No quick fix in this league.

[The Road Less Travelled]

The ground redevelopment falls outwith the FFP restrictions, same with the training ground improvements.

[Apprentice to the Maestro]

Considering we know we now lost 13m last season with a minimum net spend is it now clear why we had to do same this year?

Then the club should say so in simple english. if they say we are absolutely constrianed by financial restrictions we understand. but to still peddle the everything it takes nonsense is ridiculous and all the club rhetoric continues to suggest they will in fact make the necessary investment.

This is the whole point, i can easilly comprehend restrictions and how we may yet get round them, or how they came to sell and entire squad and squander (i presume) the parachute payment and leave with two seasons of abject miser. but all the PR is geared to everything is just fine so buy lots of tickets.

But what business tells you it is in trouble until it is too late? 
Is FFP the answer to football's issues or is it a poor attempt to try to obtain balance and fairness when a larger, better supported club will always do better than a smaller, less supported club?   There are still court cases open against the EFL regarding FFP, and so the whole things is in flux. 
Fulham have been mismanaged since the Khan's took over, and now the owners must find a way forward, a way out, that is not going to condemn this Club to a slow death.  I now understand why the ground re-development is more or less dead too - there was not enough slack in it to make it pay for itself and provide the Club with additional steady income.
It's somewhat ironic that Johnny Haynes Stand-s between the Khan's and an easy kill.   

FFP was "established to prevent professional football clubs spending more than they earn in the pursuit of success and in doing so getting into financial problems which might threaten their long-term survival" according to Wikipedia. It was designed to avoid owners driving a club into serious debt, particularly when owing money to other clubs.

You can read a detailed explanation on the UEFA web site:

http://www.uefa.com/community/news/newsid=2064391.html .

It was not designed to make small clubs more competitive despite the 'fair play' in the title.

[toshes mate]

Sorry, ATTM, you should read the press releases and discussion documents provided and updated by the EFL,  As Statto (and even the EFL) says FFP is deeply flawed but is, perhaps, better than nothing, probably barely though.  The change to three year accounting has been experimental but already heavily criticised.  Yes, there is a fairer system waiting to be found, but football will only wake up when it realises it needs customers to pay for the product and it must internally structure the game to fit income once it has invested enough in the infrastructure to keep the game growing.   Like a lot of things in life football is a microcosm that shows us where current society is going so very badly wrong.

[toshes mate]

The ground redevelopment falls outwith the FFP restrictions, same with the training ground improvements.

Did I say any different?  Sorry if I didn't make it clear, but my point about ground development and the Heatherwick plan is about making the Cottage multipurpose, with facilities and events, bolstering income and thereby reducing the cost of running the ground.  In a similar way MP will increase Club income in many different ways but starts with less overheads anyway.  Fulham does not get enough through gate receipts which means it doesn't have enough customers which means it is a failing business......

[nose]

Like many things of good intent there are unforeseen consequences.

The way it works hopefully it does stop things like the leicester fiasco.

However it is actually now also forcing some clubs to effectively have one  hand tied behind their back.

[MJG]

FFP's role in the domestic leagues is slightly different than UEFA ones.
They are really in place to make sure companies dont go bust. And its fair to say that the number of clubs who have gone into administration has tailed off dramatically in the last few years. The real issue is with owners and them running the club in a poor way (not Khan way as many of you see it) such as at Orient, Coventry etc.

[toshes mate]

FFP's role in the domestic leagues is slightly different than UEFA ones.
They are really in place to make sure companies dont go bust. And its fair to say that the number of clubs who have gone into administration has tailed off dramatically in the last few years. The real issue is with owners and them running the club in a poor way (not Khan way as many of you see it) such as at Orient, Coventry etc.

I used the term 'mismanaged by the Khans' to suggest 'well intended but misguided, even naive perhaps' to distance them from the plain old bad owners.  Orient are fortunate that the Brisbane Road ground is owned by a true Orient supporter, because otherwise they'd be much, much worse off.  As it is, and if they are relegated to the National League, they can still live to fight another day, but you can see what the dangers are by looking at the whole dilemma.  And, as Statto says, there is madness in a system that prevents a benevolent owner from bolstering a Club's finances, when we know how many crooked sponsorship deals there are, how many shark agents there are, how many media companies playing into the hands of the unfairness of it all, for which the authorities appear to have no answers.  FFP is deeply flawed because we are not starting from a level playing field and surely that is the only place fairness can start.

[MJG]

FFP's role in the domestic leagues is slightly different than UEFA ones.
They are really in place to make sure companies dont go bust. And its fair to say that the number of clubs who have gone into administration has tailed off dramatically in the last few years. The real issue is with owners and them running the club in a poor way (not Khan way as many of you see it) such as at Orient, Coventry etc.

I used the term 'mismanaged by the Khans' to suggest 'well intended but misguided, even naive perhaps' to distance them from the plain old bad owners.  Orient are fortunate that the Brisbane Road ground is owned by a true Orient supporter, because otherwise they'd be much, much worse off.  As it is, and if they are relegated to the National League, they can still live to fight another day, but you can see what the dangers are by looking at the whole dilemma.  And, as Statto says, there is madness in a system that prevents a benevolent owner from bolstering a Club's finances, when we know how many crooked sponsorship deals there are, how many shark agents there are, how many media companies playing into the hands of the unfairness of it all, for which the authorities appear to have no answers.  FFP is deeply flawed because we are not starting from a level playing field and surely that is the only place fairness can start.

I dont disagree at all that its flawed. But the FL way of doing it and partly reasons for it ,have as a whole done its job. Stopping clubs going under or falling foul of bad debt's.

There should be a way an owner can put money into the club to improve playing side of things without failing FFP, but I think the league almost have to take a steak in the process when this happens. Ring fencing the money in someway that it does not affect the clubs safety. In other words its at the owners discretion but he should not be expecting it back by running club down and selling bits of it off. The situation at Reading is an example of selling parts off for personal gain to the owner.

[The Road Less Travelled]

The ground redevelopment falls outwith the FFP restrictions, same with the training ground improvements.

Did I say any different?  Sorry if I didn't make it clear, but my point about ground development and the Heatherwick plan is about making the Cottage multipurpose, with facilities and events, bolstering income and thereby reducing the cost of running the ground.  In a similar way MP will increase Club income in many different ways but starts with less overheads anyway.  Fulham does not get enough through gate receipts which means it doesn't have enough customers which means it is a failing business......

Ah, I misunderstood.  Not sure I agree with the last bit though - we could go down the Sheff Weds route and charge up to £50 a game to try and increase match day revenue but I can't imagine there would be a positive reaction to that, and our actual fan base was never that large even in the PL (plenty of tourists coming to watch a cheap and easy PL game).  Gate receipts should always be a relatively small amount of our turnover, and with the new Revenue Officer we brought in I'd hope that in spite of (almost definitely) increased attendances this year that commercial/extra-curricular income starts to increase at a faster rate.  Or he ain't doing his job :p

[MJG]

The ground redevelopment falls outwith the FFP restrictions, same with the training ground improvements.

Did I say any different?  Sorry if I didn't make it clear, but my point about ground development and the Heatherwick plan is about making the Cottage multipurpose, with facilities and events, bolstering income and thereby reducing the cost of running the ground.  In a similar way MP will increase Club income in many different ways but starts with less overheads anyway.  Fulham does not get enough through gate receipts which means it doesn't have enough customers which means it is a failing business......

Ah, I misunderstood.  Not sure I agree with the last bit though - we could go down the Sheff Weds route and charge up to £50 a game to try and increase match day revenue but I can't imagine there would be a positive reaction to that, and our actual fan base was never that large even in the PL (plenty of tourists coming to watch a cheap and easy PL game).  Gate receipts should always be a relatively small amount of our turnover, and with the new Revenue Officer we brought in I'd hope that in spite of (almost definitely) increased attendances this year that commercial/extra-curricular income starts to increase at a faster rate.  Or he ain't doing his job :p

Average 18606 this year and last season was 17566

[The Road Less Travelled]

Average 18606 this year and last season was 17566

Which would make the average ticket price £14 or so.  Last season definitely would't have warranted charging any more than that, and would mean this season we're looking at about £6million from gate receipts.

[toshes mate]

The ground redevelopment falls outwith the FFP restrictions, same with the training ground improvements.

Did I say any different?  Sorry if I didn't make it clear, but my point about ground development and the Heatherwick plan is about making the Cottage multipurpose, with facilities and events, bolstering income and thereby reducing the cost of running the ground.  In a similar way MP will increase Club income in many different ways but starts with less overheads anyway.  Fulham does not get enough through gate receipts which means it doesn't have enough customers which means it is a failing business......

Ah, I misunderstood.  Not sure I agree with the last bit though - we could go down the Sheff Weds route and charge up to £50 a game to try and increase match day revenue but I can't imagine there would be a positive reaction to that, and our actual fan base was never that large even in the PL (plenty of tourists coming to watch a cheap and easy PL game).  Gate receipts should always be a relatively small amount of our turnover, and with the new Revenue Officer we brought in I'd hope that in spite of (almost definitely) increased attendances this year that commercial/extra-curricular income starts to increase at a faster rate.  Or he ain't doing his job :p

You never, ever, as a good business owner, with good intentions that is, attempt to fleece your remaining customers to remedy a fault which is yours.  Fulham need to be creative, and by that I mean, work within the rules but determine what are the good points of the business and use income from that side to bolster the failings elsewhere.  To increase gates (and attention from other directions which also produce income) you need to have a successful product.  To get a successful product you need to invest in the areas you are already successful in - the Academy for example (full marks to the Khans for that but can more be done?) - and then shrewdly utilise the benefits of one to finance the other until both are in balance i.e. successful.   Are there other ways of raising short term income via the wealthier elements of your support base?   Fulham's flaws are cost of location, size of ground, limited interest from supporters, competition from other clubs in supporter attraction area, alternative ways to spend a couple of hours forty six times a year.  MP may be a hugely important key in all this and time will tell how it is used, and why.  Perhaps Heatherwick visited the wrong place.

[MJG]

Average 18606 this year and last season was 17566

Which would make the average ticket price £14 or so.  Last season definitely would't have warranted charging any more than that, and would mean this season we're looking at about £6million from gate receipts.

Yes thats right, just over £6M if you carry over the frozen ST prices we had.

Thing to remember as well is with a drop of the hat we lose pretty much £10M income this season from last because of reduced parachute payments. Starting the year -10M before you kick a ball or think about even signing a player.

[The Road Less Travelled]

The ground redevelopment falls outwith the FFP restrictions, same with the training ground improvements.

Did I say any different?  Sorry if I didn't make it clear, but my point about ground development and the Heatherwick plan is about making the Cottage multipurpose, with facilities and events, bolstering income and thereby reducing the cost of running the ground.  In a similar way MP will increase Club income in many different ways but starts with less overheads anyway.  Fulham does not get enough through gate receipts which means it doesn't have enough customers which means it is a failing business......

Ah, I misunderstood.  Not sure I agree with the last bit though - we could go down the Sheff Weds route and charge up to £50 a game to try and increase match day revenue but I can't imagine there would be a positive reaction to that, and our actual fan base was never that large even in the PL (plenty of tourists coming to watch a cheap and easy PL game).  Gate receipts should always be a relatively small amount of our turnover, and with the new Revenue Officer we brought in I'd hope that in spite of (almost definitely) increased attendances this year that commercial/extra-curricular income starts to increase at a faster rate.  Or he ain't doing his job :p

You never, ever, as a good business owner, with good intentions that is, attempt to fleece your remaining customers to remedy a fault which is yours.  Fulham need to be creative, and by that I mean, work within the rules but determine what are the good points of the business and use income from that side to bolster the failings elsewhere.  To increase gates (and attention from other directions which also produce income) you need to have a successful product.  To get a successful product you need to invest in the areas you are already successful in - the Academy for example (full marks to the Khans for that but can more be done?) - and then shrewdly utilise the benefits of one to finance the other until both are in balance i.e. successful.   Are there other ways of raising short term income via the wealthier elements of your support base?   Fulham's flaws are cost of location, size of ground, limited interest from supporters, competition from other clubs in supporter attraction area, alternative ways to spend a couple of hours forty six times a year.  MP may be a hugely important key in all this and time will tell how it is used, and why.  Perhaps Heatherwick visited the wrong place.

I think that's where stuff like the international friendlies and the Saudi Super Cup (last August) will come into play, and hopefully the new gin bar can be used for new brand launches and stuff like that - just any extra income.  They're of largely zero interest to regular Fulham fans but will generate money from ticket sales and presumably stadium/facilities rental.  One benefit of the improvements to the Riverside would be I'd assume/hope more events rooms that can be rented out - my old work had a Christmas party at Old Trafford, so we could do things like that.  Overlooking the river has to be a selling point.

[The Road Less Travelled]

Average 18606 this year and last season was 17566

Which would make the average ticket price £14 or so.  Last season definitely would't have warranted charging any more than that, and would mean this season we're looking at about £6million from gate receipts.

Yes thats right, just over £6M if you carry over the frozen ST prices we had.

Thing to remember as well is with a drop of the hat we lose pretty much £10M income this season from last because of reduced parachute payments. Starting the year -10M before you kick a ball or think about even signing a player.

Wages are the real killer for us with that - Brighton pay about £10million less than us, but then again that's a good few million over their total turnover, and Reading are in a similar position.

You really don't get out of this league without making a HUGE loss from the looks of it - maybe the trick is to spend a few years stabilising a little and then just go for broke one year.

[Woolly Mammoth]

Need to cook those books at a low temperature, and keep stirring the contents.

[toshes mate]

There should be a way an owner can put money into the club to improve playing side of things without failing FFP, but I think the league almost have to take a steak in the process when this happens. Ring fencing the money in someway that it does not affect the clubs safety. In other words its at the owners discretion but he should not be expecting it back by running club down and selling bits of it off. The situation at Reading is an example of selling parts off for personal gain to the owner.

That would be reasonable but as far as I'm aware under the current system there's nothing to stop an owner partially or even completely liquidating a club purely for his own profit or whim

Just one of many flaws in a system that is tinkering with a problem rather than leveraging it out of existence.  Meanwhile clubs may soon start disappearing faster than we 'older' guys ever thought possible barely half a century ago.   There is serious corruption in most sport where media and money play a significant role rather than bums on seats, and we know the authorities concerned are not exactly squeaky clean.

[Apprentice to the Maestro]

Sorry, ATTM, you should read the press releases and discussion documents provided and updated by the EFL,  As Statto (and even the EFL) says FFP is deeply flawed but is, perhaps, better than nothing, probably barely though.  The change to three year accounting has been experimental but already heavily criticised.  Yes, there is a fairer system waiting to be found, but football will only wake up when it realises it needs customers to pay for the product and it must internally structure the game to fit income once it has invested enough in the infrastructure to keep the game growing.   Like a lot of things in life football is a microcosm that shows us where current society is going so very badly wrong.

I am not defending FFP in its detail or its intent over funding from owners (that is an argument for another day).

I am pointing out that your and Statto's repeated focus on "balance and fairness" and funding from rich owners is not the original and primary purpose of FFP which is keeping clubs solvent.

[Apprentice to the Maestro]

FFP was "established to prevent professional football clubs spending more than they earn in the pursuit of success and in doing so getting into financial problems which might threaten their long-term survival" according to Wikipedia. It was designed to avoid owners driving a club into serious debt, particularly when owing money to other clubs.

Wikipedia may say that and that would indeed explain the system if it all it restricted was debt, but why does it restrict the flow of cash into the club even where that's not debt? If a billionaire chairman simply wants to give the club £10m, how does that threaten its survival? Or if an airline that the chairman also happens to own wants to sponsor the club for a fee five times the market rate, what's the problem there? Makes no sense.

I am not defending the muddled process FFP may have become. I think there should be one set of rules about financial prudence about avoiding debt and insolvency and another set about income and investment, what an owner may put in and general income distribution amongst the clubs.

[toshes mate]

The idea of running any business is solvency, ATTM.  FFP was an attempt to stop some of the corrupt practices that can damage, let us say, a healthy club, and render it lifeless, or in danger of being insolvent.  I think FFP is an attempt to improve finances in football which is as naive as the Khans may have been in their early years at Fulham, but I live in the hope it'll grow into something that does the job and really does improve the credibility of competition in the sport.