Rob26

that would make more sense, mad how its proposed like it levels the playing field tho yeah your allowed to outspend them, but no more than 500% more than the teams with the least money. I suppose it may come in to play more in future years if the money in europe etc gets out of hand

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.

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.

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/

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

I meant for FFP, I linked the article in my first post about it, here is the part I got that from tho

is it a loophole tho? is it not part of the rules you can sell assets in your group but it has to be fair value? the media describe it as loopholes for the clicks and sales but just thought its inter group transactions which all get fair value if deemed valid. the smart move on their behalf would of been doing it slightly under value - as apposed to them being greedy and relying on a value that won't stand up and will bite them in the ass later on. that sun article reckons it puts them at a 63m profit for the year, but there is only so many times you can kick this can down the road tho before things tighten up and you don't have these options open to you. maybe thats why I don't get mad at the clubs that find these holes in the system, part of me hopes the leagues get better and patch the holes up, but the clubs that can't manage their ffp without doing this can only do it so many times, and it might delay them getting hit, but makes the fall a little more juicy. Everytime teams like this do it and still fail to climb back into the champions league to balance the books, you just know when it does hit them its going to be something worth getting the popcorn out for, these badly managed clubs often dont seem like they even know how to handle the extra money for spending they have farmed and always seems like are just constantly making things worse. they must be getting close to a point where they need a bit of luck and players/managers not performing actually start to turn things around, as how much more can they keep spending on game changing players? yet all they will probs come up with is sell players to make 10-20m of profit only for them to 5x over 5 years again at 50m-100m on one or two players, not thinking ahead they need a 10-20m profit on sales in each of the next 4 years to pay for it, and thats without paying for the rest of the players that are amortised in the accounts for even longer from past seasons I wonder if the rules on 5 years amortisation only applies to new signings, can they reset the remaining amortisation by extending some deals back up to 5 years, or longer with extensions

yeah I think clubs on the edge of FFP are pushing accounts till the end of june, so if they have just extended to then it is to be expected, as they are kicking that can down the road and will want the chance of a fire sale in june if things dont come to plan. would be mildly amusing if this hotel sale went under B15 and they said its not allowed and they had to get their fire sale on

the ffp guy saying on talksport it may not get approved, it may go against the good commercial faith rule B15 where the league can disallow it if it serves no commercial purpose other than benefitting their ffp situation

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

how about have sporting sanctions that are in the rules in black and white. clubs then know up front what the penalties are. then for non complex cases all you can really appeal on is the value level of the breach £ for example: obviously the points and fines may be different but have bands and set them in black and white like this 5% over your FFP = 1 point deduction & £3m fine 5-10% over your FFP = 2 point dedication & £6m fine additional points and fines etc for aggravating factors - eg not meeting reporting deadlines, issuing misleading reports/forecasts also have similar black and white penalties for non payment of bills etc and other financial things clubs can do wrong and get sanctioned for. if clubs argue over the rules over what is allowable and what isn't and the rules have loopholes, then the league closes the loophole in line for the following season, it should then eventually be pretty black and white was is a breach and what isn't so it can be measured and punished by the level of the breach, within the penalties set out in the rules. I don't personally like how it seems like they just decide a fine and points deduction instead of it being something in black and white already.

all the regular uefa clubs are not going to be interested in this surely? as they will be bound by the uefa rules which will be tighter than this. the uefa system in the BPL probs wouldn't mean the talent leaves the league due to lower wages, because i'd imagine other uefa clubs that they would goto are going to be under the same restrictions, huge clubs with massive revenue based on the fan base will be able to continue to match the BPL clubs, but like now once you get past the huge clubs in the european leagues the teams below them don't have close to the same revenue from tv deals that our clubs do, so it won't really change anything for the BPL in retaining talent, its not like PSG/Real Madrid etc have an issue competing with clubs for big wages and fees. I can see it happening with the championship after a few years in where £20k+ a week talent has to go abroad because they can't improve their wages as not good enough for the prem, but in the BPL come on the level of revenue even the relegation fodder clubs have dwarfs most european clubs revenue (excluding the huge clubs who's have international fan revenue) seems like strange ideas, on one hand they say everton and forrest points deductions were not how the original intentions of ffp were, but I always thought the intentions was so clubs don't have owners gamble with their futures and then when the money owed by the club gets too hot to handle and/or the owners get bored/the owners other businesses cause them a cash squeeze - that they dont pull funding from the club and leave it in a place where the administrators cannot save the club. not sure how a luxury tax would even cover that, if anything in the situation of a owner cutting off cashflow that would only make things worse. it could work if you had the luxury tax - along with money in a league controlled joint bank account to cover any club liabilities with no debt added to the clubs that wasnt pre-funded in this account would work much better. so you pay other clubs to overspend, but at the same time if you want to operate without FFP constraints you need the full balance in this account for all your current contracts and payments owed in the bank as proof of funds to cover these. these deals would then be paid through that account and if a player is sold you can then send the numbers into the league and they make that part of the account withdrawable. under this system i'd have every single deal that goes through the league tell them how much they need in that account and the payments for wages and fees can come from this account for them deals would allow this sort of investment and also protect the clubs involved from the owners too. whats the worst that they could do operating without ffp limits if the money was in the bank, would mean they never walk away.

They are probs paying it back over the long term or when they exit with a sale. some bournmouth stuff up on swiss ramble, i only get the free emails tho so maybe others can add the rest or they might be enough for you all to your thing :laugh:

I think that is something you just have to take with a pinch of salt, sure I've seen similar things in our accounts where its basically highlighting that if our owners decide to throw the towel in and stop funding the club then it will go t!ts up. management fee seems a bit iffy tho, but then if they have a shortfall its them who are going to have to come to terms with financing it. does it say anything about their loans? did they get refinanced? I know sheff utd did, and I wonder if they will be called in early due to relegation, I'm certain the payment terms for the loans the prince took out to fund the club this year may mirror their parachute payment schedule now they are going down. amazing he hasn't been able to sell his club on promotion, given he wanted 90m from dozy in the EFL, you would think someone else would of come in and offered just slightly more while before they were rooted to the bottom, I wonder if he got greedy - as I struggle to imagine that any club in the premier league during the first half of the season would struggle to find buyers unless they were loaded with everton levels of debt, and even then there is still value in the ground etc at everton that could make that money worth swallowing as an very long term investment maybe the spike if its gone up is due to the insurance payout?

loads of cardiff stuff on swiss i dont pay so someone else can post the rest

all for this, cases that the journos can sit in like real courts. https://www.footballinsider247.com/leicester-city-lawsuit-could-now-force-huge-premier-league-u-turn-wyness/ obviousily they will have to get their man city pay off in private done first

he's comes out with some good opinions if its who i'm thinking of, but I put this down as just some of the milage all the media and journos are trying to get out of these ffp cases on a daily basis, like they know they pump out headlines saying chelsea and city to be expelled from the league, then you click on it and see its someones opinion or they just say its a possibility, and you think ok so no real new news added for the 60th time in a row you have reported on the case football insider will do these reports more times than man city have been charged, and it will only take them another 2 weeks or so to hit 115 reports saying nothing new I reckon :laugh:

yeah I honest think the panel from the league wanted to send a point to them and make it so they wouldnt contest it and probs make it more manageable for following seasons. although I don't agree with being punished twice for the same year, I think fair treatment is if you had a big over spend in 1 year for example you should have that year one become 1/3rd of your 3 year allowance, if you done on same on the other years as well meaning year 2 and 3 mean the next new year then they should be treated the same, if one year is massive in profit from them trying to break out of it then you need to take a independant view on it, as if the last year had 200m+ FFP profit there then maybe you would have to reduce that also so they dont open themselves up to taking 10 points then being able to spend 2-3x as much as they should, but feel if your done for a year then you shouldn't be done for the year again if - especially if it is unavoidable without a unbelievable sale. thinking about it it may be hard to work out when to do what, as no doubt the clubs may want a better option if one year helps more than the other. i honestly wish all clubs would have to declare their numbers to ffp everytime a playing based contract is about to registered (extended/changed), if they are within FFP fine, if not the league should come back with a fee which covers all the payments and potential wages for the player that would fall outside of FFP. The money goes to a neutral account and can only be released on a drip as the costs come in, or the player is sold etc and part of the transfer you show how much more you need to pay and then get the balance back or it is available to get back. the game wins as people are buying players for what ever they want to pay (no doubt fees go up for these free spenders) teams down the ladder benefit when they get this money and the owners can invest in their business without consequence, i'd imagine more clubs would get money up front from these teams if they had to cover the money anyways. no one needs to cheat no more and do it abroad as well. the clubs they are saying would spend like crazy already spend like crazy as have the revenue. but if they wanted to spend and maybe get there at a cost they could. you just have to make all this money be in the form of donations not equity or debt. are you still allowed to donate in league one? is there any limits?

I'm sure Everton were way more in a breach than forrest tho, might not on the numbers they agreed on at the end of the case, but it looked to me that they let them off a massive amount of money on several dubious items they simply didn't challenge evertons value on - as they had more than enough on items that were undisputable.

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/leicester-city-learn-premier-league-9178706 Leicester need 20m to break even on ffp according to this. cracks me up that coz of euro 24 they wont be able to sell a lot of them in time due to being on international duty :laugh:, poor guys :laugh: i'm enjoying them slipping down the table as well tbh

other consortium members were why the hull bid got rejected from the premier league, it wasn't down to young. if he's not got prior convictions or cases lodged against him and has significant cash in the bank, along with a decent business plan is mostly what they are looking for, and also why most people get rejected or rather never complete the final steps to get approved as they can't prove the funds. I dont think you can blame the efl for what has happened at reading, it could happen at any club if the owners decide to cut off funding and they run at a negative cash flow. they have no control other than sanctions after they have bought the club unfortunatley and there is no way to change that as most club owners would object to having the additional liabilities put against their assets (which no doubt would make them worth less in some instances). I think the BJ sale dates its what has reduced the points down to 4 tbh, while your still in breach of ffp on the period before by delaying the sale, it does not make financial sense to sell him for much less than they did sell him for while clubs were trying it on due to the accounts deadline they had to meet. when your ruling on these cases and the reasoning behind is the financial health of clubs etc, they seem to have been clever and used the rules own purpose against them. plus I think they may have given a penalty that they wanted to avoid an appeal. to get rid of this situation every club should be forced to have their accounts start and end on the same date for the purposes of ffp or present ffp accounts for these periods. for me the perfect dates should be based on upto the last cup final, ie the last date of the season, then you would close out this stupid argument, and it would also be fairer for clubs too - as you wouldn't have to be in a position where you chose to breach or sell a prized player for a low ball offer to not breach. For me, immediately at the end of the season you should not be allowed a short period to do business at all to fix any breaches you have on the books from the season that has just closed out. It does not match the spirit of ffp and its intentions it encourages irresponsible owners to gamble with everything and hope they can find a sale to bail them out after the fact - we are seeing it with Leicester right now if the reports are correct. if owners want to gamble in the summer then make sales in january when it dont work then so be it it also gives poor value to the club selling the players as other clubs know they are behind on ffp, they either wait and hope they breach or pick the bones and offer much less than the players worth, clubs should not have to put themselves in that position. but deals in the short period after the season has ended needs closing out as a loophole because I think it just adds to the problem - and moving forward clubs should not be allowed to use the same argument forest has used and the only way you can do this is by only being allowed to include deals upto a certain date that match the actual season player or calanadar year which starts with a window anyways. i prefer to match it to a season as then we avoid a loopholey transition year or two where people blame the new dates for the breach if they can make out based on the old dates they would have been fine.

but their still guess for the most part , when you look at ones for your own team you can often spot ones that are well wrong

probs not that is just how I would setup the rules tho for clubs that ignore the deadlines

should just do what the tax man would do to us if we had businesses and never submitted accounts, they would just over estimate how much profit you made and tell you to put pay it and then sort your return out after wards. they should estimate their accounts till the end of the season as in breach and then issue the points dock and say you can submit the docs by end of the month if you think we are wrong

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13168047/Leicester-loophole-football-spending-rules-Premier-League-EFL-club.html