who deliberately ignored the rules.

Really?

•The existing Championship FFP framework will remain in place for the 2014/15 and 2015/16 seasons.
•Any sanctions for accounts relating to the 2013/14 season will continue to take effect as intended (and in accordance with the amounts specified at the time).

 

[Everest]

Two years of cut backs on the pitch and hiking prices in other departments completely wasted then? Now we are playing catch up with the rest and that's if we don't get relegated because we stuck to FFP at a cost.
I was really looking forward to seeing clubs hit hard who deliberately ignored the rules.

No, because last season, this season AND next season will work as planned BEFORE any changes come into force.

 

[Hotchilidog]

If I am not mistaken it looks like £15m will be the permitted losses that can be paid off by owners with £39m the new bottom line after which sanctions apply so not quite a free for all. At least the goal posts have not been moved for this season, so our cost cutting will not have been a waste of time.

 

[Grombleton]

Bloody irresponsible decision if you ask me. Spend what you want but never pay it back, that's what they are really saying.

i expect that they've agreed the rules up until that point, but they'll meet nearer the time to agree on the frameworks moving on from there.

 

[spence]

Really?

•The existing Championship FFP framework will remain in place for the 2014/15 and 2015/16 seasons.
•Any sanctions for accounts relating to the 2013/14 season will continue to take effect as intended (and in accordance with the amounts specified at the time).

Teams like Boro/Forest/Wolves have already built there squads and therefore embargo's aren't going to have much effect are they?

Lets see what happens to them this season. What does this mean to teams like QPR and Leicester?

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

5. This is when well-run clubs who get relegated from the Prem can really take advantage - plenty of parachute cash whilst those around them are hamstrung by the embargo. This means we should really want Leicester and QPR to come down this season because they both face massive FFP penalties in the next 12 months.

6. Obviously we want Palace to come down as well so this means our second team should now be Sunderland.

That would be karma , sending Palace down to League 1 on the last day of the 2015/16 season.