Jump to content

FFP Changes in 2016/17


Cam the Ram

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 28
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It was always a ridiculous experiment in protectionism designed to keep the big clubs at the top and prevent growth amongst the smaller ones.

The change in the rules will be taken as evidence that the current regulations were flawed and further strengthen any legal challenges. Forest will challenge the January embargo and will get an instant injunction lifting it until a court case can be organised - which certainly won't be in January. QPR will fight the fine it'll take three years of decisions and appeals - they will have been relegated and promoted again by that time.

The new version has at least some chance of being accepted as the PL might support it. The threat of promotion being refused is pretty much the only workable sanction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So predictable I've little to say on the matter.I do however welcome the principle of the 3 year approach.I pointed out some months ago that whilst amortisation on bought players is spread over contract life,profit on sale of players only impacts the FFP result in the year of sale.The new rules now effectively allow for the positive FFP benefits of such sales to be spread over 3 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this mean 3 season STARTING from 2016/17 - so there will be impunity for all clubs until 2019/20?

 

Or does it mean starting from 2016/17 they will look back over the previous 3 years filings?

I saw a more extensive article earlier today,but unfortunately I (a) had a thick head,and (b) didn't archive it and can't find it again.

 

Rightly or wrongly (because of the state of my head) I thought that the 16/17 result would be taken in cumulative conjunction with 14/15 and 15/16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should still be at an advantage because our losses are low in comparison so can afford to make a higher increase in losses and meet the regulations.

Because of a combination of play off riches/Chelsea cup tie/increased attendances I suspect that the cash loss on operations for last year will be a lot closer to zero than the

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post that ramblur.

Thanks for that.I forgot to mention that I would be highly supportive of our owners continuing to follow original FFP guidelines for the simple reason that they've shown you can still achieve success by so doing.Therefore,rather than our approach having been a waste of time,as some have suggested,it probably turns out to have been the correct one.We could have spent shed loads of cash and be languishing in mid table-nobody knows.We might not have seen the development of Will and Jeff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry,but I don't agree with you both.For a start our policy of spending little and relying on loans

 

hasn't got us anywhere.No guarantees on this season either.I hope the new regulations spell the

 

end of FFP or whatever the mouthful they are calling it now.It only came in to keep us poor relations

 

to the big boys in our place,and to protect the status of the rich clubs,hopefully to stop them breaking

 

away to form a Euro super league.I look forward to the day when our sleeping owners can dig into their

 

pockets and buy some Premier league class players to enable us to take our place in the Premier league

 

and have a fighting chance of staying there,the present rich clubs can fock off to their Super league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...