‘The football club excelling at everything except football ‘

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Did they?  Or weak DoF / HoR / CEO?

Think there was a bit of buck passing in the Independent Hearing, they blamed managers (Redknapp and Zola now I remember), weak CEO/DoF etc would still risk the same outcome. Hence some Higher up input/control/challenging needed.

[Rich]

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Think there was a bit of buck passing in the Independent Hearing, they blamed managers (Redknapp and Zola now I remember), weak CEO/DoF etc would still risk the same outcome. Hence some Higher up input/control/challenging needed.

A question for you if you don't mind, as you appear to know an awful lot about the FFP and clubs expenditure.

If a person had say two or three companies and he wanted to employ someone from one of those companies within another, what would stop him? 

For example, if he employed a footballer on a part time basis for a reasonable salary, then also employed the same person in his Bio fuel company, as say a consultant. The cost for the football employment would be less, than if he was employed full time. I believe employment law forbids the restricting of earnings from secondary employment. If that is the case, why haven't clubs gone down this road so far?

 

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Rich said:

A question for you if you don't mind, as you appear to know an awful lot about the FFP and clubs expenditure.

If a person had say two or three companies and he wanted to employ someone from one of those companies within another, what would stop him? 

For example, if he employed a footballer on a part time basis for a reasonable salary, then also employed the same person in his Bio fuel company, as say a consultant. The cost for the football employment would be less, than if he was employed full time. I believe employment law forbids the restricting of earnings from secondary employment. If that is the case, why haven't clubs gone down this road so far?

 

I’m not up to speed on employment law, but isn’t that what part time professional clubs do?  Is it any different to a day-job then working shifts in a pub on an evening?

I’ve possibly missed something here.  Happy to be educated.

[Rich]

20 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I’m not up to speed on employment law, but isn’t that what part time professional clubs do?  Is it any different to a day-job then working shifts in a pub on an evening?

I’ve possibly missed something here.  Happy to be educated.

I was using it as a way of paying more for your employee and not attributing it all to the football club. That way the expenditure is lower and less likely to affect FFP. Probably a bit simplistic.

[Shaun Taylor]

On 14/02/2021 at 17:07, Ska Junkie said:

You tell us ST as our powers that be clearly don't know.

You must choose the wrong manager what else can it be unless there's a spell over Ashton Gate!

[Mr Popodopolous]

On 15/02/2021 at 20:27, Rich said:

A question for you if you don't mind, as you appear to know an awful lot about the FFP and clubs expenditure.

If a person had say two or three companies and he wanted to employ someone from one of those companies within another, what would stop him? 

For example, if he employed a footballer on a part time basis for a reasonable salary, then also employed the same person in his Bio fuel company, as say a consultant. The cost for the football employment would be less, than if he was employed full time. I believe employment law forbids the restricting of earnings from secondary employment. If that is the case, why haven't clubs gone down this road so far?

 

Wasn't aware of that bit of Employment Law but that's a very good question. 

There must be a reason and it can't be some kind of Honour Based Agreement as doesn't seem to be much.

In a Salary Cap this would cover all Direct Payments which might cancel this loophole out but unsure how this fits with FFP? As in no rule specifically forbidding it so far as I can see.

I think Saracens had Co-Investments but this was under the Salary Cap. Seemed to be punished and case heard under legal procedure, Sports Law- Arbitration all that.

Once discovered they were in big trouble. 35 points docked and a £5.8m fine IIRC. (4 for a win in Rugby, 5 with bonus points so 21-26 in football).

Had to open their books in January 2020 to check compliance. They weren't keen so were automatically relegated- when it looked like they might stay up on paper despite being relegated in reality, the points deduction rose to 105. Was talk that they might have to keep their trophies off display as well.

Co-investments sound a bit like what you suggest but it could be an FFP loophole. Though maybe it's the case that when discovered a club would absolutely get the book thrown at them. Beyond the pale?

[Rich]

18 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Wasn't aware of that bit of Employment Law but that's a very good question. 

There must be a reason and it can't be some kind of Honour Based Agreement as doesn't seem to be much.

In a Salary Cap this would cover all Direct Payments which might cancel this loophole out but unsure how this fits with FFP? As in no rule specifically forbidding it so far as I can see.

I think Saracens had Co-Investments but this was under the Salary Cap. Seemed to be punished and case heard under legal procedure, Sports Law- Arbitration all that.

Once discovered they were in big trouble. 35 points docked and a £5.8m fine IIRC. (4 for a win in Rugby, 5 with bonus points so 21-26 in football).

Had to open their books in January 2020 to check compliance. They weren't keen so were automatically relegated- when it looked like they might stay up on paper despite being relegated in reality, the points deduction rose to 105. Was talk that they might have to keep their trophies off display as well.

Co-investments sound a bit like what you suggest but it could be an FFP loophole. Though maybe it's the case that when discovered a club would absolutely get the book thrown at them. Beyond the pale?

After a quick google on employment law and second jobs, it would appear that unless you sign a contract agreeing to the restriction, then there is nothing to stop anyone legally having extra employment. So, if a player was employed by the club part time at a lower rate, then he would be entitled to find employment elsewhere to top up his earnings.

It used to happen years ago in rugby, where there would be a player paid expenses as an amateur and worked full time for one of the directors companies but, was given time off for training. Obviously there might be something in the small print restricting this practice, as far as FFP goes but, could that small print restriction go against the legal rights of a worker and, to that point, an employers right to employ who they want and at what rate of pay. 

All hypothetical in reality, unless someone tried to do it. I've always thought there's a way to break the pay threshold at a club, by just giving a player a large signing on fee, instead of higher wages, held in a trust, paid at certain times and equal to the additional wage.

[reddoh]

On 15/02/2021 at 20:33, Davefevs said:

I’m not up to speed on employment law, but isn’t that what part time professional clubs do?  Is it any different to a day-job then working shifts in a pub on an evening?

I’ve possibly missed something here.  Happy to be educated.

cricket teams would find jobs for their players but that was probably 40 ish years ago 

[Sheltons Army]

2 minutes ago, reddoh said:

cricket teams would find jobs for their players but that was probably 40 ish years ago 

But in those days (County) cricketers were only paid / contracted for six months a year !

They all had to find a second job for the winter 

[reddoh]

3 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

But in those days (County) cricketers were only paid / contracted for six months a year !

They all had to find a second job for the winter 

wasn't only counties minor teams did as well.

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, Rich said:

After a quick google on employment law and second jobs, it would appear that unless you sign a contract agreeing to the restriction, then there is nothing to stop anyone legally having extra employment. So, if a player was employed by the club part time at a lower rate, then he would be entitled to find employment elsewhere to top up his earnings.

It used to happen years ago in rugby, where there would be a player paid expenses as an amateur and worked full time for one of the directors companies but, was given time off for training. Obviously there might be something in the small print restricting this practice, as far as FFP goes but, could that small print restriction go against the legal rights of a worker and, to that point, an employers right to employ who they want and at what rate of pay. 

All hypothetical in reality, unless someone tried to do it. I've always thought there's a way to break the pay threshold at a club, by just giving a player a large signing on fee, instead of higher wages, held in a trust, paid at certain times and equal to the additional wage.

When I was an employee at Lloyds back in the day you had get the Branch Managers permission to do a second job.

[Rich]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

When I was an employee at Lloyds back in the day you had get the Branch Managers permission to do a second job.

That was in the days of LSD . You'd probably signed a contract of employment, which would be correct. Don't know if you've followed what I've been sort of suggesting but, If a player was offered a part time contract, by the football club, on say £1k a week, They would then be able to work for another company, Say Bristol Sport, Or DAS, or whoever, on a much more lucrative salary. That way, the football clubs outlay on wages would be less, making it easier to keep within the FFP. I'm sure far brainier people have thought about doing this than me and, there's a good reason why it's not been done yet. I wondered if anyone knew, that's why I posed the question to Mr P.

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, Rich said:

That was in the days of LSD . You'd probably signed a contract of employment, which would be correct. Don't know if you've followed what I've been sort of suggesting but, If a player was offered a part time contract, by the football club, on say £1k a week, They would then be able to work for another company, Say Bristol Sport, Or DAS, or whoever, on a much more lucrative salary. That way, the football clubs outlay on wages would be less, making it easier to keep within the FFP. I'm sure far brainier people have thought about doing this than me and, there's a good reason why it's not been done yet. I wondered if anyone knew, that's why I posed the question to Mr P.

Yes, I have followed, I replied to your initial post on this.

[Rich]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yes, I have followed, I replied to your initial post on this.

Yes I know, I wasn't paying attention, Sorry.

[Mr Popodopolous]

21 hours ago, Rich said:

After a quick google on employment law and second jobs, it would appear that unless you sign a contract agreeing to the restriction, then there is nothing to stop anyone legally having extra employment. So, if a player was employed by the club part time at a lower rate, then he would be entitled to find employment elsewhere to top up his earnings.

It used to happen years ago in rugby, where there would be a player paid expenses as an amateur and worked full time for one of the directors companies but, was given time off for training. Obviously there might be something in the small print restricting this practice, as far as FFP goes but, could that small print restriction go against the legal rights of a worker and, to that point, an employers right to employ who they want and at what rate of pay. 

All hypothetical in reality, unless someone tried to do it. I've always thought there's a way to break the pay threshold at a club, by just giving a player a large signing on fee, instead of higher wages, held in a trust, paid at certain times and equal to the additional wage.

It could be a very interesting Test case for all I know. Few possible I can think of, whether on an individual basis or as a collective combination of regulations and reasons:

1. Could it be classed as (indirect) owner contribution? 3 year Owner contribution for upper limit at our level is £24m at least in terms of what counts towards the P&L- if Owner Contribution is £0 then the loss is £15m- Lower Threshold for 3 year loss (net of FFP allowances) seems to be £15m, upper £39m- anything in-between is the difference put up by Owner Contribution, ie equity, cash- whatever.
2. Potentially, but Salary Caps do class "any direct payment" as counting towards- this was a part of Salary Cap in Rugby and one of the plans in Football, with respect to their Proposed one.

In terms of Signing on Fees, I believe they are Amortised over the contract length- Holding it in Trust is a new angle but it needs to go into the Club Accounts surely- even if it's held in trust, would it not hit the Expenditure (Amortised) at time of signing? Could be a difference between Cash vs Amortisation- however that could be a better way to structure it tbh, within the rules too- bigger signing on fees amortised in lieu of higher wages.

How would this stuff also be linked to regulations on e.g. Third Party Ownership, external influence etc. Could external payments be a part of this?

I'd be interested to know about what you think of the Saracens case- whether it's justified, disproportionate etc? 35 pts, trebled to 110 is quite the deduction- as well as a £5.3m fine! There were some more angles on it but can't remember right now- but the point is that when it was discovered, they were well and truly put through the wringer in Rugby. About 1/3 of their turnover in either the most recent completed season or 2019/20, the fine I mean. Maybe 10-11% over the 3 year period in q.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jan/23/dyson-report-saracens-salary-cap-breaches-deal-by-deal                                                                                                                      https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jan/22/saracens-keen-publication-salary-cap-report-rugby-union

I've had a quick look at these, not read the Full Report but could be interesting. Surely Saracens punishment wasn't unlawful?