financial fair play.

[jarv]

After reading comments on obscene transfer fees prompted me to ask the question. Whatever happened to financial fair play? Does anyone on here know how it is supposed to work, does it work, I have absolutely no idea.

[filham]

I have always thought it meant that a club should not live beyond its means by overspending in the transfer market.
Simple as that.

[BestOfBrede]

It means the so called big teams can spend whatever they like, and the small teams are not allowed to compete. Basically, the big get bigger and are not interfered with by the small that will always be small.

[Craven Mad]

We're all waiting to see how the investigation into citeh goes. If they're actually punished, everyone will take it seriously again.

Sadly, however, it seems like the big teams have learned how to circumvent the FFP rules via Saudi's sport washing...

[Al-Fayed]

UEFA permits football clubs to spend no more than €5 million (£3.9 million) over what they earn in each three-year assessment period. There is, however, a new limit of 30 million euros (previously 45 million euros) if the owners of the club or a related party can cover these losses.

To comply with the Financial Fair Play regulations, only a club's outgoings in the area of transfers, employee benefits (including wages), amortisation of transfers, financial costs and dividends will be included.

It will not include revenue from gate receipts, TV revenue, advertising, merchandising, or money spent on infrastructure, training facilities, or youth development. This part of the rules is not good for Fulham as we get a lot of TV revenue.

Amortisation is an important rule to understand and, like sole traders and companies, runs over a 4 year period. If you buy Harry Kane for £100m then that is expenditure in the first year in your accounts. In the second year after the transfer the expenditure is written down by 25% and reduces to £75m in your accounts. In the third year £50m and the next year £25m before, in the fifth year you're accounts show no expenditure on that player. If you sell him then at the start of the fifth year for £100m this consequently counts as pure profits in your accounts.

[Woolly Mammoth]

The big teams will never receive a punishment that fits the crime.
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
But if you are a small club you are sent to the Tower in rapid time.
We use to talk about brown envelopes, but those envelopes are more the size of a briefcase these days.
It's a carve up to orchestrate a situation whereupon the big clubs will never have to pay for their transgressions.
However if you are a small club you are an easier touch so you are thrown under a Steam Roller by a not very transparent establishment.

[The Rational Fan]

"Financial Fair Play" requires that all 20 Premier League Clubs to agree what is fair, which will never happen.

Every ManU fan seems to think that "fair play" means that the club with the most fans should win have the highest wages and transfer budget so they can have the best players.

ManCity fans seem to think "fair play" means the club that won the League the previous season, should have the biggest budget. Luton fans think the most fair is every club having the same budget. Newcastle fans probably think the richest owner should have the biggest budget.

These conflicting ideas are in no way compatible with each other, so the idea of producing a guideline that everyone accepts on what is fair vs unfair play is impossible. Instead, Clubs form alliances with other clubs on what is fair and unfair.

[Deuce]

An interesting, and important, note is that 30th of june is the cut off point for any domestic player sales to be included in this years books. So in order for, let say, Chelsea to ease their FFP problems: they will want to sell Mount and Havertz before that date.

Same thing for us. If Tosin, and perhaps even Robinsin, are set to leave, then we will want to sell them before that date. As that would help us with our FFP concerns, and I assume we can spend more this summer?

[jarv]

Thank you for some clarification. Looking at it simplistically, it makes sense that manu 75000 capacity, (plus all merchandise sold from Cleveland to Crawley) have more money to spend than Fulham but the amount of money sloshing around is eye watering. I do believe it is ruining the game in England, will be ever see another Leicester achievement?

I will probably make it to 4 or 5 games (live in Scotland) but would rather avoid the top 5 teams. I do have sky so have to try and avoid the (rarely) televised Fulham matches. Not easy when booking trains has to be done in advance for best price.

[Thailand Mick]

FFP needs to be scrapped. I would replace it with a cap of 500 million pound limit on the price of The 25 man squad phased in over 5 years for the premier league. There should be two accounts, a club one and an owners one. The club one can never go in debt and no structural building can be sold unless replaced by new ground. The owners account can be used however they wish ie if they wish to pay high wages but any debt is their sole responsibility and not the clubs.

[SuffolkWhite]

FFP needs to be scrapped. I would replace it with a cap of 500 million pound limit on the price of The 25 man squad phased in over 5 years for the premier league. There should be two accounts, a club one and an owners one. The club one can never go in debt and no structural building can be sold unless replaced by new ground. The owners account can be used however they wish ie if they wish to pay high wages but any debt is their sole responsibility and not the clubs.

Agree with this statement Mick.

[Fulham33]

They could not have come up with a worse description of this if they tried. What exactly is "fair" about it? Ok procedures need to be in place to protect clubs from going bust. If a multi billionaire wants to give a billion to say Crawley why shouldn't he/she/etc.It is his money. Look at Mo or Abramovich. Both Fulham and the other lot in a far better financial situation than before they spent. It infuriates me. Yes the rich get richer and the poor, poorer. I was all in favour of the European Super League so they could all foff and 5 years later come crawling back when the pot ran dry. NOBODY wants to see the same teams continually play each other. Winds me up beyond belief. Anyway role on August so we can turn over more of these teams. COYW

[Somerset Fulham]

The problem is that some clubs are now effectively bigger and richer than FIFA and UEFA.  Short of banning these clubs from competition (which affects the fans, and gives rise to the Super League happening again) the governing bodies are pretty powerless.

[Twig]

Thank you for some clarification. Looking at it simplistically, it makes sense that manu 75000 capacity, (plus all merchandise sold from Cleveland to Crawley) have more money to spend than Fulham but the amount of money sloshing around is eye watering. I do believe it is ruining the game in England, will be ever see another Leicester achievement?

I will probably make it to 4 or 5 games (live in Scotland) but would rather avoid the top 5 teams. I do have sky so have to try and avoid the (rarely) televised Fulham matches. Not easy when booking trains has to be done in advance for best price.

If you read Benhamdoun's summary of the FFP rules he states that neither gate receipts nor merchandising are included in the calculation. I didn't know that I have to say.

[alfie]

It means the so called big teams can spend whatever they like, and the small teams are not allowed to compete. Basically, the big get bigger and are not interfered with by the small that will always be small.

How many smaller clubs would go out of business by spending more than they generate, many teams can't compete with us due to our owners wealth, does that make us villains.

[Woolly Mammoth]

"Financial Fair Play" requires that all 20 Premier League Clubs to agree what is fair, which will never happen.

Every ManU fan seems to think that "fair play" means that the club with the most fans should win have the highest wages and transfer budget so they can have the best players.

ManCity fans seem to think "fair play" means the club that won the League the previous season, should have the biggest budget. Luton fans think the most fair is every club having the same budget. Newcastle fans probably think the richest owner should have the biggest budget.

These conflicting ideas are in no way compatible with each other, so the idea of producing a guideline that everyone accepts on what is fair vs unfair play is impossible. Instead, Clubs form alliances with other clubs on what is fair and unfair.

As you mentioned that Man Utd may have the most fans, but not necessarily the most supporters.
As fans are short for fanatics who are not necessarily true supporters.
The size of clubs like Man U who have large Trophy Cabinets tend to attract Pot hunting individuals who forgot to grow up, hence the name FANatic.

[bill taylors apprentice]

Here's a question.

If the likes of ManU can't include gate receipts and merchandising what makes them financially stronger in the "FFP rules", what am I missing?

Is corporate hospitality and other match day revenue included or not?

[cookieg]

Thank you for some clarification. Looking at it simplistically, it makes sense that manu 75000 capacity, (plus all merchandise sold from Cleveland to Crawley) have more money to spend than Fulham but the amount of money sloshing around is eye watering. I do believe it is ruining the game in England, will be ever see another Leicester achievement?

I will probably make it to 4 or 5 games (live in Scotland) but would rather avoid the top 5 teams. I do have sky so have to try and avoid the (rarely) televised Fulham matches. Not easy when booking trains has to be done in advance for best price.

If you read Benhamdoun's summary of the FFP rules he states that neither gate receipts nor merchandising are included in the calculation. I didn't know that I have to say.

If gate receipts aren't included then why did SK spend a fortune on a new stand to increase the capacity? Surely the increased capacity goes towards our income to spend on players and hence FFP. Obviously the actual cost of the new stand is outside of FFP.

[St Eve]

I have never understood FFP.
If income consists of transfer fees, competition winnings, merchandise, hospitality     (not sure what else), but not tv or gate receipts and expenses consist of transfers, wages, stadiums, and general overhead how does a ream like Chelsea comply? Their transfers were astronomical, I know they are spread over long term contracts, wages are high and they won nothing. Not picking on Chelsea but it seems to me that many teams fall into this category.
Also owners can only write off a certain amount of debt, so you could be owned by a country but in theory doesn't help you much.
As I said I never understood it

[alfie]

Thank you for some clarification. Looking at it simplistically, it makes sense that manu 75000 capacity, (plus all merchandise sold from Cleveland to Crawley) have more money to spend than Fulham but the amount of money sloshing around is eye watering. I do believe it is ruining the game in England, will be ever see another Leicester achievement?

I will probably make it to 4 or 5 games (live in Scotland) but would rather avoid the top 5 teams. I do have sky so have to try and avoid the (rarely) televised Fulham matches. Not easy when booking trains has to be done in advance for best price.

If you read Benhamdoun's summary of the FFP rules he states that neither gate receipts nor merchandising are included in the calculation. I didn't know that I have to say.

If gate receipts aren't included then why did SK spend a fortune on a new stand to increase the capacity? Surely the increased capacity goes towards our income to spend on players and hence FFP. Obviously the actual cost of the new stand is outside of FFP.

All income generated will go towards something at the club.