The General FFP (Financial Fair Play) Thread

[LondonLax]

21 minutes ago, CarryOnVilla said:

im not sure where the loophole is here?

if you break this all down there’s no loophole. 

premier league teams selling each others players? That happens all the time. Maybe it’s doesn’t often happen between the same teams in the same window, but it’s happened before with no issues. 

is it using amortisation to help comply with PSR? All clubs are already doing that, with no issue.

Pricing youth players based upon the speculation on how good they will become? Happens all the time. Spurs wouldn’t sell Micky Moore for anything less than £30m, even tho he’s just 16 and kicked a ball twice for the senior team. Much like Kellyman, if the rumours are true about Moore’s talent, he’s worth it. So no issue there either. 

so where is the new loophole, and how is it being exploited. 

The proposed rule change is that trades between clubs in the same window will count as player swaps for FFP. Only a difference in valuation will go towards your profit. 

For example, if we sell a player to Everton for £10m and they sell one back to us for £10m in the same window then neither club will have made a profit that counts towards their FFP calculations, just like if it had been a straight swap.

However, if we sell for 15m and buy back for 10m then 5m of that 15m will be allowed to be considered for FFP.

[CarryOnVilla]

Just now, LondonLax said:

The proposed rule change is that trades between clubs in the same window will count as player swaps for FFP. Only a difference in valuation will go towards your profit. 

For example, if we sell a player to Everton for £10m and they sell one back to us for £10m in the same window then neither club will have made a profit that counts towards their FFP calculations, just like if it had been a straight swap.

However, if we sell for 15m and buy back for 10m then 5m of that 15m will be allowed to be considered for FFP.

People are screaming about loophole now, with the current rules. Yet I can’t see any loophole that isn’t already being exploited by every club in the league 

[LondonLax]

8 minutes ago, CarryOnVilla said:

People are screaming about loophole now, with the current rules. Yet I can’t see any loophole that isn’t already being exploited by every club in the league 

The rule change from UEFA was proposed after Juventus we’re doing this before we were.

Loophole might not be the right word but the idea of two clubs collaborating solely for the purposes of circumventing the FFP regulations is something that is being looked at.

It is almost impossible to prove for example that we traded with Everton, not because we wanted each other’s players but simply because we found a way around the restriction, so the proposal from UEFA will make all such transfers null for their version of FFP, ‘just to be on the safe side’ so to speak

I would be surprised if the Premier League didn’t implement something similar.

Edited June 24 by LondonLax

[CarryOnVilla]

13 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

The rule change from UEFA was proposed after Juventus we’re doing this before we were.

Loophole might not be the right word but the idea of two clubs collaborating solely for the purposes of circumventing the FFP regulations is something that is being looked at.

It is almost impossible to prove for example that we traded with Everton, not because we wanted each other’s players but simply because we found a way around the restriction, so the proposal from UEFA will make all such transfers null for their version of FFP. 

I would be surprised if the Premier League didn’t implement something similar.

Ahhh it is current. Then that does makes it trickier, but damn hard to prove regardless 

[Marka Ragnos]

Just eating this stuff up today -- keep it coming. 

 

[Marka Ragnos]

I'm a little concerned that some other PL clubs are reportedly "upset" about the swaps loophole thing. Don't know about you, but my heart goes out to them.

 

Edited June 24 by Marka Ragnos

[The_Steve]

21 minutes ago, Marka Ragnos said:

Just eating this stuff up today -- keep it coming. 

 

Bring on the lawsuit tbh

[The_Steve]

4 hours ago, oishiiniku_uk said:

'Fair market value' - How about Man City's head of academy recruitment going to work at Southampton and then paying previously unheard of sums for youth players who'd never kicked a ball outside of PL2?

Sam Edozie (£10m) - Southampton, 0 mins for City in PL
Shea Charles (£14.5m) - Southampton, 28 mins for City in PL
Gavin Bazunu (£15m) - Southampton, 0 mins for City in PL
Romeo Lavia (£14m) - Southampton, 0 mins for City in PL

Burnley signed James Trafford for £19m after promotion, never made any PL appearances before that.

Chelsea spent £51m on a Brazilian teenager this window, West Ham signed an 18-year-old from Brazil for £20m.

[duke313]

The transfers of Tim and Dobbin have already been confirmed by the Premier League, why would they investigate them after they already approved them?

My guess is these articles about ‘fair market value’ are just “journalists “ doing their bidding by some big 6 team to create some noise about it.

[Keyblade]

12 hours ago, desensitized43 said:

The same reason we were up in arms about 115 and Chelsea selling hotels to themselves etc.

What's going on with our club right now makes me very uncomfortable. We can't insist that City get the book thrown at them while doing a little bit of jiggery pokery ourselves. I get why we've done it though.

To be clear though, I don't like the rules and they are to the enormous benefit of the United's and Arsenal's. Wildly profitable clubs who we wouldn't be able to compete with if the rules were being strictly enforced with no loopholes. Which is why they'll complain, because they'll want to protect their advantage.

City lied about their finances and cooked their books...allegedly. Completely against the rules. We bought and sold players, within the rules. It's nowhere near the same. The motivation might have been, but while we've had to be...creative to get around the issues (which ideally shouldn't exist), they cheated.

[Rds1983]

9 hours ago, LondonLax said:

The proposed rule change is that trades between clubs in the same window will count as player swaps for FFP. Only a difference in valuation will go towards your profit. 

For example, if we sell a player to Everton for £10m and they sell one back to us for £10m in the same window then neither club will have made a profit that counts towards their FFP calculations, just like if it had been a straight swap.

However, if we sell for 15m and buy back for 10m then 5m of that 15m will be allowed to be considered for FFP.

Wouldn't work. 

Club A wants to sell Player X and buy Player Y from Club B.

Player X is worth about £60m and Y about £40m.

Club B wants to sell Player Y and accepts a bid from Club A for £40m.

Club B then wants to buy Player X and offers £60m to Club A.

However, Club C (let's say Spurs) also wants to buy Player Y but only offers £50m.

Club B is forced to accept the lower bid as it allows them to put £50m on their books, instead of the £20m that the £60m bid would let them.

They get less actual money but have more on their books. That's the total opposite of what PSR is meant to achieve. 

Didn't sleep well last night so the players/clubs might not track all the way through but hopefully you get the idea.

Edited June 25 by Rds1983

[Rds1983]

If the PSR/FFP rules are genuinely about stopping clubs going bust due to bad ownership. Then the solution is simple.

Make the clubs put money aside, either with a 3rd party or in ring-fenced accounts, that will cover all operating costs for a set period of time.

This is already in place with things like Banks, which was installed after the 08 financial crash and shows it works.

Clubs would be free to spend whatever they want to, as long as the owners put their money in to cover it.

However, the traditional larger club's might not like it as it would allow for another City type situation and potentially more State owned clubs. However, that's simple too, ban State's from owning club's. 

[LondonLax]

56 minutes ago, Rds1983 said:

Wouldn't work. 

Club A wants to sell Player X and buy Player Y from Club B.

Player X is worth about £60m and Y about £40m.

Club B wants to sell Player Y and accepts a bid from Club A for £40m.

Club B then wants to buy Player X and offers £60m to Club A.

However, Club C (let's say Spurs) also wants to buy Player Y but only offers £50m.

Club B is forced to accept the lower bid as it allows them to put £50m on their books, instead of the £20m that the £60m bid would let them.

They get less actual money but have more on their books. That's the total opposite of what PSR is meant to achieve. 

Didn't sleep well last night so the players/clubs might not track all the way through but hopefully you get the idea.

Yes, whenever you try and make well intended regulations there are always unintended consequences. 

[John]

9 hours ago, Keyblade said:

City lied about their finances and cooked their books...allegedly. Completely against the rules. We bought and sold players, within the rules. It's nowhere near the same. The motivation might have been, but while we've had to be...creative to get around the issues (which ideally shouldn't exist), they cheated.

Yes, you would think the PL had enough on their plate with bringing Manchester City to account, without gunning for the likes of Everton and us. 

[villa89]

2 hours ago, Rds1983 said:

That's simple too, ban State's from owning club's. 

That's impossible. Look at abramovich buying Chelsea, apparently a private business man but in reality a lacky for the russian dictatorship. It's easy for a state to setup an entity to buy a club and nobody would be able to prove it's state backed. 

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

How are Newcastle still needing to sell players after a Champions League campaign and new improved revenue etc?

[The_Steve]

1 minute ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

How are Newcastle still needing to sell players after a Champions League campaign and new improved revenue etc?

Because of rule changes that give legacy cartel clubs like United more CL money - I believe United got double what Newcastle did for their participation (£30m or more, as United got over £60m). 

[Isa]

2 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

How are Newcastle still needing to sell players after a Champions League campaign and new improved revenue etc?

I'm guessing they just haven't built up the merchandising and commercial revenue yet. If anything the UCL came too soon for them. We are better off in that regard as we reached after few years of building up all that type of infrastructure. 

[Rds1983]

1 hour ago, villa89 said:

That's impossible. Look at abramovich buying Chelsea, apparently a private business man but in reality a lacky for the russian dictatorship. It's easy for a state to setup an entity to buy a club and nobody would be able to prove it's state backed. 

They could at least try to make it more difficult for State's to own club's. Reduce the risk of the PM putting pressure on the FA to do things in the club's favour like they did with Newcastle. 

[villa89]

10 minutes ago, Rds1983 said:

They could at least try to make it more difficult for State's to own club's. 

They should do that but in reality the PL want as many rich owners as possible as it brings more of the worlds best players to the league.