The Great Big FFP Debate

Goodie

Goodie

Goodie

Soldato
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
4,946
To see how badly this has crippled my club in recent years (Stoke), I’ve got no sympathy if those falling foul of it. The whole thing is a bit of a joke.
 

BaZ87

BaZ87

BaZ87

Don
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
46,312
Shamikebab said:
This is hilarious, did they just not answer their emails and hope it would go away? :D
Click to expand...
Worse, they're trying to claim they don't fall under the PL's jurisdiction anymore, having made the opposite argument in a case with the EFL.

Leicester to the EFL - We were a PL side last season so your rules don't apply to us.
Leicester to the PL - We're an EFL side now so your rules don't apply to us.

While they successfully argued against the implementation of a very minor rule with the EFL, I suspect they're going to lose the argument with the PL about last seasons breach and (assuming they do breach this season) they'll also lose any fight with the EFL about a breach this season.

Given that the 20 PL clubs find it hard enough to agree on anything, it does seem hard to imagine how the PL and EFL could find a unified position regarding PSR but something needs to be done because it's absolutely wild that Leicester can (attempt to) argue that neither the EFL or PL rules apply to them.
 

adam cool dude

adam cool dude

adam cool dude

Caporegime
Joined
22 Oct 2002
Posts
26,962
Location
Boston, Lincolnshire
BaZ87 said:
Worse, they're trying to claim they don't fall under the PL's jurisdiction anymore, having made the opposite argument in a case with the EFL.

Leicester to the EFL - We were a PL side last season so your rules don't apply to us.
Leicester to the PL - We're an EFL side now so your rules don't apply to us.

While they successfully argued against the implementation of a very minor rule with the EFL, I suspect they're going to lose the argument with the PL about last seasons breach and (assuming they do breach this season) they'll also lose any fight with the EFL about a breach this season.

Given that the 20 PL clubs find it hard enough to agree on anything, it does seem hard to imagine how the PL and EFL could find a unified position regarding PSR but something needs to be done because it's absolutely wild that Leicester can (attempt to) argue that neither the EFL or PL rules apply to them.
Click to expand...

Surely forest can make the same argument in that case? Afaik if forest accounts were based on 3 season in the PL they would be in the clear.
 

BaZ87

BaZ87

BaZ87

Don
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
46,312
adam cool dude said:
Surely forest can make the same argument in that case? Afaik if forest accounts were based on 3 season in the PL they would be in the clear.
Click to expand...
Forest's situation is different. They've been charged by the PL while in the PL. Leicester's defence isn't that they haven't breached, just that they don't fall under the PL's jurisdiction anymore. Ironically the only precedent for the Leicester situation is Leicester themselves when they were charged by the EFL after they got promoted in the 13/14 season. That dragged on for a few seasons but eventually Leicester paid a settlement to the EFL.

Re Forest, there's an acceptance that sides coming up (or going down) will be subject to pro-rata thresholds depending on how many seasons they've been in the PL/EFL. And the 'if Forest's accounts were based on 3 seasons in the PL....' argument is a nonsense. They weren't in the PL for 3 seasons and the limits in the EFL are much lower because the money in the EFL is also much lower. Forest didn't have a leg to stand on and that's why they fessed up straight away and were somewhat fortunate that the PL recommended knocking 2 points off their punishment for cooperating.
 

Sui

Sui

Sui

Soldato
Joined
24 Sep 2005
Posts
4,350
Location
Brighton
£123m profit for Brighton, and that doesn’t include Caicedo!

Let’s hope Tony wants to invest that, now we’ve paid back some of his loan :D

Leicester with a £90m loss, could get them in trouble? They’re screwed if they don’t get promotion!
 

BaZ87

BaZ87

BaZ87

Don
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
46,312
Sui said:
£123m profit for Brighton, and that doesn’t include Caicedo!

Let’s hope Tony wants to invest that, now we’ve paid back some of his loan :D

Leicester with a £90m loss, could get them in trouble? They’re screwed if they don’t get promotion!
Click to expand...
Headline profit and loss figures can be somewhat misleading due to the way transfer fees in and out are accounted for. In terms of actual cash, the club made around £33m after all day to day costs and installments (in and out) on transfer fees and as you say, Bloom repaid some of the money he's loaned the club (exactly £33m as it happens).
 

BaZ87

BaZ87

BaZ87

Don
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
46,312
The Premier League is set to keep points-deduction penalties for breaches of the financial rules but is considering having a tariff that would impose only fines on clubs for lesser offences. The new system, which would run alongside a new “squad cost rule” that limits spending, would come into force for the 2025-26 season if approved at the Premier League clubs’ summer meeting in June. The league’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) have been criticised by Everton and Nottingham Forest after both clubs were deducted points for going over the fiscal limit, which allows for £105 million in losses over a three-year period. There have also been questions as to why Forest were given only a four-point deduction despite having a larger breach than Everton, who had an initial ten-point deduction reduced to six on appeal.

Unlike the Football League, the Premier League clubs had decided not to have a fixed tariff of sanctions but to leave that decision to an independent commission — which is what happened in the cases of Everton and Forest. The Premier League is looking at a proposal for a salary-cap model, called “anchoring”, which would make the amount any team can spend on wages linked to the amount of TV money paid to the lowest-placed club. For example, if the bottom club received £100 million, the maximum any club could spend on wages and transfers would be a multiple of that — possibly 4.5 times as much. The league is also likely to mirror Uefa’s “squad cost rule”, under which clubs are allowed to spend only a fixed percentage of revenue on wages and transfers. Uefa is working towards a 70 per cent limit but it would be 85 per cent in the Premier League. The votes on the new rules may result in another split between clubs who want tighter spending regulations and those who favour a free market.
Click to expand...
www.thetimes.co.uk

Premier League will not scrap points deductions despite criticism

Controversial spending breach penalties, as suffered by Everton and Nottingham Forest, are set to remain as clubs vote on new rules for 2025-26 season, including as salary cap proposal
www.thetimes.co.uk www.thetimes.co.uk

So they're considering fines for minor offences and for context, both the Everton and Forest breaches were classed as significant by the IC. It sounds like much to do about nothing.
 

arknor

arknor

arknor

Caporegime
Joined
22 Nov 2005
Posts
45,288
BaZ87 said:
Re Forest, there's an acceptance that sides coming up (or going down) will be subject to pro-rata thresholds depending on how many seasons they've been in the PL/EFL. And the 'if Forest's accounts were based on 3 seasons in the PL....' argument is a nonsense. They weren't in the PL for 3 seasons
Click to expand...
it's a disadvantage versus every other team that didn't get promoted that season though and staying up is already hard enough.

seems like a dumb rule where everyone doesn't have the same conditions but play in the same league.

It's designed to keep people out or what?
 
Last edited:

BaZ87

BaZ87

BaZ87

Don
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
46,312
arknor said:
it's a disadvantage versus every other team that didn't get promoted that season though and staying up is already hard enough.

seems like a dumb rule where everyone doesn't have the same conditions but play in the same league.

It's designed to keep people out or what?
Click to expand...
How are you determining that it was a disadvantage? Forest (or any promoted club) being allowed PL sized losses for seasons when they weren't in the PL would be a huge advantage to them. The finances in the Championship are far smaller than in the PL - your revenues are smaller, your costs are smaller and as such, the amount you're allowed to lose is smaller. In real terms a £13m loss in the Championship is greater than a £35m loss in the PL. Forests revenue increased by 5 times when they were promoted however allowable losses in the PL are only 3 times that of the Championship.

There's no disadvantage. They're allowed to lose just as much per season as a PL side while they're in the PL and proportionately, they were allowed to lose more in the 2 seasons they were in the EFL.
 

Kenai

Kenai

Kenai

Soldato
Joined
5 Apr 2009
Posts
24,865
It would be absolute carnage if people tried to finance clubs on the basis that IF they get to the Premier League their allowable losses would be £35m instead of £13m for preceding season :p You'd be seeing clubs go bust every other month when they fail to get there and the money to cover all that spending never materialises.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom