FFP penalties..

[drew]

Last year we failed the FFP requirements quite spectacularly - everyone seems to infer that was fine because there were no penalties for doing so - seems a little hypocritical now to be calling for penalties to be enforced.

If we were the type of club that conforms with agreements made, irrespective of whether or not there were punishments for not doing so, we would be in a better moral position to criticise other clubs.

But we failed deliberately with the intention of loading as much as we could into the previous season's (2012/13) accounts as there were no sanctions applicable and in preparation for meeting the targets during last season when failure to comply will result in a transfer embargo. The club are telling us that we were on course so we will find out if that is try come December this year.

It continues to astound me with the lack of fact that posters continue to use in their arguments.

The penalties are easily understood as is the criteria. You fail to comply and depending on your position within the domestic league structure then there's a different penalty applied.

Finally some rather ignorant posters refer to the FA. What the hell has it got to do with them.

Agree. The amount of times this subject has been debated and people are still pig ignorant about it or can't be bothered to educate themselves. Maybe they genuinely believe that NSC is the only website on the internet!!

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

But we failed deliberately with the intention of loading as much as we could into the previous season's (2012/13) accounts as there were no sanctions applicable and in preparation for meeting the targets during last season when failure to comply will result in a transfer embargo. The club are telling us that we were on course so we will find out if that is try come December this year.



Agree. The amount of times this subject has been debated and people are still pig ignorant about it or can't be bothered to educate themselves. Maybe they genuinely believe that NSC is the only website on the internet!!

Bet they quote the man down the pub as the Oracle

 

[Northstandite]

It continues to astound me with the lack of fact that posters continue to use in their arguments.

The penalties are easily understood as is the criteria. You fail to comply and depending on your position within the domestic league structure then there's a different penalty applied.

Finally some rather ignorant posters refer to the FA. What the hell has it got to do with them.

All your comments are factual and make sense.

Many of the comments slagging off FFP or praising the QPR/Leicester/Forest type clubs for breaching it, are biased in that the writers want:
a) Bloom to dip into his personal money even more, to subsidise a mad dash to the PL (with absolutely no guarantee of success); or
b) Sell to the mythical overseas billionaire who wants to buy the Albion, which would guarantee a spending spree and promotion.

The vast majority of FL clubs voted for FFP, and at their last meeting confirmed yet again their full support with mandatory sanctions.

 

[Creaky]

But we failed deliberately with the intention of loading as much as we could into the previous season's (2012/13) accounts as there were no sanctions applicable and in preparation for meeting the targets during last season when failure to comply will result in a transfer embargo. The club are telling us that we were on course so we will find out if that is try come December this year.

Precisely what I posted - we apparently are the type of club that makes an agreement to limit our losses to a fixed figure then totally ignore that agreement, (nay, even worse, manipulate the figures), simply because there were no penalties for not complying. What moral right do we have to now criticise other clubs that we consider aren't complying with FFP limits?

 

[Stat Brother]

I am right in thinking irrespective of the implementation of FFP, The Albion wouldn't be governed any differently, anyway.

Tony isn't a bottomless pit of money.
He's stated many times the wants the club to be self-sufficient.
He's shelled out big time in an attempt to ensure that.

I don't know why everybody is getting bent out of shape about FFP and everybody else.
It just doesn't effect us, either way.

 

[champion7]

I believe the ruling laid down by the FA is your debt should be lower than 8m by the 31st Dec 2014 and 6m by 31st Dec 2015 to comply with ffp.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

I believe the ruling laid down by the FA is your debt should be lower than 8m by the 31st Dec 2014 and 6m by 31st Dec 2015 to comply with ffp.

It is not THE FA FFS

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Added to which it is what you believe it is stated in black and white. No grey no interpretation no discussion.

 

[Driver8]

It is not THE FA FFS

And losses not debt!

 

[jfs]

I think we should stick to FFP because it's a good thing in itself.

As far as penalties are concerned, unfortunately I think in practice only the transfer ban will apply. I.e. if you get promoted you will get away with ignoring FFP and won't have to pay the fines due.

The reason for this is that Premier League seem to be deliberately sabotaging FFP because they like the rich oligarch/sheik/benefactor model. The PL changed the rule from fines going to FFP-compliant clubs to going to charity instead. So, the FL now has no incentive to fight in the courts for the fines when the clubs won't get the money anyway. The PL have also said they will not help the FL collect fines (e.g. by deducting it from TV money) and increased parachute payments without discussion with FL first.

I think the PL are disgraceful really. PL teams in Europe will have to comply with FFP but for other PL teams the rules are slack, probably most FL teams will mostly comply but be at a disadvantage because of it. If they got the fine money the disadvantage would be small (probably) in the medium term but with the PL actively making it difficult for the FL a lot of clubs are thinking why bother. As I said at the top, running a club like a business is a good thing and the aims of FFP are laudable - and I do think long term it'll produce a better more stable Albion.

 

[drew]

Precisely what I posted - we apparently are the type of club that makes an agreement to limit our losses to a fixed figure then totally ignore that agreement, (nay, even worse, manipulate the figures), simply because there were no penalties for not complying. What moral right do we have to now criticise other clubs that we consider aren't complying with FFP limits?

Maybe because the rules were established to allow all clubs a lead in time to manage (or massage) their accounts so that they have no excuse when they have to submit accounts for when sanctions do apply. Whatever the reason, the rules are in place and have been the same for all clubs (excepting those just relegated). On that basis my view is that we have every moral right to criticise clubs that fail to comply when accounts are submitted in December. If we fail to meet the limits then that moral right is lost.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

I think we should stick to FFP because it's a good thing in itself.

As far as penalties are concerned, unfortunately I think in practice only the transfer ban will apply. I.e. if you get promoted you will get away with ignoring FFP and won't have to pay the fines due.

The reason for this is that Premier League seem to be deliberately sabotaging FFP because they like the rich oligarch/sheik/benefactor model. The PL changed the rule from fines going to FFP-compliant clubs to going to charity instead. So, the FL now has no incentive to fight in the courts for the fines when the clubs won't get the money anyway. The PL have also said they will not help the FL collect fines (e.g. by deducting it from TV money) and increased parachute payments without discussion with FL first.

I think the PL are disgraceful really. PL teams in Europe will have to comply with FFP but for other PL teams the rules are slack, probably most FL teams will mostly comply but be at a disadvantage because of it. If they got the fine money the disadvantage would be small (probably) in the medium term but with the PL actively making it difficult for the FL a lot of clubs are thinking why bother. As I said at the top, running a club like a business is a good thing and the aims of FFP are laudable - and I do think long term it'll produce a better more stable Albion.

This could lead to a real battle between the leagues however anyone who believes the Premiership doesn't need the lower leagues is plain stupid.

Without the lower leagues what becomes of the Premiership. A sterile friendly league, no competition between the majority of clubs. Some will argue that Premiership 2 will come into existence, maybe but there would have to be an immediate redistribution of wealth.

If QPR or their ilk refuse to pay, when they are eventually relegated just charge them the penalty plus interest to play in the league or refuse entry.

 

[Creaky]

Maybe because the rules were established to allow all clubs a lead in time to manage (or massage) their accounts so that they have no excuse when they have to submit accounts for when sanctions do apply. Whatever the reason, the rules are in place and have been the same for all clubs (excepting those just relegated). On that basis my view is that we have every moral right to criticise clubs that fail to comply when accounts are submitted in December. If we fail to meet the limits then that moral right is lost.

The wording on the Football League site, "Failure to stay within the defined limits will lead to the imposition of sanctions. However, there will be no sanctions implemented during the first two seasons (2012/13 and 2013/14) in order to give clubs a sensible period of transition."

Transition in this case infers change over the two seasons from a non compliant position to a compliant one - it would be reasonable in such a change to assume that we would be closer to complying to the limits in the second season than we were in the first - not the other way around.

We patently have a right to comment about the penalties for those clubs who don't comply - criticising other clubs for not complying though is akin to the prodigal son criticising the actions of his brother - certainly the case until our figures for last season are disclosed in December. I would argue that we have no moral right to criticise other clubs for non compliance until we have demonstrated that we are compliant ourselves.

 

[drew]

The wording on the Football League site, "Failure to stay within the defined limits will lead to the imposition of sanctions. However, there will be no sanctions implemented during the first two seasons (2012/13 and 2013/14) in order to give clubs a sensible period of transition."

Transition in this case infers change over the two seasons from a non compliant position to a compliant one - it would be reasonable in such a change to assume that we would be closer to complying to the limits in the second season than we were in the first - not the other way around.

We patently have a right to comment about the penalties for those clubs who don't comply - criticising other clubs for not complying though is akin to the prodigal son criticising the actions of his brother - certainly the case until our figures for last season are disclosed in December. I would argue that we have no moral right to criticise other clubs for non compliance until we have demonstrated that we are compliant ourselves.

It's alright, we know you don't agree with FFP. You can argue as much as you like.

 

[Baldseagull]

I am right in thinking irrespective of the implementation of FFP, The Albion wouldn't be governed any differently, anyway.

Tony isn't a bottomless pit of money.
He's stated many times the wants the club to be self-sufficient.
He's shelled out big time in an attempt to ensure that.

I don't know why everybody is getting bent out of shape about FFP and everybody else.
It just doesn't effect us, either way.

I think last season may have seen Tony dipping into his pockets more, if there were no FFP, given the long injuries to key players.

 

[L2MidgetGem B.H.A Seagull]

Clubs aren't afraid of FFP simply due to the fact they will threaten with legal action.

 

[drew]

Clubs aren't afraid of FFP simply due to the fact they will threaten with legal action.

On what basis?

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Clubs aren't afraid of FFP simply due to the fact they will threaten with legal action.

Rubbish

 

[KZNSeagull]

The wording on the Football League site, "Failure to stay within the defined limits will lead to the imposition of sanctions. However, there will be no sanctions implemented during the first two seasons (2012/13 and 2013/14) in order to give clubs a sensible period of transition."

Transition in this case infers change over the two seasons from a non compliant position to a compliant one - it would be reasonable in such a change to assume that we would be closer to complying to the limits in the second season than we were in the first - not the other way around.

We patently have a right to comment about the penalties for those clubs who don't comply - criticising other clubs for not complying though is akin to the prodigal son criticising the actions of his brother - certainly the case until our figures for last season are disclosed in December. I would argue that we have no moral right to criticise other clubs for non compliance until we have demonstrated that we are compliant ourselves.

No-one has demonstrated that they are compliant yet. I agree that it would be strange for our club to champion FFP but yet break the rules ourselves, but the club have indicated many times that we are/were well on course to comply with FFP last season. I have no doubt whatsoever that we will comply.

 

[L2MidgetGem B.H.A Seagull]

On what basis?

Big clubs will squash the UEFA In court. Smaller clubs will see this and It will start a domino effect. Nobody will get punished.