Jump to content

What will ffp mean?


Jcb1967

Recommended Posts

I've said before that FFP would only give us an advantage if we spent up to the guideline 60% of turnover -judging by Nigel's alleged comment that we're in the bottom third of the league of spending on players' wages,then we're obviously not punching our weight (or have gone beyond the FFP call of duty).In any event,we'll be at a disadvantage to any receiving chute payments because they'd be able to go above the 60% guideline,as they wouldn't need 40% of both normal turnover and chute payment to meet other overheads.Any new rules may well work against us,not for us.

I'm sure the investors would love a divi,but they're unlikely to get much out of FFP.If we were to develop some whizz kids and sell them for a fortune,then that might be another question (and a big worry).

In response to the original question, I don't think fanbase has anything to do with it.

Ramblur do you have any idea where we would sit in the championship league table in relation to income (excluding parachute payments)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I just think with such a large proportion of income received up front through season ticket sales it would be hard for fans to run club. If your star striker gets injured half way through the season and you need £x for a new one what do you do? Ask the season ticket holders to pay extra?

Our fans moan about trying to stick to budgets as it is so could never see them accepting this idea.

I suppose the first thing to be said is that it would be nice to have a star striker in the first place.I would imagine that you'd have to set conservative budgets and include a contingency wage budget,allowing you to dip into the loan market (or just throw in a kid).

One thing I'll say about Palace though-I bet admin costs have come down big time,because fans know where priorities lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose the first thing to be said is that it would be nice to have a star striker in the first place.I would imagine that you'd have to set conservative budgets and include a contingency wage budget,allowing you to dip into the loan market (or just throw in a kid).

One thing I'll say about Palace though-I bet admin costs have come down big time,because fans know where priorities lie.

Was not aware of the Crystal Palace situation but am going to do a bit of research when I get time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to the original question, I don't think fanbase has anything to do with it.

Ramblur do you have any idea where we would sit in the championship league table in relation to income (excluding parachute payments)?

Don't know,but I can't think of too many possibilities for higher turnover.The problem with the chutes is that there are always (unless relegated clubs continually go straight up -and that doesn't help us much)going to be clubs in first year of chute payments,in second year,in third year and maybe in fourth year.You only get a blank in any of the last 3 categories if 3 have gone straight back up at some stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was not aware of the Crystal Palace situation but am going to do a bit of research when I get time.

Twas a fans' takeover originally and I've just assumed they're still in control.They're doing a fine job.

My health doesn't allow me to do it (it's an effort posting on here),but a friendly introduction to the Palace forums,simply asking how it all works,might be an idea for someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know,but I can't think of too many possibilities for higher turnover.The problem with the chutes is that there are always (unless relegated clubs continually go straight up -and that doesn't help us much)going to be clubs in first year of chute payments,in second year,in third year and maybe in fourth year.You only get a blank in any of the last 3 categories if 3 have gone straight back up at some stage.

Well based on the fact that the owners go on about how cheap our season tickets are, I can only assume they are comparing to other clubs in our division.

I think it is also obvious that with the deals on offer, our attendances do not represent full paying crowds.

For instance I would imagine that Leeds would only need to get 50% of our attendances to generate the same level of income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well based on the fact that the owners go on about how cheap our season tickets are, I can only assume they are comparing to other clubs in our division.

I think it is also obvious that with the deals on offer, our attendances do not represent full paying crowds.

For instance I would imagine that Leeds would only need to get 50% of our attendances to generate the same level of income.

Don't quite understand your point-turnover means all income.Our £18m (probably now depressed a little) will no doubt be near the top (if not the top) of a league excluding chute recipients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't quite understand your point-turnover means all income.Our £18m (probably now depressed a little) will no doubt be near the top (if not the top) of a league excluding chute recipients.

Ticket income will be a large chunk (25% to 30% if I remember correctly). What makes you think our £18m would make us near the top of the league?

What I was trying to say was that we may have 28,000 paying an average of £15 a match but a team with attendances of 14,000 paying an average of £30 would have the same ticket income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ticket income will be a large chunk (25% to 30% if I remember correctly). What makes you think our £18m would make us near the top of the league?

What I was trying to say was that we may have 28,000 paying an average of £15 a match but a team with attendances of 14,000 paying an average of £30 would have the same ticket income.

Make a list of clubs not in receipt of chute payments and then tell me those you think have a turnover above £18m.Off the top of my head,I could only see Leeds as a threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed when watching west ham on telly on Saturday an advert for £20 tickets.so I think most clubs are having to reduce ticket prices to get fans to game,yet our season ticket prices have just gone up.

Goin back to the original post,I think if the fans ran the club and knew it meant a bigger budget for wages they wouldn't mind paying that bit extra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make a list of clubs not in receipt of chute payments and then tell me those you think have a turnover above £18m.Off the top of my head,I could only see Leeds as a threat.

Just found a site that listed Championship clubs turnover in 2006/2007, had Watford down as £28million. I would not in a million years have them down as having turnover anywhere like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi G STAR RAM

There is an article which was written last year called Swiss rambler derby county the American dream which gives quite alot of information about clubs turnover,they also did one about forest not long ago,which was quite an eye opener to their financial position!

Worth having a look at if you get time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think with such a large proportion of income received up front through season ticket sales it would be hard for fans to run club. If your star striker gets injured half way through the season and you need £x for a new one what do you do? Ask the season ticket holders to pay extra?

Our fans moan about trying to stick to budgets as it is so could never see them accepting this idea.

Well in the last few months all of our "strikers" have been injured pretty much- didn't see the owners stumping up for a new one though........saying that, I could argue that we don't actually have any strikers at the club anyway!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well in the last few months all of our "strikers" have been injured pretty much- didn't see the owners stumping up for a new one though........saying that, I could argue that we don't actually have any strikers at the club anyway!

So under the idea proposed that could mean you having to stump up more money during the season, assume you would be ok with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So under the idea proposed that could mean you having to stump up more money during the season, assume you would be ok with that?

Isn't the whole point rather the opposite of that?

If a tight FFP system was ever (and I doubt it ever will) fully introduced limiting spending to 55% of turnover, then the club wouldn't be able to bring in a new striker as they wouldn not be allowed to spend any more money. In that case, the 'richness' of the owners is irrelevant, so the fans might as well own the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...