Jump to content
IGNORED

The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)


Mr Popodopolous
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sheffield United results are in.

Lost £1,894,507 last season...they could have gone nuts this season in the transfer market if they wanted- could have hit Birmingham (well, Redknapp) levels of profligacy.  Given Brooks was sold for big cash and Leonard and Evans both yielded a profit then their losses this season shouldn't be huge either despite high profile signings.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Birmingham believe they are being singled out...to which I say don't through incompetence or arrogance, breach the rules by this much in such a short space of time.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11694/11636412/birmingham-unhappy-at-being-singled-out-by-efl-with-potential-12-point-deduction

Another piece of FFP news I read relating to Birmingham- and whether it will prove to be true time will tell, but this is something along the lines of what I said about enforcement and rolling punishments or otherwise.

The interesting twist in the tail is that once they have been punished for their 3 year breach, from here on in well the next couple of seasons i.e. this and next, they will only be assessed on single season results- i.e. £13m loss limits, so they are not punished again for their 2016/17 figures and especially these ones. Unsure what to make of that...

My reading of that basically is that instead of looking at £37m loss and loss in 16/17 and adding it to 18/19 say, then it'll be struck from the record and only in 2018/19 if they broke the rules of £13m will they be punished again and even more so for the cycle from 2017/18-2018/19, that huge loss last season and any this year provided they are compliant of £13m or less won't be counted.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QPR- the first big offenders who received a punishment under the old rules have released their financial results for last season...

The £20m exceptional item I assume is one aspect of their fine you can strip from the losses but- and even this is with parachute payments...they'll need to cut deep and fast next year unless they fluke a promotion to PL via playoffs this season. They have been offloading high earners this summer though which will help and the sacking of Holloway will have created a non-recurring cost.

DzWb1m2XQAAtW4B.jpg:large

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Birmingham believe they are being singled out...to which I say don't through incompetence or arrogance, breach the rules by this much in such a short space of time.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11694/11636412/birmingham-unhappy-at-being-singled-out-by-efl-with-potential-12-point-deduction

Another piece of FFP news I read relating to Birmingham- and whether it will prove to be true time will tell, but this is something along the lines of what I said about enforcement and rolling punishments or otherwise.

The interesting twist in the tail is that once they have been punished for their 3 year breach, from here on in well the next couple of seasons i.e. this and next, they will only be assessed on single season results- i.e. £13m loss limits, so they are not punished again for their 2016/17 figures and especially these ones. Unsure what to make of that...

My reading of that basically is that instead of looking at £37m loss and loss in 16/17 and adding it to 18/19 say, then it'll be struck from the record and only in 2018/19 if they broke the rules of £13m will they be punished again and even more so for the cycle from 2017/18-2018/19, that huge loss last season and any this year provided they are compliant of £13m or less won't be counted.

They knew the rules and penalties, so should expect the appropriate punishment, but whoever was first to be hit was always going to make a fuss when points penalties were handed out.

The "worrying" comment in the article, is that Brum's penalties is an initial 6 point deduction, increased to 12 for an aggravated breach. It says that this will set a precedent for the smaller points penalty, which will be used as the standard for similar punishment in the future. In Brum's case the aggravation was because they were already subject to a transfer embargo and working to a plan agreed with the EFL to bring their finances into line with the sustainability criteria, that they spent double their income on wages last year is what caused the aggravated charge.

However, if a club decides to go all out for promotion, overspends like mad on top players, busts the ffp limits by millions but when assessed has a 10 point lead at the top of the table, the 6 point deduction ( established by this precedent) will only penalise them slightly in the greater scheme of things. I would have thought/hoped that each case would be judged on it's merits, so the points penalty could reflect the scale of beach and the benefit the club gained by breaching.

Nonetheless, it is hopefully a good sign that the EFL is prepared to apply a points deduction, which could make a huge difference to clubs that   throw financial caution to the wind in an attempt to buy promotion to the prem. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, downendcity said:

They knew the rules and penalties, so should expect the appropriate punishment, but whoever was first to be hit was always going to make a fuss when points penalties were handed out.

The "worrying" comment in the article, is that Brum's penalties is an initial 6 point deduction, increased to 12 for an aggravated breach. It says that this will set a precedent for the smaller points penalty, which will be used as the standard for similar punishment in the future. In Brum's case the aggravation was because they were already subject to a transfer embargo and working to a plan agreed with the EFL to bring their finances into line with the sustainability criteria, that they spent double their income on wages last year is what caused the aggravated charge.

 However, if a club decides to go all out for promotion, overspends like mad on top players, busts the ffp limits by millions but when assessed has a 10 point lead at the top of the table, the 6 point deduction ( established by this precedent) will only penalise them slightly in the greater scheme of things. I would have thought/hoped that each case would be judged on it's merits, so the points penalty could reflect the scale of beach and the benefit the club gained by breaching.

 Nonetheless, it is hopefully a good sign that the EFL is prepared to apply a points deduction, which could make a huge difference to clubs that   throw financial caution to the wind in an attempt to buy promotion to the prem. 

  

Yeah, agree- it hopefully will set a precedent in that the bigger the loss/flouting, the bigger the advantage gained- the bigger the penalty.

Fully agree, they knew the rules and therefore have to take their medicine. EFL have to get this right, it sets a precedent moving forward...

The good news on that is their own rules or interpretations on websites of these, say that the EFL say nothing is off the table and they can set punishments as they deem fit- in theory at least it means the idea of demotion from top 2 to playoffs or if a bigger breach still. top 2 to 7th say can still happen and indeed top 6 to outside playoffs. Would say that 12 points would be fairer and a bigger deterrent but 

The grey area here though- and in legal terms it perhaps makes sense- is the switching from 3 year to 1 year assessment periods once a side has been punished for the duration i.e. Birmingham's increased losses in 16/17 won't count against them this year and their huge losses last year won't count against them this or next season...if it's true I don't know but Al Majir who writes about Birmingham finances seems pretty clued up so who knows.

Their 6 month results from their parent company in Hong Kong will be instructive as to whether they will be breaching it this season as well, even on the one year ruling- I'll keep an eye out for BSH Holdings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

In Brum's case the aggravation was because they were already subject to a transfer embargo and working to a plan agreed with the EFL to bring their finances into line with the sustainability criteria,

Also the fact they signed Kristian Pedersen and didn't sell Che Adams is being used against them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Yeah, agree- it hopefully will set a precedent in that the bigger the loss/flouting, the bigger the advantage gained- the bigger the penalty.

Fully agree, they knew the rules and therefore have to take their medicine. EFL have to get this right, it sets a precedent moving forward...

The good news on that is their own rules or interpretations on websites of these, say that the EFL say nothing is off the table and they can set punishments as they deem fit- in theory at least it means the idea of demotion from top 2 to playoffs or if a bigger breach still. top 2 to 7th say can still happen and indeed top 6 to outside playoffs. Would say that 12 points would be fairer and a bigger deterrent but 

The grey area here though- and in legal terms it perhaps makes sense- is the switching from 3 year to 1 year assessment periods once a side has been punished for the duration i.e. Birmingham's increased losses in 16/17 won't count against them this year and their huge losses last year won't count against them this or next season...if it's true I don't know but Al Majir who writes about Birmingham finances seems pretty clued up so who knows.

Their 6 month results from their parent company in Hong Kong will be instructive as to whether they will be breaching it this season as well, even on the one year ruling- I'll keep an eye out for BSH Holdings.

If a club is having their position demoted from a promotion spot as a punishment then, IMO, it should be out of all contention.

Be utterly pointless to drop them into the playoffs- if they were top 2 then they know they should be the best side in the playoffs. That doesn't guarantee them winning it, but if they win the playoffs then literally no punishment has been metered out- the club gets more revenue from the matches, televised and gate receipts. It's only the fans who suffer there by having to shell out for 3 more games.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

If a club is having their position demoted from a promotion spot as a punishment then, IMO, it should be out of all contention.

Be utterly pointless to drop them into the playoffs- if they were top 2 then they know they should be the best side in the playoffs. That doesn't guarantee them winning it, but if they win the playoffs then literally no punishment has been metered out- the club gets more revenue from the matches, televised and gate receipts. It's only the fans who suffer there by having to shell out for 3 more games.

I agree with you- assuming though that it's linked to some sort of sliding scale i.e. small but still notcieable breach top 2 to playoffs, or perhaps smaller but notable top 6 to outside playoffs but bigger and it is top 2 to outside playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The good news on that is their own rules or interpretations on websites of these, say that the EFL say nothing is off the table and they can set punishments as they deem fit- in theory at least it means the idea of demotion from top 2 to playoffs or if a bigger breach still. top 2 to 7th say can still happen and indeed top 6 to outside playoffs. Would say that 12 points would be fairer and a bigger deterrent but 

Or they can give a piddly meaningless fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

I was thinking more of Villa.  I shall be pleasantly surprised if they do hand out serious punishment.

Fair point- I think it's possible but not cut and dried.

My view on it is that Championship clubs who have complied and those who have been punished seriously should look at legal routes if they bottle it on Aston Villa- EFL should be wary of this.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Fair point- I think it's possible but not cut and dried.

My view on it is that Championship clubs who have complied and those who have been punished seriously should look at legal routes if they bottle it on Aston Villa- EFL should be wary of this.

I quite agree.  I can see it getting very messy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

I was thinking more of Villa.  I shall be pleasantly surprised if they do hand out serious punishment.

The way things are going Villa could be out of the promotion/play off picture without the need for a FFP points deduction!  :)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said:

I quite agree.  I can see it getting very messy.

The worst scenario would be something like this- punished but not meaningfully...

Here goes.

This season, found in 3 year breach but complied with EFL business plan so docked 6 points thereby killing off any remaining playoff places but not enough for the drop.

Maybe a fine of some sort.

Then as per something I read on the Birmingham site who writes about FFP in general (only read it for the FFP), once you are punished you are measured and punished on one year totals so you are not punished twice for the past overspend- if that's true then...

High earners out of contract, their losses £12m next season and their huge losses of this and last season ignored because of the punishment this year and they go up- that's an appalling loophole if true.

In Aston Villa's case, not so sure it would be applicable because of the drop of parachute payments at same time as high earners out so may well have to sell anyway, but for a fair to middling Championship club then maybe.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/02/2019 at 19:28, slartibartfast said:

Relegate the ***** !

I appreciate the sentiment, but the problem with that is given that the Championship is a financial shitstorm, you may well end up having to set a precedent which means a bottom 6 as well as a top 6 or even relegating half the division. :laughcont:

12 points this season and 9 next season of the other aggravated breach is proven will do for now I reckon...as well as however long their transfer embargo will be. They need to sell Adams and either loan or sell Jota- in the case of the latter wages in full plus loan fee- for a start.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swansea:

How Swansea City went from model club to desperate cautionary tale

Chaotic transfers and incompetence at the top have put the club into a downward spiral with no obvious source of salvation
Stuart James

Stuart James

Sat 16 Feb 2019 18.26 GMTFirst published on Sat 16 Feb 2019 18.00 GMT

  •  
  •  
  •  
Shares
643
 
 

Swansea City’s Jay Fulton looks downcast after a missed chance against Birmingham  Swansea City’s Jay Fulton looks downcast after a missed chance against Birmingham. Photograph: John Sibley/Action Images

As the clock ticked down on transfer deadline day last month, and chaos reigned behind the scenes at Swansea City, Connor Roberts tweeted a gif showing Milhouse, a character from The Simpsons, throwing a frisbee to himself in the park. The Wales international removed the post not long afterwards but the inference was clear: Swansea’s players were feeling every bit as disillusioned as the supporters.

Swansea were doing what Swansea now have a reputation for doing on deadline day – shifting everything they possibly can. The same happened last August, when four players departed in the final 24 hours of business. On that occasion it was the turn of the top scorer, Oli McBurnie, to post a soon-to-be-deleted message on Twitter expressing his bemusement.

Plenty of others felt the same. Privately, players are dismayed at the way the club is being run and feel disappointed for the manager, Graham Potter, as much as themselves. Leroy Fer, the captain, was so frustrated with the prospect of Daniel James leaving in January that – and this was before the deadline-day fiasco when the plug was pulled on the winger’s move to Leeds at the last minute – he telephoned Swansea’s American owners, Steve Kaplan and Jason Levien, to ask what was going on.

Perhaps at this stage it is worth pointing out to anyone who has taken a break from football for the past three years that Swansea, who host Brentford in the FA Cup fifth round on Sunday, are no longer the model club they once were. Huw Jenkins, who was a hero when he presided over Swansea’s rise through the leagues, was cast as a villain by the time he resigned as chairman a fortnight ago, and the supporters trust is engaged in a bitter legal dispute with those who sold their shares to the Americans in 2016.

As for Kaplan and Levien, it has been a disastrous two and a half seasons under their watch and the harsh reality is that the wording on the cover of the latest edition of the Swansea Oh Swansea fanzine probably sums up how the vast majority of supporters feel about them: “Get out of our club”.

Physically, they are rarely in it. Decisions are made from the other side of the Atlantic and apart from appointing Potter, who had previously guided Ostersund from the fourth to the top tier of Swedish football, it is hard to think of much else Kaplan and Levien have got right.

Quick guide

Follow Guardian sport on social media

Show
Advertisement

The strategy since relegation has been cuts, cuts and more cuts. Or, to borrow the Americans’ phrase, “hard medicine”. Sixteen senior players have left and only five have arrived. When the summer transfer window closed, Potter was left with one senior central defender after two were sold on deadline day.

Backed into a corner, Potter has relied on youngsters to such an extent that Swansea, who spent seven seasons in the top flight and were relegated from the Premier League nine months ago, are fielding a team in the Championship that, in terms of the age of their players, resembles that of a club operating on a shoestring in League Two.

 

Jordan Ayew is one of Swansea’s high-earners now out on loan.

 Jordan Ayew is one of Swansea’s high-earners now out on loan. Photograph: Andrew Matthews/PA

Before this weekend’s matches – and this is an extraordinary statistic – players aged 23 and under had racked up 17,357 minutes for Swansea in the Championship this season – the third-highest total by the 72 Football League clubs, behind Yeovil and Swindon with Crewe fourth on the list. The two other clubs relegated from the Premier League last season, West Brom and Stoke, are 65th (5,101 minutes) and 71st (2,717 minutes) respectively.

The primary factor in all of this is that Swansea are in a dire position financially, paying the price for a wage bill that was allowed to spiral out of control over the course of several years and a series of calamitous signings during their last season in the Premier League in particular. Each party will cite mitigating circumstances but the reality is that Jenkins and the owners – not one or the other – have their fingerprints on that mess.

It is sobering to think that the best part of £45m was wasted on Sam Clucas, Wilfried Bony and André Ayew last season, and £25m on wages, loan fees and transfer fees for Renato Sanches, Tammy Abraham and Roque Mesa. Swansea wrote off millions when they sold Clucas to Stoke in that deadline day fire sale in August. Bony was earning £4.5m a year in the Championship until a heavily subsidised loan move was agreed in January – the Ivorian had no relegation clause in his contract – while no permanent buyer could be found for Ayew last summer.

Bony and Ayew, incidentally, were August and January deadline-day signings last season. For an image of Swansea’s approach to transfers during that turbulent campaign, picture a bloke dashing down Oxford Street as the shops prepare to close on Christmas Eve, buying the wrong present for his wife and overpaying at the same time. Then later finding out nobody else wants it.

The Fiver: sign up and get our daily football email.

Worryingly for Swansea, Ayew, who is on loan at Fenerbahce, will still have two years to run on a lucrative contract when this season is over. Borja Bastón, who was the £15.5m club-record signing until Ayew rejoined from West Ham, is also out on loan – the Spaniard has started four league games for Swansea in three years – and under contract until 2020. Jordan Ayew, Jefferson Montero and Tom Carroll, on loan at Crystal Palace, West Brom and Aston Villa respectively, also have deals that run for another 16 months. The same applies to Nathan Dyer and Kyle Naughton.

All of which means that as much as Swansea want to press the reset button, they cannot leave the pain of their financial profligacy in the Premier League behind, and that has damaging ramifications for Potter. It is understood there is another £30m hole to fill in the summer, even allowing for a second parachute payment, and it is hard to see how selling the players listed above – if buyers can be found – would make much of a dent in that figure.

With Swansea’s owners unwilling or unable to put any money in themselves to cover that shortfall – “We will be relentless in our determination to continually improve this club, and we have the financial resources to do so” was the dubious claim made by Kaplan and Levien after they became majority shareholders – the concern is that Potter will have to sell one or more of the youngsters who have thrived under him and played with the sort of hunger and passion that restores the faith of supporters.

It is remarkable then that despite all this doom and gloom, the off-field distractions and the clear sense that things could get worse at Swansea before they get better, Potter continues to diligently go about his work, refusing to sound downbeat and remaining totally committed to the job that he took on last summer. He is the glue holding a broken club together.

 

Since you’re here …

… we sincerely hope you enjoyed this article, which was our gift to you. At The Guardian we don’t believe in putting up paywalls, seeing our journalism as a Sunday league centre-back sees possession of a football, as something to be given away in a manner some would consider reckless. But not all the best things in life are free and sending crack journalists to top sporting events armed with deep knowledge, a working laptop and a vaguely acceptable level of literacy certainly is not. We welcome you here all the same, because we like you – all of you, but especially the ones who give us money.

If you like what we do, perhaps you might consider becoming the small-scale Sheikh Mansour to our miniature Manchester City by making a small contribution.

If everyone who reads and enjoys our reporting helps to support it, our future will become much more secure

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Villa, Norwich (will be irrelevant if they go up), Hull & QPR are all in the final season of parachute payments. Add to them the financial holes that Stoke, Swansea, Forest & Brum are going to find themselves in. Going to be more FFP coming into play next season I reckon.

Edited by old_eastender
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, old_eastender said:

I believe Villa, Norwich (will be irrelevant if they go up), Hull & QPR are all in the final season of parachute payments. Add to them the financial holes that Stoke, Swansea, Forest & Brum are going to find themselves in. Going to be more FFP coming into play next season I reckon.

Aston Villa, Hull and QPR are in the final year.

Norwich have run out of theirs and this is also Middlesbrough's last year- but both of these are club who look to do the right thing and they took tough decisions when they had parachute payments- I don't have the figures to hand but I think Norwich did a player write down last season as well as the player sales from Jan 2017 and especially summer 2018. Middlesbrough sold Gibson, Traore, Bamford and loaned out Braithwaite- not playing Downing either as to do so would trigger a wage rise.

I don't think Gibson and Smith at Middlesbrough or Norwich would recklessly gamble against FFP regs personally. Swansea is an interesting one and last years accounts will be instructive- when they finally release them! Surely they are in quite a smaller hole than say Stoke, but again the Coates will fund any Stoke losses from a solvency/going concern POV- Kaplan and the other American investors at Swansea, much less clear cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Swansea:

How Swansea City went from model club to desperate cautionary tale

Chaotic transfers and incompetence at the top have put the club into a downward spiral with no obvious source of salvation
Stuart James

Stuart James

Sat 16 Feb 2019 18.26 GMTFirst published on Sat 16 Feb 2019 18.00 GMT

  •  
  •  
  •  
Shares
643
 
 

Swansea City’s Jay Fulton looks downcast after a missed chance against Birmingham  Swansea City’s Jay Fulton looks downcast after a missed chance against Birmingham. Photograph: John Sibley/Action Images

As the clock ticked down on transfer deadline day last month, and chaos reigned behind the scenes at Swansea City, Connor Roberts tweeted a gif showing Milhouse, a character from The Simpsons, throwing a frisbee to himself in the park. The Wales international removed the post not long afterwards but the inference was clear: Swansea’s players were feeling every bit as disillusioned as the supporters.

Swansea were doing what Swansea now have a reputation for doing on deadline day – shifting everything they possibly can. The same happened last August, when four players departed in the final 24 hours of business. On that occasion it was the turn of the top scorer, Oli McBurnie, to post a soon-to-be-deleted message on Twitter expressing his bemusement.

Plenty of others felt the same. Privately, players are dismayed at the way the club is being run and feel disappointed for the manager, Graham Potter, as much as themselves. Leroy Fer, the captain, was so frustrated with the prospect of Daniel James leaving in January that – and this was before the deadline-day fiasco when the plug was pulled on the winger’s move to Leeds at the last minute – he telephoned Swansea’s American owners, Steve Kaplan and Jason Levien, to ask what was going on.

Perhaps at this stage it is worth pointing out to anyone who has taken a break from football for the past three years that Swansea, who host Brentford in the FA Cup fifth round on Sunday, are no longer the model club they once were. Huw Jenkins, who was a hero when he presided over Swansea’s rise through the leagues, was cast as a villain by the time he resigned as chairman a fortnight ago, and the supporters trust is engaged in a bitter legal dispute with those who sold their shares to the Americans in 2016.

As for Kaplan and Levien, it has been a disastrous two and a half seasons under their watch and the harsh reality is that the wording on the cover of the latest edition of the Swansea Oh Swansea fanzine probably sums up how the vast majority of supporters feel about them: “Get out of our club”.

Physically, they are rarely in it. Decisions are made from the other side of the Atlantic and apart from appointing Potter, who had previously guided Ostersund from the fourth to the top tier of Swedish football, it is hard to think of much else Kaplan and Levien have got right.

Quick guide

Follow Guardian sport on social media

Show
Advertisement

The strategy since relegation has been cuts, cuts and more cuts. Or, to borrow the Americans’ phrase, “hard medicine”. Sixteen senior players have left and only five have arrived. When the summer transfer window closed, Potter was left with one senior central defender after two were sold on deadline day.

Backed into a corner, Potter has relied on youngsters to such an extent that Swansea, who spent seven seasons in the top flight and were relegated from the Premier League nine months ago, are fielding a team in the Championship that, in terms of the age of their players, resembles that of a club operating on a shoestring in League Two.

 

Jordan Ayew is one of Swansea’s high-earners now out on loan.

 Jordan Ayew is one of Swansea’s high-earners now out on loan. Photograph: Andrew Matthews/PA

Before this weekend’s matches – and this is an extraordinary statistic – players aged 23 and under had racked up 17,357 minutes for Swansea in the Championship this season – the third-highest total by the 72 Football League clubs, behind Yeovil and Swindon with Crewe fourth on the list. The two other clubs relegated from the Premier League last season, West Brom and Stoke, are 65th (5,101 minutes) and 71st (2,717 minutes) respectively.

The primary factor in all of this is that Swansea are in a dire position financially, paying the price for a wage bill that was allowed to spiral out of control over the course of several years and a series of calamitous signings during their last season in the Premier League in particular. Each party will cite mitigating circumstances but the reality is that Jenkins and the owners – not one or the other – have their fingerprints on that mess.

It is sobering to think that the best part of £45m was wasted on Sam Clucas, Wilfried Bony and André Ayew last season, and £25m on wages, loan fees and transfer fees for Renato Sanches, Tammy Abraham and Roque Mesa. Swansea wrote off millions when they sold Clucas to Stoke in that deadline day fire sale in August. Bony was earning £4.5m a year in the Championship until a heavily subsidised loan move was agreed in January – the Ivorian had no relegation clause in his contract – while no permanent buyer could be found for Ayew last summer.

Bony and Ayew, incidentally, were August and January deadline-day signings last season. For an image of Swansea’s approach to transfers during that turbulent campaign, picture a bloke dashing down Oxford Street as the shops prepare to close on Christmas Eve, buying the wrong present for his wife and overpaying at the same time. Then later finding out nobody else wants it.

The Fiver: sign up and get our daily football email.

Worryingly for Swansea, Ayew, who is on loan at Fenerbahce, will still have two years to run on a lucrative contract when this season is over. Borja Bastón, who was the £15.5m club-record signing until Ayew rejoined from West Ham, is also out on loan – the Spaniard has started four league games for Swansea in three years – and under contract until 2020. Jordan Ayew, Jefferson Montero and Tom Carroll, on loan at Crystal Palace, West Brom and Aston Villa respectively, also have deals that run for another 16 months. The same applies to Nathan Dyer and Kyle Naughton.

All of which means that as much as Swansea want to press the reset button, they cannot leave the pain of their financial profligacy in the Premier League behind, and that has damaging ramifications for Potter. It is understood there is another £30m hole to fill in the summer, even allowing for a second parachute payment, and it is hard to see how selling the players listed above – if buyers can be found – would make much of a dent in that figure.

With Swansea’s owners unwilling or unable to put any money in themselves to cover that shortfall – “We will be relentless in our determination to continually improve this club, and we have the financial resources to do so” was the dubious claim made by Kaplan and Levien after they became majority shareholders – the concern is that Potter will have to sell one or more of the youngsters who have thrived under him and played with the sort of hunger and passion that restores the faith of supporters.

It is remarkable then that despite all this doom and gloom, the off-field distractions and the clear sense that things could get worse at Swansea before they get better, Potter continues to diligently go about his work, refusing to sound downbeat and remaining totally committed to the job that he took on last summer. He is the glue holding a broken club together.

 

Since you’re here …

… we sincerely hope you enjoyed this article, which was our gift to you. At The Guardian we don’t believe in putting up paywalls, seeing our journalism as a Sunday league centre-back sees possession of a football, as something to be given away in a manner some would consider reckless. But not all the best things in life are free and sending crack journalists to top sporting events armed with deep knowledge, a working laptop and a vaguely acceptable level of literacy certainly is not. We welcome you here all the same, because we like you – all of you, but especially the ones who give us money.

If you like what we do, perhaps you might consider becoming the small-scale Sheikh Mansour to our miniature Manchester City by making a small contribution.

If everyone who reads and enjoys our reporting helps to support it, our future will become much more secure

it is quite sad that a team that turned themselves around and floated to the top and were a model club to base your team on have dived so badly but I guess changing manager and owner(s) is possibly not the best maybe @Miah Dennehy can enlighten us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...