FFP

[Curtains]

44 minutes ago, ramblur said:

It was a commendable idea in the first place,but never had a chance of working because of the influence of relegated clubs and a handful of Championship clubs that didn't like the idea of having their ambitions curtailed.It's a sobering thought that the original plan was to taper down to an amount far less than the current £13m,and eventually extrapolate down to break even.

I can't help but feel that the same effect could have been achieved by managing the bench rules more effectively.One might have thought that when the numbers went up through the gears to the current 7,then it should have been an opportunity to introduce youth players,but that doesn't seem to have happened at all.Instead,not only do we now have strong benches,but even more strength in further squad members,which is the thing that has driven wage bills so ridiculously high,when compared to the income the underlying assets are generating (if not promoted).

In what I would call the 'good old days',when there were 2 subs to cater for injuries (which got abused by players feigning injury,but you could just change the ruling to 2 subs,without restrictions),decent managers would make their tactical adjustments on the pitch,because they had to,and I don't remember the game being unenjoyable to watch in those days.

Imo,when the bench was eventually increased to 5 (I think),it should have been 4 + 1 optional youth player. Similarly,when it went up to 7,it should have been 5 + 2 optional youth (my own preference would have been 4 + 3 youth). This would have put an end to the big,expensive squads and given youth a look in.The problem with the situation today is that you could have the commendable twin aims of promotion and the introduction of youth,but the 2 seem to be mutually exclusive, and a manager who might want to introduce youth could feel fan (and maybe ownership) pressure that prevents same. Under my system,such a manager might just be forced to introduce youth (didn't do us any harm with Dave Langan,who I don't think would have had a cat in hell's chance under the current arrangements,nor would Pete Daniel have been given a chance at CH).

Some would point out that it would be optimistic to have 3 youth players at one time ready for the bench,but I did say optional and it would be the same for everyone.It might also focus the mind on youth production,rather than spend,spend,spend.

Before anyone else mentions it,I do see the obvious flaw - relegated clubs wouldn't have it.It's a devil that clubs that aren't even part of the Football League (until dumped there) can have so much influence (or should I say the Premier League).

What a brilliant idea but would the Championship clubs except it because not all clubs have academies do they.  

 

[ramblur]

1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

No need to apologise, reading back I can see where the confusion came about.

It was a rushed post hence why I already edited it once!

Should have kept my nose out in first place, only answered as I saw a question aimed at you and was not sure if you was currently posting or not. 

Hope you are well.

My only excuse is that I'm frantically fighting yet another chest infection with antibiotics to try and get fit for respiratory outpatients + pulmonary function tests next Wednesday. It's a real bind because I have to travel 100km for this (local hospital hasn't got a respiratory unit) and the trip kills me.If I have to cancel,it gets put back to late autumn/winter and trip is pure murder.Anyway,thanks for asking.

[G STAR RAM]

Just now, ramblur said:

My only excuse is that I'm frantically fighting yet another chest infection with antibiotics to try and get fit for respiratory outpatients + pulmonary function tests next Wednesday. It's a real bind because I have to travel 100km for this (local hospital hasn't got a respiratory unit) and the trip kills me.If I have to cancel,it gets put back to late autumn/winter and trip is pure murder.Anyway,thanks for asking.

All the best, sure we are all hoping the trip goes well for you. 

[Gritty]

35 minutes ago, ramblur said:

If you're revaluing downwards bit by bit,you're still taking a hit bit by bit,and you can only do this if the player remains on the books (the 'bit by bits' add up).

Yes. But better to make use of any ffp space each year if one can?

We should have some space this year given sales so I hope we either sell or revalue Anya Butterfield Johnson this year...

[ramblur]

5 minutes ago, curtains said:

What a brilliant idea but would the Championship clubs except it because not all clubs have academies do they.  

 

There's no chance you could do it retrospectively,but it would have been fine if done at the outset,as clubs would have had their minds focused on youth development at the time. It seems to me that the current arrangements have led to the scrapping of academies in some cases. Let's have a go at the possible thinking.......we want promotion and we can't risk throwing kids in,so what's the point of developing them.We might just as well spend the money on buying established pros.

If what I suggested had been implemented at the outset,then everyone would have been working under the same guidelines,and it could even have worked to the advantage of clubs with less resources.

It annoys me that we were once challenging for world cups,that we once had the ridiculous situation where Kevin and Charlie could hardly muster many caps between them,and that,not only did we have the world's best keepers,we had great keepers playing below the level of the old div 1.How many caps did a class act like Toddy get?

[ramblur]

10 minutes ago, feisty said:

Yes. But better to make use of any ffp space each year if one can?

We should have some space this year given sales so I hope we either sell or revalue Anya Butterfield Johnson this year...

Trouble is,none of us know how much FFP space we have.Just because we sold players,it doesn't have to mean that we've plenty of FFP leeway. Anyway,we've a very competent guy in Stephen Pearce,and I'm sure he'll be making all the right decisions tailored to our ever changing circumstances.

[EnigmaRam]

Am I the only one bored of FFP arguments?

the club pay people an awful lot of money to ensure we don't breach FFP.

everybody at the club since it came in has said there isn't an issue nor ever has been. Why do we keep having the amuse discussions?

if it was an issue we wouldn't have signed Lawrence or Keith

[Curtains]

5 minutes ago, EnigmaRam said:

Am I the only one bored of FFP arguments?

the club pay people an awful lot of money to ensure we don't breach FFP.

everybody at the club since it came in has said there isn't an issue nor ever has been. Why do we keep having the amuse discussions?

if it was an issue we wouldn't have signed Lawrence or Keith

Mate it's interesting because the clubs keep banging on about having to adhere to it. 

We sold Hughes, Ince and Christie and let Camara go to reduce wages I would imagine so net spend must be fown surely although the IPRO sponsors money was lost out on we have been told 

 

[EnigmaRam]

2 minutes ago, curtains said:

Mate it's interesting because the clubs keep banging on about having to adhere to it. 

We sold Hughes, Ince and Christie and let Camara go to reduce wages I would imagine so net spend must be fown surely although the IPRO sponsors money was lost out on we have been told 

 

Mate, it really isn't!!

[G STAR RAM]

10 minutes ago, EnigmaRam said:

Am I the only one bored of FFP arguments?

the club pay people an awful lot of money to ensure we don't breach FFP.

everybody at the club since it came in has said there isn't an issue nor ever has been. Why do we keep having the amuse discussions?

if it was an issue we wouldn't have signed Lawrence or Keith

Don't open the thread then. The fact that it's titled FFP should give you some indication what it's about.

Fans seem to want to use the fact that Rush said FFP was not a problem about 3 years ago continuously. 

Why overlook the fact that our finance director has said that MM has to finance us right up to the limit, or the fact that GR seems to be saying that we have to move players out before bringing more players in.

If either of the above make you still think that FFP is not an issue then I am glad you are not in charge of our finances!

[ramblur]

8 minutes ago, EnigmaRam said:

Am I the only one bored of FFP arguments?

the club pay people an awful lot of money to ensure we don't breach FFP.

everybody at the club since it came in has said there isn't an issue nor ever has been. Why do we keep having the amuse discussions?

if it was an issue we wouldn't have signed Lawrence or Keith

I'm not sure it's arguments about breaching FFP,because I'm sure most would realise that it's unlikely to happen under our regime.It only crops up because fans are wondering what further leeway we may have in the transfer market (which I think the OP touched on),and,like it or not,FFP is the determining factor (because we have an owner who's willing to back right up to the hilt).

I'm not sure why anyone who's bored sick with FFP would enter a thread clearly titled FFP? I wouldn't go out of my way to listen to Matt Monroe (apologies to any of his fans).

[Curtains]

Just now, EnigmaRam said:

Mate, it really isn't!!

I know what you mean but at the end of the day finances are vital to the running of a Football Club. 

If it hadn't been for Stuart Webb getting Robert Maxwell on board at the very last moment this club would be out of existence. 

Football is so well off compared to those days though I'd say.  

[ramblur]

15 minutes ago, EnigmaRam said:

Mate, it really isn't!!

It might not be interesting to many,but I've noticed on this thread that someone stated we hadn't got a problem in our most 'profligate' year (15/16).....so how could we have a problem now? I've pointed out many times that our '£4m under FFP' in 15/16 would have been £8m over if it hadn't been for a £12m loan cancellation. Now there wasn't a £12m loan cancellation in 16/17,there won't  be one in  17/18,and there won't be one in 18/19. There have been major player sales in both 16/17 and 17/18. Those that have no interest in FFP will never appreciate that our underlying 'bread and butter' position of income v expenditure has been way over the threshold.If they were to understand this,then they'd appreciate that the club is obviously taking steps to rectify this position over the next 2 years,and that they should adjust transfer market expectations accordingly. There'll be no £12m loan cancellation in 18/19 -do we really want to see major player sales?  

[Curtains]

6 minutes ago, ramblur said:

It might not be interesting to many,but I've noticed on this thread that someone stated we hadn't got a problem in our most 'profligate' year (15/16).....so how could we have a problem now? I've pointed out many times that our '£4m under FFP' in 15/16 would have been £8m over if it hadn't been for a £12m loan cancellation. Now there wasn't a £12m loan cancellation in 16/17,there won't  be one in  17/18,and there won't be one in 18/19. There have been major player sales in both 16/17 and 17/18. Those that have no interest in FFP will never appreciate that our underlying 'bread and butter' position of income v expenditure has been way over the threshold.If they were to understand this,then they'd appreciate that the club is obviously taking steps to rectify this position over the next 2 years,and that they should adjust transfer market expectations accordingly. There'll be no £12m loan cancellation in 18/19 -do we really want to see major player sales?  

Good post but how close to the wind are we sailing for the next 3 years and what else other than letting players go could be done to rectify it ! .

Will we be any better placed for the January transfer window. 

[Rev]

On 01/09/2017 at 23:26, sage said:

I am surprised that no-one has started a thread on this.

Rowett's comment about having to let Bryson go on loan because he didn't get offers for other players he wanted to get rid of, seems to suggest that we are sailing close to budget. Is this a Mel imposed budget or an FFP one?

Having made a transfer profit over the summer of 5-6m it seems unlikely that this is a case of Mel running out of cash.

We are constantly told that though we are mindful of abiding by FFP but we aren't in danger of falling foul of the rules. However this summer's transfer dealings imply we are within £1m of breaking FFP rules by 11pm deadline day.

This makes me think about 3 things

a) Bent's contract extension

b) The iPro stadium sponsorship going tits up and them not paying for their 2nd year

c) We will have to break even in the Jan window and wait for releasing players in the summer to invest again.   

I think Gary simply settled for the most convenient reason for letting a well liked player go.

[Mistaram]

50 minutes ago, ramblur said:

It might not be interesting to many,but I've noticed on this thread that someone stated we hadn't got a problem in our most 'profligate' year (15/16).....so how could we have a problem now? I've pointed out many times that our '£4m under FFP' in 15/16 would have been £8m over if it hadn't been for a £12m loan cancellation. Now there wasn't a £12m loan cancellation in 16/17,there won't  be one in  17/18,and there won't be one in 18/19. There have been major player sales in both 16/17 and 17/18. Those that have no interest in FFP will never appreciate that our underlying 'bread and butter' position of income v expenditure has been way over the threshold.If they were to understand this,then they'd appreciate that the club is obviously taking steps to rectify this position over the next 2 years,and that they should adjust transfer market expectations accordingly. There'll be no £12m loan cancellation in 18/19 -do wet to see major player sales?  

Ramblur thank you for your information some of it goes over my head I'm no economist my wife will confirm that Ive just been reading the Championship wages to turnover not sure how relevant this is to our future spending but the 2016figures have us spending 141% of turnover while Forest were top with 166%  Leeds bottom on 79% overall 13Championship teams spent over 100% of turn over iis there any relevance to future FFP in these figures 

[Gritty]

1 hour ago, EnigmaRam said:

Mate, it really isn't!!

It is to some people.  If it doesn't interest you, you don't need to read the thread

[ramblur]

26 minutes ago, curtains said:

Good post but how close to the wind are we sailing for the next 3 years and what else other than letting players go could be done to rectify it ! .

Will we be any better placed for the January transfer window. 

I'm afraid I can't possibly answer those questions,curtains,because of the uncertainty concerning the £7m hike in admin charges in 15/16 (how much recurring/how much one off?) amongst other things.The original 'blueprint' for Gary was 5/7 highly paid seniors + 7/9 others at wages more towards the Championship norm. The rest of the squad was to be made up of Academy graduates.According to my calculations,this means a maximum of 16 senior pros,which forces 1 youth player onto the bench (disregarding the sub keeper,who will probably be an Academy graduate). I sincerely hope that Mel sticks to this,because injuries outside the window could force the introduction of a youngster/youngsters,without any ire being directed at the manager.Every cloud has a silver lining. 

The resulting cull of the wage bill would almost certainly get us back below the FFP threshold on normal,underlying income and expenditure.It can't be done this year,but the list of' out of contracts' at the end of this season would suggest it could be completed next year.For this reason,I'm prepared to cut Gary some slack this year (and I'm sure Mel's intelligent enough to do the same),in the knowledge that he'll be able to reshape his squad properly next year.If you sign relatively young players,then only wages become a real FFP issue,because amortisation would be fairly modest.

Mel's twin desire of promotion and the introduction of youth reminds me of the biblical 'No man may serve two masters', the 'masters' in this case being promotion and the introduction of youth. A vastly reduced squad size at least makes the latter more achievable.

It's always better to introduce youngsters into a strong team (would Beckham,Scholes and Giggs have progressed as quickly at most other clubs?),so if we concentrate on quality in a reduced senior squad,we should be ok.

[ramblur]

9 minutes ago, Mistaram said:

Ramblur thank you for your information some of it goes over my head I'm no economist my wife will confirm that Ive just been reading the Championship wages to turnover not sure how relevant this is to our future spending but the 2016figures have us spending 141% of turnover while Forest were top with 166%  Leeds bottom on 79% overall 13Championship teams spent over 100% of turn over iis there any relevance to future FFP in these figures 

Highlights the problem.If you're spending more on wages than your total turnover,with a host of other expenses on top,then you're bound to be in a spot of bother,because you can't instantly correct a wage situation.

I noticed that Mel predicted the 'madness' was only going to get worse in future,and I'd agree with him.I'm glad he seems to be distancing himself from the 'madding crowd' approach- a true English oak. You can still spend a fair bit of money whilst staying within FFP on normal income and expenditure (in our case a loss of c£18m,with £5m of FFP exemptions). Whether you could expect Mel to fund the cash losses this would entail over a long period of time is a different matter.We all want a club for the future.

I predict that a lot of smelly stuff will be hitting the fan in the non too distant future.All bubbles seem to burst eventually,with some nasty consequences.Thankfully.I doubt it's our fan that'll be hit. Funny how Leeds have become competitive,whilst slashing wages (I've also noticed they've introduced youngsters over the years).

[ramblur]

3 hours ago, curtains said:

What a brilliant idea but would the Championship clubs except it because not all clubs have academies do they.  

 

The thing I didn't mention before was the fact that the ill fated (in its original form)FFP imposed restrictions on clubs,whilst the increase in bench numbers was a 'gift' to clubs,a totally different dynamic.How many clubs that don't now have youth systems have them years ago? I can guarantee that any who didn't have them when bench numbers were increased would have done something about it pretty sharpish if an increase in bench numbers had incorporated an element of optional youth (and would probably have benefited them in the long term).