Rob26

you deserved getting relegated for selling us rudy gustede, although as a boro fan we deserved to get relegated for buying him when we went last down first thing we done was blast most of the parachute payments under monk trying to do what newcastle did the year before, needless to say it didn't work out I don't think there is many fans who will agree with loopholes that remove assets from the club to the owner, but if clubs take advantage of it to make FFP you I cannot hate on them - they will always operate within the rules in front of them. the anger should be directed towards the governing bodies that never had the foresight to consult with accountants and lawyers to anticipate what loopholes people would use to beat the system. at least they are closed now and they are making efforts to close other options as they come up too. people always think of new ways to get around authorities rules, I'm sure that they will be plenty of more fixes come out over the years that we haven't even thought about yet I do also think if the loopholes were not there for the land sales then maybe the clubs would still of passed FFP one way or another, I think they just would of had a different budget altogether and probs planned the land sales to create that budget rather than spending the money and thinking crap what can we do to fix this, hey lets sell the stadium etc

land sales was defs a loophole but a legal one so even if we frown upon it if them clubs not broke the rules then you cannot blame them for taking advantage of it, league/uefa when implementing the FFP should of had some accountants look at their rules they wanted to put in place and said your club x your making a 70m loss this season and breaching ffp, how do you game the system but the clubs that got punished got punished for other factors other than selling stadiums for ffp, they did sell the stadiums but had other factors why they got punished as the stadium sales were deemed fine, like sheff wed literally back dated the sale by around a year to stay within FFP but the land registry showed they had lied, derby was for administration mainly, the stadium part was cleared on ffp but players values was not etc i don't buy into a hs2 villa conspiracy to give them money and keep them in ffp, I just think they have clearly benefited from it, but it is the rules so they not done anything wrong. With the speed of the deal going through maybe Villa had a lot more leverage in the deal than many other people do, with them flagging up they had 10m of costs that could not be cancelled that would be ruined if the purchase was forced through I'm guessing the hs2 project may have been keen to get a settlement sorted sooner than later before more money was spent on the development on what would essentially be abortive construction works

they may be arguing all periods were in breech until the facts are established legally. no doubt they will have to give some of the relegated teams hand outs, wonder how much tho, very interesting. plus would that put them in breach again payin out 10s of millions compo

yeah 10% of the original value before hs2 went past you get a payment for as the development will reduce your property value by a similar value, so this will be the value of 10% of the property's value that they keep. So looks like they are being forced to also sell 10% of the land, so they will keep 90% and get a payment for 10% of the original value of that 90% of the land. then they are also due payment for the land (10%) they are being forced to sell to allow it to pass through the site. usually compulsory purchases like this are the value of the land bought, plus 10% compensation for doing so. that news article below looks like they are wanting to enhance the money claiming how much they have spent on the land that will need to be redone, so they spent 9m so a portion of that they are claiming is recoverable as well. I bet you probs get a cash revenue boost for the sale and compo of the training ground to your revenue for ffp, but then you need to spend a big chunk on alterations due to the hs2 going through the site but these are all infrastructure based costs so do not cause a negative draw on your new revenue. if its the money your due, then they just like anyone else I think you should get what you deserve, sucks it looks like it will help them out with ffp but is revenue after all, just unfortunate that they will be able to spend against this and it shouldn't come off their budgets.

heres the full statement, its pretty high up the bat shit crazy out bursts you could probs have, looks to me he is using it as an excuse to stop putting money into the club https://www.swfc.co.uk/news/2023/september/dejphon-chansiri-club-statement_/

just an mp tagging their name to something for attention, he knows and it will result in nothing, its just typical mp pandering. thats open to more abuse tho, say 5m bond, they pay that to break the rules i disagree they do not affect the owner tho, all these sanctions over the last few years has definitely made reading worth less (for anyone trying to take over) I know fans take a hit but you need them punishments in place for when the alternatives are not working, and lets face it the clubs getting points taken off them are having multiple times where these points deductions can be avoided before it happens. you need stiffer punishments there to move the clubs down the leagues for their persistent offences. I think faceless punishments that don't affect you in the league is why some of these owners think they can make the same mistakes again paying people late etc and think they will just get an embargo or suspended punishment, efl gotta enforce something along the lines, and I think they have been generous with Reading that they have only been docked 4 points this season tbh. Although they may be more to come :laugh:

reading transfer embargo due to late payments https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2023/09/26/reading-transfer-embargo-hmrc-tax-efl-points-deduction/

The Everton Football Club owner, Farhad Moshiri, received more than £400m from Alisher Usmanov companies in the run-up to the Russian billionaire being placed under sanctions, documents suggest, raising fresh questions about the financial ties between the two men. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/sep/26/everton-fc-owner-alisher-usmanov-farhad-moshiri

yeah I agree with this could be a position based system where you get more per league position, but do not take away from clubs guaranteed sums, and the amount could be equal to one guaranteed club share, so if everyone's getting a 5m share of the money, then you have 5m prize fund to split. make it a condition that clubs to win this money they need to meet criteria in point 3, eg need no late payments/embargos/sanctions/infractions - suspended or not active/or this season, need to stay within their financial constraints (which can control all the inflationary elements) if they do not meet all the criteria any money they would win is added to the total pot and their shares are removed from the split, punishing those who push the rules or use the infractions as a buffer when they feel the punishment won't matter as they wont let it go that far. it's not a massive financial punishment for failing, but does reward every club that followed the rules when they are excluded. 24 teams = 300 shares of prize money, if 5m that would give top team 400k, (with 24 shares) 10th 250k (15 shares), 24th 16.666k (one share) its enough to compete for to make every game competitive at the end of the season, but also not big enough to effectively rob from poor performing teams. obv each share is worth more if you have teams in the league which have had infractions. This season burnley and sheff utd would of been disqualified from this due to not meeting criteria for point 3 (I CBA to look to see what other clubs other than reading would be too, but reading are not included in these next split calcs) that would of also put 783k back into this hypothetical 5m pot for everyone else to get, reducing the shares to 253 shares at almost 20k each, making 3rd worth 434k as top prize 22 shares, 10th 296k with 15 shares, 24th 19.76k 1 share

That would work for me on a simple basis. I'm assuming the percentages that they are saying teams are allowed to spend is wages and fees? rather than total ffp costs vs total ffp allowable revenue if was total ffp costs I'd be all for 85% even as much as 95%, with that forcing all clubs to make a small profit (outside of other allowable investments)

Readings 4 point suspended points deduction for latest sanction is now activated, due to the owner not putting the 125% salary deposit in the designated EFL account as required. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66802229

oh this dont sound like they may get approved also states the take over is 500m, a 250m loss, excluding any further losses that was money disguised as russian based revenue, which i'm sure there was plenty of before the sanctions hit

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-11/liverpool-s-everton-football-club-close-to-sale-to-777-partners everton sale close to 777 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66784450 (not behind a paywall) rumoured to be about 600m take over, which is around a 750m loss on what he has put into the club, not including Russian revenue which was thought to probs have come from the share holders

https://theathletic.com/4844776/2023/09/11/investigation-football-club-owner-convicted-fraud/?source=user_shared_article Investigation: The football club owner with four names believed to have been convicted of fraud

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12408661/Premier-League-introduce-new-rule-following-Evertons-FFP-charges-season-clubs-recent-history-overspending-submit-accounts-THREE-MONTHS-earlier-rest-flight.html EXCLUSIVE: Premier League introduce new rule following Everton's FFP charges last season that will see clubs with a recent history of overspending submit their accounts THREE MONTHS earlier than the rest of the top flight The Premier League have introduced a new rule following Everton's Financial Fair Play charges last season which compels clubs with a recent history of overspending to submit their accounts three months before the rest of the top flight. Under Rule E.48 clubs who are forecasting losses must file audited accounts to the Premier League by December 31 rather than the standard March 31 deadline. The new regulation is an attempt by the Premier League to ensure that any disciplinary cases arising from alleged breaches of FFP rules are dealt with before the end of the same season. should be everyone imo not just those with history

think the parachute payment clubs like leeds and Leicester ffp problems are more likely to occur in year 2/3 if they dont get promoted and keep spending.

daka is leaving to ac milan too https://onefootball.com/en/news/milan-reach-agreement-with-leicester-city-for-patson-daka-38142271 +2m

they probs had someone cough several times in the dressing room so added another £30m for this seasons covid losses

I've seen a few things that suggest Chelsea are well within FFP at the moment, so think that is way off. see here for one example https://talksport.com/football/1534030/chelsea-transfer-news-ffp-rules-explained-boehly/ I think its more to do with setting them up to not breach again, more than punish them hard for it. The EFL seems to work that way for a lot of offences, putting in place a setup for the club to avoid these situations in future, rather than going in hard. With something like this unless the rules don't allow it then I would like to see when they get them to agree to the deduction a sliding scale for future breaches. So 1 point now, suspended 3 more points, if subsequent breaches are made within so many months/years each time the points deduction will be double, so hit the 3 points deducted and get a further 6 points suspended, hit the 6 points have 12 points suspended. That way the point totals will affect any club who disregards them. Their current one is low, I feel 3 points is more fair, but even a 3 points deduction should be borderline meaningless for this season as you would expect them to do good in this league. hopefully they miss the play offs by one point, that would be priceless :laugh:

https://www.efl.com/news/2023/august/16/efl-statement--reading-fc/ reading docked 1 point, 3 suspended, need 125% monthly wage deposit registering with efl

I'd imagine they will get away with just some fines (without admitting guilt) from the premier league too I feel they authorities put in place the harsh sanctions etc they know will get appealed and don't fight it back equally because deep down I think these FFP laws if they were challenged if they are strictly legal then I think teams like this would find holes in it and potentially bring the whole system down. That's why I think they just agree to guilt and fines in the end coz they know its something that higher courts can probs over turn

nice doc on how to "comply" with ffp :laugh:

https://www.bcfc.com/news/all/tom-brady-invests-in-birmingham-city-football-club I imagine forrest if they dont make the payments when complaints come in will be embargo'd

they should have agreed budgets at the start of the season I think. all accounts in before end of season even if by companies house they are not required yet they should have to submit to their leagues authority, showing actuals to date for current season and expected for next season. then the league returns back to them what their allowance is for the season. every transfer in and out includes an update to the forecast and deduction/addition to the budget and has to be required for successful transfer of a players registration. if clubs have new revenues they can apply to changes to their budget. then if clubs are looking to breach, the league should know about it before the season is out, effectively unless they have reported false figures they should be in a position to know where everyone is going to end up based on current transfers by feb. it would also instil a culture of more effective monitoring too. fines from ffp could go towards the costs of providing this service to the leagues. https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12929532/chelsea-fined-8-6m-for-ffp-breach-as-juventus-banned-from-europe-for-23-24-in-separate-financial-case chelsea fine