ramblur Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 ah, so the system is open to interpretation and allows teams to spend decent money just not ridiculous money. As you say though, we are still likely to be bottom of the league table on spending Perhaps not so much open to interpretation as open to opportunity.Every club has the opportunity to record an FFP loss of up to £5m.The fact that our owners don't seem willing to avail of this opportunity has nothing to do with FFP constraints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p.shilton Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 thought as much. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I really hope it does work, as I just feel that football has to be accountable, and something needs to stop billionaires using clubs like they use luxury yachts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I really hope it does work, as I just feel that football has to be accountable, and something needs to stop billionaires using clubs like they use luxury yachts! Commendable,but I think a strict break even (with,say,£1m allowable deviation) FFP model might have caused problems for the likes of us.Let's imagine this model had been put in place wef 2013/14.We've seen how difficult it is for clubs of even our size to break even,but let's imagine we managed this,in FFP terms,next season.We would probably have trimmed our players' wage bill as much as we dare;as for other expenses we don't know the extent to which they might be further trimmed. Now let's imagine that we don't improve next season,with the likelihood that gate revenues would slump further the following year,the season in which strict FFP took effect.What would we be able to do to stop the slide whilst staying within FFP? The traditional way would be to sign better players to draw the crowds back-impossible though in these circumstances,because whilst there'd be no restrictions on what you spent on players,the amortisation and additional wages generated would take you into FFP strife territory.So we could be caught in FFP quicksand.You might point out that others would be in the same boat-this might be true if it weren't for the distortional effect of chute payments.It seems to me that the more restrictions you place on those without chute payments,the bigger the advantage that chute payments deliver. With the current arrangements,at least if our masterplan didn't work there'd be the opportunity to change tack to the extent of £5m (for the current owners or any new owners). I think it would be a shame to prevent a local fan owner from pumping his/her own money into improving the fortunes of a club he/she loves.The current arrangements give some protection against getting in too deep-any annual cash loss would be below £5m and as I've said before player purchases would be indirectly constrained.Would foreign billionaires be able to buy their way out of this division?Almost certainly not under the current restrictions,in my opinion. I welcome (with a good deal of relief) the current arrangements and I'd warn against pressing for FFP break even-think through the possible implications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 High Court has lost vs FL http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/7778032/HMRC-fail-in-rule-challenge Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs' attempt to have the Football Creditors' rule declared unlawful has been dismissed by the High Court. The Football League's Articles of Association, Regulations and Insolvency Policy have commonly been referred to as the Football Creditors' rule. It seeks to ensure the continuation of football clubs that enter administration, the satisfaction of creditors and the settlement in full of all football debts. HMRC has challenged the rule on numerous occasions in respect of clubs such as Wimbledon, Leeds and Portsmouth in the past. But following a five-day trial in November and December 2011, Mr Justice David Richards ordered on Friday that HMRC pay the costs incurred by the Football League in defending the latest proceedings. HMRC have been granted permission to take their case to the Court of Appeal. A Football League spokesman said: "The judgement confirms that the Football League's rules and insolvency policy do not breach the principles of existing insolvency law. "We recognise that some regard the application of these rules as being imperfect. "However, they remain an essential part of football's approach to handling insolvent clubs within the wider context of competitive league football. "The judgement recognises that a league has the right to insist upon insolvent clubs meeting their financial obligations to the rest of the game as a condition of continued membership. Consequences "Had this principle been ruled unlawful, the most likely consequence would be insolvent clubs being expelled from the Football League altogether, as clubs would be unwilling to compete against teams that have defaulted on debts to their fellow clubs. "This would have devastating consequences for the clubs concerned, their supporters and people living in their local community. "Although it is regrettable that HMRC sought to test this matter before the courts, we remain committed to a constructive dialogue with the tax authorities as we share the common aim of ensuring that clubs meet their liabilities as and when they fall due, including sums owed to HMRC. "To this end, the Football League and HMRC have co-operated over the implementation of a monthly PAYE reporting mechanism that has significantly reduced the amount of tax owed by clubs. "In an ideal world the Football League would never have to apply its insolvency policy at all. "Therefore, our focus will remain on creating a sustainable business environment for all our member clubs. "Most recently, this has seen all three divisions of the Football League agreeing to implement cost control measures as part of the League's Financial Fair Play framework." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 'Had this principle been ruled unlawful, the most likely consequence would be insolvent clubs being expelled from the Football League altogether, as clubs would be unwilling to compete against teams that have defaulted on debts to their fellow clubs.' That sounds like a good thing to me. Administration means applying to the Conference. That might just focus a few minds. IMO it's a far better option than FFP which will create such an unbalanced and uncompetitive league if it ever gets fully implimented, which I still doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VulcanRam Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Look, just tell me when all this is over, one way or the other, and explain it in words of one syllable. Then I might just understand, or indeed care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 It means that clubs who cheat do not have to pay their debts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.