The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Mr Popodopolous]

Here is a random thought on FFP.

The rules are in effect the same at EFL and PL level. Profit and Sustainability etc, loss limits differ and how it is enforced also seems to suggest.

Given the harmomised nature of the rules though, how can Everton be permitted to attribute £170-220m in 2 or at a push 3 seasons to Covid as a way of seemingly starting past punishment and remaining free of even intense monitoring...

...However the Football League, can they in that context push for theoretical sanctions vs us or Stoke- or Fulham or Nottingham Forest. Hell maybe even Reading were unlucky given they failed to 2021 yet Everton seemed to be allowed to fudge to the same period.

Surely referral of all or none?

TL:DR

Does Everton apparently being let off stop other clubs from being pursued under the same albeit differently applied rules?

Edited January 13, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Preston making bigger losses post-Covid shows our accounts in a better light (ours a much worse starting position.

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Ooh! Thanks @Davefevs

They usually stick these out later so that's eaely for them.

I had a feeling that their losses may not be so low, our (Holdings) wages down £5m and amortisation and impairment was down too.

[Davefevs]

On their website:

https://www.pnefc.net/news/2023/january/202122-financial-highlights/

[Mr Popodopolous]

My feeling is that Preston won't breach FFP, but maybe monitoring requirements of some kind? Probably the £5m and £2.5m for Covid, £3.5-4.5m per year maybe in usual FFP allowances? Perhaps £3-4m per year for the latter.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Mr P - here’s my quick n dirty FFP summary.  Using basic FFP allowances, simple Cat 3 costs, etc.

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Preston making bigger losses post-Covid shows our accounts in a better light (ours a much worse starting position.

Good lord look at the difference a couple of premier League seasons make. ******* hell Norwich. Calm down.

[Davefevs]

Wigan - late payment - 3 points deduction (suspended until 31st Dec 2023)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64337724

[Mr Popodopolous]

The 125 pct makes sense but that seems weak considering not one, not two but three failures to pay on time.

[Davefevs]

45 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Good lord look at the difference a couple of premier League seasons make. ******* hell Norwich. Calm down.

The haves and have not.

 

[ExiledAjax]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The haves and have not.

 

Nice visuals. Makes the gulf so clear.

[Mr Popodopolous]

There is chatter although I'm not sure they're in so deep, that Stoke need to sell Souttar or they've messed up FFP basically.

Surely clubs have until end of May or whenever their Reporting Period ends anyway, so in theory they could risk it- they've turned down a £10m bid.

My gut feeling there by messed up maybe they mean:

1) Maxed out their season budget for the season in the summer and now need to trade. (Which tbh there is a bit of- Bursik gone, Delap returned on loan- talk of Harry Clarke to our 'friend' Ashton's club).

2) Even if they are on track to breach, January or end of May? No club has yet been rocked points in the season of the breach itself so for us, Stoke or whoever it'd be unprecedented.

Edited January 19, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[View from the Dolman]

Not FFP directly but Sheffield United are under an embargo for breaching EFL Regulation 52.2.3 (as per https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/embargoes/)

EFL Regulation 52.2.3 says that "If a Club is in default of payments due to another Club (or club) under a transfer or compensation agreement the Club shall be subject to a registration embargo such that it shall not be permitted to register any Player with that Club without the prior written consent of The League until such time as the agreement is honoured."

[Davefevs]

13 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

There is chatter although I'm not sure they're in so deep, that Stoke need to sell Souttar or they've messed up FFP basically.

Surely clubs have until end of May or whenever their Reporting Period ends anyway, so in theory they could risk it- they've turned down a £10m bid.

My gut feeling there by messed up maybe they mean:

1) Maxed out their season budget for the season in the summer and now need to trade. (Which tbh there is a bit of- Bursik gone, Delap returned on loan- talk of Harry Clarke to our 'friend' Ashton's club).

2) Even if they are on track to breach, January or end of May? No club has yet been rocked points in the season of the breach itself so for us, Stoke or whoever it'd be unprecedented.

Certainly looks like they are “streamlining” doesn’t it.

1 minute ago, View from the Dolman said:

Not FFP directly but Sheffield United are under an embargo for breaching EFL Regulation 52.2.3 (as per https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/embargoes/)

EFL Regulation 52.2.3 says that "If a Club is in default of payments due to another Club (or club) under a transfer or compensation agreement the Club shall be subject to a registration embargo such that it shall not be permitted to register any Player with that Club without the prior written consent of The League until such time as the agreement is honoured."

I wonder which player(s) they haven’t made payments on.

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Certainly looks like they are “streamlining” doesn’t it.

Agreed. Can't work out though at this juncture if they're hamstrung a bit like us or actually could breach without a sale- could be either.

5 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I wonder which player(s) they haven’t made payments on.

This one is interesting. Seems hard to say how on the face of it, 2 x PL cash and profit, 1st 2 years of Parachute Payments (always the biggest). They did take out a Bank Loan/Bank Loans in 2020-21, wonder if that is impacting upon instalments as they fall due. Secured against Parachute Payments maybe?

Not exactly big spenders however, wage bill surely will have dropped from £56-57m which it was in 2020-21 which frees up further cash. Ramsdale sold, more transfer receivables to go against payables. Definitely no FFP issues but potentially cash flow I didn't expect this from them.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

Stoke losing another player!

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

I don't think Stoke fans are too disappointed about Clarke or Delap although that's a very quick skimread but could be one to watch. Definitely would thin out a squad anyway.

[PHILINFRANCE]

Probably a question for @Davefevs and/or @Mr Popodopolous, but a recent article concerning (Premier League) FFP intrigued me.

Apparently, FIFA regulations limit player contracts to a maximum of five years.

As has been widely reported in the media, however, Chelsea have recently signed this Ukrainian star on an eight year contract, and only today have signed yet another one on a six, or perhaps seven, year contract - @Davefevs is the expert on trivia, so he will be able to confirm the precise details .

According to the aforementioned media reports, Chelsea claim to have overcome the five year limit, as the extra years constitute an ‘extension’ to the players’ contracts (at Chelsea’s discretion) à la Semenyo’s contract with City.

It seems a very clever way of incorporating amortisation into a player’s contract, but surely this is doomed to fail.

In fact, @ExiledAjax may also be able to add his considerable expertise to this.

[ExiledAjax]

9 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Probably a question for @Davefevs and/or @Mr Popodopolous, but a recent article concerning (Premier League) FFP intrigued me.

Apparently, FIFA regulations limit player contracts to a maximum of five years.

As has been widely reported in the media, however, Chelsea have recently signed this Ukrainian star on an eight year contract, and only today have signed yet another one on a six, or perhaps seven, year contract - @Davefevs is the expert on trivia, so he will be able to confirm the precise details .

According to the aforementioned media reports, Chelsea claim to have overcome the five year limit, as the extra years constitute an ‘extension’ to the players’ contracts (at Chelsea’s discretion) à la Semenyo’s contract with City.

It seems a very clever way of incorporating amortisation into a player’s contract, but surely this is doomed to fail.

In fact, @ExiledAjax may also be able to add his considerable expertise to this.

Phil. I've been drinking. But you're kind.

What I'll tell you is that Chelsea's lawyers are some of the top sports lawyers in the country. Northridge LLP are as a good as it gets. If they are confident that Mudryk and others' contracts are considered to be within FIFA's RSTP rules then there's a good chance that they are. 

I can look at the RSTPs in detail at some point but my gut feel is this: if I employ you for 5 years, with an ability to extend it by 3 purely at my discretion (subject to presumed conditions being triggered) then do you tell people you've got a 5 year contract or an 8 year contract?

I say again, I've been out tonight and haven't read up on this. But my gut feel is Chelsea will have it right.

[PHILINFRANCE]

26 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Phil. I've been drinking. But you're kind.

What I'll tell you is that Chelsea's lawyers are some of the top sports lawyers in the country. Northridge LLP are as a good as it gets. If they are confident that Mudryk and others' contracts are considered to be within FIFA's RSTP rules then there's a good chance that they are. 

I can look at the RSTPs in detail at some point but my gut feel is this: if I employ you for 5 years, with an ability to extend it by 3 purely at my discretion (subject to presumed conditions being triggered) then do you tell people you've got a 5 year contract or an 8 year contract?

I say again, I've been out tonight and haven't read up on this. But my gut feel is Chelsea will have it right.

I should be surprised, astonished even, were Chelsea (Northridge) to have committed an enormous faux pas, but I remain intrigued how (for amortisation purposes) what must (according to FIFA regs) be a five year contract can metamorphose into one for eight years.

I forgot to add that I hope you enjoyed your evening.

Edited January 21, 2023 by PHILINFRANCE

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Probably a question for @Davefevs and/or @Mr Popodopolous, but a recent article concerning (Premier League) FFP intrigued me.

Apparently, FIFA regulations limit player contracts to a maximum of five years.

As has been widely reported in the media, however, Chelsea have recently signed this Ukrainian star on an eight year contract, and only today have signed yet another one on a six, or perhaps seven, year contract - @Davefevs is the expert on trivia, so he will be able to confirm the precise details .

According to the aforementioned media reports, Chelsea claim to have overcome the five year limit, as the extra years constitute an ‘extension’ to the players’ contracts (at Chelsea’s discretion) à la Semenyo’s contract with City.

It seems a very clever way of incorporating amortisation into a player’s contract, but surely this is doomed to fail.

In fact, @ExiledAjax may also be able to add his considerable expertise to this.

Hi Phil, hope you’re well?

I posted something earlier this week, as @ExiledRobinasked me the same question.  I was under the impression that the max was 5 years (3 years for u21s) under the FIFA ruling, plus the option of two years on top.  But I did a bit of research and it also says that individual leagues can deviate if they so wish.  The Premier League are one that does.

They did retain the u21 rule though.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Probably a question for @Davefevs and/or @Mr Popodopolous, but a recent article concerning (Premier League) FFP intrigued me.

Apparently, FIFA regulations limit player contracts to a maximum of five years.

As has been widely reported in the media, however, Chelsea have recently signed this Ukrainian star on an eight year contract, and only today have signed yet another one on a six, or perhaps seven, year contract - @Davefevs is the expert on trivia, so he will be able to confirm the precise details .

According to the aforementioned media reports, Chelsea claim to have overcome the five year limit, as the extra years constitute an ‘extension’ to the players’ contracts (at Chelsea’s discretion) à la Semenyo’s contract with City.

It seems a very clever way of incorporating amortisation into a player’s contract, but surely this is doomed to fail.

In fact, @ExiledAjax may also be able to add his considerable expertise to this.

Hi Phil, hope you're well.

Exact FIFA rule stipulated is as follows:

Well it's probably a shortened version but this seems to be the crux anyway.

I don't think we have a maximum length of contract law in this country? Therefore I guess our lack of national law setting one means clubs under FIFA regs maybe free to set heir own length anyway.

Genuinely was never aware of the maximum length regulation until this week, every day is a school day! I dont really see the need personally, one of those rules at a club's own risk or reward IMO.

Purely a personal view but to me, if it's fair, if it doesn't breach regulatory limits ie FFP restrictions, if it's a fair contract then the length to me is immaterial. Matter for club, player, representatives on both sides but that's just my view tbh.

Edited January 21, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[PHILINFRANCE]

Many Thanks to @ExiledAjax, @Davefevs and @Mr Popodopolous for your detailed responses.

So, my understanding now is that, whilst FIFA regs may (or may not) limit player contracts to five years, this is superseded by UK law, and that seems fine/comprehensible.

I suppose my question then, is why (still harking on about FFP and amortisation) we don’t/didn’t offer expensive players (Kalas, Palmer or even Wells) two year contracts with a (discretionary) five year extension.

I am sure there is a simple explanation, but it is lost on me.

[Barrieowl]

13 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Agreed. Can't work out though at this juncture if they're hamstrung a bit like us or actually could breach without a sale- could be either.

This one is interesting. Seems hard to say how on the face of it, 2 x PL cash and profit, 1st 2 years of Parachute Payments (always the biggest). They did take out a Bank Loan/Bank Loans in 2020-21, wonder if that is impacting upon instalments as they fall due. Secured against Parachute Payments maybe?

Not exactly big spenders however, wage bill surely will have dropped from £56-57m which it was in 2020-21 which frees up further cash. Ramsdale sold, more transfer receivables to go against payables. Definitely no FFP issues but potentially cash flow I didn't expect this from them.

They loaned money they were due from PL tv allocations and parachute payments to the Macquirie Bank.

Their owner hasn't paid a penny personally to buy the club and its hocked to the hilt, he is trying to sell or needs a return to the PL.

Companies House makes interesting reading 

 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00061564/charges

[Hxj]

7 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

I suppose my question then, is why (still harking on about FFP and amortisation) we don’t/didn’t offer expensive players (Kalas, Palmer or even Wells) two year contracts with a (discretionary) five year extension.

To amortise over the 7 years you would need to show that it was likely that you would actually extend.  If you couldn’t you would have to use two years.

More practically, potentially you would be stuck with a player for another 5 years in a contract you couldn’t break.

Edited January 21, 2023 by Hxj

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 hours ago, Barrieowl said:

They loaned money they were due from PL tv allocations and parachute payments to the Macquirie Bank.

Their owner hasn't paid a penny personally to buy the club and its hocked to the hilt, he is trying to sell or needs a return to the PL.

Companies House makes interesting reading 

 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00061564/charges

Thanks. I was looking at Blades Leisure Limited which only showed the one charge but that shows a lot more outstanding! Did they mortgage any future transfer instalments too? I know a few clubs have done this but is either extreme inability to tely on owners and their cash flow or a sign of desperation...promotion or trouble for them I expect? (New owner may come in and clear debts including this etc).

[Mr Popodopolous]

Not strictly FFP related but Karen Brady *Checks table* *Ahem*

Anyway she says that those who want to abolish Parachute Payments don't understand football finance. Not yet read the article tbh...

 

In the context of FFP it does reinforce a major advantage- yet at the same time the cliff edge is a major issue. How they are spent is the first big significant issue.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting suggestion via Nixon today.

Reading looking to move on Ejaria in January. Possibly could be linked their wage bill and or Business plan- remember an automatic 6 point deduction could kick in instantly if they fall foul of any of the conditions.

https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/reading-prepared-to-sanction-25-year-olds-departure/

The conditions in full although falling foul of said condition(s) wouldn't preclude further disciplinary action for the breach itself if required. Could be one to watch.

[Barrs Court Red]

On 21/01/2023 at 10:50, Mr Popodopolous said:

Not strictly FFP related but Karen Brady *Checks table* *Ahem*

Anyway she says that those who want to abolish Parachute Payments don't understand football finance. Not yet read the article tbh...

 

In the context of FFP it does reinforce a major advantage- yet at the same time the cliff edge is a major issue. How they are spent is the first big significant issue.

I’ve always thought the best way to extract ourselves from the parachute system, would be to have the Premier League guarantee a % of contracts up to a certain amount in total for a fixed period, removes the risk of a financial cliff edge, while not handing up huge sums for clubs to spend.

[downendcity]

On 19/01/2023 at 20:09, Mr Popodopolous said:

There is chatter although I'm not sure they're in so deep, that Stoke need to sell Souttar or they've messed up FFP basically.

Surely clubs have until end of May or whenever their Reporting Period ends anyway, so in theory they could risk it- they've turned down a £10m bid.

My gut feeling there by messed up maybe they mean:

1) Maxed out their season budget for the season in the summer and now need to trade. (Which tbh there is a bit of- Bursik gone, Delap returned on loan- talk of Harry Clarke to our 'friend' Ashton's club).

2) Even if they are on track to breach, January or end of May? No club has yet been rocked points in the season of the breach itself so for us, Stoke or whoever it'd be unprecedented.

Yet, when the latest incarnation of ffp came into being wasn't this one of the big issues i.e. by requiring clubs to provide projected accounts by the deadline (March?) any club breaching could be penalised during the same season. This would the prevent a club benefitting from throwing financial caution to the wind and gaining promotion or a play off place by overspending beyond financial limits, thereby gaining an advantage over their rivals.

Of course, we now know that Derby's situation drove a coach and horses through the EFL's pretty inept set of financial rules, even though, thanks to Mel Morris,  they went on to prove exactly why the financial rules were there in the first place.

It's interesting to note that Juventus have just been given a 15 point deduction half way through the season, notwithstanding that the club might mount a legal challenge. I'd hoped that following the Derby fiasco the EFL might have grown some balls , so, if the Stoke situation pans out badly for them, it will be interesting to see if they have!