The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Rob26]

everton sound like they are running out of options  https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/everton-takeover-stuck-purgatory-crisis-3010133

777 had to pay this loan off by april as a condition of approval for take over, which hasn't happened, and although they are rumoured to be others interested the fact the owners are letting the 777 saga  drag on this long i'm sure is a sign there is nothing concrete, with maybe buyers wanting to see what league they are buying them in before get serious.

going to be in a world of shit if the owner dont get back to covering the bills if the 777 can't take it over.

they will sharp want their money back too

 

Edited April 17 by Rob26

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 minutes ago, Rob26 said:

I meant for FFP, I linked the article in my first post about it,

here is the part I got that from tho 

Thanks, will go back and have  a look.

I think what the £203m down to £63m represents is the difference between fee received and a) Remaining Book Value to be Amortised and b) Sell-on fees to former clubs.

That is the key figure after these two have been accounted for pretty much..would also include any sold at a loss detracting from the overall Profit on Disposal.

[downendcity]

On 16/04/2024 at 13:50, Rob26 said:

chelsea sold hotels to themselves to stay within ffp (76m value)

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/chelsea-wages-todd-boehly-ffp-32580676

 

whats the rules on property sales these days? value and approval needs to be given by the league, so they need to be worth 76m or more for it to be allowed.

listening on talk sport they have only sold the property and have kept the revenue streams from the hotel

Thinking back to when Derby "sold" their stadium, they had to show a market rent for being able to continue using the ground.

Accordingly, surely if Chelsea is to continue to enjoy the revenue stream from a hotel they no longer own, they must pay a market rent to the new owner, otherwise it would be even more of a sham transaction than it already is!

In the wake of Derby, Wednesday and Stoke all exploiting the loophole the EFL left in their revised ffp rules, I think I'm right in saying that loophole has since been closed.

It would appear that the Premier League administrators were not quite so quick to plug the loophole that allows a club to sell an asset to an interested third party.

I would not be surprised see that Man City's lawyers will be able to drive a coach and horses through the 100+ charges brought against them. Not because they are innocent of the charges, but because it seems that footballs administrators are to naive and cannot see how devious clubs ( especially the wealthiest, with money to afford top accountants and legal advisers) will cheat in order to gain an advantage.

[Rob26]

everton look like they may get took over if 777 pay this loan off https://football-italia.net/genoa-owners-step-closer-to-everton-takeover/

[Mr Popodopolous]

No surprise here, wonder if Aston Villa will look to sell and leaseback the Training Ground (the upgrade of which was partially funded by public money during the HS2 construction phase).

The problem or a problem they have is that qualifying for European football also stipulates certain requirements and in some ways it is more stringent.

It's as if they think the Rules should only apply when it suits them. Sure they aren't alone in that but remember that 2019 loophole which has how shut at the Football League level.

Edited yesterday at 09:20 by Mr Popodopolous

[Rob26]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

No surprise here, wonder if Aston Villa will look to sell and leaseback the Training Ground (the upgrade of which was partially funded by public money during the HS2 construction phase).

The problem or a problem they have is that qualifying for European football also stipulates certain requirements and in some ways it is more stringent.

It's as if they think the Rules should only apply when it suits them. Sure they aren't alone in that but remember that 2019 loophole which has how shut at the Football League level.

as one of the members of the premier league tho they are entitled to argue and negotiate and propose changes.

think your wasting your time tho when you have to comply with uefa as well, and surely uefa will be pushing as many leagues to fall in line with their rules as they can to even it out, they can argue it out but in the end if they are qualifying for europe they got to comply anyways with uefas version. 

Edited yesterday at 11:22 by Rob26

[Mr Popodopolous]

17 minutes ago, Rob26 said:

as one of the members of the premier league tho they are entitled to argue and negotiate and propose changes.

think your wasting your time tho when you have to comply with uefa as well, and surely uefa will be pushing as many leagues to fall in line with their rules as they can to even it out, they can argue it out but in the end if they are qualifying for europe they got to comply anyways with uefas version. 

Of course, all 20 clubs and 14/20 is the required threshold as it should be. It's just that I recall crowing from say Ty Bracey 6 months ago or maybe local journos talking up their financial prudence back in the Autumn so..

Agreed. UEFA also have a lower Upper Loss lLmit for clubs in good financial health and lower still if not, their test is two part (The Ratio rule the main bit then €60m in 3 years plus Allowables, rising to €90m with good financial health). The latter bit may or may not include Fixed Assets sales, less permissive than the PL with it I imagine .

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://archive.ph/2024.04.24-170630/https://theathletic.com/5441916/2024/04/24/premier-league-salary-spending-cap/

What do we think?

[Davefevs]

29 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

https://archive.ph/2024.04.24-170630/https://theathletic.com/5441916/2024/04/24/premier-league-salary-spending-cap/

What do we think?

Concept good, but 5x is hardly a cap is it, if the only team over it is Chelsea!

[Rob26]

13 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Concept good, but 5x is hardly a cap is it, if the only team over it is Chelsea!

i dont get it, so am I right thinking they are going from 85% for wages and players fees of your clubs actual revenue, but instead are proposing 500% of the lowest clubs revenue?

I must be getting it wrong coz that just sounds like a its good if u want to invest in your club and you got the money and not going to change your mind,

but sounds like a recipe for disaster for clubs that take on incredible liabilities in a failed push like everton and then go down, potential for an owner to change their mind due to the level of debt the club owes would be huge surely.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Rob26 said:

i dont get it, so am I right thinking they are going from 85% for wages and players fees of your clubs actual revenue, but instead are proposing 500% of the lowest clubs revenue?

I must be getting it wrong coz that just sounds like a its good if u want to invest in your club and you got the money and not going to change your mind,

but sounds like a recipe for disaster for clubs that take on incredible liabilities in a failed push like everton and then go down, potential for an owner to change their mind due to the level of debt the club owes would be huge surely.

 

[Hxj]

I thought that this was another test in addition to the percentage test?

So you can spend up to 85% (or what ever limit) of your income, provided that sum is not more than 5 times the lowest income from defined (and presumably known in advance) sources.