The General FFP /PSR / SCR Financial Regs Thread

[villa4europe]

6 minutes ago, duke313 said:

The alternative is no FFP and Newcastle spending £6 billion on players with no restrictions. Two oil state runs clubs battling for titles, while the rest of us get into more and more debt trying to keep up.

But that's still fairer... 

There is more chance that our owners spend their money or someone else buys us who will than there is of us having the same revenue as man utd 

With the current set ups we would spend more than Liverpool and utd, instead we have a set up where their squads cost £500m+ more than us thanks to their fanbase in south east Asia

We will never ever catch them off the field with FFP in place, without it we could, absolutely anything could happen 

[HanoiVillan]

3 hours ago, Don_Simon said:

FFP only works if all clubs have the same revenue. 

Introducing it when they did, the horse had already bolted. I don't know what the answer is, but it's not FFP.

We have promotion and relegation, so 'all clubs having the same revenue' isn't possible. Unless we're imagining some sort of fantasy where Luton get promoted, get injected with a huge sum to make them as rich as Man City, then they completely destroy the Championship next season when the inevitably get relegated (which is also not 'fair', from a sporting perspective). Millionaire's socialism only works with a closed league, which we do not have and should not create. 

In general, there's a lot of time spent on this board bemoaning the 'big 6' spending advantages, but I see fewer people complaining about us having a bigger budget than Palace or Burnley, let alone Watford or Birmingham or Shrewsbury or Walsall or Solihull Moors or Boldmere St Michael's. Exactly how far do people want to take the fantasy of 'equal revenue'?

11 minutes ago, duke313 said:

The alternative is no FFP and Newcastle spending £6 billion on players with no restrictions. Two oil state runs clubs battling for titles, while the rest of us get into more and more debt trying to keep up.

Correct. This was the status quo before FFP, and it's what would happen if it disappeared. Nothing else is possible. 

[duke313]

6 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

But that's still fairer... 

There is more chance that our owners spend their money or someone else buys us who will than there is of us having the same revenue as man utd 

With the current set ups we would spend more than Liverpool and utd, instead we have a set up where their squads cost £500m+ more than us thanks to their fanbase in south east Asia

We will never ever catch them off the field with FFP in place, without it we could, absolutely anything could happen 

The team with most money wins is fairer? 

[villa4europe]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

We have promotion and relegation, so 'all clubs having the same revenue' isn't possible. Unless we're imagining some sort of fantasy where Luton get promoted, get injected with a huge sum to make them as rich as Man City, then they completely destroy the Championship next season when the inevitably get relegated (which is also not 'fair', from a sporting perspective). Millionaire's socialism only works with a closed league, which we do not have and should not create. 

In general, there's a lot of time spent on this board bemoaning the 'big 6' spending advantages, but I see fewer people complaining about us having a bigger budget than Palace or Burnley, let alone Watford or Birmingham or Shrewsbury or Walsall or Solihull Moors or Boldmere St Michael's. Exactly how far do people want to take the fantasy of 'equal revenue'?

Correct. This was the status quo before FFP, and it's what would happen if it disappeared. Nothing else is possible. 

Maybe not the same revenue but then also not a competition that gives 4 teams £100m more than the other 16 every season... 

They can look at balancing some things like the £2m TV appearance bonus teams get followed by sticking Liverpool on tv 25 times a year and Luton 8

[CVByrne]

1 hour ago, CVByrne said:

Also I've a question about the Squad Cost rule maybe people can help. According to Swiss Ramble it's calculated over a single calendar year (which from memory is correct). But how is it monitored as it's split between two financial years. How is the income and squad cost calculated? 

Article 92 Calculation of squad cost ratio • UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Sustainability Regulations • Reader • UEFA Documents

Quote

Article 92 Calculation of squad cost ratio

92.01

A licensee’s squad cost ratio is calculated as the sum of:

1. employee benefit expenses in respect of relevant persons;

2. amortisation/impairment of relevant persons’ costs; and

3. costs of agents/intermediaries/connected parties (if not included in i or ii above);

   divided by the sum of:

4. adjusted operating revenue; and

5. net profit/loss on disposal of relevant persons’ registrations and other transfer income/expenses.

92.02

The squad cost ratio numerator is the sum of i), ii) and iii) above. The squad cost ratio denominator is the sum of iv) and v).

92.03

The elements of the squad cost ratio are defined in Annex K.

92.04

The relevant periods for the calculation of the squad cost ratio are:

1. the 12-month period to the 31 December during the licence season for elements i) to iv) above; and

2. the 36 months to the 31 December during the licence season, prorated to 12 months, for element v) above.

92.05

Exceptionally, a licensee may request an alternative period for the elements in paragraph 1 above if it has an annual accounting reference date of:

1. 31 May, in which case it may prepare interim financial statements for a six-month period ending 30 November and use such interim financial statements for the cost control requirements, or

2. 30 November, in which case it may use the annual financial statements for the reporting period ending 30 November for the cost control requirements.

In both such exceptional cases, all references to 31 December in the cost control requirements should be understood as 30 November.

Interesting, so it's the calendar year in terms of 1-4 above. While the 3 year period total for player sales then divided by 3 to give a prorata annual cost. 

[HanoiVillan]

4 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

But that's still fairer... 

There is more chance that our owners spend their money or someone else buys us who will than there is of us having the same revenue as man utd 

With the current set ups we would spend more than Liverpool and utd, instead we have a set up where their squads cost £500m+ more than us thanks to their fanbase in south east Asia

We will never ever catch them off the field with FFP in place, without it we could, absolutely anything could happen 

If you genuinely preferred the status quo when Abramovic bought the league's best players and when Abu Dhabi rocked up, then I probably won't be able to persuade you otherwise. But I would say two things:

1) You have no reason to say 'we would spend more than Liverpool and Utd'; this is based on a *presumption* that Sawiris and Edens are just gagging to spend billions of pounds on us, which might be true but also might not, and there's also no reason to be confident than a 'spend whatever you want' paradigm that United and Liverpool would have the same level of expenditure for some reason. They have more revenue; this will make a difference to their spending power under any scenario. 

2) You can't complain about 'mismanagement' if you encourage this, we spend billions, then Sawiris and/or Edens gets a divorce, gets bored of owning us, and suddenly cuts spending (which we know, from lived experience, is a thing that can happen) and then we get relegated and/or go out of business. If you allow a free for all, most clubs will fail, and many will be wound up. 

[villa4europe]

1 minute ago, duke313 said:

The team with most money wins is fairer? 

What do we have now? 

The teams with the most fans can spend more money than the others? The biggest established teams can protect themselves and stay big? 

FFP is a million miles from fair 

Like I said the possibility of the richest man in the world buying Aston villa, Luton, kiddy harriers is higher than those 3 teams having a bed and pillow partner that gives them more revenue than man utd 

FFP has killed football

[CVByrne]

1 hour ago, VillaJ100 said:

How did Spurs become this financial powerhouse? 15 years ago we were a shade ahead of them and probably having a higher income? I guess they had some good players like Bale, Modric etc but they still won F all, and still have won F all. They finished in Europe for a few years in a row but how does that make them similar to say Chelsea?

The capitalised on the opportunity when the team under Poch broke into the Champions League. The maximised their commercial deals and revenue growth in that period. Then pulled off the Stadium build and had an even bigger capacity stadium in Wembley available at the time to use, so leaving White Hart Lane to move to Wembley was itself very lucrative. 

Edited January 13 by CVByrne

[villa4europe]

Just now, CVByrne said:

The capitalised on the opportunity when the tem under Poch broke into the Champions League. The maximised their commercial deals and revenue growth in that period. Then pulled off the Stadium build and had an even bigger capacity stadium in Wembley available at the time to use, so leaving White Hart Lane to move to Wembley was itself very lucrative. 

Throw in Son too and then when I think NBC broke the big PL America deal they put bale as the face of it and spurs are disproportionately big in the states as a result 

[villa4europe]

7 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

If you genuinely preferred the status quo when Abramovic bought the league's best players and when Abu Dhabi rocked up, then I probably won't be able to persuade you otherwise. But I would say two things:

1) You have no reason to say 'we would spend more than Liverpool and Utd'; this is based on a *presumption* that Sawiris and Edens are just gagging to spend billions of pounds on us, which might be true but also might not, and there's also no reason to be confident than a 'spend whatever you want' paradigm that United and Liverpool would have the same level of expenditure for some reason. They have more revenue; this will make a difference to their spending power under any scenario. 

2) You can't complain about 'mismanagement' if you encourage this, we spend billions, then Sawiris and/or Edens gets a divorce, gets bored of owning us, and suddenly cuts spending (which we know, from lived experience, is a thing that can happen) and then we get relegated and/or go out of business. If you allow a free for all, most clubs will fail, and many will be wound up. 

Then they govern it in a different way, even if it was done by bonds or guarantees 

It can't be done in a fashion where the biggest clubs can spend the most money 

Not even talked about is how it's also at the expense of the fan... List your gripes about Aston villa, ticket prices, gambling sponsors, corporate areas, badge changes, next season it'll be short prices... All of that is chasing revenue because of FFP

[HanoiVillan]

4 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

Maybe not the same revenue but then also not a competition that gives 4 teams £100m more than the other 16 every season... 

They can look at balancing some things like the £2m TV appearance bonus teams get followed by sticking Liverpool on tv 25 times a year and Luton 8

There are tweaks you can make to things like TV appearance fees for sure, but that's not going to bridge the gaps in revenue we're talking about. Not to say we shouldn't do them, but you're talking about minor adjustments not a change in paradigm. 

3 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

Like I said the possibility of the richest man in the world buying Aston villa, Luton, kiddy harriers is higher than those 3 teams having a bed and pillow partner that gives them more revenue than man utd 

FFP has killed football

I'm baffled that you believe this. Firstly, the idea that sitting around and hoping for a billionaire or an oil nation to buy you is in some sense 'football being alive', whereas it seems to me more like standing with a sandwich board and an empty coffee cup outside an office in Canary Wharf, but different preferences I guess. Secondly that you believe the claim about likelihood; again, 20 clubs can't all be owned by the richest person in the world, let alone 92. And thirdly that you seem to have not noticed that under the FFP paradigm, clubs that get lucky and have a brilliant player and/or manager (Villa) or are particularly smart about player acquisition and disposal (Brighton), actually *have* interrupted the 'big 6'. Look at the league; the 'big 6' are currently 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 10th. Look at transfers; in the 1990s Man United would have just turned up and bought Luiz and Watkins, long ago by now. They'd have made an offer we couldn't refuse and that would be the end of it. FFP has literally allowed us to keep this team together. 

[villa4europe]

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

There are tweaks you can make to things like TV appearance fees for sure, but that's not going to bridge the gaps in revenue we're talking about. Not to say we shouldn't do them, but you're talking about minor adjustments not a change in paradigm. 

I'm baffled that you believe this. Firstly, the idea that sitting around and hoping for a billionaire or an oil nation to buy you is in some sense 'football being alive', whereas it seems to me more like standing with a sandwich board and an empty coffee cup outside an office in Canary Wharf, but different preferences I guess. Secondly that you believe the claim about likelihood; again, 20 clubs can't all be owned by the richest person in the world, let alone 92. And thirdly that you seem to have not noticed that under the FFP paradigm, clubs that get lucky and have a brilliant player and/or manager (Villa) or are particularly smart about player acquisition and disposal (Brighton), actually *have* interrupted the 'big 6'. Look at the league; the 'big 6' are currently 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th and 10th. Look at transfers; in the 1990s Man United would have just turned up and bought Luiz and Watkins, long ago by now. They'd have made an offer we couldn't refuse and that would be the end of it. FFP has literally allowed us to keep this team together. 

Id say man utd and Chelsea being ran by incompetent clowns is what's allowed us to keep this team together... 

That's the only thing football has going for it, a £400m shouldnt be able to compete with a £1.5bn one but it can because of idiots 

Realistically we shouldnt be anywhere near utd under FFP, we can't touch their spending power and we never will

[Follyfoot]

Fascinating read @HanoiVillan and @villa4europe from both sides of the coin

[duke313]

6 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

Id say man utd and Chelsea being ran by incompetent clowns is what's allowed us to keep this team together... 

That's the only thing football has going for it, a £400m shouldnt be able to compete with a £1.5bn one but it can because of idiots 

Realistically we shouldnt be anywhere near utd under FFP, we can't touch their spending power and we never will

But without FFP you’re just swapping United and Liverpool and their massive revenues for Newcastle and whatever other club is selected for sportswashing and their oil rich owners deep pockets.  What’s the difference?

[HanoiVillan]

20 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

Id say man utd and Chelsea being ran by incompetent clowns is what's allowed us to keep this team together... 

It isn't. We were able to simply reject outright an Arsenal offer for Luiz last summer. 

Arsenal have a lack of a goalscorer. They have identified Ivan Toney as the guy they want to fill that hole. That's not being incompetent; he's a really good player and that's a transfer with a high chance of success. But the combination of the TV deal meaning Brentford don't need to sell him cheap, and FFP meaning Arsenal can't spend another near-£100m, is going to keep Toney at Brentford for a while longer. 

What's better for equal sporting competition in England, Toney being at Brentford or at Arsenal? And 'incompetence' is nowhere to be seen in that scenario. 

EDIT: And who's the guy who Arsenal were rumoured to want before Toney? And where does he play today (hint - it's not Arsenal)?

Edited January 13 by HanoiVillan

[villa4europe]

19 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It isn't. We were able to simply reject outright an Arsenal offer for Luiz last summer. 

Arsenal have a lack of a goalscorer. They have identified Ivan Toney as the guy they want to fill that hole. That's not being incompetent; he's a really good player and that's a transfer with a high chance of success. But the combination of the TV deal meaning Brentford don't need to sell him cheap, and FFP meaning Arsenal can't spend another near-£100m, is going to keep Toney at Brentford for a while longer. 

What's better for equal sporting competition in England, Toney being at Brentford or at Arsenal? And 'incompetence' is nowhere to be seen in that scenario. 

EDIT: And who's the guy who Arsenal were rumoured to want before Toney? And where does he play today (hint - it's not Arsenal)?

And why can't arsenal afford him? 

Because last summer they wanted another £100m and went and took him 

Do you think west ham think it's equal sporting competition? 

[HanoiVillan]

4 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

And why can't arsenal afford him? 

Because last summer they wanted another £100m and went and took him 

Do you think west ham think it's equal sporting competition? 

Yes, that's right. You can only buy one good player a year from another PL side these days. 

West Ham *should* be pleased. After an initial false start, we've parlayed the FFP advantage of selling our best player for a similar fee into building a brilliant squad that's better than at least two of the 'big 6'. 

[HeyAnty]

1 hour ago, duke313 said:

The team with most money wins is fairer? 

Sure thats the way it is with ffp, no?  Don’t see teams outside rich 6 winning much

Edited January 13 by HeyAnty

[HeyAnty]

42 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It isn't. We were able to simply reject outright an Arsenal offer for Luiz last summer. 

Arsenal have a lack of a goalscorer. They have identified Ivan Toney as the guy they want to fill that hole. That's not being incompetent; he's a really good player and that's a transfer with a high chance of success. But the combination of the TV deal meaning Brentford don't need to sell him cheap, and FFP meaning Arsenal can't spend another near-£100m, is going to keep Toney at Brentford for a while longer. 

What's better for equal sporting competition in England, Toney being at Brentford or at Arsenal? And 'incompetence' is nowhere to be seen in that scenario. 

EDIT: And who's the guy who Arsenal were rumoured to want before Toney? And where does he play today (hint - it's not Arsenal)?

We were able to reject Arsenal because they offered peanuts.  We wouldn’t have been able to do it if they offered 30+

[duke313]

22 minutes ago, HeyAnty said:

Sure thats the way it is with ffp, no?  Don’t see teams outside rich 6 winning much

Leicester exist, yes?

We’re currently sitting in 2nd despite FFP rules, with a good chance of finishing top 4..