Friendly v Norwich

[BNthree]

http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/alb...ced_out_of_buying_British_for_Premier_League/

From the article linked above:

Albion still want a centre-forward, central midfielder, right-back and another goalkeeper

Article is CH talking about challenges of getting quality players without spending silly money.

 

[chaileyjem]

The best player we have signed thus far, and the real highlight of pre-season is Gross, who was signed(agreed) in June. I also find it hard to agree with your other point, surely they'll be a higher chance of us getting ripped off the later we leave it.

Our best signing last season signed for us on August 26th.

 

[Nixonator]

"Any Championship club without parachute payments wishing to compete for promotion will inevitably make significant losses." That sounds like an admission that he was willing to take the kind of rule-breaking risk QPR and Bournemouth, to name two, made to get to the Premier League.

How on earth is that an admission of willingness to break the rules? The statement reads that it is likely clubs with the ambition of promotion will veer as close to the permitted quota of losses as possible, without exceeding it, in order to compete with the absurdity of parachute payments.

If you are indeed interested in our finances, then I would take some time to actually research the club to which you are accusing. Our owner has on many occasions stated that we will be compliant with the financial rules just as we follow any other rules such as those on the pitch. We've made a point of abiding by these rules and have suffered because of it because other clubs opted to totally disregard them, and as such made it an uneven playing field.

We have been compliant every year thus far, and the club's official statement is that we have been compliant once again. The '30M' losses to which you refer, which is the incremented social media version (we actually made a 25.9M loss) include certain exempt costs such as depreciation on infrastructure and academy costs.

 

[chaileyjem]

Giving an opinion isn't wetting the bed. People need to get over the fact that not everybody is in one big hive mind. Some of us want improvements to the squad, some of us think we're all good with what we have.

Not sure anybody, especially the club, is arguing that "we're all good with what we have" which is why they are still actively looking for (four) more signings although they insist, rightly, that they're not going to bankrupt the club in doing so.
Now there's plenty of argument on here also that this is counter productive because its far too late to sign anyone in August and uniquely we've left it far too late compared to everyone else, and there's even more posts that the remaining 20 or 21 so players (practically all of em depending on some posters) who've had 2 historically impressive Champ seasons in a row, for various reasons aren't up to to it.
The vast majority of Albion fans would disagree with all 3 points i'd argue.

 

[PurpleCanary]

NSC's football finance expert and the club have indicated that we have remained within the rules, I think there's a rolling three year cumulative total of losses. You also have to remember that within accounts costs, some elements might be treated differently by the Football League for example the depreciation of infrastructure.

Unlike QPR, Bournemouth and Leicester who all blatantly broke FFP to buy promotion.

A lot of other clubs such as Wednesday, Hull, Villa, M'boro, Fulham, Bristol,City and Derby have gone down the same road as Brighton of allowing huge losses in their bids for the PL.

Thanks for the reply. You may well be staying within the rules, for the reasons you give. I haven't studied Brighton's accounts. I was going on that headline loss figure of £30m. On the face of it, if that was a purely footballing loss, as it were, that would seem to make it hard to stay within the £39m over three years limit. Plus your owner talking about having to make "significant losses" to keep up with clubs benefiting from parachute payments in order to try to get promoted. The two together looked suggestive, particularly since you then got promoted! But not at all necessarily so. Good luck for the season.

 

[Nixonator]

Thanks for the reply. You may well be staying within the rules, for the reasons you give. I haven't studied Brighton's accounts. I was going on that headline loss figure of £30m. On the face of it, if that was a purely footballing loss, as it were, that would seem to make it hard to stay within the £39m over three years limit. Plus your owner talking about having to make "significant losses" to keep up with clubs benefiting from parachute payments in order to try to get promoted. The two together looked suggestive, particularly since you then got promoted! But not at all necessarily so. Good luck for the season.

Thanks for giving us the benefit of the doubt

If you refer to my previous post, unless you have and just didn't absorb it, our losses were 25.9M, of which it is widely considered that up to 10M is exempt from, as you describe, footballing losses. You would also have to consider that we have many very saleable assets that we could have been balancing subsequent (championship) seasons off. The sale of Dunk alone for example would bring in c15-20M.

 

[PurpleCanary]

Thanks for giving us the benefit of the doubt

If you refer to my previous post, unless you have and just didn't absorb it, our losses were 25.9M, of which it is widely considered that up to 10M is exempt from, as you describe, footballing losses. You would also have to consider that we have many very saleable assets that we could have been balancing subsequent (championship) seasons off. The sale of Dunk alone for example would bring in c15-20M.

Thanks. I had read your earlier post, although that didn't include any estimate that perhaps up to 10 million was "non-football". Having looked at an analysis of all the Championship clubs for the 2015-16 season, Brighton's pre-tax loss of 25.9m was the second largest, behind Middlesbrough's 32 million.

And, for what it is worth, the compiler of the list mentioned - specifically in the context of FFP rules - that quote from your owner about having to make 'significant losses" to try to get promotion. Not an accusation from him, but just raising the possibility, given that considerable loss, and given your owner's comments.

We obviously agree on FFP. Any club that abides by the rules (just as Norwich City and Brighton have done - at least up to the end of that 2015-16 season) is to be applauded. The penalties for breaking the rules should be at least as harsh as they are now. But there is an enormous incentive to take the risk, especially with a very rich owner. Fortunately ours are paupers, worth only a measly few million!

 

[Quinney]

Thanks. I had read your earlier post, although that didn't include any estimate that perhaps up to 10 million was "non-football". Having looked at an analysis of all the Championship clubs for the 2015-16 season, Brighton's pre-tax loss of 25.9m was the second largest, behind Middlesbrough's 32 million.

And, for what it is worth, the compiler of the list mentioned - specifically in the context of FFP rules - that quote from your owner about having to make 'significant losses" to try to get promotion. Not an accusation from him, but just raising the possibility, given that considerable loss, and given your owner's comments.

We obviously agree on FFP. Any club that abides by the rules (just as Norwich City and Brighton have done - at least up to the end of that 2015-16 season) is to be applauded. The penalties for breaking the rules should be at least as harsh as they are now. But there is an enormous incentive to take the risk, especially with a very rich owner. Fortunately ours are paupers, worth only a measly few million!

I think most Brighton supporters accepted that if we had failed to go up last season then it would have meant several of the 1st team squad being sold on, and a massive rebuilding job. It was a gamble and we clearly couldn't have continued spending at that rate, but with the total amount spread over 3 years we stayed under FFP. Not sure how clubs like Sheffield Wednesday, Derby, Birmingham and Wolves will get on spending big with no parachute payments. The whole system needs looking at as the parachute payments give a huge advantage to those teams coming down, which was why it was a necessary gamble last season.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Icy Gull]

I think most Brighton supporters accepted that if we had failed to go up last season then it would have meant several of the 1st team squad being sold on, and a massive rebuilding job. It was a gamble and we clearly couldn't have continued spending at that rate, but with the total amount spread over 3 years we stayed under FFP. Not sure how clubs like Sheffield Wednesday, Derby, Birmingham and Wolves will get on spending big with no parachute payments. The whole system needs looking at as the parachute payments give a huge advantage to those teams coming down, which was why it was a necessary gamble last season.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

You make a very good point, failure to get promoted last season would have led to a big backwards step. Even if this season goes completely pear shaped we will end up in a much much better place than failing to get promoted last season.

 

[spence]

Thanks. I had read your earlier post, although that didn't include any estimate that perhaps up to 10 million was "non-football". Having looked at an analysis of all the Championship clubs for the 2015-16 season, Brighton's pre-tax loss of 25.9m was the second largest, behind Middlesbrough's 32 million.

And, for what it is worth, the compiler of the list mentioned - specifically in the context of FFP rules - that quote from your owner about having to make 'significant losses" to try to get promotion. Not an accusation from him, but just raising the possibility, given that considerable loss, and given your owner's comments.

We obviously agree on FFP. Any club that abides by the rules (just as Norwich City and Brighton have done - at least up to the end of that 2015-16 season) is to be applauded. The penalties for breaking the rules should be at least as harsh as they are now. But there is an enormous incentive to take the risk, especially with a very rich owner. Fortunately ours are paupers, worth only a measly few million!

The penalties for breaking FFP are not harsh. They are pathetic and a waste of time. Just look at QPR and Bournemouth.

Anyway why have you come on here harping on about our finances? Get back to the Championship and stay there

 

[Nixonator]

The penalties for breaking the rules should be at least as harsh as they are now. But there is an enormous incentive to take the risk, especially with a very rich owner.

Agree that there is an enormous incentive to break the rules, as many clubs have done.

Disagree about the penalties being harsh, they can't even be upheld. QPR are still disputing it in court despite having total contempt and disregard for the rules. Bournemouth another example who I last heard were fined 7 Million, which is pocket change as you well know if the gamble pays off. Whether they have paid it or not yet I don't know. Magic Leicester too who got a free stadium out of their shadyness.

The most frustrating thing is, their blatant disregard for FFP has disadvantaged other clubs during previous promotion pushes who had to bring their finances in line.

 

[BensGrandad]

The only thing that would make clubs toe the line is a standard punishment of automatic relegation to the 2nd Division if found guilty. Clubs would think twice about if that was the punishment. It would mean they would need 3 promotions to get to The Premier which is a 3 year exile from the top tier.

 

[spence]

Agree that there is an enormous incentive to break the rules, as many clubs have done.

Disagree about the penalties being harsh, they can't even be upheld. QPR are still disputing it in court despite having total contempt and disregard for the rules. Bournemouth another example who I last heard were fined 7 Million, which is pocket change as you well know if the gamble pays off. Whether they have paid it or not yet I don't know. Magic Leicester too who got a free stadium out of their shadyness.

The most frustrating thing is, their blatant disregard for FFP has disadvantaged other clubs during previous promotion pushes who had to bring their finances in line.

What annoyed me was originally the money from clubs who break the rules would be shared out. That got changed.

 

[Justice]

What annoyed me was originally the money from clubs who break the rules would be shared out. That got changed.

Agree as soon as it went to charity it turned into a farce.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

What annoyed me was originally the money from clubs who break the rules would be shared out. That got changed.

Agree as soon as it went to charity it turned into a farce.

Totally agree. The original idea was brilliant. The clubs that break the rules get massive fines, which get shared amongst the other clubs. Perfick

 

[bhanutz]

I am not making an envious or antagonistic point here. It is just that I take an interest in foorball finance. If Brighton, having made a loss of £30m in the 2015-16 season, made any kind of substantial loss last season, getting promoted, then by my reckoning (this may not be right, of course) you will have broken Championship financial fair play rules, given that the limit is £39m over three seasons. As your owner said back then, referring to that £30m shortfall:

"Any Championship club without parachute payments wishing to compete for promotion will inevitably make significant losses." That sounds like an admission that he was willing to take the kind of rule-breaking risk QPR and Bournemouth, to name two, made to get to the Premier League.

Against that, based on what I have read here about your transfer activity so far, the club does not yet seem to have pushed the boat out, in terms of fees or - more importantly - wages.

Take more of an interest and do some research before jumping to conclusions...

 

[Weststander]

The penalties for breaking FFP are not harsh. They are pathetic and a waste of time. Just look at QPR and Bournemouth.

Anyway why have you come on here harping on about our finances? Get back to the Championship and stay there

At least Bournemouth held their hands up and paid. I do realise that it was a small payment compared to the PL riches.

QPR's an entirely different story. They cheated to a huge tune to get to the PL and have deviously fought all attempts to pay the penalty from FFP (which they signed up to along with 71 other FL clubs). Their last sneaky move: In the 2013/14 QPR Holdings Ltd accounts they wrote off £60m of creditor shareholder loans to the Profit and Loss account to turn the footballing/business loss of £69.5m into £9.5m. The accounting treatment was correct, but their argument is that the £60m should in effect form part of their FFP footballing activities income.

 

[Weststander]

Totally agree. The original idea was brilliant. The clubs that break the rules get massive fines, which get shared amongst the other clubs. Perfick

I agree. But didn't it get changed unfortunately because FFP breaking clubs challenged its legality, with in essence the judge and jury (all the rule abiding clubs) pocketing the fines between them in effect?

The charities compromise was the only way to keep the financial sanctions alive.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I agree. But didn't it get changed unfortunately because FFP breaking clubs challenged its legality, with in essence the judge and jury (all the rule abiding clubs) pocketing the fines between them in effect?

The charities compromise was the only way to keep the financial sanctions alive.

Sadly true. They didn't successfully challenge the fines, just the innovative part that helped the clubs who had stayed within the limits. If they'd allowed it to continue it would have been a great incentive to stay within FFP rules.

 

[PurpleCanary]

Agree that there is an enormous incentive to break the rules, as many clubs have done.

Disagree about the penalties being harsh, they can't even be upheld. QPR are still disputing it in court despite having total contempt and disregard for the rules. Bournemouth another example who I last heard were fined 7 Million, which is pocket change as you well know if the gamble pays off. Whether they have paid it or not yet I don't know. Magic Leicester too who got a free stadium out of their shadyness.

The most frustrating thing is, their blatant disregard for FFP has disadvantaged other clubs during previous promotion pushes who had to bring their finances in line.

I worded that clumsily. I wasn't trying to say the penalties were harsh, only that they certainly should not be less harsh than they are now and potentially might be toughened. You are right that meaningful enforcement is a big problem. QPR have twice now broken the rules to get promoted to the Premier League without - so far - any serious punishment. The previous time they only got fined instead of what would have been a crucial deduction despite being found guity of blatantly playing someone who was ineligible.