Derby County.

[thomas 501]

So we win tomorrow by a 3-0 margin and derby don’t go out of business because of us seems like a fair deal to me 😉

[ScarBoro 857]

2 hours ago, Changing Times said:

But the only club who tried it was Derby, and they were done for it a while back.  If that was his aim then he'd have stopped when they were first fined, then re-submitted the accounts, then got docked 9 points for breaching FFP.  He didn't stop then, he continued on until now.  So what was his point exactly cos to me it seems like it was specifically about Morris, hence a conversation with him and all of a sudden everything is sorted.  That's why I'd like to hear from the man himself, in his own words, what it was all about as far as he's concerned.

Derby were the only club ( that has been found out) fiddling the players valuation in their accounts. Several clubs sold their stadium to their owners , Wednesday tried to put through their accounts a sale of Hillsborough that hadn’t completed at the year end  and others gambled that getting promotion would stop them being done under FFP rules. 
I agree that Gibson has a personal vendetta with Morris, but I think he also was railing against the EFL for not tightening up and/or enforcing other rules to prevent clubs competing unfairly and getting round FFP. I think he was trying to make the point that clubs could be sued as well as facing EFL rules and if one didn’t get them the other might.

The reason for the conversation now might be that the transfer window is closed. As the lad from Derby pointed out they have lost a lot of their players on the cheap and it will have hit them hard, so maybe time to let the football results decide whether they can survive, rather than settling earlier and allowing someone to pump money in and buy new players in January. Coming out of administration will wipe out the old losses presumably and give them an FFP advantage.

[Changing Times 12,347]

2 hours ago, AnglianRed said:

There's nothing wrong with FFP...that some tweaking wouldn't fix.

As is usually the case, it just needs to be effectively policed by an organisation with both the brains and willpower to enforce it.

Far too often, rules are put in place more with the hope and expectation that people will follow them. Then when people knowingly and willingly break them, they're at a loss as to what to do. 🙄

Just need people willing to don the steel toe-capped boots and kick some *** when necessary. I really despise how weak and spineless so many so-called governing bodies are now (or just corrupt).

There's lots wrong with FFP, which is why it doesn't work.  Clubs haven't stopped going out of business, owners aren't magically more responsible.  That was the original purpose, to protect clubs. It's bizarre that people can't see it for what it is, a very nice way of keeping clubs now at the top, at the top, and making it difficult for anyone else to join them.  The vast majority of clubs below us will now always be below us, same goes for those above.  

Aside from that, why should any business owner be limited in terms of how much money can he can put into his own business?  I never really understand why fans of a club like ours seem to support it.  We've just stagnated for a couple of years, not being able to do much at all, largely because of FFP.  Was that fun for everyone else cos I didn't think much of it myself.

What is it that people actually like about FFP?  The usual answer is something to do with 'fairness', but I don't think it has anything to do with 'fairness', or that it creates a level playing field, which again it absolutely doesn't do.  If you want fairness then set every club the exact same budget, and go from there.  It doesn't matter whether you're Man Utd, Middlesbrough, or Mansfield, you have a set amount and that's it.  That would be ludicrous of course but that is a level playing field.  What we've got now simply keeps the biggest clubs as the biggest, and the smallest as the smallest.  Beyond that, since when has spending money equalled cheating?  One of the best periods in our history came when we would have been breaking FFP every single year had it been around then.  I mean we'd have never had the cup finals or Europe, under FFP, it simply never would have happened, you all realise that right?  I know I wasn't sitting there thinking how unfair it was that we could buy the likes of Juninho, Rav, Barmby, Viduka, Southgate etc, but others clubs couldn't.  Is it simply cos the shoe is on the other foot now that we think it's wrong, that we've had our shot at it but nobody else can?  I can't help but feel that's part of the reason.

You could take it further of course.  Why is losing £39m over three years good but losing £40m over three years bad.  If I was an owner who ran my club at an actual profit every year but then for one season decided to really go for it and spent way too much, even though I can afford it just fine, we end up breaking FFP of that cycle and get punished.  Why would that be desirable, I just don't see it?  The only possible way to protect clubs from reckless owners is to make sure it's the owners who pay the price, not the football clubs that they invariably leave behind.  That's the only disincentive to poor business management that will work as far as I can see.

Edited February 11, 2022 by Changing Times

[Foogle 2,104]

I'm a fan of salary caps myself, but it'd be virtually impossible to work in leagues with relegation promotion and many leagues competing across the continent.

I agree with CT that the onus should be on the owners rather than ultimately the football club when they cut and run.... 

[Changing Times 12,347]

10 minutes ago, ScarBoro said:

Derby were the only club ( that has been found out) fiddling the players valuation in their accounts. Several clubs sold their stadium to their owners , Wednesday tried to put through their accounts a sale of Hillsborough that hadn’t completed at the year end  and others gambled that getting promotion would stop them being done under FFP rules. 
I agree that Gibson has a personal vendetta with Morris, but I think he also was railing against the EFL for not tightening up and/or enforcing other rules to prevent clubs competing unfairly and getting round FFP. I think he was trying to make the point that clubs could be sued as well as facing EFL rules and if one didn’t get them the other might.

The reason for the conversation now might be that the transfer window is closed. As the lad from Derby pointed out they have lost a lot of their players on the cheap and it will have hit them hard, so maybe time to let the football results decide whether they can survive, rather than settling earlier and allowing someone to pump money in and buy new players in January. Coming out of administration will wipe out the old losses presumably and give them an FFP advantage.

Have they changed the rules regarding stadium sales, because the EFL have passed every single one as ok so far.  The only issue they had with Sheff Wed was that they tried to backdate the sale to cover FFP.  They had no problem with what they actually did,  just the timing of it appearing in their accounts.  Same goes for Derby and their stadium valuation, same goes for anyone else who has done it.  We could do it tomorrow and it wouldn't be an issue.  So what has changed? 

Also, can you explain to me what the difference is between selling one asset (stadium) and another asset (player).  If we end up having to sell a player in the summer to pass FFP is that any different to selling the stadium, or selling something else to pass it?

It's also worth pointing out that we didn't sue Derby.  In fact we were very careful not to do anything of the sort, and we only actually pushed things when they went into administration, when the club was at it's weakest.  Even now we're still none the wiser as to whether our claims constituted a football debt or not, or indeed had any merit at all.  I don't think that them coming out of FFP will give them a FFP advantage as they'll still have to pass the P&S regs, same as everyone else.

 

[Duvel 2,446]

Rather than abolish ffp I'd rather they kept it but made it really simple. For example every team has x amount to spent on wages and x amount to spend on transfers. 

Every club has the same budget regardless of stadium size or sponsorships. 

Make it like the NFL where every club in each division is on equal footing and the best ran clubs will win. 

I know it'll never happen in a million years but when you've got Man City's budget vs Burnley's or Fulham's budget vs Peterborough's it's not even close to being fair. 

Edited February 11, 2022 by Duvel

[ScarBoro 857]

1 hour ago, Changing Times said:

 

Also, can you explain to me what the difference is between selling one asset (stadium) and another asset (player).  If we end up having to sell a player in the summer to pass FFP is that any different to selling the stadium, or selling something else to pass it?

Selling a player means offering him for sale and seeing who offers anything for him - in other words there is a ready market and the market will decide the price. Unless you own both selling and buying clubs it’s pretty difficult to manipulate the price - which is why ownership of more than one club is banned. Selling a stadium to another company owned by the club owner is totally open to manipulation. It’s unlikely anyone else wants the ground, so there is no marker and it is to a related party. To be fair, it’s difficult to say what a fair value of a stadium is in any case.

1 hour ago, Changing Times said:

  I don't think that them coming out of FFP will give them a FFP advantage as they'll still have to pass the P&S regs, same as everyone else.

How do they calculate losses for Derby for 19/20 and 20/21 seasons?  Do they use the old company which won’t be trading when they come out of admin. What happens for this year?  A part season with one company and a part season with a new company. I’m not sure myself, but it does seem to be difficult to use standard FFP calculations, doesn’t it? Do the administrators costs come into the calculation? Or do they ignore all the old losses and start with a clean slate? If so that gives them a short term advantage in the next couple of years.

[Changing Times 12,347]

1 hour ago, ScarBoro said:

Selling a player means offering him for sale and seeing who offers anything for him - in other words there is a ready market and the market will decide the price. Unless you own both selling and buying clubs it’s pretty difficult to manipulate the price - which is why ownership of more than one club is banned. Selling a stadium to another company owned by the club owner is totally open to manipulation. It’s unlikely anyone else wants the ground, so there is no marker and it is to a related party. To be fair, it’s difficult to say what a fair value of a stadium is in any case.

How do they calculate losses for Derby for 19/20 and 20/21 seasons?  Do they use the old company which won’t be trading when they come out of admin. What happens for this year?  A part season with one company and a part season with a new company. I’m not sure myself, but it does seem to be difficult to use standard FFP calculations, doesn’t it? Do the administrators costs come into the calculation? Or do they ignore all the old losses and start with a clean slate? If so that gives them a short term advantage in the next couple of years.

They'll use the old figures, those are the club's figures.  The company might be different but the club is the same, and it's the club that is subject to FFP because of it's membership of the league.  Lots of costs aren't included in the FFP calculations, and I'd assume that the administrator fees would be one of them.  Either way they'll be included or not included based on the current regulations, I don't see why anything different would have to happen.  They will have to submit their accounts for this year as they would previous years.

Some clubs are owned by the same person, not in the same country of course, but across different associations.  What if I sell the stadium to a completely independent party?  Would that be ok then?  To me, that would be a bad thing for a football club.

[ladyspite 385]

10 hours ago, Duvel said:

Rather than abolish ffp I'd rather they kept it but made it really simple. For example every team has x amount to spent on wages and x amount to spend on transfers. 

Every club has the same budget regardless of stadium size or sponsorships. 

Make it like the NFL where every club in each division is on equal footing and the best ran clubs will win. 

I know it'll never happen in a million years but when you've got Man City's budget vs Burnley's or Fulham's budget vs Peterborough's it's not even close to being fair. 

Its a bit funny that USA who is so scared of socialism still use it so heavenly in sport 😉

[AnglianRed 6,320]

10 hours ago, Duvel said:

Rather than abolish ffp I'd rather they kept it but made it really simple. For example every team has x amount to spent on wages and x amount to spend on transfers. 

Every club has the same budget regardless of stadium size or sponsorships. 

Make it like the NFL where every club in each division is on equal footing and the best ran clubs will win. 

I know it'll never happen in a million years but when you've got Man City's budget vs Burnley's or Fulham's budget vs Peterborough's it's not even close to being fair. 

I think it would be more realistic to cap clubs' wage & transfer spending to a fixed percentage of their revenue...I dunno, say 50% or 60% max.

That way wealthier clubs would still be able to spend more on players while still making sure they can cover their other expenses.

Agree with Foogle though that in cases where decisions taken by the owner have put the club in debt / risk of liquidation, then they should be liable, instead of the club.

 

[ScarBoro 857]

9 hours ago, Changing Times said:

They'll use the old figures, those are the club's figures.  The company might be different but the club is the same, and it's the club that is subject to FFP because of it's membership of the league.  Lots of costs aren't included in the FFP calculations, and I'd assume that the administrator fees would be one of them.  Either way they'll be included or not included based on the current regulations, I don't see why anything different would have to happen.  They will have to submit their accounts for this year as they would previous years.

Some clubs are owned by the same person, not in the same country of course, but across different associations.  What if I sell the stadium to a completely independent party?  Would that be ok then?  To me, that would be a bad thing for a football club.

Looking at the FFP rules, there is a definitive list of exclusions as you say. From last season this includes any profit from sale of stadium - so that is probably partly down to Gibson and his protests, along with other clubs protesting. 

I can’t see anywhere any exclusion for either the costs of administration, or for any write back of debts written off. So if they owe the taxman £20m and agree a deal to only pay £10m, this creates a “profit” of £10m which will be part of the current year accounts. This is what I meant by saying they would have a FFP advantage going forward. There may be some obscure provision in the rules to stop this, but it’s not  part of the regulations shown in Appendix 5 of the rules

[Duvel 2,446]

2 hours ago, AnglianRed said:

I think it would be more realistic to cap clubs' wage & transfer spending to a fixed percentage of their revenue...I dunno, say 50% or 60% max.

That way wealthier clubs would still be able to spend more on players while still making sure they can cover their other expenses.

Agree with Foogle though that in cases where decisions taken by the owner have put the club in debt / risk of liquidation, then they should be liable, instead of the club.

 

But how is that fair, you'll still have one club with an enormous budget compared to another. Its like watching Usain Bolt race the 100m with a 30m headstart. Its barely even sport. 

[Duvel 2,446]

3 hours ago, ladyspite said:

Its a bit funny that USA who is so scared of socialism still use it so heavenly in sport 😉

Yeah they do it brilliantly.

I know we'll never end up with the same thing here and it would be impossible to implement because our sport is structured so differently to theirs, but there's something to be said when the worst team in the NFL 2 years ago has a chance to become the best on Sunday night. 

[AnglianRed 6,320]

15 minutes ago, Duvel said:

But how is that fair, you'll still have one club with an enormous budget compared to another. Its like watching Usain Bolt race the 100m with a 30m headstart. Its barely even sport. 

I was thinking across the leagues. It would be ridiculous to expect top PL teams to work with the same restrictions as Championship / lower league clubs.

BTW you could have put everyone else 30m ahead of Usain Bolt and he'd still have won. 😜

In the name of fairness I think it would be good to have a hard salary & transfer fee cap for each division. Maybe not a maximum value as such, (e.g. £10m max transfer fee and £50k max wage), but a maximum of what they can spend for any given season. Similar to what they are trying to implement in F1, whereby every team has a budget of around £140m a season.

Realistically, it'll never happen as wages and transfer fees are already out of control and have been for some time. Plus you have massive investment in clubs by hugely wealthy individuals and consortiums. They will want to continue to be able to spend to win.

Players and agents would never go for it either, as it would restrict their earning power, if clubs' spending power was restricted like that.

As usual just too many vested interests. Fairness doesn't even get a look in. 🤷‍♂️

In any case, it would rob us of the ability to go to places like Man United and rub their noses in it when we beat them and brag that Ronaldo's salary alone could cover our entire first team squad. 😜

As we have seen repeatedly, money helps, but it doesn't guarantee success.

 

[Duvel 2,446]

19 minutes ago, AnglianRed said:

I was thinking across the leagues. It would be ridiculous to expect top PL teams to work with the same restrictions as Championship / lower league clubs.

BTW you could have put everyone else 30m ahead of Usain Bolt and he'd still have won. 😜

In the name of fairness I think it would be good to have a hard salary & transfer fee cap for each division. Maybe not a maximum value as such, (e.g. £10m max transfer fee and £50k max wage), but a maximum of what they can spend for any given season. Similar to what they are trying to implement in F1, whereby every team has a budget of around £140m a season.

Realistically, it'll never happen as wages and transfer fees are already out of control and have been for some time. Plus you have massive investment in clubs by hugely wealthy individuals and consortiums. They will want to continue to be able to spend to win.

Players and agents would never go for it either, as it would restrict their earning power, if clubs' spending power was restricted like that.

As usual just too many vested interests. Fairness doesn't even get a look in. 🤷‍♂️

In any case, it would rob us of the ability to go to places like Man United and rub their noses in it when we beat them and brag that Ronaldo's salary alone could cover our entire first team squad. 😜

As we have seen repeatedly, money helps, but it doesn't guarantee success.

 

I'm not suggesting a 100m race where everyone gets a head start on the fastest runner, I'm talking about everyone starting from the same place. What we currently have is the equivalent of Bolt having a head start. 

It could be worked out if the appetite was there and players could still earn millions like they do in American sport. The alternative is the current version where the rich teams finish at the top 90% of the time and everyone comes up with tinpot versions of ffp which do nothing.