FFP - Can we get a consensus as to what it really means ?

[melonhead]

so FFP only applies to those clubs that gamble, and lose?
seems a bit daft

[tidus_mi2]

so FFP only applies to those clubs that gamble, and lose?
seems a bit daft

Basically yeah, but it definitely puts more pressure on to going up if you do overspend as, if you fail, you're immediately under a transfer embargo and won't be able to do it again.

QPR got ridiculously lucky, if you remember we dicked them 3-1 at their place and they got hammered in the Play-Off final, got a man sent off and only won due to Derby's failings. The curious thing is of course, at the time the Football League said that if they came down the fine would be waiting for them and if they refused to pay then they wouldn't be allowed to join the league. So we get to see if the Football League have the balls to do it.

[Coppelled_Streets]

The Football League will bottle it and accept payments spreadable, or something weak and pathetic like that. If you want clubs to take FFP seriously, you have to make an example out of someone - here's their chance.

[Sutekh]

Could be an interesting week next week then. QPR lose at Man City on Sunday they're down...

[Wycombe Royal]

The Football League will bottle it and accept payments spreadable, or something weak and pathetic like that. If you want clubs to take FFP seriously, you have to make an example out of someone - here's their chance.

I don't mind the payments being spread over a couple of seasons - they could use parachute payment money to pay it. But they should not not be let off or get a reduced fine.

[East Grinstead Royal]

The Football League will bottle it and accept payments spreadable, or something weak and pathetic like that. If you want clubs to take FFP seriously, you have to make an example out of someone - here's their chance.

Whilst I understand and share your cynicism, the fact is that there are several Championship clubs already lumbered with embargoes as a result of FFP and a number of others (including Reading) who are cutting their cloth according to FFP. It's hard to see how the League can avoid taking the action against QPR that they mooted a year ago - surely the rest of the Championship will immediately cry "foul"? Mind you, it won't be the first time that QPR have got away with breaking the rules...

[Sutekh]

The Football League will bottle it and accept payments spreadable, or something weak and pathetic like that. If you want clubs to take FFP seriously, you have to make an example out of someone - here's their chance.

Whilst I understand and share your cynicism, the fact is that there are several Championship clubs already lumbered with embargoes as a result of FFP and a number of others (including Reading) who are cutting their cloth according to FFP. It's hard to see how the League can avoid taking the action against QPR that they mooted a year ago - surely the rest of the Championship will immediately cry "foul"? Mind you, it won't be the first time that QPR have got away with breaking the rules...

But aren't "embargoes" actually nothing of the kind and clubs could still sign up as many frees and loans as they want?

[JC]

The Football League will bottle it and accept payments spreadable, or something weak and pathetic like that. If you want clubs to take FFP seriously, you have to make an example out of someone - here's their chance.

Whilst I understand and share your cynicism, the fact is that there are several Championship clubs already lumbered with embargoes as a result of FFP and a number of others (including Reading) who are cutting their cloth according to FFP. It's hard to see how the League can avoid taking the action against QPR that they mooted a year ago - surely the rest of the Championship will immediately cry "foul"? Mind you, it won't be the first time that QPR have got away with breaking the rules...

But aren't "embargoes" actually nothing of the kind and clubs could still sign up as many frees and loans as they want?

Not quite true. I cannot remember the exact rules and can't be bothered to look them up now but as far as I remember the embargo means thay cannot sign anybody without shifting somebody first and the new signing cannot earn more than the one going. Or something like that

[JIM]

Trouble is. QPR are going to plea that now they are a championship team ,the new conditions now affect them, Trying to get out of the problem which happened 1 years ago, when they were promoted,

[Sutekh]

Thanks, I did a bit more digging myself and in simple terms embargoes mean that clubs will be prohibited from signing any new players - either on a permanent or loan deal - unless they have 24 or fewer "established players", which means 24 players aged 21 or over that have made at least five starts for the club.

Any of those signings must not cost the club a transfer fee and must cost less than £600,000 a year.

Further to this - and as alluded above clubs with 24 or more players fitting the criteria will be allowed to trade players on a 'one out, one in' basis.

Also

Clubs under an FFP embargo will be permitted to sign a goalkeeper on an emergency basis, in line with existing regulations.
Clubs under an FFP embargo will not be permitted to pay transfer fees or compensation fees for professional players.
Clubs under an FFP embargo will not be permitted to pay a loan fee to another club, they may only pay the player's wage, or a contribution towards it.

For incoming players, clubs can only pay agents' fees as a benefit in kind to the player in question, as long as they do not exceed the £600,000 employee costs limit.

The basic constraint of determining FFP pass or fail is

Season 2014/2015 - Losses of no more than £3m rising to £6m with owner investment
Season 2015/2016 - Losses of no more than £2m, rising to £13m with owner investment
Season 2016/2017 - Losses of up to £15m across 3 seasons permitted without having to explain how those losses will be funded

Finally PL relegation adds a different complexion as I believe that currently clubs relegated that have been in the PL for two or more successive season are allowed a loss of £83m in their first season in the FL while those with just one season in the PL are allowed £61m. Anyone confirm?

[melonhead]

Season 2014/2015 - Losses of no more than £3m rising to £6m with owner investment
Season 2015/2016 - Losses of no more than £2m, rising to £13m with owner investment
Season 2016/2017 - Losses of up to £15m across 3 seasons permitted without having to explain how those losses will be funded

makes a mockery of the whole thing. what was the bloody point

[tidus_mi2]

Season 2014/2015 - Losses of no more than £3m rising to £6m with owner investment
Season 2015/2016 - Losses of no more than £2m, rising to £13m with owner investment
Season 2016/2017 - Losses of up to £15m across 3 seasons permitted without having to explain how those losses will be funded

makes a mockery of the whole thing. what was the bloody point

There has to be some leeway or small clubs, ourselves included, would never progress.

[JC]

Thanks, I did a bit more digging myself and in simple terms embargoes mean that clubs will be prohibited from signing any new players - either on a permanent or loan deal - unless they have 24 or fewer "established players", which means 24 players aged 21 or over that have made at least five starts for the club.

Any of those signings must not cost the club a transfer fee and must cost less than £600,000 a year.

Further to this - and as alluded above clubs with 24 or more players fitting the criteria will be allowed to trade players on a 'one out, one in' basis.

Also

Clubs under an FFP embargo will be permitted to sign a goalkeeper on an emergency basis, in line with existing regulations.
Clubs under an FFP embargo will not be permitted to pay transfer fees or compensation fees for professional players.
Clubs under an FFP embargo will not be permitted to pay a loan fee to another club, they may only pay the player's wage, or a contribution towards it.

For incoming players, clubs can only pay agents' fees as a benefit in kind to the player in question, as long as they do not exceed the £600,000 employee costs limit.

The basic constraint of determining FFP pass or fail is

Season 2014/2015 - Losses of no more than £3m rising to £6m with owner investment
Season 2015/2016 - Losses of no more than £2m, rising to £13m with owner investment
Season 2016/2017 - Losses of up to £15m across 3 seasons permitted without having to explain how those losses will be funded

Finally PL relegation adds a different complexion as I believe that currently clubs relegated that have been in the PL for two or more successive season are allowed a loss of £83m in their first season in the FL while those with just one season in the PL are allowed £61m. Anyone confirm?

Exhaustive google search on last point does not yield anything. Any idea where you heard this?

[ZacNaloen]

It's not a huge amount, and any fine they get on return will be tiny compared to QPR's

QPR's is so huge because they passed a threshold where the fine is applied on a pound by pound basis.

[Sutekh]

Thanks, I did a bit more digging myself and in simple terms embargoes mean that clubs will be prohibited from signing any new players - either on a permanent or loan deal - unless they have 24 or fewer "established players", which means 24 players aged 21 or over that have made at least five starts for the club.

Any of those signings must not cost the club a transfer fee and must cost less than £600,000 a year.

Further to this - and as alluded above clubs with 24 or more players fitting the criteria will be allowed to trade players on a 'one out, one in' basis.

Also

Clubs under an FFP embargo will be permitted to sign a goalkeeper on an emergency basis, in line with existing regulations.
Clubs under an FFP embargo will not be permitted to pay transfer fees or compensation fees for professional players.
Clubs under an FFP embargo will not be permitted to pay a loan fee to another club, they may only pay the player's wage, or a contribution towards it.

For incoming players, clubs can only pay agents' fees as a benefit in kind to the player in question, as long as they do not exceed the £600,000 employee costs limit.

The basic constraint of determining FFP pass or fail is

Season 2014/2015 - Losses of no more than £3m rising to £6m with owner investment
Season 2015/2016 - Losses of no more than £2m, rising to £13m with owner investment
Season 2016/2017 - Losses of up to £15m across 3 seasons permitted without having to explain how those losses will be funded

Finally PL relegation adds a different complexion as I believe that currently clubs relegated that have been in the PL for two or more successive season are allowed a loss of £83m in their first season in the FL while those with just one season in the PL are allowed £61m. Anyone confirm?

Exhaustive google search on last point does not yield anything. Any idea where you heard this?

Yeah I came across it on another website and I can't remember where now , it wasn't any official FL/FA/PL site as such so that's why I was wondering if anyone could confirm whether it's accurate or just cobblers.

In essence though clubs relegated from the PL will not be subject to FFP sanctions in their first season in the Championship as long as they have complied with all relevant PL regulations perviously. The club would however be fined if it achieved promotion in its first season back but failed to comply with FFP.

[Lacoste]

Platini has said on BBC website that this summer they'll be easing the ffp criteria to make it fairer for the.more ambitious smaller clubs to compete etc.

Could give us some leeway to spend.

[Royal Rother]

Only applies to Europe.

FL has its own set of rules.

[Norfolk Royal]

As stated above this from the Mail this morning seems to indicate quite a big relaxation of the FFP rules.

Reading between the lines it would seem to make it easier for our new owners to invest.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... clash.html

[Sutekh]

FL will have to relax them so they can give into QPR and not get too much of a hammering over it.

[Forbury Lion]

The Football League will bottle it and accept payments spreadable, or something weak and pathetic like that. If you want clubs to take FFP seriously, you have to make an example out of someone - here's their chance.

I don't mind the payments being spread over a couple of seasons - they could use parachute payment money to pay it. But they should not not be let off or get a reduced fine.

Perhaps they can trade some of the fine for a points deduction, maybe reduce it to zero if they start of on -25

I imagine many of the rival championship clubs would be in favour of that, particularly those like ourselves who were desperately trying to avoid the drop.