CPFC BBS

CPFC BBS (http://www.cpfc.org/forums/index.php)
-   World of Football (http://www.cpfc.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=32)
-   -   Financial Fair Play (http://www.cpfc.org/forums/showthread.php?t=253728)

Yogya 09-07-2014 04:43 AM

Financial Fair Play
 
The Premier League now has the following FFP rules:

Losses:
No more than GBP105m over 3 seasons, but reduced to GBP15m over 3 seasons if losses are not covered by equity injection

Wages
GBP52m per annum. If above this in 2012/13, annual increase of no more than GBP4 million, plus any increase in revenue from new commercial arrangements (excluding PL negotiated deals such as TV)

Penalty
Points Deduction, with first assessment being on 13/14 season likely to be by end 2014

Yogya 09-07-2014 05:00 AM

If you look at salary information from last year that is available, it suggests that West Ham must be most at risk of exceeding the cap in 13/14 assuming bigger clubs overspend is covered by increase in commercial revenue. The risk must be even bigger in 14/15 given that they are spending like crazy in the close season. Interesting question for me is whether as a newly promoted club QPR have an initial cap of 52m or they can use their incredible salary spend in 12/13 as the base. Hopefully it is 52m.


NO# TEAM 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 (est)
1 Man City 202m 233m 242m
2 Chelsea 173m 179m 190m
3 Manchester United 162m 181m 187m
4 Arsenal 143m 154m 162m
5 Liverpool 119m 132m 140m
6 Tottenham 90m 96m 112m
7 Aston Villa 70m 72m 74m
8 Newcastle United 64m 62m 68m
9 Sunderland 64m 58m 55m
10 Everton 63m 63m 66m
11 Fulham 62m 67m 70m
12 Swansea City 35m 49m 55m
13 West Brom 50m 54m 48m
14 Stoke City 53m 60m 53m
15 Norwich 37m 51m
16 West Ham 42m 56m 62m
17 Southampton 29m 47m 52m
18 QPR 58m 78m
19 Reading 27m 46m
20 Wigan 38m 44m
21 Hull - 17m (Championship)
22 CPFC - 14m (Championship)

Cleon 09-07-2014 06:05 AM

QPR didn't take any notice of FFP in the Championship, so I doubt they'll bother in the Premiership.

palacea 09-07-2014 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cleon (Post 11823279)
QPR didn't take any notice of FFP in the Championship, so I doubt they'll bother in the Premiership.

Problem with the financial year is just that, you have to wait for the year to end and then the obvious wait for the accounts to be submitted.

I'd be very surprised if QPR don't face any sanctions by the end of this year

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27538802

PalaceMonkey 09-07-2014 09:05 AM

so teams that already have massive wage bills can always have massive wage bills, but any other club can never go over 52m?

that'll create disparity won't it?

Yogya 09-07-2014 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PalaceMonkey (Post 11823444)
so teams that already have massive wage bills can always have massive wage bills, but any other club can never go over 52m?

that'll create disparity won't it?

Yes there is a massive disparity with big clubs having a distinct advantage. My guess is that the rules have been brought in not because of Manchester City (who have to comply with UEFA rules), but to stop a repeat of say Portsmouth happening. Hopefully they will also constrain the excesses of clubs like QPR (and Cardiff?) making it a more level playing field for budget conscious clubs like Palace, WBA to compete in the mini league

Incidentally, 52 million is the base cap. If I read the rules correctly, if a club is above that limit, they can increase their wages by 4m plus increase in self generated revenue streams.

Ninjas Headband 09-07-2014 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PalaceMonkey (Post 11823444)
so teams that already have massive wage bills can always have massive wage bills, but any other club can never go over 52m?

that'll create disparity won't it?

That's the way I read it as well. The likes of Man City can continue to have annual wage bills of 200million+ while any newly promoted club will be on quarter of their wages.

This is sensible in some ways so that clubs, ie, QPR, Cardiff do not over stretch themselves financially. However it destroys any semblance of competitive equality which in my view is what FFP should stand for. hen has the Premier League ever been about equal fair play though?

Bones14 09-07-2014 09:36 AM

Absolutely ridiculous setup. Understand why for the smaller/newly promoted clubs but the gap will forever widen between top and bottom. Minimal chance of the smaller clubs getting up the top or entering Europe for that matter.
Not sure what the answer is to equality in this comp but this scenario certainly isn't it. Total salary cap is really the only answer but that will never be passed through.
As ninja stated, what do they actually stand for???

Adlerhorst 09-07-2014 09:51 AM

What you have to look at is who is taking this seriously and who isn't.

UEFA are taking this seriously. The UEFA rules are pretty decent. There are some issues but the intention is good.
The football League are taking this seriously. Again they seem to have sensible rules, but they are undermined by the Premier League.

The Premier League only introduced FFP as they were told that if they didn't they would be legislated against. The rules appear half arsed. They have, to my mind intentionally, underminded the Championship rules. Firstly they have said the fines collected from promoted clubs like QPR cannot be allocated to the other clubs in the Championship, and secondly they won't enforce collection.

All the Championship can do is take the likes of QPR to court. They could theorectically not allow them back in the league when they are relegated until they have paid the fine, but in that instance one would imagine the Premier League would simply threaten to stop the solidarity payments until they get what they want.

Basically the Premier League compeltely to blame for this.

palacea 09-07-2014 09:59 AM

I don't think it destroys the competitive equality, as we saw last season with some of the results (on the pitch). But if you are referring to the longer term of a smaller club managing to break into the established order (i.e becoming a big club), then yes those gates will forever be closed now. I for one don't think smaller clubs could ever become a bigger really, i.e Southampton etc, with the old rules, just the illusion was maybe slightly more achievable.

If you look back over the last 30-40 years, yes a few clubs have had a good season or two, Palace finished third once, Ipswich finished Fourth I think, and many others. But there was always a common theme with that order, those smaller clubs were merely a blip, or a cycle in which the smaller clubs enjoys, bad times with some really good times thrown in. The big clubs are the big clubs because they are established and have been where they are for 50-60 years consistently.

Recently Chelsea and Man City have broken that mould slightly and joined that elite club, however at vast costs and which they will probably never break even or ever be able to fill what Man United, Liverpool or Arsenal could in stadia consistently.

Something needed to be done to stop the likes of Portsmouth, QPR and others. On the flip side if UEFA had never of mentioned the FFP, I don't think city would have spent so much over the previous years, but as they had a deadline before FFP was implemented and they had the cash, they went for it to break into that elite club before it was too late.

As the rules stands Man City will be the last to break into the elite but realistically who else would have the cash and the sustained cash over the next 10-15 years with massive losses on a consistent basis. None on a consistent basis that's for sure.

Celestial Empire 09-07-2014 10:21 AM

So (friendly little) Fulham paid more in wages than Everton or Newcastle. You have to laugh.

Nicola C 09-07-2014 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yogya (Post 11823267)
If you look at salary information from last year that is available, it suggests that West Ham must be most at risk of exceeding the cap in 13/14 assuming bigger clubs overspend is covered by increase in commercial revenue. The risk must be even bigger in 14/15 given that they are spending like crazy in the close season. Interesting question for me is whether as a newly promoted club QPR have an initial cap of 52m or they can use their incredible salary spend in 12/13 as the base. Hopefully it is 52m.


NO# TEAM 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 (est)
1 Man City 202m 233m 242m
2 Chelsea 173m 179m 190m
3 Manchester United 162m 181m 187m
4 Arsenal 143m 154m 162m
5 Liverpool 119m 132m 140m
6 Tottenham 90m 96m 112m
7 Aston Villa 70m 72m 74m
8 Newcastle United 64m 62m 68m
9 Sunderland 64m 58m 55m
10 Everton 63m 63m 66m
11 Fulham 62m 67m 70m
12 Swansea City 35m 49m 55m
13 West Brom 50m 54m 48m
14 Stoke City 53m 60m 53m
15 Norwich 74m 75m 68m
16 West Ham 42m 56m 62m
17 Southampton 29m 47m 52m
18 QPR 58m 78m
19 Reading 27m 46m
20 Wigan 38m 44m
21 Hull - 17m (Championship)
22 CPFC - 14m (Championship)

I find most of those numbers very hard to believe!

No club has released accounts beyond the 2012/13 season, so where are those figures for 2013/14 wage budgets from? They aren't just estimates, they look completely made up without a rooting in reality and are nonsensical.

Just take Norwich City for example...

Quote:

NO# TEAM 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 (est)
15 Norwich 74m 75m 68m
Those figures are clearly wrong and way too high!

Norwich City had a wage bill of 50.8m in 2012/13, not 75m.

Yogya 09-07-2014 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicola C (Post 11823672)
I find most of those numbers very hard to believe!

No club has released accounts beyond the 2012/13 season, so where are those figures for 2013/14 wage budgets from? They aren't just estimates, they look completely made up without a rooting in reality and are nonsensical.

Just take Norwich for example...

NO# TEAM 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 (est)
15 Norwich 74m 75m 68m

Those figures are clearly wrong and way too high.

Of course it depends on reliability of the source. However, if you cross check against a recent article in the Guardian 2012 and 2013 figures cross check to the numbers for everyone apart from Norwich, where I see that my source took Turnover figures by mistake. Correct Norwich figures 37m and 51m if you take Guardian to be correct.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/...lub-david-conn

Adlerhorst 09-07-2014 12:16 PM

I think the one rather telling point is the Premier League Financial Fair Play rules don't actually include the word fair anywhere.

Santos-er 09-07-2014 12:16 PM

The PL don't actually give a shit if the likes of Portsmouth go bust... there will always be another foreign mug willing to jump in and piss away their billions. This, like most other things, is about feathering their own nests and usually that involves shitting on everyone but the top 5/6 clubs.

Back to hating Scudamore again. Seems more natural a position than sticking up for the **** :)

swissroll 09-07-2014 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yogya (Post 11823742)
Of course it depends on reliability of the source. However, if you cross check against a recent article in the Guardian 2012 and 2013 figures cross check to the numbers for everyone apart from Norwich, where I see that my source took Turnover figures by mistake. Correct Norwich figures 37m and 51m if you take Guardian to be correct.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/...lub-david-conn

The Guardian figures are from the PWC report so should be correct. Villa & West Ham appear to be the 2 currently in the PL who are most overspending, no surprise Villa reined it back last season and doing same this by looks of it. West Ham are taking the *hit or bust approach.

spt1978 09-07-2014 12:38 PM

I still do not see how it can be legal to stop people equity injecting into football clubs.

Think this whole FFP will crumble once someone challenges it in court.

palacea 09-07-2014 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spt1978 (Post 11823826)
I still do not see how it can be legal to stop people equity injecting into football clubs.

Think this whole FFP will crumble once someone challenges it in court.

Because they signed up to the rules at the start of the season or when it was agreed by all parties. As happened in Championship and surely also with the P.L.

Adlerhorst 09-07-2014 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spt1978 (Post 11823826)
I still do not see how it can be legal to stop people equity injecting into football clubs.

Think this whole FFP will crumble once someone challenges it in court.

No one is stopping them injecting equity into a company. All they are doing is limiting the amount of said equity counting towards their breakeven position.

spt1978 09-07-2014 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adlerhorst (Post 11823882)
No one is stopping them injecting equity into a company. All they are doing is limiting the amount of said equity counting towards their breakeven position.

Problem I see with this is that they say it is to keep clubs debt free (UEFA do anyway), if someone is willing to covert all of their investment to equity the club is debt free so how can you limit how much they invest.

I expect someone like PSG to challenge this in court and win. Also are UEFA really going to take tough action and throw one of the heavy hitters out of the Champions League, unlikely.


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.