The cost of shooting for The Premier League

[Dick Knights Mumm]

It still is isnt it ?

Half the posts from a Palace perspective. Not to me. You carry on though.

 

[Dougie]

Half the posts from a Palace perspective. Not to me. You carry on though.

Fair enough , i'll let you carry on .

 

[Horsham Gull]

QPR seem to be another club that are doing it without much concern for the FFP rules hoovering any talent they can up in a bid to get to the premier league. Will be very amusing for everyone if one of these clubs that is doing this does fail and the possible penalties they might be going to receive for not follow the FFP guidelines

Correct me if i am wrong but aren't Bolton in ALOT of debt surely they will be one of the first to face punishment?

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Correct me if i am wrong but aren't Bolton in ALOT of debt surely they will be one of the first to face punishment?

Historic debt, although it tends to generate further debt if it is interest bearing isn't included in the FFP calculations, as far as I was aware. It's the change in debt levels each year that is measured.

Of course a massive debt is generally bad news anyway.

 

[pottert]

There's nothing wrong with debt so long as it's underwritten by an owner who is committed to the long term.

City, Chelsea ( and the Albion) are examples.

B******s
We need to be self suffient.
We spend what we earn.

 

[El Presidente]

B******s
We need to be self suffient.
We spend what we earn.

Just wait until the Albion announce their losses in the next few weeks.

 

[Pavilionaire]

This is why FFP has to be enforced rigourously. For Cardiff and Hull read Leicester and Forest. This transfer window will be very interesting from an FFP perspective.

 

[Jim D]

Leicester, Forest, QPR, Leeds, Reading, Blackburn and Wigan are all spending heavily to get promoted. Even if all 3 promoted teams are from this group it still leaves 4 that won't be - and that's when the reality will kick-in and we'll find out if FFP is to mean anything other than a good intention.

 

[Creaky]

Leicester, Forest, QPR, Leeds, Reading, Blackburn and Wigan are all spending heavily to get promoted. Even if all 3 promoted teams are from this group it still leaves 4 that won't be - and that's when the reality will kick-in and we'll find out if FFP is to mean anything other than a good intention.

QPR, Reading and Wigan get a 'by' in their first year following relegation as regards FFP - Forest have got their generous 'sponsorship' deal to cover their losses which leaves Leicester and Blackburn from that list - neither of which are likely to be the biggest 'offenders' against FFP

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Sod FFP. Just stop the ludicrous sums of money in football.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

Just wait until the Albion announce their losses in the next few weeks.

Tell us more

 

[Notters]

I still have no idea how Hull got promoted automatically. If they can do it so can we.

 

[nwgull]

Tell us more

We made just over an 8m loss in 11/12, it won't be a surprise if it's similar for 12/13. I'd also expect the club to have brought forward as many costs as possible into the 12/13 season from the this season to make conformance with FFP easier.

 

[Icy Gull]

Just wait until the Albion announce their losses in the next few weeks.

Are you guessing or are do you have inside knowledge?

I'm no accountant but would it not be in the club's interest to declare as much as they can in last year's accounts to minimise this years losses to come in line with FFP?

 

[nwgull]

QPR, Reading and Wigan get a 'by' in their first year following relegation as regards FFP - Forest have got their generous 'sponsorship' deal to cover their losses which leaves Leicester and Blackburn from that list - neither of which are likely to be the biggest 'offenders' against FFP

Forest's sponsorship deal is clearly in breach of the FFP rules regarding related parties.

I don't know about Reading, but I can't see Dave Whelan of Wigan throwing over 8m of his own money at getting them back up.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Forest's sponsorship deal is clearly in breach of the FFP rules regarding related parties.

The deal itself doesn't break the rules, only if it is deemed above market value.

 

[El Presidente]

Are you guessing or are do you have inside knowledge?

I'm no accountant but would it not be in the club's interest to declare as much as they can in last year's accounts to minimise this years losses to come in line with FFP?

I don't have any inside knowledge but with the Albion having to depreciate the stadium this year, the wages paid to Bridge, PIG, Crofts, Upson and Ulloa, new deals for the likes of Buckley, and Barber taking time to identify the overspends elsewhere, any losses of less than £15 million would be reasonable IMO.

I agree with you about accelerating expenditure.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I don't have any inside knowledge but with the Albion having to depreciate the stadium this year, the wages paid to Bridge, PIG, Crofts, Upson and Ulloa, new deals for the likes of Buckley, and Barber taking time to identify the overspends elsewhere, any losses of less than £15 million would be reasonable IMO.

I agree with you about accelerating expenditure.

What year are we waiting for ? Does the additional seating come into play, and the change of method of finance for the transport ?

 

[Bozza]

Just wait until the Albion announce their losses in the next few weeks.

Not until March this year I believe.

 

[nwgull]

I don't have any inside knowledge but with the Albion having to depreciate the stadium this year, the wages paid to Bridge, PIG, Crofts, Upson and Ulloa, new deals for the likes of Buckley, and Barber taking time to identify the overspends elsewhere, any losses of less than £15 million would be reasonable IMO.

I agree with you about accelerating expenditure.

Would depreciation come into it for the club's accounts? I thought a separate entity owned the Amex.