downendcity

I would hope ( perhaps over optimistically given football administrators track records) that the onus is on a club, knowing how it's accounting period relates to ffp rules and requirements, to manage it's affairs accordingly and to avoid breaching ffp. After the first 2 years of the 3 year cycle any club will or should know pretty well where it stands with regard to ffp limits. Most of it's costs will already be known for the year ahead - wages, transfer fees already paid and amortised - and they can make a pretty accurate estimate of anticipated income . If those projected figures show they will be close to , or breaching, ffp limits then they have the summer and the following January window in which to make transfers to bring costs down and to raise income, if that is to be their way of avoiding the problem. To use the argument in March ( when the projected accounts have to be produced) that they will be selling Grealish when the next summer window opens, and that the likely fee of £35m will bring them in line with ffp requirements, would be laughable. The truth is they gambled in the previous 2 years on gaining promotion back to the prem and in so doing knew that they would be risking n ffp problem in the 3rd season. That failed, so they then had a choice to either go all out in the third season, and in so doing risk the consequences of ffp, or take action in order to stay within ffp. It looks like they chose the former, so they should not be given any wriggle room by fancy accounting arguments.

View from the rear.....

Are Man A and Man B both Lee Tomlin?

This touches (sort of) on a point made in an earlier post i.e. aggravated breach vs flagrantly flouting the rules. Although Villa would have had premier league loss limits, relegation would have given them 3 years of parachute payments which I presume these are classed as income. If so, then prudent management would have seen the parachute payments used to offset/cover the more stringent EFL ffp limits. However, Villa's owner chose to throw their financial resources into the playing squad in an attempt to secure a quick return to the prem and financial salvation. As already pointed out in this thread, ffp was introduced to avoid the Pompey/QPR situation when, in particular, a club drops out of the prem and cannot meet commitments because of overstretched budgets etc. etc. Unless there is a section in the ffp rulebook that gives special dispensation to relegated clubs, so that they can throw financial caution to the wind in order to gain a quick return to the prem, then they deserve no different consideration from any other club. When lots of clubs, like us, are trying to progress towards promotion, but are doing so as prudently as possible and while keeping within ffp lists, why should other clubs be viewed as though they have special circumstances, just because they were previously in the prem, but are no longer? £100m "prize" money for finishing in the relegation spots, plus huge parachute payments should enable any club should mean relegated clubs are given less leeway, not more ( I know that Villa didn't get £100m and the current levels of parachute payment when they were relegated, but what they did receive put them well ahead of much of the championship from a financial point of view).

Until club owners/chairmen/chief execs pay players only what a club can afford, and not what the agents demand or say their player is worth, we will see the current position continue. How many businesses have employees wages running in excess of the income the business generates and expect to stay in business? It's madness and needs owners/chairmen/chief execs to grow a pair and start saying no to agents demands.

Good News! EFL have appointed Dianne Abbott as their head of ffp compliance.

It's potentially complicated, but I tend to see it in terms of what a club has gained. If, say, Millwall were in breach in mid table, and with a small overspend then a fine would probably be completely suitable. Picking on Villa! If Villa were in breach and at the time were riding high, in say 3rd/4th place, the danger is that a fine would represent little punishment if they went on to secure promotion. Iy would also effectively be a kick in the teeth for the other play off teams who have kept within ffp limits. Accordingly, that's when I think a points penalty should be applied sufficient to take the club out of the promotion race. I know there will be many who say that if that happened the club penalised would take legal action , and that the EFL would not apply such a punishment in order to side step the problems such legal action could entail. Back to the point I made in my earlier post, unless the EFL take such action then they might as well discontinue ffp as it can have no credibility or teeth unless it is seen to be working as designed. As a post script, I would like to think that if the EFL ducked out of punishing an offending club, then other clubs would take their own legal action demanding ffp penalties be applied or the offending club be thrown out of the football league for breach of rules!

While I can understand the sentiment i.e. punishing most harshly those that have breached most flagrantly, I would disagree for one simple reason. The minute an "exception" is made, for whatever reason, you can bet your bottom dollar that further down the line other clubs caught out, will use every legal device possible to use previous examples as justification for a more lenient punishment. At the start of each season, each club knows the ffp rules and especially now that a 3 year financial cycle is being applied, it's not as if they can't see it coming ! All clubs are in the same position so why should one club benefit, no matter how hard they tried, if they gain an advantage by breaking a rule to which other clubs have adhered? For a club like Villa, they have enjoyed parachute payments for 3 seasons, and we all know they have splashed the cash in an ( so far unsuccessful) attempt to gain immediate promotion back. If they fail ffp, and do so because they have been unable to shift high earners off the wage bill this season, then it is a problem they should have thought about, and addressed. far sooner, especially if other, more prudent clubs, have prejudiced their own promotion chances by keeping their financial house in order?

You rightly say, the question is whether ffp will be enforced correctly, but the real question is after being enforced correctly, will the EFL apply the appropriate penalty? If, say, a club like Villa are found in breach, secure promotion but are only hit with a fine, then it will make a mockery of the whole ffp excercise, because the reward for "cheating" far outweighs the penalty. It is cheating if a few clubs think they can ignore the rules that the rest of the clubs are following. Until now, most fas feel that clubs like QPR and Bournemouth "got away" with it by securing promotion but only getting a fine, albeit in QPR's case the fine would have crippled the club when they were relegated back to the championship and on that basis wriggled out of the real penalty with a much reduced fine. The only way to avoid this feeling remaining is to make sure offending clubs are hit hard. If that means pints penalties that prevent a club being promoted, then I'm all for it, as it will exorcise clubs to manage their finances with in ffp - the way the majority are trying so to do. That's why I posted the above! Not only can I seriously see them punishing a club like Villa or Derby, but think they have no option if their ffp rules are to have any credibility going forward. I've commented a number of times previously that in the past the EFL's hands were tied when it came to ffp breaches ( e.g. QPR and Bournemouth) as the breach was only confirmed once the season had ended , by which time said clubs were promoted and the EFL could then not apply a penalty to what was then a premier league club. The new rules mean that they will know of a breach in March of this year so they now have the means - including points penalty - to penalise offending cubs before the end of the season an, if appropriate, prevent them being promoted.

Ally Pally - is he the striker we are signing from Scotland in the January window?

I know that Rovers' manager will be a tit, but would it be her left or right one?

They'd lose a minivan driver if that happened!

Gerry Cottle or Billy Smart?

he might have bitten off more than he can chew!

If he's just run up Porlock Hill there won't be any for a while!

Perhaps this should be renamed "soccer chat" , in order to avoid any confusion and for clear differentiation between the codes.

...or post honeymoon euphoria.

Who do you think you are? Coming on here quoting facts!

Absolutely - one of them is Irish!

Ah, but you are not allowing for the fact that 5-0 would be a very dangerous scoreline for us!

Both sets of fans could be singing "you'll be sacked in the morning". Also both sets of fans could be singing it about their own manager/head coach!

They've managed no shots on target in 2 games now.

Is being incaopacitaed in the boondocks a result of an overly energetic honeymoon Hav?

Followed us - he's played a few games for us I reckon!

Come on JD, you can do better than that. There's nowhere near enough negativity and critical comment in your post, which is pretty poor for the opening day of the season. No only that, but you then made things even worse by including the "Forest spent loads in the summer" excuse. I know you cannot win anything in November, but you can be relegated after the first game of the season, so come on, pull your socks up and get your act together when you post in future! Ah, but that's different!