This FFP meeting TB is going to

[El Presidente]

That depends what the aim is. It seems to me that the aim of FFP as it currently stands is to encourage good financial management (i.e. solvency), and discourage dependency upon either loans or gifts from chairmen. It's clearly NOT aimed at encouraging a level playing field. However the kind of system I proposed above (an absolute limit) does the latter at the expense of the former; so you end up with a competitive league, but not necessarily good financial management/solvency.

Manchester City are the least insolvent club of the 92, yet they are subject to FFP sanctions.

 

[andy1980]

The 4 proposals were
Increase the loss allowence for next season to either £10 million, 11.4 million or £12.8 million. The last proposal was the rules should be imposed based on real time financial figures and not retrospective system.

 

[keaton]

Manchester City are the least insolvent club of the 92, yet they are subject to FFP sanctions.

It incredible how Man Utd don't have any FFP sanctions when they're essentially £500-600m in debt

 

[sten_super]

Manchester City are the least insolvent club of the 92, yet they are subject to FFP sanctions.

I agree, and I'm not an apologist for the current regulations - but I suppose their aim depends upon your level of cynicism around the whole thing. The current regulations are either (if you're not cynical) aimed at discouraging clubs from 'living outside of their means', which might include gifts from chairmen but might equally include loans from chairmen, board members, banks, etc. to cover unsustainable losses, or they are aimed at maintaining the status quo of the largest clubs at the top. Realistically it's probably a bit of both which is probably why, in the case of the FL FFP, it was voted for so overwhelmingly - the big clubs thinking it shored up their position at the top of the Championship challenging for the Premier League, and the small clubs thinking it might reign in the bank-dependent clubs and bring down wage levels in the long run.

 

[coagulantwolf]

http://www1.skysports.com/football/...et-championship-changes-to-ffp-rules-rejected

Latest info. No agreement/changes from the meeting. Looks more and more susceptible to legal challenges.

I don't fully get the legal challenges though...if a league has a set of rules that you break, then you should be punishable for that and accept that. If you don't like the league rules, start your own league.

 

[Pavilionaire]

It's interesting that the majority of clubs voted FOR all the proposals but couldn't get the 75% majority to push this through, meaning that there are at least 6 clubs not wanting change.

The 75% threshold seems rather high when you consider the disparity between the size of the clubs and the fact they're all in competition for a massive prize - Prem status - so would seek to gain every advantage over their rivals that they possibly can.

The interests of Leeds will bear no relation to the interests of Yeovil, ditto the interests of QPR or Nottingham Forest with the interest of Barnsley or Doncaster. The only thing they have in common is that they happen to be in the same division competing against clubs with parachute payments.

 

[B.W.]

I hope our new manager accepts that his budget will be relatively tight, especially c.f. clubs with (ridiculous) parachute payments, but realises that promotion IS possible with this budget...

 

[brightonmark1234]

read this http://t.co/zwukZemIwo

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

It's interesting that the majority of clubs voted FOR all the proposals but couldn't get the 75% majority to push this through, meaning that there are at least 6 clubs not wanting change.

The 75% threshold seems rather high when you consider the disparity between the size of the clubs and the fact they're all in competition for a massive prize - Prem status - so would seek to gain every advantage over their rivals that they possibly can.

The interests of Leeds will bear no relation to the interests of Yeovil, ditto the interests of QPR or Nottingham Forest with the interest of Barnsley or Doncaster. The only thing they have in common is that they happen to be in the same division competing against clubs with parachute payments.

At least 6 clubs didn't want any change but that could have been as many as 11 clubs (13 for 11 against). I get the feeling that several clubs voted against because they want their day in court. The stakes are high because it will only take one club to win a case and the FFP rulebook and credibility of the Football League will be in tatters.

 

[saafend_seagull]

read this http://t.co/zwukZemIwo

Qpr can **** off.

Come on DERBY.

 

[B.W.]

Happy with the outcome. The FL have to hold their nerve / keep the financial lid on. This is serious sh1t.

 

[Jam The Man]

Well at least it's done for the time being.
I would suspect TB has been holding back from concrete meetings/discussions with candidates until this event had passed.. The picture will be clearer to progress now.

 

[BensGrandad]

When is the result of this vote expected I think Friday was mentioned on here. Sorry just read the read the last page of the thread so know the answer.

 

[Driver8]

When is the result of this vote expected I think Friday was mentioned on here.

Been and gone I think.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

When is the result of this vote expected I think Friday was mentioned on here.

See post #40

 

[BensGrandad]

When is the result of this vote expected I think Friday was mentioned on here. Sorry just read the read the last page of the thread so know the answer.

Duly amended. Sorry.

 

[Justice]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...re-Championship-play-final-against-Derby.html

Qpr getting a little anxious

 

[drew]

read this http://t.co/zwukZemIwo

Is that poor journalism or have the rules changed. They say QPR will be fined but if they fail to get promoted they will also get a transfer embargo! Surely if they fail to get promoted, it is just the embargo and if they do go up it is just a fine (albeit a very hefty one!)

How do you have sufficient cash on deposit to settle long term liabilities?


What is long term? Do you think your employers have sufficient cash on deposit for say six months of your wages?


If you have gazzilions does it really matter about the club making a loss? Is buying a trophy because you can afford to ethical?


If you are gambling with a clubs finances to win a trophy is it any less ethical or worse when that club goes down the pan.


If you obey FFP rules but can never compete with the big clubs will you feel better or worse if you never get anywhere?

Rangers are a good example of why nothing is straight forward in football, with all their fans they should easily meet all their financial obligations easily but they went bust. They only have one main competitor the rest of the clubs exist to make them feel good. Despite having loads of fans, winning most games and only having to really compete with Celtic they still went pop because they over stretched themselves. With FFP they should still be one of two big clubs and with their fan base should still be able to pay higher wages and attract better players than everyone else in Scotland (except Celtic) so how will FFP help any other club there. I think it will just make the finances more complex.

But to be fair, Rangers were not just competing with Celtic, they were competing against teams in the Champions League.

 

[Mutts Nuts]

I hope our new manager accepts that his budget will be relatively tight, especially c.f. clubs with (ridiculous) parachute payments, but realises that promotion IS possible with this budget...

No decent manager will want the job following the way our last two have left the club for the same reason in consecutive seasons

 

[B.W.]

No decent manager will want the job following the way our last two have left the club for the same reason in consecutive seasons

We'll see. They left for very different reasons BTW.