The Championship FFP Thread (Merged)

[Rob26]

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

 

 

 

[chinapig]

An interesting piece from Ben "he's one of our own" Fisher on the current tests for would be club owners:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/sep/14/new-efl-guidance-for-club-owners-analysis

[Davefevs]

 

[chinapig]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 

So clubs not only want to keep parachute payments but they want to spend a bigger proportion of their revenue than other clubs. The EFL should reject it.

And what is the point of Prem clubs spending 85% if UEFA insist on 70%? Wouldn't that exclude them from European competition?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Poor Scunthorpe, hope they come through it.

Everton, who knows- their new owners sound incompetent at best and maybe sufficiently flawed to fail the Owners and Directors Test.

@Rob26 Everton certainly had some USM sponsorship but don't think it was huge revenue wise, cash flow absolutely.

Tighter governance from the EFL, tbis has been developing for a while.

Reading failing their obligations again. Hmm, game of chicken or highly incompetent and negligent ownership? Maybe a range of factors.

That proposed deal is disgraceful. £130m more is play but to keep Parachute Payments is a total disgrace. Always said that as a starting point pool Parachute and Solidarity Payments to top up the EFL TV deal then split on the typical divisional ratios then see how the gap looks.

The 70 pct rule will catch a lot of clubs out. Not us probably but a lot.

[Mr Popodopolous]

One of the below the line comments to the Twitter account of Ziegler. Bet he thinks football begun in 1992 and no surprise which club he supports, most arrogant fans I remember at this level.

[Davefevs]

37 minutes ago, chinapig said:

So clubs not only want to keep parachute payments but they want to spend a bigger proportion of their revenue than other clubs. The EFL should reject it.

And what is the point of Prem clubs spending 85% if UEFA insist on 70%? Wouldn't that exclude them from European competition?

Yes, it would, but I guess those competing in European comps would have to comply with UEFA too, in years they qualify.

[chinapig]

35 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yes, it would, but I guess those competing in European comps would have to comply with UEFA too, in years they qualify.

I'd move to something like the UEFA coefficient though over 3 years rather than 5 perhaps. That might stop clubs manipulating their figures as they will surely try to do.

[Mr Popodopolous]

What would happen if the League ie the Football League was to exclude the portion Parachute Payments to the value of Solidarity Payments from the FFP/P&S returns?

It would negate a large slice of the advantage.

[Mr Popodopolous]

On the other hand to take this to a logical conclusion:

£4m more in Solidarity Payments. Gap of £44m to £4m for a Year 1 relegated side.

At minimum you can add £28m to the allowable wage, amortisation and agents fees if there is a 70 pct limit.

That is very basic and there are variables ie if a club had lower gates, relatively undeveloped infrastructure etc or if a relegated club were a big hitter at this level.

Could be lower, could be higher but use £28m as a starting point then work downwards or upwards.

[W-S-M Seagull]

8 hours ago, chinapig said:

So clubs not only want to keep parachute payments but they want to spend a bigger proportion of their revenue than other clubs. The EFL should reject it.

And what is the point of Prem clubs spending 85% if UEFA insist on 70%? Wouldn't that exclude them from European competition?

They're just not getting it are they? This is why the regulator is coming in and is very much needed.

The whole point of all of this is that clubs that come down have a huge advantage over clubs such as ourselves.

I understand that clubs need to be able to spend in the premier league in order to compete and that they shouldn't have to face a steep cliff edge when relegated. But a balance needs to be found where these clubs don't get such a huge financial advantage. I don't believe for a second that these proposals deliver that balance. 

 

[W-S-M Seagull]

8 hours ago, Davefevs said:

 

I'm not sure I understand the point of a merit system? Why should the 3 clubs going up recieve X amount of money out of the pot when they are going up and are going to recieve riches from the premier league? 

Clubs like Leeds for example already have a larger fanbase than let's say Rotherham. So they gain extra money through that, through merchandise, sponsorship and they have more games shown on TV etc.

If Leeds finished 3rd and didn't go up in the play offs then they are going to recieve a bigger merit payment than Rotherham which would give Leeds an even bigger advantage over Rotherham the following season. How will a Rotherham ever get to compete with a Leeds when the financial gap, in the same division will forever widen?

So again, it's an extra advantage to the bigger clubs who already have big advantages.

I don't like it, just split it equally across the board.

Edited September 15, 2023 by W-S-M Seagull

[Mr Popodopolous]

Moshiri has sold to 777 Partners.

Key question is, will it pass the PL Owners and Directors Test? Other key question is will they inherit an FFP punishment, that Hearing is due in just under 6 weeks.

[ExiledAjax]

"distributing the extra money based on league position"

Aka baking in the success of "big" clubs and making it harder for teams to move up and down the league.

Until football as an industry rids itself of its worship of the great god of the "Table" it will never be sustainable, equitable, or have true sporting integrity.

4 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

don't like it, just split it equally across the board.

Even better, distribute it based on other criteria. Publish clear and transparent accounts that fans can understand? Have a couple of million. Have excellent corporate governance? Have some more £m. Be progressive on environmental matters? Well done, here's some cash.

Until those things are incentivised the toxic cycle of unsustainable investment purely to obtain league position and the greater reward that comes with it will continue.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting take. Definitely it would bake in advantages, especially to relegated clubs. At the very least it should be equally split, environmental impact, sustainability in a business context etc could incentivise.

[ExiledAjax]

25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting take. Definitely it would bake in advantages, especially to relegated clubs. At the very least it should be equally split, environmental impact, sustainability in a business context etc could incentivise.

It needs a bit of everything:

1. A flat payment to all clubs in a division of a fixed % of any money that comes down from the PL;

2. A small amount distributed in line with league position. Ultimately it is a competition, and we do need to reflect that;

3. Sums distributed in order to incentives improvement in club management away from the pitch. This should encourage responsible ownership and management, control wage inflation, and also allows clubs to progress in ways other than just throwing money at agents, transfers, and players.

Combine it all and I think you'd get a more innovative industry that works better for all stakeholders.

As for that Villa guy moaning about "big" clubs supporting "small" clubs. It's a small minded "opinion" that ignores the fact that football is a competitive ecosystem, but an ecosystem nonetheless. All clubs have a role to play and unless he wants a true franchise system then the PL needs to support the ecosystem in a sustainable way.

Edited September 15, 2023 by ExiledAjax

[Rob26]

 

12 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What would happen if the League ie the Football League was to exclude the portion Parachute Payments to the value of Solidarity Payments from the FFP/P&S returns?

It would negate a large slice of the advantage.

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) 

[Rob26]

36 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

It needs a bit of everything:

1. A flat payment to all clubs in a division of a fixed % of any money that comes down from the PL;

2. A small amount distributed in line with league position. Ultimately it is a competition, and we do need to reflect that;

3. Sums distributed in order to incentives improvement in club management away from the pitch. This should encourage responsible ownership and management, control wage inflation, and also allows clubs to progress in ways other than just throwing money at agents, transfers, and players.

Combine it all and I think you'd get a more innovative industry that works better for all stakeholders.

As for that Villa guy moaning about "big" clubs supporting "small" clubs. It's a small minded "opinion" that ignores the fact that football is a competitive ecosystem, but an ecosystem nonetheless. All clubs have a role to play and unless he wants a true franchise system then the PL needs to support the ecosystem in a sustainable way.

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

 

Edited September 15, 2023 by Rob26

[Davefevs]

52 minutes ago, Rob26 said:

 

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) 

Although it’ll be badged as a “wages vs turnover” percentage the uefa guidelines are more closely aligned with SCMP in Lg1/2.

So things like amortisation is added to wages on the cost side, but fees (profit from) is added to turnover, so it’s not as far removed from FFP as most think.

“Squad Cost Ratio” is the lingo they use!!!

 

 

 

[chinapig]

5 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Moshiri has sold to 777 Partners.

Key question is, will it pass the PL Owners and Directors Test? Other key question is will they inherit an FFP punishment, that Hearing is due in just under 6 weeks.

How's this from 777, talking about cross selling to fans from their other businesses?

"The intensity of fans' engagement with their clubs meant they want to be monetised".

Is this a frying pan to fire situation? Or are Everton fans excited about being monetised?

Or as Nick Miller of the Athletic puts it:

Fan engagement so intense they want to monetise us, you'll never sing that.

Edited September 15, 2023 by chinapig

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66823892

Cardiff and the insurer appear to have settled. This of course linked to the tragic Sala case.

Cardiff were suing for £10m, but the settlement is undisclosed.

This could assist them greatly in respect of FFP returns to this season- depending of course on the size of the settlement.

Edited September 15, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

A detailed piece from Andy Hunter on the Everton takeover:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/sep/15/farhad-moshiri-plots-exit-after-ruinous-reign-but-evertons-future-still-unsure

777 look shady enough for the Premier League to welcome them with open arms!

[Mr Popodopolous]

The Cardiff settlement seems like just the spawny shit that falls into their lap.

The impairment was £15m, rising more towards £20m.

This is us it what I foresaw albeit I was thinking of the Nice lawsuit tbh, some kind of benefit from a sadly deceased player dropping into a season that will very much benefit them as far as the FFP cycle goes.

How is that even possible that you can benefit years afterwards from a sadly deceased player by reducing your losses.

[ExiledAjax]

On Thursday, the Premier League will be discussing proposals on how to distribute the £3.19bn of broadcast revenue in the future. Fair Game would love to get your views on the various funding proposals being put forward. Please fill in their quick two-minute survey here: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/L6FKTK7

If you can then please share it with friends and family on WhatsApp and other social media channels. 

Huge thanks in advance.

Edited September 19, 2023 by ExiledAjax

[Mr Popodopolous]

Not necessarily in our stratosphere but.

https://www.insideworldfootball.com/2023/09/19/psg-face-ffp-questions-sale-players-qatari-clubs/

I reckon the Verratti sale is fair value given his excellence at a high level for years, Draxler given his stagnation absolutely not. Diallo I'm unsure- could go either way.

Verratti never really pushed himself in a top 3 League, Draxler was somewhat injury hit.

Definitely some grounds to challenge, of course the cosy ties between Ceferin and the PSG owner...

Edited September 19, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

Anyone who subscribes to Swiss Ramble please feel free but this was PSG and their 2021-22 accounts..apparently they frontloaded the Mbappe signing on bonus into 2021-22, but that was still a huge fail to that season. For which they were very lightly dealt with.

The question is how have they complied thereafter, if indeed they have. The relevant figure for FFP is the €375.4m loss before tax before the usual allowables kick in.

Also worth nothing that PSG have Handball and Judo so those costs would be excluded as they are a bit of a multi sport model.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2023/09/19/west-brom-takeover-january-transfer-window-guochuan-lai/

The issue is clearly cash flow but the rules for short and medium term are clear.

So long as there is no backsliding on regulations. WBA although seemingly fine for FFP atm are in a post Parachute world and next year could be an interesting one if they don't go up .

Multiple have been punished, we had to make significant sacrifices along with Stoke to an extent although they also cheated.

Edited September 21, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

 Blackburn, very punctual. Venkys London Limited have released 3 months before they're due!

Covers April 1st 2022 to 31st March 2023. While since I've looked at these.

[Rob26]

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

[Rob26]

reading transfer embargo due to late payments 

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