New FFP rules a game changer?

[duke63 541]

Getting ready for the imminent Super League breakaway and the collapse of the EPL i wouldn't wonder!

[Badger 2,405]

6 minutes ago, hertfordyellow said:

It depends if UEFA are serious about looking at clubs books before allocating places. I’m guessing not really. A domestic regulator (recommended in the government paper) definitely would. Nothing short of creating a licence based regulator will do. We can’t let clubs pretend they have strengthened regulation, in the end they are still regulating themselves.

I think that the was something in the UEFA regulation about sponsorship, which is where one of the biggest "frauds" take place but obviously the devil will be in the detail.

They say that it will be monitored on a timely basis (whatever that means) and that there are pre-defined financial and sporting sanctions. There are quite detailed arrangements (see below). I think that there is a genuine desire for this to work - Spain already has strict rules, which led Barcelona to having to let Messi go and I suspect that they want others (particularly England) to be closely monitored too.

For the investor owners (Liverpool, Man Utd etc) it will increase their profitability, so they would be delighted - it's the "sports-washing" donor owners (e.g. especially (?) man City) where the problem might lie, but they will be in a minority, so you'd expect that they'd face pressure if they don't comply.

https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/mediaservices/mediareleases/news/0274-14d9f32dd3ea-b0b8ca4dca0a-1000--uefa-executive-committee-approves-new-financial-sustainability-/

https://editorial.uefa.com/resources/0274-14dc03ef33b9-3e2caa872860-1000/20220408_club_licensing_and_financial_sustainability_regulations_2022-en.pdf

 

[essex canary 492]

Hopefully it will work across the board. I would also like to see restrictions on overall squad size and ability to loan players as this is likely to impact more on the top 6 than the rest.

What about Profit (or Loss) on player sales? Perhaps if that is absent it will impact our young player bias? That said there will still be cases where we may get a handsome fee for players to move on to bigger and better things. Perhaps that is where we could direct funds to ground developments and improvements or reward shareholders for their landlord role?

[hertfordyellow 460]

20 minutes ago, Badger said:

I think that the was something in the UEFA regulation about sponsorship, which is where one of the biggest "frauds" take place but obviously the devil will be in the detail.

They say that it will be monitored on a timely basis (whatever that means) and that there are pre-defined financial and sporting sanctions. There are quite detailed arrangements (see below). I think that there is a genuine desire for this to work - Spain already has strict rules, which led Barcelona to having to let Messi go and I suspect that they want others (particularly England) to be closely monitored too.

For the investor owners (Liverpool, Man Utd etc) it will increase their profitability, so they would be delighted - it's the "sports-washing" donor owners (e.g. especially (?) man City) where the problem might lie, but they will be in a minority, so you'd expect that they'd face pressure if they don't comply.

https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/mediaservices/mediareleases/news/0274-14d9f32dd3ea-b0b8ca4dca0a-1000--uefa-executive-committee-approves-new-financial-sustainability-/

https://editorial.uefa.com/resources/0274-14dc03ef33b9-3e2caa872860-1000/20220408_club_licensing_and_financial_sustainability_regulations_2022-en.pdf

 

I’ve seen the articles before and as you said I didn’t doubt the desire to battle financial doping. I’m not convinced when push comes to shove there will be close attention paid to accounts. 

Spain have been proactive on this and as ever Germany didn’t let it happen in the first place.

It will be clubs like Bournemouth, Brighton and Everton that will have to change in order to keep to the rules. I think it will be good for Norwich in some ways but also heighten competition for academy players.

[Badger 2,405]

14 hours ago, hertfordyellow said:

It will be clubs like Bournemouth, Brighton and Everton that will have to change in order to keep to the rules. I think it will be good for Norwich in some ways but also heighten competition for academy players.

I'm not sure that it will make all that much difference to Norwich. 

Attendances are the main source of revenue and if you look at average attendances, I think we would come in around 20th!

That would make us a yo yo club! 🤦‍♂️🤯🤣

Edited April 10, 2022 by Badger
Added last sentence

[essex canary 492]

7 hours ago, Badger said:

I'm not sure that it will make all that much difference to Norwich. 

Attendances are the main source of revenue and if you look at average attendances, I think we would come in around 20th!

That would make us a yo yo club! 🤦‍♂️🤯🤣

What are the implications of being a yo-yo Club going forward? 

Given our £34 million turnover in the non-parachute season of 2018-19, it would appear that we would have needed to spend much less in that season under these rules and are parachute payments still under threat?

With the wages plus amortisation control, players and agents will be battling to maximise wages rather than transfer fees and amortisation. Perhaps for Clubs like us this will tend to put less emphasis on young players with transfer fee potential. 

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

What are the implications of being a yo-yo Club going forward? 

Given our £34 million turnover in the non-parachute season of 2018-19, it would appear that we would have needed to spend much less in that season under these rules and are parachute payments still under threat?

With the wages plus amortisation control, players and agents will be battling to maximise wages rather than transfer fees and amortisation. Perhaps for Clubs like us this will tend to put less emphasis on young players with transfer fee potential. 

I think that it will lead to a reduction in player wages and transfer fees, particularly outside the premiership as there will be less money available.

With regards to yo yo clubs, I think that the abolition of parachute payments which is being talked about will make it even harder for newly promoted teams, but a lot will depend upon the fine details here. 

It could fundamentally change the economics of the game - goodness knows what it could do to those teams that have borrowed heavily to chase the dream. Transitional arrangements could be interesting!

[essex canary 492]

45 minutes ago, Badger said:

I think that it will lead to a reduction in player wages and transfer fees, particularly outside the premiership as there will be less money available.

With regards to yo yo clubs, I think that the abolition of parachute payments which is being talked about will make it even harder for newly promoted teams, but a lot will depend upon the fine details here. 

It could fundamentally change the economics of the game - goodness knows what it could do to those teams that have borrowed heavily to chase the dream. Transitional arrangements could be interesting!

The devil will be in the detail. If clubs are faced with wages and amortisation charge as part of the 70% for players loaned to other Clubs, they may well not loan them. Perhaps they will find another way to get round it though such as a full transfer with a buy back option?

It will be interesting to see how it works through. 

[shefcanary 2,389]

13 hours ago, essex canary said:

The devil will be in the detail. If clubs are faced with wages and amortisation charge as part of the 70% for players loaned to other Clubs, they may well not loan them. Perhaps they will find another way to get round it though such as a full transfer with a buy back option?

It will be interesting to see how it works through. 

I'm sure that accountants at clubs across the EPL and EFL are working on scenario planning and potential news ways of getting around constraints the 70% limit may have.  However it is still going to be three years before we see any impact of this, by that time I'm sure the ownership and remuneration of players will be fudged enormously.  The authorities need to be planning for this now.

[Badger 2,405]

32 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

However it is still going to be three years before we see any impact of this, by that time I'm sure the ownership and remuneration of players will be fudged enormously.  The authorities need to be planning for this now.

1. It hasn't actually passed yet, but I think the general opinion is that it will - probably involving some deal with the EPL about payments, probably a recirculation of parachute payments.

2. Assuming it does pass, it will surely start to impact before the three years and clubs have to make adjustments during the transitional period. If you have a wage bill of 130%+ of turnover, as several championship do, they will have to start to look at contracts etc pretty early.

[essex canary 492]

2 hours ago, shefcanary said:

I'm sure that accountants at clubs across the EPL and EFL are working on scenario planning and potential news ways of getting around constraints the 70% limit may have.  However it is still going to be three years before we see any impact of this, by that time I'm sure the ownership and remuneration of players will be fudged enormously.  The authorities need to be planning for this now.

Doubtless. The Government initiates a 'fan-led' review yet we still don't get consulted and in NCFCs case ZW sits round a table with 7 other Premier League clubs albeit NCFC probably won't be members next season.