Chelmsford Canary 0 Posted April 25, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17841566 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AJ 1,358 Posted April 25, 2012 I think that it''s a fantastic idea. It''ll curb the silly debts that clubs manage to get into. Good on them! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GenerationA47 864 Posted April 25, 2012 Absolutely, could turn out to be a critical day for the future of English football (rather more than the fact of some bankrolled London-based plaything reaching the Champs League final). With the wage % limits seemingly working their way up the League, it seems that sanity could gradually be starting to prevail... shame it had to get so extreme over such a long period to make it finally happen. Anyone care to guess which 3 clubs voted against the changes? I might hazard Wet Sham, Ipswich and...? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
norfolkbroadslim 225 Posted April 25, 2012 Does the limits on investment apply to all forms of investment or just that of loans? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424 Posted April 25, 2012 [quote user="GenerationA47"]Absolutely, could turn out to be a critical day for the future of English football (rather more than the fact of some bankrolled London-based plaything reaching the Champs League final). With the wage % limits seemingly working their way up the League, it seems that sanity could gradually be starting to prevail... shame it had to get so extreme over such a long period to make it finally happen. Anyone care to guess which 3 clubs voted against the changes? I might hazard Wet Sham, Ipswich and...?[/quote]It was Leicester, Cardiff and Doncaster who voted against it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GenerationA47 864 Posted April 25, 2012 [quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="GenerationA47"] Anyone care to guess which 3 clubs voted against the changes? I might hazard Wet Sham, Ipswich and...?[/quote]It was Leicester, Cardiff and Doncaster who voted against it.[/quote][:$] Ha ha oops! Thanks for the info, Bethnal Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cambscanary 0 Posted April 25, 2012 While i entirely agree with this i don''t think it always makes a huge difference. All clubs do is get their owners (if they''re minted) to ''Sponsor'' things to do with the club such as the ground etc (take Newcastle as an example) and that way they can invest more money into the club but its not listed as an investment, its listed as a sponsorship deal!! Its a way the clubs in the prem have ''adapted'' to the rules around financial fair play. Take Man City as an example. The owner ploughs money into Etihad who subsequently sponsor the ground. Etihad get their name on the ground. they pay a massive fee to do this but the fee is subsidised by the owners of Man City who have put money into Etihad. So in effect Man City''s owners are able to put more money into their club thus circumventing the fair play rules set out by UEFA!!!I think this is correct........................ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424 Posted April 25, 2012 [quote user="cambscanary"]While i entirely agree with this i don''t think it always makes a huge difference. All clubs do is get their owners (if they''re minted) to ''Sponsor'' things to do with the club such as the ground etc (take Newcastle as an example) and that way they can invest more money into the club but its not listed as an investment, its listed as a sponsorship deal!! Its a way the clubs in the prem have ''adapted'' to the rules around financial fair play. Take Man City as an example. The owner ploughs money into Etihad who subsequently sponsor the ground. Etihad get their name on the ground. they pay a massive fee to do this but the fee is subsidised by the owners of Man City who have put money into Etihad. So in effect Man City''s owners are able to put more money into their club thus circumventing the fair play rules set out by UEFA!!!I think this is correct........................[/quote]Almost correct :) Owners are allowed to sponser their side, but if the amount of money they pay for to have the name on the shirt, rename the ground etc. is greater than the market rate, UEFA will deduct the extra money from the calculations. The market rate shall be assessed by an inderpendant professional body (Delloite or BNP I would imagine) so should be fairly accurate and impartial. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indy_Bones 444 Posted April 25, 2012 The ''sponsor'' situation can only go so far in regards to naming rights etc, what''s more (I think this is correct) under the new rules it has to be seen as a ''fair market price'' for the sponsorship instead of some hugely inflated figure, so if we claimed we''d got 500 million from renaming Carrow Road to "Foreign Palace Mk IV" there would be serious questions asked about this figure as theoretically we''d be lucky to get 20 million and therefore the deal wouldn''t reflect a sensible and fair price.Man City have skirted very close to the line on this one, but arguably timed it just right before the rules fully came into play and managed some impressive wrangling to convince the governing bodies their deal was appropriate. I think if they''d waited a couple of seasons we''d have seen the deal veto''d. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GenerationA47 864 Posted April 25, 2012 OK Cambs, the billionaire or mega-company investment thing is a good point but a slightly different side of the coin to what this deals with - they''re talking about clubs deliberately going into debt in order to try to compete (and usually for less sensible, long-term investments than stadiums, i.e. exorbitant player wages & transfer fees). This has riddled the football league & below with clubs on the endangered list. As you imply this has been highly influenced if not solely caused by the fantasy wealth league at the top of the Prem - which itself is not exactly immune and needs the same treatment - which will be a very long time coming... Yes according to the reports it just deals with loans, not ''gifts''. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GenerationA47 864 Posted April 25, 2012 PS Sorry, a misunderstanding on my part - my comments above are restricted to today''s news from the Championship clubs, not the FFP rules as affecting the Prem, which others here know far more about than me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spudgfsh 0 Posted April 25, 2012 having read the following which details the FFP ruleshttp://www.football-league.co.uk/page/FLExplainedDetail/0,,10794~2748246,00.htmlI did a few calculations on what QPR would have paid for their £25.4M loss for last season (according to the beeb).the ''fair pay tax'' liabilities based on the numbers for that season would be £10M on the initial (lax) set of numbers but if a team were to lose a similar amount in the 2015-16 season they would be liable for a FFP tax of £17M! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jacko 0 Posted April 25, 2012 I am not surprised Leicester tried to vote against it. There strategy has basically crumbled now they cant buy their way out of the championship. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
I am a Banana 0 Posted April 25, 2012 Could this mean we can get Champ players in for less wages? If they cap wages and not in the prem! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gingerpele 0 Posted April 25, 2012 They aren''t going to cap wages at less than we are paying...It could mean some cheaper wages (since its not happening for another couple of years). I''m not sure how much it will really help us to be honest. But what do I know :P Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 2,035 Posted April 25, 2012 can''t be bothered to read the ins and outs of this but if it in anyway hampers Ipswich''s chances of ever getting promoted then its fine by me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Monty13 2,736 Posted April 25, 2012 I have a question if anyone knows the answer?If a club in the championship paid say 20 million to develop a stand like we are thinking of doing, and the money was loaned would this mean for the season they took out the loan and work was done it would count as -20 million to that years profit? If so I don''t understand how any club could develop their ground or build a new one without a massive penalty? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gingerpele 0 Posted April 25, 2012 No because they would loan £20 million, the minus would be the money they repay on that £20 million in the first year...Or at least thats how I believe it works.They aren''t losing £20 million, they are gaining £20 million, to spend £20 million on a stand. So say they are then even, with all there other in and out goings, they would then have to add the loan repayments that would presumably start at some point (don''t know how soon though). That would be the - money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gingerpele 0 Posted April 25, 2012 They do go into debt, but not into a loss. If that makes sense. (although they could very easily be at a loss as well, depending on other costs) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
"""""""""Ben """"""""""" 0 Posted April 25, 2012 Pretty sure under the FFP rules clubs can invest as much as they like in stadium facilities & youth development. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
norfolkbroadslim 225 Posted April 26, 2012 So, if I won £120 million on the Euromillions and wanted to ''give'' NCFC £20 million - I don''t want my money back, but I want a few shares, a seat for life and a place on the board, would there be anything stopping me, could it be worked around? If I wanted to invest £20 million in NCFC, but wanted my money back at some point, would there be anything stopping me, could it be worked around? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
