' NEIL WARNOCK REVEALS HOW BAD IT IS '

Wasn't there some sort of "con" whereby the owner could sponsor the stadium and then FFP limits could be increased????

Ano way all the best stadiums are not sponsored. Deffo not worth it now unless we get back in the Prem.

The rules were changed to stop rich owners using relatives to bypass ffp rules eg a family member cannot sponsor anything to do with a club owned but a relative! Man c used this to sponsor stadium for around £400m before rules were changed. This is probably why tans company hasn't been used to sponsor our stadium

correct. although its a rule i dont understand.

Well when brought in ffp was ok at 1st but I believe a big club possibly more got heavily fined for breaking ffp, can only use man c as know about them ! Their owners have a very big extended family who had stakes in everything including etiad airways so sponsored stadium for around £400 m grossly over inflated so man c counted that as income! Eufa saw through this hence the relatives rule. Barca & Madrid are owned by banks and they use this as way to spend big in reality they are many 100ms in debt. As for city makes sense for tan to use his company to sponsor stadium as way to give club several millions but if did so would break ffp rules probably.

Wasn't there some sort of "con" whereby the owner could sponsor the stadium and then FFP limits could be increased????

Ano way all the best stadiums are not sponsored. Deffo not worth it now unless we get back in the Prem.

The rules were changed to stop rich owners using relatives to bypass ffp rules eg a family member cannot sponsor anything to do with a club owned but a relative! Man c used this to sponsor stadium for around £400m before rules were changed. This is probably why tans company hasn't been used to sponsor our stadium

correct. although its a rule i dont understand.

the bit i dont get is an owner is allowed to put in i think 8mill as a loan. but cannot through a company owned by himself or is closely comected to him pay for advertising through the club whether it be shirt sponsorship of stadium naming. adverttising revenue i presume would be a hard cash injection into footbll not more debt?
my view is FFP shouldnt be debt based {allowing clubs to continually add debt on top of debt to owners} should be year on year zero,live within means reducing existing debt not adding to it. and if owners want to put money in it should be real money

Seems like FFP is a stone in Sky's shoes.. Beginning of the end, I think..

Wasn't there some sort of "con" whereby the owner could sponsor the stadium and then FFP limits could be increased????

Ano way all the best stadiums are not sponsored. Deffo not worth it now unless we get back in the Prem.

The rules were changed to stop rich owners using relatives to bypass ffp rules eg a family member cannot sponsor anything to do with a club owned but a relative! Man c used this to sponsor stadium for around £400m before rules were changed. This is probably why tans company hasn't been used to sponsor our stadium

correct. although its a rule i dont understand.

the bit i dont get is an owner is allowed to put in i think 8mill as a loan. but cannot through a company owned by himself or is closely comected to him pay for advertising through the club whether it be shirt sponsorship of stadium naming. adverttising revenue i presume would be a hard cash injection into footbll not more debt?
my view is FFP shouldnt be debt based {allowing clubs to continually add debt on top of debt to owners} should be year on year zero,live within means reducing existing debt not adding to it. and if owners want to put money in it should be real money

They have changed rules again recently think some clubs are going to suffer in next couple of years after spending fair bit on push for promotion past 2 season, Obviously tan is aware of problems and trying to stay within these new rules having been bitten once! but not sure other clubs are fully aware of things time will tell

Seems like FFP is a stone in Sky's shoes.. Beginning of the end, I think..

please elaborate.
i dont have an enigma machine or am i Tom Jericho

Seems like FFP is a stone in Sky's shoes.. Beginning of the end, I think..

please elaborate.
i dont have an enigma machine or am i Tom Jericho

Seems the gap between clubs continue to grow. Something Sky will never be able to restructure. The mountain to climb for smaller clubs seems almost impossible now. Inflation this year is scary, and the tv deals Sky offered the continent didn't include the championship. Its my opinion its not sustainable. While a few clubs will grow, even more will go under.. And yes, i know investment overall grew after ffp. But it seems to spin out of control in a race to be among the top teams.

Seems like FFP is a stone in Sky's shoes.. Beginning of the end, I think..

please elaborate.
i dont have an enigma machine or am i Tom Jericho

Seems the gap between clubs continue to grow. Something Sky will never be able to restructure. The mountain to climb for smaller clubs seems almost impossible now. Inflation this year is scary, and the tv deals Sky offered the continent didn't include the championship. Its my opinion its not sustainable. While a few clubs will grow, even more will go under.. And yes, i know investment overall grew after ffp. But it seems to spin out of control in a race to be among the top teams.

Don't be surprised if a premier 2 was formed to cater for these big clubs who spending is unsustainable in champ or below! Ffp will take effect at some point to clubs that don't make premier.

Seems like FFP is a stone in Sky's shoes.. Beginning of the end, I think..

please elaborate.
i dont have an enigma machine or am i Tom Jericho

Seems the gap between clubs continue to grow. Something Sky will never be able to restructure. The mountain to climb for smaller clubs seems almost impossible now. Inflation this year is scary, and the tv deals Sky offered the continent didn't include the championship. Its my opinion its not sustainable. While a few clubs will grow, even more will go under.. And yes, i know investment overall grew after ffp. But it seems to spin out of control in a race to be among the top teams.

tend to agree. for the life of me i cant see how we survive after next season without promotion.
its one thing backing the manager another finding wages the following year for the players under contract.
and parachute payments are not working, clubs instead of slowly reducing costs to sustainable invariably keep spending.

Wasn't there some sort of "con" whereby the owner could sponsor the stadium and then FFP limits could be increased????

Ano way all the best stadiums are not sponsored. Deffo not worth it now unless we get back in the Prem.

The rules were changed to stop rich owners using relatives to bypass ffp rules eg a family member cannot sponsor anything to do with a club owned but a relative! Man c used this to sponsor stadium for around £400m before rules were changed. This is probably why tans company hasn't been used to sponsor our stadium

correct. although its a rule i dont understand.[/qu

Last edited by pembroke allan on Fri Mar 10, 2017 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wasn't there some sort of "con" whereby the owner could sponsor the stadium and then FFP limits could be increased????

Ano way all the best stadiums are not sponsored. Deffo not worth it now unless we get back in the Prem.

The rules were changed to stop rich owners using relatives to bypass ffp rules eg a family member cannot sponsor anything to do with a club owned but a relative! Man c used this to sponsor stadium for around £400m before rules were changed. This is probably why tans company hasn't been used to sponsor our stadium

correct. although its a rule i dont understand.

Tbh don't think anyone does especially on here!! :confused2