6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Pootsy]

That's the same for everyone.

Clubs are permitted to exclude expenditure on Infrastructure, Youth development spend, Charitable Community spend, and Women's Football spend

Its the amount I'm questioning, not the exclusion. Apologies for not making that clearer.

 

[Blue Willy]

All clubs do, but some clubs get more grey area leeway/mitigation on financial irregularities than others.

 

[WestStandLower]

I read that Newcastle were £155m in the red over three years but can remain within the PSR rules by claiming over £50m of that goes towards their Academy, Womens Team and Charity. Stinks a bit that

Everton’s losses over the monitoring period were £237.5 million it’s only when you deduct the same sort of things as Newcastle did that you get the sum down to £124 million

 

[John from Bootle]

I know that's fantasy world thinking

There's not much more to say to this really, is there?

What I will say though: Are you seriously suggesting that any clubs who make any losses should be punished? I assume so, as you're basically arguing that losses shouldn't be allowed.

Wouldn't that just in effect be a new super-duper ffp/psr. One that would drive the gap between the clubs (RS, Man U, etc) who've already benefited from financial restrictions creating a watershed in which they're always on the better side of things, and those that weren't in a period of success when PSR/FFP was introduced?

But yet you're banging on about parity for clubs in lower leagues?

 

[WestStandLower]

The more I think about it the more I think that the Amortization of transfer fees is a problem. If you pay a transfer fee why can't it count against your profit and loss in that year. Prevents inflation of transfer fees.

I am not 100% sure but I think in some jurisdiction that’s what happens but like any assets under FRS ( sadly players are just that) you depreciate their value and player wise that’s amortised

 

[MikeH72]

The wheels clearly fell off when Usmanov was sanctioned..

The question for me really is how much responsibility are we expected to bare for that?

It just feels like the entire club is being punished for Moshiri leaning on his Russian business partner..

We’re not allowed to admit that Usmanov had anything to do with the club, because his involvement was illegal in the first place with him owning a stake in Arsenal at the same time. This is a problem. It would be so much easier to win this appeal if we could point to that as the major mitigating factor.

 

[John from Bootle]

Everton’s losses over the monitoring period were £237.5 million it’s only when you deduct the same sort of things as Newcastle did that you get the sum down to £124 million

Pretty sure there;ll be numbers in there that relate to the 700 million stadium were building, and not just 'academy, women's team and charity'. Stand to be corrected like.

 

[John from Bootle]

We’re not allowed to admit that Usmanov had anything to do with the club, because his involvement was illegal in the first place with him owning a stake in Arsenal at the same time. This is a problem. It would be so much easier to win this appeal if we could point to that as the major mitigating factor.

Not really Mike. It wasn't illegal for him to sponsor us. We lost those deals 'overnight.'

 

[hallamblue]

There's not much more to say to this really, is there?

What I will say though: Are you seriously suggesting that any clubs who make any losses should be punished? I assume so, as you're basically arguing that losses shouldn't be allowed.

Wouldn't that just in effect be a new super-duper ffp/psr. One that would drive the gap between the clubs (RS, Man U, etc) who've already benefited from financial restrictions creating a watershed in which they're always on the better side of things, and those that weren't in a period of success when PSR/FFP was introduced?

But yet you're banging on about parity for clubs in lower leagues?

It's what should happen. It's bonkers that clubs turnover 100s of Millions of pounds and then throw it all away on player wages and agent's fees. If wages had gone up with inflation a Premier League player would be on about £5k a week. Bringing more money into the game has been pointless as it's just gone to Primadonna players and vulture agents. Fans should be getting in for free, the money that clubs now get. They've had a golden opportunity to build amazing stadiums and have positive balance sheets and they've thrown it away.

 

[Neiler]

Oh I know they do. But £50m?

You have to be able to evidance it mate - we do about £30-35 mill a year, so in general you can minus our actual loss by that figure annually.

 

[sam17]

The more I think about it the more I think that the Amortization of transfer fees is a problem. If you pay a transfer fee why can't it count against your profit and loss in that year. Prevents inflation of transfer fees.

Because it would be out of line with accounting standards, which as businesses (which let's not forget, they are) wouldn't be allowable.

 

[John from Bootle]

It's what should happen. It's bonkers that clubs turnover 100s of Millions of pounds and then throw it all away on player wages and agent's fees. If wages had gone up with inflation a Premier League player would be on about £5k a week. Bringing more money into the game has been pointless as it's just gone to Primadonna players and vulture agents. Fans should be getting in for free, the money that clubs now get. They've had a golden opportunity to build amazing stadiums and have positive balance sheets and they've thrown it away.

Alright Lenin, calm down.

It would just benefit the clubs at the top of the tree when it was introduced even more so than FFP/PSR has done, so it's a massive no from me.

 

[MikeH72]

Not really Mike. It wasn't illegal for him to sponsor us. We lost those deals 'overnight.'

I do agree about the naming rights thing, that wasn’t illegal. But that could still have left a breadcrumb trail that they could follow leading to him paying for the entire stadium.

 

[hallamblue]

Alright Lenin, calm down.

It would just benefit the clubs at the top of the tree when it was introduced even more so than FFP/PSR has done, so it's a massive no from me.

So you think players like Mason Holgate should earn more than the CEO of a FTSE 100 company?

 

[Tel001]

Whilst the premise of FFP is generally sound, to stop a Leeds or Pompey like was experienced in the 00s, the application has now created an even harder glass ceiling that we experienced under Moyes

The "big" sides have found ways to account differently and have the revenue to sustain being up there, this in turn makes it very difficult to gain the revenue to manage FFP effectively - a viscious cycle

We are seeing a cycle of teams trying to break into the top 6, failing and then having to pull back financially to balance the books and struggle e.g.

Leicester - amazing story but then ultimately balancing the books led to relegation
Wolves - a couple of great seasons post promotion then fell back
Everton - invested badly but have had to balance the books and ended up with breach and struggling against relegation

There are clubs which have not had as much as a drop in league position yet but have not challenged the top 6 domination

Brighton - well managed but ultimately just a feeder club
West Ham - well managed, won a trophy but don't look like challenging

then there a couple of sides that have broken the top 4 but FFP is going to hold them back - Villa and Newcastle

Agree with this post as we have being hit incredibly hard, potentially as a deterrent to others to not break the restrictive rules

If FFP is designed to stop a Leeds situation.

Why do they seem so hell bent on sending us into administration?

There are many ways they could have dealt with us and handing out a larger points penalty that actually going into administration doesn’t really go along with what FFP was apparently for