Financial Fair Play Rules?

All I hear is FFP Rules this and that as if it only applies to us. Surely a lot of clubs are going to struggle if they fail to get to the Premier League when you consider the money they are throwing at it?

All I hear is ffp rules this and that as if it only applies to us.surely a lot of clubs are going to struggle if they fail to get to the premier league when you consider the money they are throwing at it?.

My understanding is that if you have a higher income e.g. Newcastle, Leeds, etc., then you can spend more. Relegated clubs have parachute payments, etc. which is why it took a while for us to be caught out as those parachute payments reduced. QPR have also got rid of some of their bigger earners to keep themselves within FFP.

Forest are already under an embargo and we'll shortly find out, now the window is open, who else will come a cropper.

The club that must sail close to the wind must be Derby as they consistently spend big money on fees and wages but I can only guess that their big crowds generate enough income to make it sustainable.

I always thought there big crowds were due to a free kid ST with every adult purchase.

All I hear is ffp rules this and that as if it only applies to us.surely a lot of clubs are going to struggle if they fail to get to the premier league when you consider the money they are throwing at it?.

The basic rule is that you are allowed to make up to a maximum loss of £39m over a three year period ( there are some adjustments allowed for things like youth development etc. but that is the basic figure allowed). Anything over that in the annual accounts submitted to the League by 1 Dec and a transfer embargo is put in place.

Derby made a loss of £10m in the year to 30 June 2015 and a loss of £7m in the previous year. Therefore ( subject to allowed adjustments that I mentioned above) a further loss of more than £22m in the year to 30 June 2016 recently submitted to the League would be a breach of FFP limits and they would be under a transfer embargo for this transfer window.

All I hear is ffp rules this and that as if it only applies to us.surely a lot of clubs are going to struggle if they fail to get to the premier league when you consider the money they are throwing at it?.

My understanding is that if you have a higher income e.g. Newcastle, Leeds, etc., then you can spend more. Relegated clubs have parachute payments, etc. which is why it took a while for us to be caught out as those parachute payments reduced. QPR have also got rid of some of their bigger earners to keep themselves within FFP.

Forest are already under an embargo and we'll shortly find out, now the window is open, who else will come a cropper.

The club that must sail close to the wind must be Derby as they consistently spend big money on fees and wages but I can only guess that their big crowds generate enough income to make it sustainable.

I thought the new Forest transfer embargo was because of late submission of accounts and will be lifted as/when they get them in. They now comply with the FFP rules according to most reports.

http://www.nottinghampost.com/nottingha ... story.html

All I hear is ffp rules this and that as if it only applies to us.surely a lot of clubs are going to struggle if they fail to get to the premier league when you consider the money they are throwing at it?.

My understanding is that if you have a higher income e.g. Newcastle, Leeds, etc., then you can spend more. Relegated clubs have parachute payments, etc. which is why it took a while for us to be caught out as those parachute payments reduced. QPR have also got rid of some of their bigger earners to keep themselves within FFP.

Forest are already under an embargo and we'll shortly find out, now the window is open, who else will come a cropper.

The club that must sail close to the wind must be Derby as they consistently spend big money on fees and wages but I can only guess that their big crowds generate enough income to make it sustainable.

the percentage of income through the gate is not as important as it used to be.
10k season tickets sold at 300 quid a pop = 3 mill = 3 x 20k a week players
tbh how clubs balance the books doesnt bear thinking about

All I hear is FFP Rules this and that as if it only applies to us. Surely a lot of clubs are going to struggle if they fail to get to the Premier League when you consider the money they are throwing at it?

Big clubs get around it by owners sponsoring the club or ground naming, that's what Tan needs to do in the Summer, not worth wasting money now just sign players that will definately be better than we've already got ....

All I hear is FFP Rules this and that as if it only applies to us. Surely a lot of clubs are going to struggle if they fail to get to the Premier League when you consider the money they are throwing at it?

Big clubs get around it by owners sponsoring the club or ground naming, that's what Tan needs to do in the Summer, not worth wasting money now just sign players that will definately be better than we've already got ....

neither is allowed

All I hear is FFP Rules this and that as if it only applies to us. Surely a lot of clubs are going to struggle if they fail to get to the Premier League when you consider the money they are throwing at it?

Big clubs get around it by owners sponsoring the club or ground naming, that's what Tan needs to do in the Summer, not worth wasting money now just sign players that will definately be better than we've already got ....

neither is allowed

Are you sure ??

I thought that was the work around that's already been done ??

All I hear is FFP Rules this and that as if it only applies to us. Surely a lot of clubs are going to struggle if they fail to get to the Premier League when you consider the money they are throwing at it?

Big clubs get around it by owners sponsoring the club or ground naming, that's what Tan needs to do in the Summer, not worth wasting money now just sign players that will definately be better than we've already got ....

neither is allowed

Are you sure ??

I thought that was the work around that's already been done ??

Man City are under UEFA investgation at mo as most of their sponsorship income comes from companys owned by half brothers /uncles etc of the owner. and im sure Stoke have had some sort of issues with owner sponsorship.personaaly i dont see much wrong with an owner having whatever he wants on a shirt or stadium and chucking the cash in.

All I hear is FFP Rules this and that as if it only applies to us. Surely a lot of clubs are going to struggle if they fail to get to the Premier League when you consider the money they are throwing at it?

Big clubs get around it by owners sponsoring the club or ground naming, that's what Tan needs to do in the Summer, not worth wasting money now just sign players that will definately be better than we've already got ....

neither is allowed

Love it when people who haven't got a f*cking clue make statements about what Tan should do financially.

All I hear is ffp rules this and that as if it only applies to us.surely a lot of clubs are going to struggle if they fail to get to the premier league when you consider the money they are throwing at it?.

The basic rule is that you are allowed to make up to a maximum loss of £39m over a three year period ( there are some adjustments allowed for things like youth development etc. but that is the basic figure allowed). Anything over that in the annual accounts submitted to the League by 1 Dec and a transfer embargo is put in place.

Derby made a loss of £10m in the year to 30 June 2015 and a loss of £7m in the previous year. Therefore ( subject to allowed adjustments that I mentioned above) a further loss of more than £22m in the year to 30 June 2016 recently submitted to the League would be a breach of FFP limits and they would be under a transfer embargo for this transfer window.

Cheer's for that, had very little understanding of it up to now but that breaks it down nicely

All I hear is FFP Rules this and that as if it only applies to us. Surely a lot of clubs are going to struggle if they fail to get to the Premier League when you consider the money they are throwing at it?

Big clubs get around it by owners sponsoring the club or ground naming, that's what Tan needs to do in the Summer, not worth wasting money now just sign players that will definately be better than we've already got ....

neither is allowed

Are you sure ??

I thought that was the work around that's already been done ??

Man City are under UEFA investgation at mo as most of their sponsorship income comes from companys owned by half brothers /uncles etc of the owner. and im sure Stoke have had some sort of issues with owner sponsorship.personaaly i dont see much wrong with an owner having whatever he wants on a shirt or stadium and chucking the cash in.

So it is allowed then ........

All I hear is FFP Rules this and that as if it only applies to us. Surely a lot of clubs are going to struggle if they fail to get to the Premier League when you consider the money they are throwing at it?

Big clubs get around it by owners sponsoring the club or ground naming, that's what Tan needs to do in the Summer, not worth wasting money now just sign players that will definately be better than we've already got ....

neither is allowed

Are you sure ??

I thought that was the work around that's already been done ??

Man City are under UEFA investgation at mo as most of their sponsorship income comes from companys owned by half brothers /uncles etc of the owner. and im sure Stoke have had some sort of issues with owner sponsorship.personaaly i dont see much wrong with an owner having whatever he wants on a shirt or stadium and chucking the cash in.

So it is allowed then ........

i didnt say that,not that it matters
your convinced Tan should sponsor the stadium for 10s of millions and will just keep saying it.