DarrenFreemansPerm
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
I really can't see any team receiving an embargo, and definitely not being deducted points. The idea of fining teams that are spending money on players seems farcical too.
The crushing effect of parachute payments...
- Thread starter Guinness Boy
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
sir albion
New member
Just sums it up doesn't it?
They just want the money all the time as we all know that points deductions are a much better punishment...Fines are ridiculous and means clubs in severe debt won't be fussed about a bit more debt lol
He covered that when questioned:
"One supporter questioned why I seem to quote different levels of losses. This is because at certain times I'm referring to FFP loss limits (a maximum of £8m last year, £6m this, and £5m next) and at other times I'm referring to total losses which adds back in the costs we incur for running things like our Academy (these are allowable expenses in FFP calculations and so reduce our FFP losses)."
Ninja Elephant
Doctor Elephant
- Feb 16, 2009
- 18,855
This summer, so they'll affect next seasons accounts rather than this set. The £6million for Lallana continues to grate on me, they played no part at all in his development. Southampton signed him when he was 12/13, and then sold him when he was 25/26. Bournemouth were very lucky to get such a huge sum, and whoever at Southampton didn't either buyout that clause or have it expire in the original deal, should be ashamed. In the times of FFP, for a club to get an underserved injection of so much is ridiculous and unfair.
Finchley Seagull
Well-known member
But isn't the Lallana money an exception anyway. A sell on clause with nothing to do with the current owners. If you think they got just over 10,000 last night, there's no way they can compete at the top of the Championship without a bit of a freak like that or breaking FFP rules. It does rule them out of what the OP said. Watford are also a freak as they have the Udinese connection and it's hard to believe that Middlesbrough will be okay with FFP this year (although I could be wrong). As said elsewhere, Derby who could be compared to us in any way and they have done very well.
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
What alternative punishment is there other than fines, for clubs that are no longer in your division?
In my view parachutes give clubs a nice head start but that's it.
More important is to have a squad of totally committed and capable players (often not the highest paid), motivated to give there all for every minute of every game, by a Manger who knows what he's doing, and to keep the key players 100% fit for the maximum possible time. All finished off with as much good luck as they can get!
Money can buy you out of this league but likely would take much more than parachutes
More important is to have a squad of totally committed and capable players (often not the highest paid), motivated to give there all for every minute of every game, by a Manger who knows what he's doing, and to keep the key players 100% fit for the maximum possible time. All finished off with as much good luck as they can get!
Money can buy you out of this league but likely would take much more than parachutes
gordonchas
New member
- Jul 1, 2012
- 230
If losing £7m a year (which is £1.50 spent for every £1.00 they receive) and running a net debt of over £30m is prudent, then prudent it must be.
The definition of prudent must have changed from when I was an accountant.
It's relative.
In their last reported accounts, Derby's total wage bill was c£10m which is modest compared to many in this division, including ourselves. Expressed as a percentage of income, that sits at around 66% which is also amongst the best.
I'm not sure where you are getting your debt figure from as I understood that Derby's owners had converted debt to equity (in a similar fashion to Tony Bloom) leaving the only debt a £15m mortgage on their stadium.
It is their impressive on-the-field performance in light of these numbers which is worthy of positive attention.
All the clubs in the Championship rely massively on the Premier League handouts. It was how they managed to bribe the Championship clubs on EPPP (the academy thingy)
Although Brighton get good crowds, out of their 23.5m income only 8.7m came from tickets. 4.8m came from the Premier League payouts. Total wages salaries and social security costs were 21m which were 112% of non premier league income.
Demonstrates how screwed football is financially especially outside the premier league
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,641
Whilst it's obviously a bit of a joke for a 12 year old, it's not lucky, as such, is it (well, not unless they're letting loads of 12 year olds go to bigger clubs and he's just the one out of a hundred who made it)? It's presumably quite shrewd of whoever was in charge of such things at Bournemouth at the time.
I see AFCB as fair game for criticism over a lot of the financial goings on at their club, but I can't really have a go at them for that.
gordonchas
New member
- Jul 1, 2012
- 230
You may well be right that the American owner has converted debt to equity, however that doesn't make their business in any way prudent. Relying on the beneficence of an owner to make good continually budgeted losses = charity by any other name. Not that this makes Derby worse than any other football club, but it doesn't make them any better either. The sad case of Brooks Mileson - amongst many, many, many others, shows where this eventually leads.
My figures were from Swiss Ramble's analysis of club account, which btw show wages at 12.1m (78.6% of turnover).
Ninja Elephant
Doctor Elephant
- Feb 16, 2009
- 18,855
It's an argument I have frequently with the Bournemouth fan in the office, she disagrees with my completely. I don't blame Bournemouth for the payout, that would be stupid. Their kid was poached at a young age by a club with better facilities and more resources. They deserve to be compensated for that, at the time. I understand the rules are very specific about how much can be paid for kids at that age, etc, and for Lallana to go on and do so well is 1 in however many get poached and don't make it, and Southampton are at fault for not either buying out the clause earlier, or inserting an expiry in the clause to protect themselves. They didn't do either, the existing agreement was in place and they sold him for top dollar 14 years after signing him - so they have to pay out to Bournemouth.
But my point is that Bournemouth have no right at all to claim they played any part in his development on any level. Southampton made him the player he is, and the player wanted by Liverpool for a ridiculously big fee. That's the first point, the second point is that in the world of FFP, they have been given a massive boost with their percentage of the fee which, according to the first point, they shouldn't have been entitled to in the first instance. They now will have more room for manoeuvre within the FFP regulations and can carry on their suspect spending. I am happy to accept my two points aren't overly strong, and many people have and will continue to disagree with me.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,641
Noted in one of today's papers that most Chief Executives are paid over £200k (yes, I know what you're all going to say at that point 
), and that for running clubs which, almost without exception, make losses.
Football is a ridiculous business when you think about it. What other industry would pay people that sort of money if they made no profit whatsoever, or in fact made crushing losses? The average Premier League club generates less revenue per annum than some branches of Tesco stores, but I'm pretty sure Tesco aren't paying their local store managers upwards of £200k.
), and that for running clubs which, almost without exception, make losses.Football is a ridiculous business when you think about it. What other industry would pay people that sort of money if they made no profit whatsoever, or in fact made crushing losses? The average Premier League club generates less revenue per annum than some branches of Tesco stores, but I'm pretty sure Tesco aren't paying their local store managers upwards of £200k.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,641
I actually agree with you on that. It's ridiculous for Bournemouth to claim they had any positive influence on his development (in fact, when you look at the apparent strength of Southampton's academy, it could be argued that Lallana only became so good because of the Saints' efforts), but that's what the rules allow clubs to claim, so I suppose Bournemouth have simply taken advantage of that.
It's a pretty daft rule which allows a club to claim the same for a player who was with them as a small child, as one who stayed until 16, but there you go.
I'm not sure the Lallana fee will fall under the next set of accounts to be published anyway, will it?
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
Noted in one of today's papers that most Chief Executives are paid over £200k (yes, I know what you're all going to say at that point
Football is a ridiculous business when you think about it. What other industry would pay people that sort of money if they made no profit whatsoever, or in fact made crushing losses? The average Premier League club generates less revenue per annum than some branches of Tesco stores, but I'm pretty sure Tesco aren't paying their local store managers upwards of £200k.
The whole thing is bonkers. How many businesses survive losing the amount of money that an average PL/Champ club loses? None (other than large internet based businesses that will make lots of money "one day"). But then how many clubs actually go bust? Hardly any. Many customers of these clubs complain bitterly when a club does not "invest" in new players when running at a loss, or have the temerity to make a profit (see Arsenal for example).
Most football clubs nowadays appear to be a vessel for giving large amounts of money to players. I am sure at many PL clubs, the CEO is one of the lowest paid members of staff. Bonkers.
Read Soccernomics - I found it very interesting and illuminating.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,641
I have read Soccernomics- that's where the supermarket turnover stat comes from. Never really thought of it that way before, but it's true. We automatically think of the big football clubs as these giant, globally significant businesses (presumably because of their worldwide recognition and brand awareness)- and yet they are dwarfed on almost every financial level by thousands of fairly anonymous, faceless companies.
GoldWithFalmer
Seaweed! Seaweed!
We all await with keen interest..
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
Indeed it is, you are quite right. Apologies.
I was very interested to see Russell Slade on the list of overachieving managers when compared with others in the same division and how they mentioned Alan Mullery as being a major underachiever! Just goes to show that us fans know nothing! It also highlights for me how difficult it is going to be for Brighton to be able to compete when its main objective is to be a self-sustaining club, unless things in football change dramatically.