Financial Fair Play Initiative: the fans' view

[who are ya?]

I'll be using someones season ticket every now and again next season.... He's a Chelsea fan LOL

[No Fixed Abode]

Splash the cash soon! My, the goalposts are moving now you have a very rich owner............

Says the Chelsea fan that claims he will be using his mates season ticket here next season!

Not sure you're getting the point m8.

I will be using a m8s season ticket next year when I can make it and it doesn't clash with some Chelsea fixtures I go to. The point is - Reading fans are against 'splashing the cash' but the goalpost are a changing........

[Who Moved The Goalposts?]

Okay question here, when it comes to spending on say infrastructure. Which genuinely requires debt or large investment from owner/other sources.


How is this provisioned under this scheme?

My understanding is that is 100% offesettable as a special allowance. Could be wrong though.

[Silver Fox]

I will be using a m8s season ticket next year when I can make it and it doesn't clash with some Chelsea fixtures I go to.

So when you can make it then?

[sandman]

Not sure you're getting the point m8.

I get the point. You're on a wind-up.

[PieEater]

Infrastructure and a few other things (like paying up an injured players contract) are specifically excluded from the debts.

[ZacNaloen]

Excellent, all sounds good to me.

[East Grinstead Royal]

Three of the 24 clubs voted against new regulations to limit investment from owners and curb total spending.

The changes will also prevent owners from funding their clubs through loans.

So... a club with (say) a new rich owner would be prevented from receiving substantial investment from that owner. Sounds like a plan to turn away investment to me! Also, sounds like a plan to ensure that the biggest clubs will remain the biggest clubs forever.

[ZacNaloen]

You can still invest in infrastructure with no penalty, it's just the playing squad you have to be more frugal with.

So they could spend as much as they want on the Academy, stadium, training facilities.

All things that can lead to a bigger, better, more valuable club.

[Blue Hooped Moose]

You can still invest in infrastructure with no penalty, it's just the playing squad you have to be more frugal with.

So they could spend as much as they want on the Academy, stadium, training facilities.

All things that can lead to a bigger, better, more valuable club.

When UEFA started to suggest similar rules I remember reading how easy it would be for a rich owner to still invest mega bucks - the example given would be for someone like Abramovich to become a kit sponsor. He could have "Roman" in little letters across the back and pay £40 mill for the privilege. Completely legitimate as it would be classed as revenue, but also not within the spirit of the mandate.

Anyone know if potential loop holes like this been considered in the FL agreement?

[ZacNaloen]

No idea, if it's true Reading voted against this. It could be things like that which are the reason why. Right idea, but not good enough.

[East Grinstead Royal]

You can still invest in infrastructure with no penalty, it's just the playing squad you have to be more frugal with.

So they could spend as much as they want on the Academy, stadium, training facilities.

All things that can lead to a bigger, better, more valuable club.

So the owner of a business is prevented from investing in the very thing that would make that business more successful? To some extent, I'm playing devil's advocate here, as it's vital that clubs are prevented from making investments they can't afford (Leicester, Portsmouth, etc), but I'm struggling to understand why an owner should be allowed to invest money he actually has (Chelsea, Man City, QPR). Taken to their logical conclusion (i.e. they will eventually apply in all leagues throughout UEFA), these rules would mean Man U always win the English PL, Real Madrid always win in Spain, and Celtic always win in Scotland (OK, that's last one's a given!). At present, MU and RM are at least subject to some decent competition, even though they have the biggest spending power in Europe. In future, their biggest rivals simply wouldn't be able to compete for the world's best players because the laws of the game would prohibit it.

taking a completely different approach... the fines that would apply. Would they dissuade owners from investing? Or would this just be regarded as part of the cost of getting promoted to the PL? I read that QPR would have been fined £6m based on last year's results. With a reported £90m prize at stake, that sounds like a risk worth taking.

TBH, I don't know whether these new rules are a good thing or not, but I've not heard enough to convince me they are.

[kieran]

You can still invest in infrastructure with no penalty, it's just the playing squad you have to be more frugal with.

So they could spend as much as they want on the Academy, stadium, training facilities.

All things that can lead to a bigger, better, more valuable club.

So the owner of a business is prevented from investing in the very thing that would make that business more successful? To some extent, I'm playing devil's advocate here, as it's vital that clubs are prevented from making investments they can't afford (Leicester, Portsmouth, etc), but I'm struggling to understand why an owner should be allowed to invest money he actually has (Chelsea, Man City, QPR). Taken to their logical conclusion (i.e. they will eventually apply in all leagues throughout UEFA), these rules would mean Man U always win the English PL, Real Madrid always win in Spain, and Celtic always win in Scotland (OK, that's last one's a given!). At present, MU and RM are at least subject to some decent competition, even though they have the biggest spending power in Europe. In future, their biggest rivals simply wouldn't be able to compete for the world's best players because the laws of the game would prohibit it.

taking a completely different approach... the fines that would apply. Would they dissuade owners from investing? Or would this just be regarded as part of the cost of getting promoted to the PL? I read that QPR would have been fined £6m based on last year's results. With a reported £90m prize at stake, that sounds like a risk worth taking.

TBH, I don't know whether these new rules are a good thing or not, but I've not heard enough to convince me they are.

Just a quick point for you. At Pompey, Gaydamak and Antonov DID have the money ala Chelsea, Man City, QPR and pumped it into the club as you suggest. Sadly, they just got arrested afterwarsd and then took it all back - plus some. Allegedly of course.

Thanks for pointing this out as I am now beginning to understand why people (incorrectly) view the Pompey situtation differently to QPR, Saints (and possibly now Reading, I note your club voted against Financial fair play, that must stick in the throat for most of you as as I know how proud ou are of your financial prudence).

[Blue Hooped Moose]

Thanks for pointing this out as I am now beginning to understand why people (incorrectly) view the Pompey situtation differently to QPR, Saints (and possibly now Reading, I note your club voted against Financial fair play, that must stick in the throat for most of you as as I know how proud ou are of your financial prudence).

"Your" club being Reading? Source?

[ZacNaloen]

But that's just it, the club has been trying to be financially prudent for years it doesn't really make sense that we would vote against it unless we saw a short coming in the rules. If they really did vote against the proposal I would like to know the reasons though. The quote below is from a representative of our supporters trust

From the conversations STAR have had with the club, if they voted against it is not because they do not want financial fair play but because some of the details need changing. Some of the sanctions were not enough of a disincentive and others were too abrupt in application.

I'd like to hear more details though.

[Mr Angry]

The irony of a Pompey fan coming on here to lecture us on financial prudence, whilst, surprise surprise, defending the actions of the individuals which will see his club liquidated....Chanrai for example, "loaned" Pompey £17M using the ground (valued at £3m) as security, £17M being the exact sum that he insisted Gaydamak senior owed him for some dodgy business deal.

And at least Reading fans have SEEN Anton; has any Pompey fan ever seen the mysterious Sheikh who supposedly purchased Pompey off Gaydamak before Chanrai stepped in to protect his investment??

Quite.

[ZacNaloen]

Leeds voted against.

Not according to the Leeds press?

[ZacNaloen]

here we go

http://www.hullcityindependent.net/?page=news&news_id=919
Championship clubs agree to Financial Fair Play
Hull City and their Championship counterparts have agreed to the Football League introuducing a 'Financial Fair Play' scheme that is designed to moderate how clubs manage their finances to keep themselves solvent - and out of the position of falling in to administration.


Championship Financial Fair Play


Of the 24 clubs involved, three of which are reported to have pushed the plan further, by attempting to persuade the Football League to adopt the UEFA financial fair play regulations that are more tightly controlled, involving clubs curbing their investment and limiting funds poured in from owners.

However, at the present, the UEFA model hoped for by some clubs, has not been signed up by the English second tier, meaning an 'in house' Football League model will come to effect instead. But, with the scheme in it's infancy, any punishment for the breach of 'Financial Fair Play' will not come in to effect until the 2014-15 campaign.

Under the Financial Fair Play rules being introduced by the Football League the model will use the following basis:

- Clubs who record total losses of over £6million will be hit with either a transfer embargo or a fine that could run in to the millions.

- Punishment for breaching the above will deem the club in question will be fined if they are promoted to the Premier League and will be hit with a transfer embargo if they remain in the Championship.

- Owners will be allowed to invest £6million next season, £5million the following season and £3million the season aft

[Wimb]

You can still invest in infrastructure with no penalty, it's just the playing squad you have to be more frugal with.

So they could spend as much as they want on the Academy, stadium, training facilities.

All things that can lead to a bigger, better, more valuable club.

So the owner of a business is prevented from investing in the very thing that would make that business more successful? To some extent, I'm playing devil's advocate here, as it's vital that clubs are prevented from making investments they can't afford (Leicester, Portsmouth, etc), but I'm struggling to understand why an owner should be allowed to invest money he actually has (Chelsea, Man City, QPR). Taken to their logical conclusion (i.e. they will eventually apply in all leagues throughout UEFA), these rules would mean Man U always win the English PL, Real Madrid always win in Spain, and Celtic always win in Scotland (OK, that's last one's a given!). At present, MU and RM are at least subject to some decent competition, even though they have the biggest spending power in Europe. In future, their biggest rivals simply wouldn't be able to compete for the world's best players because the laws of the game would prohibit it.

taking a completely different approach... the fines that would apply. Would they dissuade owners from investing? Or would this just be regarded as part of the cost of getting promoted to the PL? I read that QPR would have been fined £6m based on last year's results. With a reported £90m prize at stake, that sounds like a risk worth taking.

TBH, I don't know whether these new rules are a good thing or not, but I've not heard enough to convince me they are.

They aren't being stopped from investing though, they'll still be able to pump in £3m of their own money. The theory is, is that this will help drive down wages as nobody will be able to pay them outside the top flight, therefore driving down costs and making the need for a sugar daddy to throw tons of money at the problem pointless.

Clubs will have to try and live within their means and just get the odd little bonus from a shareholder to go out and maybe make a signing that pushes them over the top.

[kieran]

The irony of a Pompey fan coming on here to lecture us on financial prudence, whilst, surprise surprise, defending the actions of the individuals which will see his club liquidated....Chanrai for example, "loaned" Pompey £17M using the ground (valued at £3m) as security, £17M being the exact sum that he insisted Gaydamak senior owed him for some dodgy business deal.

And at least Reading fans have SEEN Anton; has any Pompey fan ever seen the mysterious Sheikh who supposedly purchased Pompey off Gaydamak before Chanrai stepped in to protect his investment??

Quite.

I think you mis understand. I do not defend the appalling way our club has been run. Just pointing out that it was financial cash injection from a benefactor in the same way as QPR, Saints etc, not borrowing on the never, never as per Leicester. Only difference is both our owners withdrew funding and re-claimed finance. Something that could happen to any club who are spending beyond their means, which includes most in the championship to a greater or lesser extent.

I wasnt lecturing merely asking what you reaction would be if your club behaved in the same manner as Pompey, Saints, QPR etc as I know you hold financial prudence very dear.