The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[downendcity]

One thing that appears obvious when looking at Villa's situation is how parachute payments enable a relegated club to "fund" attempts to gain promotion straight back to the prem thereby gaining a massive advantage over many championship clubs.. I know this probably sounds like teaching granny to suck eggs, as you will all know that already.

However, the reason I mention this now, is that there has been an understandable concern that when it comes to a "big" club, like Villa, the EFL will duck out of hitting them really hard, especially when it comes to points deduction. 

My thinking is that any club relegated from the prem knows the implications of ffp in the football league, and even though it means some major re-adjustment ( wages in particular),  parachute payments give them additional money over 3 years to help manage that readjustment, so they don't have to hold a fire sale in the summer following relegation. With parachute payments I cannot see how any club cannot, in a 3 year period, bring their finances in line with the requirements of ffp, as every other club in the championship has to do.

If they choose to use parachute payments to maintain an expensive playing staff, but without the same level of income they enjoyed in the prem, then they know the potential consequences should they fail to gain promotion and then fall foul of ffp assessment, as looks to be the case with Villa.

The danger of letting Villa off lightly ( assuming they breach ffp of course) is that it creates a precedent for every other relegated club to use parachute payments to fund a 3 years assault on promotion on the basis that relegation and the ultimate loss of parachute payments will somehow be looked upon as a reason for the financial problems.

 

[JamesBCFC]

13 minutes ago, downendcity said:

One thing that appears obvious when looking at Villa's situation is how parachute payments enable a relegated club to "fund" attempts to gain promotion straight back to the prem thereby gaining a massive advantage over many championship clubs.. I know this probably sounds like teaching granny to suck eggs, as you will all know that already.

However, the reason I mention this now, is that there has been an understandable concern that when it comes to a "big" club, like Villa, the EFL will duck out of hitting them really hard, especially when it comes to points deduction. 

My thinking is that any club relegated from the prem knows the implications of ffp in the football league, and even though it means some major re-adjustment ( wages in particular),  parachute payments give them additional money over 3 years to help manage that readjustment, so they don't have to hold a fire sale in the summer following relegation. With parachute payments I cannot see how any club cannot, in a 3 year period, bring their finances in line with the requirements of ffp, as every other club in the championship has to do.

If they choose to use parachute payments to maintain an expensive playing staff, but without the same level of income they enjoyed in the prem, then they know the potential consequences should they fail to gain promotion and then fall foul of ffp assessment, as looks to be the case with Villa.

The danger of letting Villa off lightly ( assuming they breach ffp of course) is that it creates a precedent for every other relegated club to use parachute payments to fund a 3 years assault on promotion on the basis that relegation and the ultimate loss of parachute payments will somehow be looked upon as a reason for the financial problems.

 

This last paragraph is key, and a bit ironic, given the idea behind parachute payments was so that relegated clubs didn't suffer financial issues.

Really, that should be presented against them. They had a measure given to them to prevent financial difficulties and abused it* to try and gain an advantage over the competition. But because football isn't as cut and dry as Spend Money = Win Everything this has backfired and now thy must face the consequence.

 

*Note, the money was technically theirs to do with as they wished I believe, but they went shit or bust, now they are heading towards a certain proverbial creek.

[CotswoldRed]

On 02/03/2019 at 18:12, Red Right Hand said:

Which is what most of us are convinced they will be. FFP just becomes a sham without meaningful sanctions but I think we all fear what will (or won`t) happen.

If the FA do nothing meaningful then SL surely has to be free to spend as he pleases, when he pleases. 

Without sanctions more clubs will see a green light to spend. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

An early estimate for Aston Villa's FFP losses this season- though doubtless I'll go back and revise over time.

AFTER exclusions, deductions etc, assuming these are much the same as last season?

*£41,351,500. That's the FFP adjusted loss, the accounting loss will be talking somewhere from mid £50's-low 60's in terms of millions for this season IMO.

*This assumes a wage bill reduction of £10m, no loan fees received as listed, no more than 1 loan fee paid as listed, and that their expenses factored in for FFP purposes the same as last year. Maybe add a total of £1-2m for Women's football, infrastructure and other areas not listed in accounts which may knock their losses down to only £39-40m.

Edited March 8, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[CotswoldRed]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

An early estimate for Aston Villa's FFP losses this season- though doubtless I'll go back and revise.

AFTER exclusions, deductions etc, assuming these are much the same as last season?

£41,351,500. That's the FFP adjusted loss, the accounting loss will be talking the mid 50 millions, if not low 60's what with profit on transfers offsetting this a little.

@CotswoldRed It's the EFL who control this aspect, not necessarily the FA.

Thanks for pointing this out. I'm not fully up to speed. 

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, downendcity said:

One thing that appears obvious when looking at Villa's situation is how parachute payments enable a relegated club to "fund" attempts to gain promotion straight back to the prem thereby gaining a massive advantage over many championship clubs.. I know this probably sounds like teaching granny to suck eggs, as you will all know that already.

However, the reason I mention this now, is that there has been an understandable concern that when it comes to a "big" club, like Villa, the EFL will duck out of hitting them really hard, especially when it comes to points deduction. 

My thinking is that any club relegated from the prem knows the implications of ffp in the football league, and even though it means some major re-adjustment ( wages in particular),  parachute payments give them additional money over 3 years to help manage that readjustment, so they don't have to hold a fire sale in the summer following relegation. With parachute payments I cannot see how any club cannot, in a 3 year period, bring their finances in line with the requirements of ffp, as every other club in the championship has to do.

If they choose to use parachute payments to maintain an expensive playing staff, but without the same level of income they enjoyed in the prem, then they know the potential consequences should they fail to gain promotion and then fall foul of ffp assessment, as looks to be the case with Villa.

The danger of letting Villa off lightly ( assuming they breach ffp of course) is that it creates a precedent for every other relegated club to use parachute payments to fund a 3 years assault on promotion on the basis that relegation and the ultimate loss of parachute payments will somehow be looked upon as a reason for the financial problems.

 

Re Fire Sale on relegation....this is where clubs need to be smarter with their contracts in terms if adding relegation clauses, e.g 40% wage reduction.  The flip-side is recruiting players who’ll accept that clause in their contract.  I guess this is where we utilised that type of clause with Nathan Baker.  Very few if not any of us know his terms, but we speculate from stories that he was on approx £30-35k per week with Villa in the Prem and took a 40% cut on relegation, so £18-21k, which brought him into our “pond”.  In fairness to Sunderland re Rodwell, if you ignore that £70k was a stupid amount, they had a one year suspended clause....almost an incentive that they’d only apply the reduction if they failed to get promoted back.  I actually think this was quite sensible, but looks disastrous as not only did they not go back up, they got relegated again!!

But three years is plenty of time to sort out your budgets, move on players, etc.

1 hour ago, CotswoldRed said:

If the FA do nothing meaningful then SL surely has to be free to spend as he pleases, when he pleases. 

Without sanctions more clubs will see a green light to spend. 

That is what I think will mean they do punish the likes of Brum or Villa....if they don’t set a precedent, then it will be a free-for-all next season.

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

An early estimate for Aston Villa's FFP losses this season- though doubtless I'll go back and revise over time.

AFTER exclusions, deductions etc, assuming these are much the same as last season?

*£41,351,500. That's the FFP adjusted loss, the accounting loss will be talking somewhere from mid £50's-low 60's in terms of millions for this season IMO.

*This assumes a wage bill reduction of £10m, no loan fees received as listed, no more than 1 loan fee paid as listed, and that their expenses factored in for FFP purposes the same as last year. Maybe add a total of £1-2m for Women's football, infrastructure and other areas not listed in accounts which may knock their losses down to only £39-40m.

Would the above include loaning Hogan out for example?

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Re Fire Sale on relegation....this is where clubs need to be smarter with their contracts in terms if adding relegation clauses, e.g 40% wage reduction.  The flip-side is recruiting players who’ll accept that clause in their contract.  I guess this is where we utilised that type of clause with Nathan Baker.  Very few if not any of us know his terms, but we speculate from stories that he was on approx £30-35k per week with Villa in the Prem and took a 40% cut on relegation, so £18-21k, which brought him into our “pond”.  In fairness to Sunderland re Rodwell, if you ignore that £70k was a stupid amount, they had a one year suspended clause....almost an incentive that they’d only apply the reduction if they failed to get promoted back.  I actually think this was quite sensible, but looks disastrous as not only did they not go back up, they got relegated again!!

But three years is plenty of time to sort out your budgets, move on players, etc.

That is what I think will mean they do punish the likes of Brum or Villa....if they don’t set a precedent, then it will be a free-for-all next season.

Would the above include loaning Hogan out for example?

I'd say so yeah, because while a number of high earners left, those they signed wouldn't have been a pittance- £10m in wage reduction should include the loanees going and tbh every chance £10m is too generous of me, that Dave Jordan Twitter account suggested £5m, but I am working on an assumption that their old owner started at least paying it a bit of attention not least as he couldn't get cash out of China!

Edited March 8, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Unless they got a loan fee for him which isn't disclosed anywhere yeah- £10m in wage reduction should include the loanees going and tbh every chance £10m is too generous of me, that Dave Jordan Twitter account suggested £5m, but I am working on an assumption that their old owner started at least paying it a bit of attention not least as he couldn't get cash out of China!

Ah, ok....wasn’t sure what you were including in wage reduction.

I think there’s a good chance Hogan’s loan fee was 7 figures.  But as you say, you’ve probably been generous elsewhere.

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Ah, ok....wasn’t sure what you were including in wage reduction.

I think there’s a good chance Hogan’s loan fee was 7 figures.  But as you say, you’ve probably been generous elsewhere.

Maybe then, as I say some guesswork partially based on TransferMarkt which can list loan fees but not always- e.g. according to it El Ghazi's was £1.8m apparently.

A loan fee for Hogan of a seven figure fee would definitely make sense.

Either way though, a few million here and there probably wouldn't make a huge difference, as I believe them to be in a huge FFP mess- along with Birmingham and depending on what transpires, Sheffield Wednesday they must be punished and a big precedent set.

Edited March 8, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

I just hope it all comes out in the March meeting...and we see some some real tangible application of the FFP rules.  It would be good to see a few of the chasing pack put back in their place, after our recent results have given them a sniff!

[Drew Peacock]

Villa aren't going up, so a 14 point deduction would drop them to just above the relegation fight.  EFL seen to be strict, but really to no effect.

Punishment should be stay in the division if you are top two or relegation if you are anywhere else.

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

Villa aren't going up, so a 14 point deduction would drop them to just above the relegation fight.  EFL seen to be strict, but really to no effect.

Punishment should be stay in the division if you are top two or relegation if you are anywhere else.

I guess they should position their punishments accordingly, e.g. there has been mention of applying points deductions to the current season and the next season too.

I do like the simplicity of your punishment....why not go the whole hog, and relegate them regardless....like they did to Swindon.

[downendcity]

34 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

Villa aren't going up, so a 14 point deduction would drop them to just above the relegation fight.  EFL seen to be strict, but really to no effect.

Punishment should be stay in the division if you are top two or relegation if you are anywhere else.

 

27 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I guess they should position their punishments accordingly, e.g. there has been mention of applying points deductions to the current season and the next season too.

I do like the simplicity of your punishment....why not go the whole hog, and relegate them regardless....like they did to Swindon.

The good thing about basing the third year on projected accounts means that the EFL can apply punishment in the same season. As I think everyone is now aware, this means that a points penalty can be applied that could/would prevent a team from gaining promotion.

However, the downside could be, as Drew P points out, that if Villa are going to fall short of promotion or play offs anyway, and if they bust ffp by miles, they would think it a right result if a points penalty just dropped them further down the table and with little chance of relegation, as they start the next season with ( I think) effectively a clean slate, as far as ffp is concerned - effectively no penalty at all.

In this respect Dave's suggestion is a logical one, i.e. to apply the points deduction the following season- although logic seems an alien principle to football administrators! There is a precedent of sorts already in place for this, regarding clubs going into administration. A club could chose to go into administration when they know relegation is either certain or odds on to happen, as they would then incur a points penalty in that season, which means the points deduction is no penalty at all. The league deters clubs from this course of action by being able to carry a points deduction to the following season.

The other option is to apply a combination of penalties. So, if as in the example above points penalty was no penalty, then perhaps they could combine a transfer embargo and even add in a financial penalty as well. It's not a question of picking on, say, Villa, because they are a big club that should learn their place, but because otherwise all the clubs , like us, that are trying to keep their financial house in order are effectively being further penalised when compared to the clubs that enjoy/have enjoyed the advantage of parachute payments, 

As for "going the whole hog" with relegation as the sanction, then I think this rally would stir a massive hornets nest with penalised clubs taking legal action to try and protect their league status. Far better to apply the ffp rules properly and apply the range of penalties now available fully and appropriately. I also think that they have to lay down a clear marker with the first set of results, and the penalties applied, if they are to make sure that clubs understand the need to comply and so.

 

 

[Davefevs]

15 minutes ago, downendcity said:

 

The good thing about basing the third year on projected accounts means that the EFL can apply punishment in the same season. As I think everyone is now aware, this means that a points penalty can be applied that could/would prevent a team from gaining promotion.

However, the downside could be, as Drew P points out, that if Villa are going to fall short of promotion or play offs anyway, and if they bust ffp by miles, they would think it a right result if a points penalty just dropped them further down the table and with little chance of relegation, as they start the next season with ( I think) effectively a clean slate, as far as ffp is concerned - effectively no penalty at all.

In this respect Dave's suggestion is a logical one, i.e. to apply the points deduction the following season- although logic seems an alien principle to football administrators! There is a precedent of sorts already in place for this, regarding clubs going into administration. A club could chose to go into administration when they know relegation is either certain or odds on to happen, as they would then incur a points penalty in that season, which means the points deduction is no penalty at all. The league deters clubs from this course of action by being able to carry a points deduction to the following season.

The other option is to apply a combination of penalties. So, if as in the example above points penalty was no penalty, then perhaps they could combine a transfer embargo and even add in a financial penalty as well. It's not a question of picking on, say, Villa, because they are a big club that should learn their place, but because otherwise all the clubs , like us, that are trying to keep their financial house in order are effectively being further penalised when compared to the clubs that enjoy/have enjoyed the advantage of parachute payments, 

As for "going the whole hog" with relegation as the sanction, then I think this rally would stir a massive hornets nest with penalised clubs taking legal action to try and protect their league status. Far better to apply the ffp rules properly and apply the range of penalties now available fully and appropriately. I also think that they have to lay down a clear marker with the first set of results, and the penalties applied, if they are to make sure that clubs understand the need to comply and so.

 

 

Think it might require an aggravated breach to apply to next season.

I guess they need to make the rules transparent, e.g.

upto £3m - 3points

upto £5m - 5points

upto £8m - 9points

upto £12m - 12points AND if in top 6, removal from Promotion or Playoff irrespective of where reduction of points places you.

On top of this, aggravated (to be defined), same points punishments as above but applied to next season.

So take Brum, Imagine they are £7m over in projected accounts, then 9 point deduction this season, but aggravated by Pedersen and failure to sell Adams...then 9 point deduction start of next season.

I’m sure there are flaws in the above, but sone visibility of the penalties would make sense.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Now I'm not pinning anything on this. Not at all.

However rumours in the Saturday papers that Aston Villa, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday may all face points deductions for breaching FFP. Unclear if it would be for this season, or next season.

Would also depend on size of losses, their conduct after a breach discovered, whether they made genuine efforts to offset. Aston Villa should if in breach at the numbers posted online have the book thrown, Sheffield Wednesday punished but seemingly with lower losses and Derby the hardest to gauge because of their big sales in recent years. Also Marriott and Waghorn who effectively replaced Vydra and Weimann, would surely have been on lower wages than the ones they replaced.

All IMO of course.

 

Now I've not yet read the EFL judgement in full but I don't know if this is official or an estimate based on likelihood, using Birmingham as a template. Saw it on Kieran Maguire's feed, @ploehmann

Edited March 25, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[Bristol Rob]

45 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Now I'm not pinning anything on this. Not at all.

However rumours in the Saturday papers that Aston Villa, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday may all face points deductions for breaching FFP. Unclear if it would be for this season, or next season.

Would also depend on size of losses, their conduct after a breach discovered, whether they made genuine efforts to offset. Aston Villa should if in breach at the numbers posted online have the book thrown, Sheffield Wednesday punished but seemingly with lower losses and Derby the hardest to gauge because of their big sales in recent years. Also Marriott and Waghorn who effectively replaced Vydra and Weimann, would surely have been on lower wages than the ones they replaced.

All IMO of course.

 

Now I've not yet read the EFL judgement in full but I don't know if this is official or an estimate based on likelihood, using Birmingham as a template. Saw it on Kieran Maguire's feed, @ploehmann

I would be amazed if any further points deductions are made this season.

But that is based entirely on me thinking... surely they would have done them all at the same time.

If they did apply points deductions, then this division is going to be a strange one this season  - especially if Bolton don't get a new owner.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Bristol Rob

[Mr Popodopolous]

27 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

I would be amazed if any further points deductions are made this season.

But that is based entirely on me thinking... surely they would have done them all at the same time.

If they did apply points deductions, then this division is going to be a strange one this season  - especially if Bolton don't get a new owner.

I mean, the idea of club projected accounts for the existing season in March should have that base covered.. 

In reality I agree though- given how long it took the EFL for a relatively straightforward case like Birmingham, for a breach to the prior 3 seasons to May 2018?

Makes me wonder if though the rules are sound, the EFL have the basic competence and dexterity to enforce them in a correct and more importantly timely manner.

Still one article said cut off date for sanctions is 26th March 2019 so we'll see...

[Bristol Rob]

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I mean, the idea of club projected accounts for the existing season in March should have that base covered.. 

In reality I agree though- given how long it took the EFL for a relatively straightforward case like Birmingham, for a breach to the prior 3 seasons to May 2018?

Makes me wonder if though the rules are sound, the EFL have the basic competence and dexterity to enforce them in a correct and more importantly timely manner.

Still one article said cut off date for sanctions is 26th March 2019 so we'll see...

Price Of Football suggested on the weekend that Villa might just be within the limits.

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Price Of Football suggested on the weekend that Villa might just be within the limits.

I read the piece in q and it appeared to be for the 3 seasons until last season.

I reckon that without a legitimate and accepted exceptional item being in this seasons accounts? That they'll be £20-30m over in the period covering their 3 years at this level.

Will show my workings later and yes some assumptions lie within.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, Bristol Rob said:

Price Of Football suggested on the weekend that Villa might just be within the limits.

If that's the case I need the name and address of Villa's accountants so I can get them to do my next tax return!

[Mr Popodopolous]

55 minutes ago, downendcity said:

If that's the case I need the name and address of Villa's accountants so I can get them to do my next tax return!

I believe it to only be the limits for 15/16-last season, which is roughly where I thought they maybe.

The limits to this season- these pose the huge challenge. Think after FFP deductions, they have smashed it- lost somewhere between 60-77% of their 3 limit this season alone!

Still going to do my calculations but if they have breached it, and them especially given their arrogance, I hope they get points removed this season. Can't get away with it.

[Davefevs]

6 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Now I'm not pinning anything on this. Not at all.

However rumours in the Saturday papers that Aston Villa, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday may all face points deductions for breaching FFP. Unclear if it would be for this season, or next season.

Would also depend on size of losses, their conduct after a breach discovered, whether they made genuine efforts to offset. Aston Villa should if in breach at the numbers posted online have the book thrown, Sheffield Wednesday punished but seemingly with lower losses and Derby the hardest to gauge because of their big sales in recent years. Also Marriott and Waghorn who effectively replaced Vydra and Weimann, would surely have been on lower wages than the ones they replaced.

All IMO of course.

 

Now I've not yet read the EFL judgement in full but I don't know if this is official or an estimate based on likelihood, using Birmingham as a template. Saw it on Kieran Maguire's feed, @ploehmann

I wasn’t a million miles out with my tiered point deduction was I !!

5 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

I would be amazed if any further points deductions are made this season.

But that is based entirely on me thinking... surely they would have done them all at the same time.

If they did apply points deductions, then this division is going to be a strange one this season  - especially if Bolton don't get a new owner.

The Birmingham decision was rediculously delayed from last season, delayed further by a conflict of interest in February.  The EFL must sort this out....quickly.

Birmingham’s penalties were for seasons up to 17/18.

Villa appear to be just inside FFP for season’s up to 17/18.

Brum, Villa, Wednesday and Derby now have submitted 18/19’s projected accounts.

The EFL FFP panel have the right to act THIS SEASON on those projected accounts plus the previous seasons 16/17 & 17/18.  It would be incredibly bad for any of the sides if in breach to command a play-off spot based on the (now) published table of points deductions, should they not achieve enough points minus the deduction.

Imho, the Brum decision has set the precedent.  I think there could be a mutiny amongst other EFL clubs if the projected accounts are NOT used THIS SEASON.  I see no point in submitting projected accounts if they aren’t to be used in the season they refer to.

The EFL have show one ball, they now need to show both.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

I wasn’t a million miles out with my tiered point deduction was I !!

The Birmingham decision was rediculously delayed from last season, delayed further by a conflict of interest in February.  The EFL must sort this out....quickly.

Birmingham’s penalties were for seasons up to 17/18.

Villa appear to be just inside FFP for season’s up to 17/18.

Brum, Villa, Wednesday and Derby now have submitted 18/19’s projected accounts.

The EFL FFP panel have the right to act THIS SEASON on those projected accounts plus the previous seasons 16/17 & 17/18.  It would be incredibly bad for any of the sides if in breach to command a play-off spot based on the (now) published table of points deductions, should they not achieve enough points minus the deduction.

Imho, the Brum decision has set the precedent.  I think there could be a mutiny amongst other EFL clubs if the projected accounts are NOT used THIS SEASON.  I see no point in submitting projected accounts if they aren’t to be used in the season they refer to.

The EFL have show one ball, they now need to show both.

Agree, the projected accounts thing must be enforced.

By rights, if I was Barnsley or Burton who were well within FFP? Fuming! Birmingham in breach for the 3 years and eventually this was delayed by nearly a year.

Well done BTW on the sliding scale- pretty close indeed. Will look at them both later but it seemed on point.

[downendcity]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Agree, the projected accounts thing must be enforced.

By rights, if I was Barnsley or Burton who were well within FFP? Fuming! Birmingham in breach for the 3 years and eventually this was delayed by nearly a year.

Well done BTW on the sliding scale- pretty close indeed. Will look at them both later but it seemed on point.

My understanding is that under the new rules projected accounts were required so that offending clubs could be identified, punished and penalised during the same season in order to avoid the farce that existed previously, whereby a club could gain promotion as a result of breaching ffp, by which time it was too late for the EFL to do anything about it.

For the new rules to have any credibility they must be applied across the board and to all clubs.This is crunch time for ffp in my opinion, and the reason why I think they must punish offending clubs hard. It's not so much punishing clubs for the sake of punishing them, or because we don't like the club, but because it is the only way that clubs will realise they must comply going forward and that means running their financial affairs the right way. 

Until now, I feel that there are some big clubs that have taken the view that they will worry about ffp issues when they arise, so have continued to spend as they see fit to give them the best competitive edge. That is treating the other clubs, that are trying to ensure they comply, with complete contempt and unless offenders are addressed and properly punished, the other clubs would be entitled to think that ffp is not worth the paper it's written on.

Parachute payments mean that there will always be clubs with a huge financial advantage in the championship. The correct application of ffp will at least ensure that there is a little bit more of a level playing field for clubs lie us.

 

[Davefevs]

Your 1st para is spot on.  If they don’t do it, they have failed the FFP-Abiding clubs....and I do think this is part of the reason MA is now on the board.

[Mr Popodopolous]

57 minutes ago, downendcity said:

My understanding is that under the new rules projected accounts were required so that offending clubs could be identified, punished and penalised during the same season in order to avoid the farce that existed previously, whereby a club could gain promotion as a result of breaching ffp, by which time it was too late for the EFL to do anything about it.

For the new rules to have any credibility they must be applied across the board and to all clubs.This is crunch time for ffp in my opinion, and the reason why I think they must punish offending clubs hard. It's not so much punishing clubs for the sake of punishing them, or because we don't like the club, but because it is the only way that clubs will realise they must comply going forward and that means running their financial affairs the right way. 

Until now, I feel that there are some big clubs that have taken the view that they will worry about ffp issues when they arise, so have continued to spend as they see fit to give them the best competitive edge. That is treating the other clubs, that are trying to ensure they comply, with complete contempt and unless offenders are addressed and properly punished, the other clubs would be entitled to think that ffp is not worth the paper it's written on.

Parachute payments mean that there will always be clubs with a huge financial advantage in the championship. The correct application of ffp will at least ensure that there is a little bit more of a level playing field for clubs lie us.

 

That was the exact reason for the projected accounts.

I fully agree, it has to be implented without fear or favour. As per the sliding scale that seemingly is the formula that I found earlier.

I would expect Aston Villa for example to get more hammered than Derby say as their losses seem to be higher and Derby selling the players they sold shows an effort of some sort, whereas Aston Villa have done nothing of the sort.

[Davefevs]

Interesting. 

Gibson very respected.  This is gonna get interesting.

[downendcity]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That was the exact reason for the projected accounts.

I fully agree, it has to be implented without fear or favour. As per the sliding scale that seemingly is the formula that I found earlier.

I would expect Aston Villa for example to get more hammered than Derby say as their losses seem to be higher and Derby selling the players they sold shows an effort of some sort, whereas Aston Villa have done nothing of the sort.

There's only one thing about the sliding scale of penalty.

Suppose a club knows it is running close to the ffp limits at the end of season two of the three year cycle, but goes for broke by paying a big fee and big wages for a striker in the summer window. The amortised fee and wages total £4m, which is enough to take them £4m over the ffp limit. According to the sliding scale you posted, this would result in a a 5 point deduction, but if the strikers goals meant that the club had a 6 point cushion at the top of the table at the end of the season, then even with the points deduction they would still gain promotion. They would have gained promotion by cheating if the rest of the division was compliant.

By the same token, suppose another club has worked diligently to keep within ffp and sold key players to do so.In the third year of the three year cycle they are struggling near the foot of the table, as they have only a young and inexperienced squad, but at the start of the season their main sponsor goes bust so they  do not receive any of that sponsorship income for the final season. With the sponsors income they would be inside ffp limits, but without it they end up £200,000 over the limit. The sliding scale 3 point penalty is enough to relegate them as they were just 2 points above the drop zone.

In the case of the relegated club, they breached because of factors outside of their control, whereas the promoted club gained advantage by consciously breaking ffp limits, but in so doing gained enough points advantage so that the ffp point deduction was no penalty at all. The impact of the bigger points deduction is nothing compared to that of the lesser points deduction and disproportional to the reasons for each club breaching the ffp limits.

For this reason, and even though I can understand the problems it could/would cause, the only way I can see ffp offenders being properly and family punished is by each case being considered on it's own merits. Why should any club gain promotion if they have  breached the financial limits to which the rest of the division have adhered ?

[Davefevs]

18 minutes ago, downendcity said:

There's only one thing about the sliding scale of penalty.

Suppose a club knows it is running close to the ffp limits at the end of season two of the three year cycle, but goes for broke by paying a big fee and big wages for a striker in the summer window. The amortised fee and wages total £4m, which is enough to take them £4m over the ffp limit. According to the sliding scale you posted, this would result in a a 5 point deduction, but if the strikers goals meant that the club had a 6 point cushion at the top of the table at the end of the season, then even with the points deduction they would still gain promotion. They would have gained promotion by cheating if the rest of the division was compliant.

By the same token, suppose another club has worked diligently to keep within ffp and sold key players to do so.In the third year of the three year cycle they are struggling near the foot of the table, as they have only a young and inexperienced squad, but at the start of the season their main sponsor goes bust so they  do not receive any of that sponsorship income for the final season. With the sponsors income they would be inside ffp limits, but without it they end up £200,000 over the limit. The sliding scale 3 point penalty is enough to relegate them as they were just 2 points above the drop zone.

In the case of the relegated club, they breached because of factors outside of their control, whereas the promoted club gained advantage by consciously breaking ffp limits, but in so doing gained enough points advantage so that the ffp point deduction was no penalty at all. The impact of the bigger points deduction is nothing compared to that of the lesser points deduction and disproportional to the reasons for each club breaching the ffp limits.

For this reason, and even though I can understand the problems it could/would cause, the only way I can see ffp offenders being properly and family punished is by each case being considered on it's own merits. Why should any club gain promotion if they have  breached the financial limits to which the rest of the division have adhered ?

Don’t they have to power to stop promotion / play-offs, I.e. not just give points deduction, which might not be sufficient?

[Mr Popodopolous]

54 minutes ago, downendcity said:

There's only one thing about the sliding scale of penalty.

Suppose a club knows it is running close to the ffp limits at the end of season two of the three year cycle, but goes for broke by paying a big fee and big wages for a striker in the summer window. The amortised fee and wages total £4m, which is enough to take them £4m over the ffp limit. According to the sliding scale you posted, this would result in a a 5 point deduction, but if the strikers goals meant that the club had a 6 point cushion at the top of the table at the end of the season, then even with the points deduction they would still gain promotion. They would have gained promotion by cheating if the rest of the division was compliant.

By the same token, suppose another club has worked diligently to keep within ffp and sold key players to do so.In the third year of the three year cycle they are struggling near the foot of the table, as they have only a young and inexperienced squad, but at the start of the season their main sponsor goes bust so they  do not receive any of that sponsorship income for the final season. With the sponsors income they would be inside ffp limits, but without it they end up £200,000 over the limit. The sliding scale 3 point penalty is enough to relegate them as they were just 2 points above the drop zone.

In the case of the relegated club, they breached because of factors outside of their control, whereas the promoted club gained advantage by consciously breaking ffp limits, but in so doing gained enough points advantage so that the ffp point deduction was no penalty at all. The impact of the bigger points deduction is nothing compared to that of the lesser points deduction and disproportional to the reasons for each club breaching the ffp limits.

For this reason, and even though I can understand the problems it could/would cause, the only way I can see ffp offenders being properly and family punished is by each case being considered on it's own merits. Why should any club gain promotion if they have  breached the financial limits to which the rest of the division have adhered ?

That is a good point that- each case on its own merits, with the points deduction sliding scale as a guide, a means to an end rather than an end in itself.

Maybe one option.

Surely the £4m could class as an aggravated breach though, or no points added back on for good behaviour? Because if you know you are going to breach and do it anyway, it'd be seen as deliberate, based on that graphic I saw by @ploehmann I think it was?

@Davefevs Gibson and Lansdown doesn't surprise. Nottingham Forest too in a way- because Marinakis for all of the claims about him in Greece, or the fact he can be quite trigger happy with managers...I've always considered he may well be respectful of FFP. He kept Olympiakos sufficently compliant to get into CL each year, read online that under their prior owner/President...it would certainly not have been the case!

The Evening Post article has one error though- Wolves were close to the 3 year FFP limit, but promotion bonuses do not count towards costs, nor do other promotion costs- they were probably a couple to a few £mn off breaching it. Whether that aspect needs looking at, who knows but they did not breach it most likely.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous