ramblur Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Sorry if everyone is bored of this, but I have a question. If I have read correctly, tangible assets are included in the FFP. If so, after last season has the squad value not increased by a significant amount? Anyone of note is tied to a fairly lengthy contract, reputations (Hughes, Bryson, Hendrick, Buxton, Forsyth in particular) have improved, not to mention free signings Grant and Martin. Again, if I am right, that 'profit' must be conservatively placed at £15m? I think you're getting confused between assets,which are Balance Sheet items,and their depreciation/amortisation which impact both Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss.Amortisation of players' registrations (intangible assets) is included in FFP calculations,whilst depreciation of tangible fixed assets is excluded. The Balance Sheet only shows players' regs (and some associated expenses) at historical cost-no revaluations take place.The closest thing to a revaluation (and it isn't one) is if agents' fees are involved in any contract extensions,as these are one of the elements that form part of cost (in other words,agents' fees are capitalised).Even if players' regs were revalued upwards,the only impact on P/L (and thereby FFP) would be to increase amortisation charges.The increases in asset value wouldn't be reflected in P/L, but in a revaluation reserve on the capital side of the business. Bet you're glad you asked that question now .The 'profits' you talk of would only be realised if the players in question were sold at the values you imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R@M Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 I actually understand that Ramblur..... Cheers. I guess it was more wishful thinking on how we can increase our spending power! Has the definitive FFP rules and regs actually been released to the masses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 I actually understand that Ramblur..... Cheers. I guess it was more wishful thinking on how we can increase our spending power! Has the definitive FFP rules and regs actually been released to the masses? My pleasure.FFP rules and regs here:- http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/FLExplainedDetail/0,,10794~2748246,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tombo Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Although I think John Vicars said something about the rules being discussed in an upcoming FL meeting. The rules are going to be set in stone and fully made clear to every club sometime this week. Hopefully they don't bottle it and they hold firm against people breaking the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R@M Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 I trust that is not definitive and absolute Ramblur? I can see so many loopholes and potential scams! Also, from that I gather we will receive a substantial Fair Play windfall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 I trust that is not definitive and absolute Ramblur? I can see so many loopholes and potential scams! Also, from that I gather we will receive a substantial Fair Play windfall. 1) It was supposed to have been.I wouldn't be entirely confident that any new version would survive that long.One of the big problems for me is that clubs to be relegated from the Prem in future won't have voted for it and may well (rightly or wrongly) issue legal challenges in future. 2) I suppose you're talking about the commercial side,and mainly things like sponsorship.As clubs will vote in any new version,I'd hope they'd come up with maximum limits that appear appropriate to the Championship.These would then become the maximums allowed under FFP -however any club could exceed these amounts if they wished,it's just that the excess wouldn't be allowed in the FFP calculation.Even here,relegated clubs could bring down with them Prem levels of sponsorship,so that isn't easy either. 3) Apparently any fines are now going to go to charity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R@M Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Just one example of what I have come up with so far; "• Investment in a club's Community Scheme" Any time a player does anything in the club's name that is not directly linked to their own personal training and interacts with the 'local community' could be considered as an an investment by the club, ie: they pay the players wages. If we say the average footballer trains and plays for about 28 hours per week, it could be made mandatory that they make one appearance a week at something which could then offset approx 1 6th off the wage bill in FFP rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Of course,we see the headline,but we don't know what's in the small print ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerTedd Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 1) It was supposed to have been.I wouldn't be entirely confident that any new version would survive that long.One of the big problems for me is that clubs to be relegated from the Prem in future won't have voted for it and may well (rightly or wrongly) issue legal challenges in future. Isn't that QPR's argument? But surely when teams are accepted into the Football League, they have to sign up to the terms and conditions of the League. If they don't want to, they are welcome to apply for entry into the conference, or start their own league. FFP, to me, is like just another rule in the long list of Rules of the Game, like Offside. You can't simply turn around and say, 'I don't agree with the offside rule, so we're going to ignore it,' then when a ref slaps you with a yellow card for persistent offending, you can't then appeal against it because you didn't agree with the rule int he first place. i suppose the difference here is that it involves money, and can ultimately hit an owner where it hurts, so they're going to start kicking up a fuss about it. Muck about with the on pitch rules as much as you want, doesn't matter if we ruin the actual game of football, just as long as we don't dare to question the stupid amounts of money that are flying around. Grr. Rant over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 I'd tend to agree,but I doubt it would stop them doing it.The Premier League always has the threat of withdrawing the solidarity payments if anyone upsets them or their 'babies'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 On the QPR thing - they have no choice but to participate in the Championship as that is the only way they can trade as a business - hence FFP is anti-competitive. The Football League also act as a monopoly supplier and thus must be very careful. It would not be hard for a lawyer to argue that the FL is abusing its position by stopping legitimate investment in businesses. This could lead to the FL being split up in order to create a 'marketplace'. The EUFA version is a little different because clubs can still trade if they choose to ignore their FFP and not enter the European competitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.