Lancashire TelegraphBlackburn Rovers wait on FFP rules after changes rejected (From Lancashire Telegraph)

When news happens, text LT and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.

Blackburn Rovers wait on FFP rules after changes rejected

Lancashire Telegraph: Shaun Harvey Shaun Harvey

FOUR proposed changes to Financial Fair Play regulations for Blackburn Rovers and their fellow Championship clubs have been rejected.

Several unnamed clubs have threatened legal action against the regulations, which could see Rovers hit with a transfer embargo in January, but efforts to agree changes have failed.

The legal threat and concern over the impact of the new £23million parachute payments for the three clubs relegated from the Premier League led Football League bosses to review the regulations.

But all four proposals – three of them related to boosting the level of losses and owner investment permitted – were defeated in a vote by the 24 Championship clubs.

The fourth proposal was for the rules to be imposed based on ‘real time’ financial figures instead of the existing retrospective system.

But it too failed to attract the necessary 75 per cent backing.

According to Football League chief executive Shaun Harvey, other alternatives would now be examined.

Harvey said: “While a majority of clubs did vote in favour of each of the four proposals, they did not achieve the 75 per cent support required.

”We will now continue the positive and collaborative dialogue we have had with Championship clubs on this issue to see if there is any appetite for alternative forms of change.”

Rovers will suffer a transfer embargo in January if they do meet the existing regulations.

Existing FFP regulations state that Championship clubs can make a maximum loss of £3m for the current 2013-14 campaign.

That figure rises to £8m if a club’s owner is willing to convert the additional £5m into shares in the club.

Anything above £3m or £8m will result in a transfer embargo which would come into force on January 1.

The existing regulations permit Championship clubs to lose £6m next season, 2014-15, but £3m of that must be covered by owner investment.

There were three proposals to increase that allowance to either £10m, £11.4m or £12.8m.

Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore has also expressed serious concerns about the existing system, which is based on just one year, while controls over the top-flight clubs take into account three years’ figures and allow more owner investment.

The first sanctions against Championship clubs will be announced in December based on accounts for the current 2013-14 season.

The existing FFP regulations were agreed in April 2012 by the overwhelming majority of Championship clubs. At that time Rovers were playing in the Premier League and therefore did not have a vote.

Comments (64)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:39am Thu 22 May 14

Champagne plus charlie says...

FFP is truly a wonderful thing.

The great equaliser.
FFP is truly a wonderful thing. The great equaliser. Champagne plus charlie
  • Score: -14

11:05am Thu 22 May 14

TurfMoorTom says...

I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed

The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers..............
..
I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers.............. .. TurfMoorTom
  • Score: 9

11:21am Thu 22 May 14

Crow27 says...

Big club rules and the rest of football rules. Man City are potentially are going to be allowed 5 home grown players on their books instead of 8. if that was a smaller club FIFA would not allow it. Same as this FFP ruling. I agree with it but make it fair not corrupt!
Big club rules and the rest of football rules. Man City are potentially are going to be allowed 5 home grown players on their books instead of 8. if that was a smaller club FIFA would not allow it. Same as this FFP ruling. I agree with it but make it fair not corrupt! Crow27
  • Score: 8

11:25am Thu 22 May 14

inflightmagazine says...

TurfMoorTom wrote:
I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed

The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers..............

..
Looking at this as well , the allowance increase is around 9 million , showing that most clubs must feel they are close to complying. Even the premier league have voiced concerns over this now, seems crazy a league one owner could pump 100 million into a club without sanction and a championship club is limited to £3 - £5 million. I think this is where the league challenge will based. What a joke FFP is becoming
[quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers.............. ..[/p][/quote]Looking at this as well , the allowance increase is around 9 million , showing that most clubs must feel they are close to complying. Even the premier league have voiced concerns over this now, seems crazy a league one owner could pump 100 million into a club without sanction and a championship club is limited to £3 - £5 million. I think this is where the league challenge will based. What a joke FFP is becoming inflightmagazine
  • Score: 7

11:32am Thu 22 May 14

Champagne plus charlie says...

TurfMoorTom wrote:
I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed

The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers..............

..
Hang on a minute - I thought you were a self-proclaimed Burnley fan Turf Moor Tom, have you let your halo slip?

Poor banter as usual, it is like Blackburn fans have given up with the banter-side of the rivalry, now that the 34 year excrement covered comfort blanket has been removed it has evidently taken all your come-backs.

'Why should a transfer embargo mid-season be of concern' Did you really just type that? As part of the transfer embargo you will be forced to sell your highest earning players to get them off the wage bill, otherwise you will remain on a transfer embargo until they are sold and until your wage bill comes back in line with your commercial incomings - currently your wages/turnover ratio is an embarrassing 134%

Turf Moor Tom, you are evidently another ignorant Blackburn spunkbubble.
[quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers.............. ..[/p][/quote]Hang on a minute - I thought you were a self-proclaimed Burnley fan Turf Moor Tom, have you let your halo slip? Poor banter as usual, it is like Blackburn fans have given up with the banter-side of the rivalry, now that the 34 year excrement covered comfort blanket has been removed it has evidently taken all your come-backs. 'Why should a transfer embargo mid-season be of concern' Did you really just type that? As part of the transfer embargo you will be forced to sell your highest earning players to get them off the wage bill, otherwise you will remain on a transfer embargo until they are sold and until your wage bill comes back in line with your commercial incomings - currently your wages/turnover ratio is an embarrassing 134% Turf Moor Tom, you are evidently another ignorant Blackburn spunkbubble. Champagne plus charlie
  • Score: 0

11:34am Thu 22 May 14

J.C - Rishton says...

TurfMoorTom wrote:
I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed

The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers..............

..
Hi Tom

This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship.

We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous.

If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues).

Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field".

1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015.
2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers.
3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs.
4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs.
5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players.

All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.
[quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers.............. ..[/p][/quote]Hi Tom This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship. We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous. If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues). Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field". 1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015. 2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers. 3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs. 4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs. 5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players. All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible. J.C - Rishton
  • Score: 7

11:35am Thu 22 May 14

J.C - Rishton says...

Crow27 wrote:
Big club rules and the rest of football rules. Man City are potentially are going to be allowed 5 home grown players on their books instead of 8. if that was a smaller club FIFA would not allow it. Same as this FFP ruling. I agree with it but make it fair not corrupt!
Yes but Man City comes under UEFA and we come under Football league rules - two different governing bodies, nothing to do with corruption or big v small clubs.
[quote][p][bold]Crow27[/bold] wrote: Big club rules and the rest of football rules. Man City are potentially are going to be allowed 5 home grown players on their books instead of 8. if that was a smaller club FIFA would not allow it. Same as this FFP ruling. I agree with it but make it fair not corrupt![/p][/quote]Yes but Man City comes under UEFA and we come under Football league rules - two different governing bodies, nothing to do with corruption or big v small clubs. J.C - Rishton
  • Score: 3

11:39am Thu 22 May 14

Champagne plus charlie says...

inflightmagazine wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed

The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers..............


..
Looking at this as well , the allowance increase is around 9 million , showing that most clubs must feel they are close to complying. Even the premier league have voiced concerns over this now, seems crazy a league one owner could pump 100 million into a club without sanction and a championship club is limited to £3 - £5 million. I think this is where the league challenge will based. What a joke FFP is becoming
It's not if you live within your means - simple. It is designed to stop clubs gaining artificial short-term gains with owners' money and then crashing and burning when the money runs out or the owners get bored and decide to liquidate.

But of course the likes of Blackburn and QPR feel they are above the rulings and still most of the idiot supporters don't want their team to comply - you need to look at the statement by your MD earlier this year and even the one releasde by the wonderful Venkys today, you ARE going to have to comply or you WILL be in serious trouble.
[quote][p][bold]inflightmagazine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers.............. ..[/p][/quote]Looking at this as well , the allowance increase is around 9 million , showing that most clubs must feel they are close to complying. Even the premier league have voiced concerns over this now, seems crazy a league one owner could pump 100 million into a club without sanction and a championship club is limited to £3 - £5 million. I think this is where the league challenge will based. What a joke FFP is becoming[/p][/quote]It's not if you live within your means - simple. It is designed to stop clubs gaining artificial short-term gains with owners' money and then crashing and burning when the money runs out or the owners get bored and decide to liquidate. But of course the likes of Blackburn and QPR feel they are above the rulings and still most of the idiot supporters don't want their team to comply - you need to look at the statement by your MD earlier this year and even the one releasde by the wonderful Venkys today, you ARE going to have to comply or you WILL be in serious trouble. Champagne plus charlie
  • Score: 3

11:39am Thu 22 May 14

J.C - Rishton says...

inflightmagazine wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed

The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers..............


..
Looking at this as well , the allowance increase is around 9 million , showing that most clubs must feel they are close to complying. Even the premier league have voiced concerns over this now, seems crazy a league one owner could pump 100 million into a club without sanction and a championship club is limited to £3 - £5 million. I think this is where the league challenge will based. What a joke FFP is becoming
You are all getting confused with this issue -

UEFA make the rules and impose their FFP regulations to clubs in European club cup competitions.

The Premier League make their own rules for the PL and the football league decide on their FFP rules and punishments for their member clubs.

The 3 things are all seperate so Manchester Citys punishment by UEFA is completely irrelevant to BRFC or Wolves etc.
[quote][p][bold]inflightmagazine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers.............. ..[/p][/quote]Looking at this as well , the allowance increase is around 9 million , showing that most clubs must feel they are close to complying. Even the premier league have voiced concerns over this now, seems crazy a league one owner could pump 100 million into a club without sanction and a championship club is limited to £3 - £5 million. I think this is where the league challenge will based. What a joke FFP is becoming[/p][/quote]You are all getting confused with this issue - UEFA make the rules and impose their FFP regulations to clubs in European club cup competitions. The Premier League make their own rules for the PL and the football league decide on their FFP rules and punishments for their member clubs. The 3 things are all seperate so Manchester Citys punishment by UEFA is completely irrelevant to BRFC or Wolves etc. J.C - Rishton
  • Score: 6

11:46am Thu 22 May 14

digitusjonfred says...

CP CHARLIE ..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzz
CP CHARLIE ..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzz digitusjonfred
  • Score: -2

11:53am Thu 22 May 14

owd nick says...

Champagne plus charlie wrote:
FFP is truly a wonderful thing.

The great equaliser.
FFP for Championship clubs is based on one years finances, but for PL clubs it's three years.

Pleas explain how that is a great equaliser?

The three clubs promoted to the PL will be classed (financially) as Championship clubs in the first year, competing against the rest who will have a least two years in the PL in the bank, most will have significantly more.

How can that be regarded as a great equaliser because if they are allowed to do so they will have to mortgage some of their potential earnings from their first season in the PL, so if they are relegated, which historically is likely, the banks will be looking for their pound of flesh.

FFP isn't fair, it's designed to make the bigger clubs bigger and the sooner you self righteous idiots work that out the better.

That's why City's fine has been reduced, it's basically been spread over three years and as long as City play ball and don't overstep the mark again there is provision to reduce the fine pro rata over the following two years.

Gloating is fine, enjoy you day in the sun, but the reality is that smaller clubs like ours can no longer compete with big city clubs who can;

- fill stadiums with 40 to 80,000 fans paying a premium for the privilege.
- attract huge world wide TV audiences.
- attract huge sponsorship deals.

And under the auspices of FFP have been given a huge financial advantage.

City have been given a £16 million fine, Dyche has be given a £16 million transfer kitty that has to cover not only any transfer fees but agents fees, signing on fees, salaries; etc, etc.

I suppose that's another example of a great equaliser?
[quote][p][bold]Champagne plus charlie[/bold] wrote: FFP is truly a wonderful thing. The great equaliser.[/p][/quote]FFP for Championship clubs is based on one years finances, but for PL clubs it's three years. Pleas explain how that is a great equaliser? The three clubs promoted to the PL will be classed (financially) as Championship clubs in the first year, competing against the rest who will have a least two years in the PL in the bank, most will have significantly more. How can that be regarded as a great equaliser because if they are allowed to do so they will have to mortgage some of their potential earnings from their first season in the PL, so if they are relegated, which historically is likely, the banks will be looking for their pound of flesh. FFP isn't fair, it's designed to make the bigger clubs bigger and the sooner you self righteous idiots work that out the better. That's why City's fine has been reduced, it's basically been spread over three years and as long as City play ball and don't overstep the mark again there is provision to reduce the fine pro rata over the following two years. Gloating is fine, enjoy you day in the sun, but the reality is that smaller clubs like ours can no longer compete with big city clubs who can; - fill stadiums with 40 to 80,000 fans paying a premium for the privilege. - attract huge world wide TV audiences. - attract huge sponsorship deals. And under the auspices of FFP have been given a huge financial advantage. City have been given a £16 million fine, Dyche has be given a £16 million transfer kitty that has to cover not only any transfer fees but agents fees, signing on fees, salaries; etc, etc. I suppose that's another example of a great equaliser? owd nick
  • Score: 5

12:03pm Thu 22 May 14

Champagne plus charlie says...

owd nick wrote:
Champagne plus charlie wrote:
FFP is truly a wonderful thing.

The great equaliser.
FFP for Championship clubs is based on one years finances, but for PL clubs it's three years.

Pleas explain how that is a great equaliser?

The three clubs promoted to the PL will be classed (financially) as Championship clubs in the first year, competing against the rest who will have a least two years in the PL in the bank, most will have significantly more.

How can that be regarded as a great equaliser because if they are allowed to do so they will have to mortgage some of their potential earnings from their first season in the PL, so if they are relegated, which historically is likely, the banks will be looking for their pound of flesh.

FFP isn't fair, it's designed to make the bigger clubs bigger and the sooner you self righteous idiots work that out the better.

That's why City's fine has been reduced, it's basically been spread over three years and as long as City play ball and don't overstep the mark again there is provision to reduce the fine pro rata over the following two years.

Gloating is fine, enjoy you day in the sun, but the reality is that smaller clubs like ours can no longer compete with big city clubs who can;

- fill stadiums with 40 to 80,000 fans paying a premium for the privilege.
- attract huge world wide TV audiences.
- attract huge sponsorship deals.

And under the auspices of FFP have been given a huge financial advantage.

City have been given a £16 million fine, Dyche has be given a £16 million transfer kitty that has to cover not only any transfer fees but agents fees, signing on fees, salaries; etc, etc.

I suppose that's another example of a great equaliser?
Live within your means then.

Spend what you actually earn then

Try and actually run your football club based on the incomings vs outgoings instead of the falsely inflated **** situation you are currently in which has been provided by outside people injecting money into your club, which in itself gives you an unfair advantage on the clubs trying to live within their means.

FFP is going to happen, I suggest you stop whining and bleating about how unfair it all is and try and deal with it, and prepare yourself for the inevitable selling of players and tightening of your belts that will be happening this summer.
[quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Champagne plus charlie[/bold] wrote: FFP is truly a wonderful thing. The great equaliser.[/p][/quote]FFP for Championship clubs is based on one years finances, but for PL clubs it's three years. Pleas explain how that is a great equaliser? The three clubs promoted to the PL will be classed (financially) as Championship clubs in the first year, competing against the rest who will have a least two years in the PL in the bank, most will have significantly more. How can that be regarded as a great equaliser because if they are allowed to do so they will have to mortgage some of their potential earnings from their first season in the PL, so if they are relegated, which historically is likely, the banks will be looking for their pound of flesh. FFP isn't fair, it's designed to make the bigger clubs bigger and the sooner you self righteous idiots work that out the better. That's why City's fine has been reduced, it's basically been spread over three years and as long as City play ball and don't overstep the mark again there is provision to reduce the fine pro rata over the following two years. Gloating is fine, enjoy you day in the sun, but the reality is that smaller clubs like ours can no longer compete with big city clubs who can; - fill stadiums with 40 to 80,000 fans paying a premium for the privilege. - attract huge world wide TV audiences. - attract huge sponsorship deals. And under the auspices of FFP have been given a huge financial advantage. City have been given a £16 million fine, Dyche has be given a £16 million transfer kitty that has to cover not only any transfer fees but agents fees, signing on fees, salaries; etc, etc. I suppose that's another example of a great equaliser?[/p][/quote]Live within your means then. Spend what you actually earn then Try and actually run your football club based on the incomings vs outgoings instead of the falsely inflated **** situation you are currently in which has been provided by outside people injecting money into your club, which in itself gives you an unfair advantage on the clubs trying to live within their means. FFP is going to happen, I suggest you stop whining and bleating about how unfair it all is and try and deal with it, and prepare yourself for the inevitable selling of players and tightening of your belts that will be happening this summer. Champagne plus charlie
  • Score: 2

12:13pm Thu 22 May 14

owd nick says...

J.C - Rishton wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed

The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers..............


..
Hi Tom

This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship.

We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous.

If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues).

Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field".

1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015.
2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers.
3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs.
4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs.
5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players.

All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.
Fair comments but I would add it's all speculation and until it happens because we can't be sure what will happen.

Right now a few teams, we have to assume Rovers are one of them, are questioning what is happening, rightly so, but we still have 6 or 7 months before any potential sanctions are applied, and a lot can happen in that time.

Prior to that I would expect that the clubs will be working with the FA as individuals (as well as talking to each other) with regard to their own situation so that any sanctions won't be a surprise.

As with Man City there is also the option to negotiate a "deal" if they can show that they are tackling the issues that are causing concern in a positive manner.

And they will also have the opportunity to appeal.

I would certainly expect a fine, not so sure about a transfer embargo at this point in time may or may not happen,

All we can do as fans is wait and see.
[quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers.............. ..[/p][/quote]Hi Tom This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship. We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous. If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues). Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field". 1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015. 2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers. 3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs. 4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs. 5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players. All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.[/p][/quote]Fair comments but I would add it's all speculation and until it happens because we can't be sure what will happen. Right now a few teams, we have to assume Rovers are one of them, are questioning what is happening, rightly so, but we still have 6 or 7 months before any potential sanctions are applied, and a lot can happen in that time. Prior to that I would expect that the clubs will be working with the FA as individuals (as well as talking to each other) with regard to their own situation so that any sanctions won't be a surprise. As with Man City there is also the option to negotiate a "deal" if they can show that they are tackling the issues that are causing concern in a positive manner. And they will also have the opportunity to appeal. I would certainly expect a fine, not so sure about a transfer embargo at this point in time may or may not happen, All we can do as fans is wait and see. owd nick
  • Score: 2

12:13pm Thu 22 May 14

john byrom says...

What a stupid rule you own a club but can not run it how you want. Big Brother gone mad
What a stupid rule you own a club but can not run it how you want. Big Brother gone mad john byrom
  • Score: -2

12:15pm Thu 22 May 14

owd nick says...

Champagne plus charlie wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Champagne plus charlie wrote:
FFP is truly a wonderful thing.

The great equaliser.
FFP for Championship clubs is based on one years finances, but for PL clubs it's three years.

Pleas explain how that is a great equaliser?

The three clubs promoted to the PL will be classed (financially) as Championship clubs in the first year, competing against the rest who will have a least two years in the PL in the bank, most will have significantly more.

How can that be regarded as a great equaliser because if they are allowed to do so they will have to mortgage some of their potential earnings from their first season in the PL, so if they are relegated, which historically is likely, the banks will be looking for their pound of flesh.

FFP isn't fair, it's designed to make the bigger clubs bigger and the sooner you self righteous idiots work that out the better.

That's why City's fine has been reduced, it's basically been spread over three years and as long as City play ball and don't overstep the mark again there is provision to reduce the fine pro rata over the following two years.

Gloating is fine, enjoy you day in the sun, but the reality is that smaller clubs like ours can no longer compete with big city clubs who can;

- fill stadiums with 40 to 80,000 fans paying a premium for the privilege.
- attract huge world wide TV audiences.
- attract huge sponsorship deals.

And under the auspices of FFP have been given a huge financial advantage.

City have been given a £16 million fine, Dyche has be given a £16 million transfer kitty that has to cover not only any transfer fees but agents fees, signing on fees, salaries; etc, etc.

I suppose that's another example of a great equaliser?
Live within your means then.

Spend what you actually earn then

Try and actually run your football club based on the incomings vs outgoings instead of the falsely inflated **** situation you are currently in which has been provided by outside people injecting money into your club, which in itself gives you an unfair advantage on the clubs trying to live within their means.

FFP is going to happen, I suggest you stop whining and bleating about how unfair it all is and try and deal with it, and prepare yourself for the inevitable selling of players and tightening of your belts that will be happening this summer.
I am saying it's unfair for you as well you stupid ****.
[quote][p][bold]Champagne plus charlie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Champagne plus charlie[/bold] wrote: FFP is truly a wonderful thing. The great equaliser.[/p][/quote]FFP for Championship clubs is based on one years finances, but for PL clubs it's three years. Pleas explain how that is a great equaliser? The three clubs promoted to the PL will be classed (financially) as Championship clubs in the first year, competing against the rest who will have a least two years in the PL in the bank, most will have significantly more. How can that be regarded as a great equaliser because if they are allowed to do so they will have to mortgage some of their potential earnings from their first season in the PL, so if they are relegated, which historically is likely, the banks will be looking for their pound of flesh. FFP isn't fair, it's designed to make the bigger clubs bigger and the sooner you self righteous idiots work that out the better. That's why City's fine has been reduced, it's basically been spread over three years and as long as City play ball and don't overstep the mark again there is provision to reduce the fine pro rata over the following two years. Gloating is fine, enjoy you day in the sun, but the reality is that smaller clubs like ours can no longer compete with big city clubs who can; - fill stadiums with 40 to 80,000 fans paying a premium for the privilege. - attract huge world wide TV audiences. - attract huge sponsorship deals. And under the auspices of FFP have been given a huge financial advantage. City have been given a £16 million fine, Dyche has be given a £16 million transfer kitty that has to cover not only any transfer fees but agents fees, signing on fees, salaries; etc, etc. I suppose that's another example of a great equaliser?[/p][/quote]Live within your means then. Spend what you actually earn then Try and actually run your football club based on the incomings vs outgoings instead of the falsely inflated **** situation you are currently in which has been provided by outside people injecting money into your club, which in itself gives you an unfair advantage on the clubs trying to live within their means. FFP is going to happen, I suggest you stop whining and bleating about how unfair it all is and try and deal with it, and prepare yourself for the inevitable selling of players and tightening of your belts that will be happening this summer.[/p][/quote]I am saying it's unfair for you as well you stupid ****. owd nick
  • Score: 7

12:16pm Thu 22 May 14

owd nick says...

owd nick wrote:
Champagne plus charlie wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Champagne plus charlie wrote:
FFP is truly a wonderful thing.

The great equaliser.
FFP for Championship clubs is based on one years finances, but for PL clubs it's three years.

Pleas explain how that is a great equaliser?

The three clubs promoted to the PL will be classed (financially) as Championship clubs in the first year, competing against the rest who will have a least two years in the PL in the bank, most will have significantly more.

How can that be regarded as a great equaliser because if they are allowed to do so they will have to mortgage some of their potential earnings from their first season in the PL, so if they are relegated, which historically is likely, the banks will be looking for their pound of flesh.

FFP isn't fair, it's designed to make the bigger clubs bigger and the sooner you self righteous idiots work that out the better.

That's why City's fine has been reduced, it's basically been spread over three years and as long as City play ball and don't overstep the mark again there is provision to reduce the fine pro rata over the following two years.

Gloating is fine, enjoy you day in the sun, but the reality is that smaller clubs like ours can no longer compete with big city clubs who can;

- fill stadiums with 40 to 80,000 fans paying a premium for the privilege.
- attract huge world wide TV audiences.
- attract huge sponsorship deals.

And under the auspices of FFP have been given a huge financial advantage.

City have been given a £16 million fine, Dyche has be given a £16 million transfer kitty that has to cover not only any transfer fees but agents fees, signing on fees, salaries; etc, etc.

I suppose that's another example of a great equaliser?
Live within your means then.

Spend what you actually earn then

Try and actually run your football club based on the incomings vs outgoings instead of the falsely inflated **** situation you are currently in which has been provided by outside people injecting money into your club, which in itself gives you an unfair advantage on the clubs trying to live within their means.

FFP is going to happen, I suggest you stop whining and bleating about how unfair it all is and try and deal with it, and prepare yourself for the inevitable selling of players and tightening of your belts that will be happening this summer.
I am saying it's unfair for you as well you stupid ****.
Apologies, I missed out the word jealous.
[quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Champagne plus charlie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Champagne plus charlie[/bold] wrote: FFP is truly a wonderful thing. The great equaliser.[/p][/quote]FFP for Championship clubs is based on one years finances, but for PL clubs it's three years. Pleas explain how that is a great equaliser? The three clubs promoted to the PL will be classed (financially) as Championship clubs in the first year, competing against the rest who will have a least two years in the PL in the bank, most will have significantly more. How can that be regarded as a great equaliser because if they are allowed to do so they will have to mortgage some of their potential earnings from their first season in the PL, so if they are relegated, which historically is likely, the banks will be looking for their pound of flesh. FFP isn't fair, it's designed to make the bigger clubs bigger and the sooner you self righteous idiots work that out the better. That's why City's fine has been reduced, it's basically been spread over three years and as long as City play ball and don't overstep the mark again there is provision to reduce the fine pro rata over the following two years. Gloating is fine, enjoy you day in the sun, but the reality is that smaller clubs like ours can no longer compete with big city clubs who can; - fill stadiums with 40 to 80,000 fans paying a premium for the privilege. - attract huge world wide TV audiences. - attract huge sponsorship deals. And under the auspices of FFP have been given a huge financial advantage. City have been given a £16 million fine, Dyche has be given a £16 million transfer kitty that has to cover not only any transfer fees but agents fees, signing on fees, salaries; etc, etc. I suppose that's another example of a great equaliser?[/p][/quote]Live within your means then. Spend what you actually earn then Try and actually run your football club based on the incomings vs outgoings instead of the falsely inflated **** situation you are currently in which has been provided by outside people injecting money into your club, which in itself gives you an unfair advantage on the clubs trying to live within their means. FFP is going to happen, I suggest you stop whining and bleating about how unfair it all is and try and deal with it, and prepare yourself for the inevitable selling of players and tightening of your belts that will be happening this summer.[/p][/quote]I am saying it's unfair for you as well you stupid ****.[/p][/quote]Apologies, I missed out the word jealous. owd nick
  • Score: 3

12:20pm Thu 22 May 14

inflightmagazine says...

Champagne plus charlie wrote:
inflightmagazine wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed

The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers..............



..
Looking at this as well , the allowance increase is around 9 million , showing that most clubs must feel they are close to complying. Even the premier league have voiced concerns over this now, seems crazy a league one owner could pump 100 million into a club without sanction and a championship club is limited to £3 - £5 million. I think this is where the league challenge will based. What a joke FFP is becoming
It's not if you live within your means - simple. It is designed to stop clubs gaining artificial short-term gains with owners' money and then crashing and burning when the money runs out or the owners get bored and decide to liquidate.

But of course the likes of Blackburn and QPR feel they are above the rulings and still most of the idiot supporters don't want their team to comply - you need to look at the statement by your MD earlier this year and even the one releasde by the wonderful Venkys today, you ARE going to have to comply or you WILL be in serious trouble.
it depends why you have bought the club really, many large business have loss leading arms that are designed to create value in other areas of the business, do we think Citys owners bought it to make money , no they where very clear it was to put their country on the global map.

Football is now trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted, much like the banking crisis poor regulation and governance from above has allowed crooks and leeches to bleed easy targets dry.

Better governance by means of credit checks, the removal of football debts taking priority and the holding of greater liquid assests ect is far more useful than setting rules up that long term restrict future investment by outside companies and allow the top 10 clubs in Europe to basically reap all the rewards.

Personally much like the banking crisis I thnik there will be lots of noise about regulation followed by little or no action and then a return to everything being just like before. If football really wanted to clean up its act , its once again missed the boat.
[quote][p][bold]Champagne plus charlie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inflightmagazine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers.............. ..[/p][/quote]Looking at this as well , the allowance increase is around 9 million , showing that most clubs must feel they are close to complying. Even the premier league have voiced concerns over this now, seems crazy a league one owner could pump 100 million into a club without sanction and a championship club is limited to £3 - £5 million. I think this is where the league challenge will based. What a joke FFP is becoming[/p][/quote]It's not if you live within your means - simple. It is designed to stop clubs gaining artificial short-term gains with owners' money and then crashing and burning when the money runs out or the owners get bored and decide to liquidate. But of course the likes of Blackburn and QPR feel they are above the rulings and still most of the idiot supporters don't want their team to comply - you need to look at the statement by your MD earlier this year and even the one releasde by the wonderful Venkys today, you ARE going to have to comply or you WILL be in serious trouble.[/p][/quote]it depends why you have bought the club really, many large business have loss leading arms that are designed to create value in other areas of the business, do we think Citys owners bought it to make money , no they where very clear it was to put their country on the global map. Football is now trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted, much like the banking crisis poor regulation and governance from above has allowed crooks and leeches to bleed easy targets dry. Better governance by means of credit checks, the removal of football debts taking priority and the holding of greater liquid assests ect is far more useful than setting rules up that long term restrict future investment by outside companies and allow the top 10 clubs in Europe to basically reap all the rewards. Personally much like the banking crisis I thnik there will be lots of noise about regulation followed by little or no action and then a return to everything being just like before. If football really wanted to clean up its act , its once again missed the boat. inflightmagazine
  • Score: 3

12:25pm Thu 22 May 14

jack01 says...

These rules cannot and therefore will not be enforced in their current format.

There seems to be a belief that Rovers/QPR are the only two offending clubs. Newsflash - half the clubs in the Championship are falling foul of the regulations. Forest, Bolton, Reading, Brighton, Bournemouth, Boro, Leeds and Birmingham have all lost in excess of £10 million in their most recent accounts. I'm sure there will be more too, especially if Fulham/Cardiff try to buy their way back up.

For these rules to be enforced it would require the authorities to come along and put a minimum of 10-12 clubs in the Championship under a transfer embargo. All of a sudden what is arguably the most unpredictable and competitive second division in world football would be made into a laughing stock. That's before wealthy businessmen get their lawyers involved to take it on.

The League knows what a **** up it has made with these nonsensical and arbitrary rules and knows that it will cause chaos with the league system. Hence their increasingly regular meetings to discuss 'alternatives' as the penny drops that these rules are unworkable.

All the while relegated sides like Cardiff, Norwich and Fulham will be at an immediate advantage - rewarded for their failure to stay up - by being allowed to spend more than those already in the Championship.

Why these self-important bigwigs can't just leave football alone I don't know. Things seemed to work reasonably well for the last 70 years so why they think they should now start telling clubs how to do their business is beyond me. Presumably trying to justify their salaries whilst absolving themselves of any blame in the event another Portsmouth occurs.
These rules cannot and therefore will not be enforced in their current format. There seems to be a belief that Rovers/QPR are the only two offending clubs. Newsflash - half the clubs in the Championship are falling foul of the regulations. Forest, Bolton, Reading, Brighton, Bournemouth, Boro, Leeds and Birmingham have all lost in excess of £10 million in their most recent accounts. I'm sure there will be more too, especially if Fulham/Cardiff try to buy their way back up. For these rules to be enforced it would require the authorities to come along and put a minimum of 10-12 clubs in the Championship under a transfer embargo. All of a sudden what is arguably the most unpredictable and competitive second division in world football would be made into a laughing stock. That's before wealthy businessmen get their lawyers involved to take it on. The League knows what a **** up it has made with these nonsensical and arbitrary rules and knows that it will cause chaos with the league system. Hence their increasingly regular meetings to discuss 'alternatives' as the penny drops that these rules are unworkable. All the while relegated sides like Cardiff, Norwich and Fulham will be at an immediate advantage - rewarded for their failure to stay up - by being allowed to spend more than those already in the Championship. Why these self-important bigwigs can't just leave football alone I don't know. Things seemed to work reasonably well for the last 70 years so why they think they should now start telling clubs how to do their business is beyond me. Presumably trying to justify their salaries whilst absolving themselves of any blame in the event another Portsmouth occurs. jack01
  • Score: 4

12:30pm Thu 22 May 14

Harwoodstblue says...

J.C - Rishton wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed

The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers..............


..
Hi Tom

This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship.

We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous.

If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues).

Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field".

1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015.
2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers.
3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs.
4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs.
5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players.

All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.
In other wrds FFP is a complete cockup. I thought ffp was supposed to make things fairer.....We were in the Prem when Championship clubs voted for this. Talk about shooting themselves in the foot. What's fair about 3 teams coming down from the Prem with £23 million each.whilst the rest scratch around for peanuts??.......can'
t see it getting off the ground without a major rethink.
[quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers.............. ..[/p][/quote]Hi Tom This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship. We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous. If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues). Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field". 1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015. 2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers. 3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs. 4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs. 5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players. All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.[/p][/quote]In other wrds FFP is a complete cockup. I thought ffp was supposed to make things fairer.....We were in the Prem when Championship clubs voted for this. Talk about shooting themselves in the foot. What's fair about 3 teams coming down from the Prem with £23 million each.whilst the rest scratch around for peanuts??.......can' t see it getting off the ground without a major rethink. Harwoodstblue
  • Score: 2

1:00pm Thu 22 May 14

AnotherPounding4Burnley says...

I think the Ftp rules are ridiculous. I'm a Burnley fan and when we get relegated at the end of the season we will be lucky not to spiral right out of the football league if we can't spend the parachute money on players
I think the Ftp rules are ridiculous. I'm a Burnley fan and when we get relegated at the end of the season we will be lucky not to spiral right out of the football league if we can't spend the parachute money on players AnotherPounding4Burnley
  • Score: -1

1:10pm Thu 22 May 14

Warnie says...

ha ha. you talk of relegated clubs having an unfair advantage yet your own club is currently receiving parachute payments. jan will be interesting!
ha ha. you talk of relegated clubs having an unfair advantage yet your own club is currently receiving parachute payments. jan will be interesting! Warnie
  • Score: 3

1:20pm Thu 22 May 14

TurfMoorTom says...

J.C - Rishton wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed

The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers..............


..
Hi Tom

This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship.

We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous.

If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues).

Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field".

1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015.
2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers.
3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs.
4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs.
5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players.

All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.
Fair do's but I'm not sure where you're pulling your £17m figure from? You think we're going to be £17m over the allowed £8m?

This is how I saw it some time back:

So sell the £35k earners (Best, Robinson, Etuhu, Dann & possibly DJ Campbell?) asap and at the same time reduce squad numbers from an over-inflated 31 to a more manageable and focussed core of ~26. Even though he's on high wages, keeping Rhodes for now has to be the way.

That would net us ~£8m (assuming a free transfer replacement for Dann could be found) and reduce the wage bill by around a further £8m/year from currently assumed (£25m) bringing our wages to ~£17m. With 2 years of £8m parachute payments and some money injected from India we could hold on to Rhodes until he decides to move on though would need to sell should we not get promoted in the 2yr time frame.

So that would get us to:
Championship TV £3m
Gates (13000 @ £15) £4.5m
Sponsorships say £3m
Parachute £8m
Player trading £8m
Wages (~£18m)
Running costs (~£6m) still high, exactly how you got to £15.4m needs full transparency

The above figures would make us £2.5m in PROFIT!!! (or £10.5m within FFP) and sustainable + still with a better remaining squad than the 6 fingered folk.

With only selling Dann, what we actually see is £2m coming in (rather than my rose tinted £8m) and wages up at £24m (rather than my rose tinted £18m).

This still leaves us at £10m in the red - admittedly just outside FFP though if we can shift Best or Etuhu not far away. I'd also hope that the running costs of the club are being tightened up because that was a big unexplained black hole and the assumed £6m can't be right.

Basically we need to shift the deadwood before the parachute payments run out which we will for certain as their contracts will run to conclusion in the worst case. If we don't go up in the next two seasons we'll also need to sell Rhodes. With the above taken into account, as long as Venkys put in their £5m/yr we're not in such a bad situation as a Dingle might like to believe.
[quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers.............. ..[/p][/quote]Hi Tom This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship. We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous. If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues). Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field". 1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015. 2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers. 3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs. 4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs. 5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players. All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.[/p][/quote]Fair do's but I'm not sure where you're pulling your £17m figure from? You think we're going to be £17m over the allowed £8m? This is how I saw it some time back: So sell the £35k earners (Best, Robinson, Etuhu, Dann & possibly DJ Campbell?) asap and at the same time reduce squad numbers from an over-inflated 31 to a more manageable and focussed core of ~26. Even though he's on high wages, keeping Rhodes for now has to be the way. That would net us ~£8m (assuming a free transfer replacement for Dann could be found) and reduce the wage bill by around a further £8m/year from currently assumed (£25m) bringing our wages to ~£17m. With 2 years of £8m parachute payments and some money injected from India we could hold on to Rhodes until he decides to move on though would need to sell should we not get promoted in the 2yr time frame. So that would get us to: Championship TV £3m Gates (13000 @ £15) £4.5m Sponsorships say £3m Parachute £8m Player trading £8m Wages (~£18m) Running costs (~£6m) still high, exactly how you got to £15.4m needs full transparency The above figures would make us £2.5m in PROFIT!!! (or £10.5m within FFP) and sustainable + still with a better remaining squad than the 6 fingered folk. With only selling Dann, what we actually see is £2m coming in (rather than my rose tinted £8m) and wages up at £24m (rather than my rose tinted £18m). This still leaves us at £10m in the red - admittedly just outside FFP though if we can shift Best or Etuhu not far away. I'd also hope that the running costs of the club are being tightened up because that was a big unexplained black hole and the assumed £6m can't be right. Basically we need to shift the deadwood before the parachute payments run out which we will for certain as their contracts will run to conclusion in the worst case. If we don't go up in the next two seasons we'll also need to sell Rhodes. With the above taken into account, as long as Venkys put in their £5m/yr we're not in such a bad situation as a Dingle might like to believe. TurfMoorTom
  • Score: -3

1:23pm Thu 22 May 14

adcr says...

It should be a majority vote it is riduculous to say you need 75% support to make changes. For all we know two thirds could want changes and one third want no changes. The minority vote rules in this case, not very democratic.
It should be a majority vote it is riduculous to say you need 75% support to make changes. For all we know two thirds could want changes and one third want no changes. The minority vote rules in this case, not very democratic. adcr
  • Score: 2

1:24pm Thu 22 May 14

J.C - Rishton says...

owd nick wrote:
Champagne plus charlie wrote:
FFP is truly a wonderful thing.

The great equaliser.
FFP for Championship clubs is based on one years finances, but for PL clubs it's three years.

Pleas explain how that is a great equaliser?

The three clubs promoted to the PL will be classed (financially) as Championship clubs in the first year, competing against the rest who will have a least two years in the PL in the bank, most will have significantly more.

How can that be regarded as a great equaliser because if they are allowed to do so they will have to mortgage some of their potential earnings from their first season in the PL, so if they are relegated, which historically is likely, the banks will be looking for their pound of flesh.

FFP isn't fair, it's designed to make the bigger clubs bigger and the sooner you self righteous idiots work that out the better.

That's why City's fine has been reduced, it's basically been spread over three years and as long as City play ball and don't overstep the mark again there is provision to reduce the fine pro rata over the following two years.

Gloating is fine, enjoy you day in the sun, but the reality is that smaller clubs like ours can no longer compete with big city clubs who can;

- fill stadiums with 40 to 80,000 fans paying a premium for the privilege.
- attract huge world wide TV audiences.
- attract huge sponsorship deals.

And under the auspices of FFP have been given a huge financial advantage.

City have been given a £16 million fine, Dyche has be given a £16 million transfer kitty that has to cover not only any transfer fees but agents fees, signing on fees, salaries; etc, etc.

I suppose that's another example of a great equaliser?
compete and utter rubbish and totally irrelevant.

Like I have stated earlier, UEFA, the English premier league and the football league are all seperate and make their own rules and punishments on FFP - so comparing Man City and BRFC is utter nonsense.

Also, we are in the football league and FFP was voted in by the 20 members - it had NOTHING to do with the premier league or UEFA.

This is democracy, although you and I may not like or agree with it, the majority of the FOOTBALL LEAGUE MEMBERS (ie the "other clubs") want FFP intruduced and they want clubs that have failed to comply to be punished by the introduction of a transfer ban.

If we receive one then it will be tough for us but we won't be alble to complain because although we didnt vote on it (because we were in the PLat the time), we knew it was going to be enforced and instead of starting to reduce our wage bill once we had ben relegated we signed -
1 - Danny Murphy
2 - Nunes Gomes
3 - Dixon Etuhu
4 - Jordan Rhodes

all on huge wages for this division in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to the aims and guidlines of our fellow football league members and now we are having to pay the penalty for such a misguided policy.

Thats why having owners like Venkys who know nothing and seem to take little understanding about the club, the area, the sport and the rules with which we have to comply with has been a disaster.

When people like me have continually banged on about the "drip drip effect" of the club being badly run and that the end of the day we will have to pay for the continually dailly mismanagement - well we now know the date we have to pay for Venkys longterm mismanagement of this club and that date is the 1st January 2015.

Still, I'm sure you'll defend their mismanagement and cry "unfair practices" and "bias" against small clubs/rich owners/foreigners etc etc rather than face the reality and truth about the situation.
[quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Champagne plus charlie[/bold] wrote: FFP is truly a wonderful thing. The great equaliser.[/p][/quote]FFP for Championship clubs is based on one years finances, but for PL clubs it's three years. Pleas explain how that is a great equaliser? The three clubs promoted to the PL will be classed (financially) as Championship clubs in the first year, competing against the rest who will have a least two years in the PL in the bank, most will have significantly more. How can that be regarded as a great equaliser because if they are allowed to do so they will have to mortgage some of their potential earnings from their first season in the PL, so if they are relegated, which historically is likely, the banks will be looking for their pound of flesh. FFP isn't fair, it's designed to make the bigger clubs bigger and the sooner you self righteous idiots work that out the better. That's why City's fine has been reduced, it's basically been spread over three years and as long as City play ball and don't overstep the mark again there is provision to reduce the fine pro rata over the following two years. Gloating is fine, enjoy you day in the sun, but the reality is that smaller clubs like ours can no longer compete with big city clubs who can; - fill stadiums with 40 to 80,000 fans paying a premium for the privilege. - attract huge world wide TV audiences. - attract huge sponsorship deals. And under the auspices of FFP have been given a huge financial advantage. City have been given a £16 million fine, Dyche has be given a £16 million transfer kitty that has to cover not only any transfer fees but agents fees, signing on fees, salaries; etc, etc. I suppose that's another example of a great equaliser?[/p][/quote]compete and utter rubbish and totally irrelevant. Like I have stated earlier, UEFA, the English premier league and the football league are all seperate and make their own rules and punishments on FFP - so comparing Man City and BRFC is utter nonsense. Also, we are in the football league and FFP was voted in by the 20 members - it had NOTHING to do with the premier league or UEFA. This is democracy, although you and I may not like or agree with it, the majority of the FOOTBALL LEAGUE MEMBERS (ie the "other clubs") want FFP intruduced and they want clubs that have failed to comply to be punished by the introduction of a transfer ban. If we receive one then it will be tough for us but we won't be alble to complain because although we didnt vote on it (because we were in the PLat the time), we knew it was going to be enforced and instead of starting to reduce our wage bill once we had ben relegated we signed - 1 - Danny Murphy 2 - Nunes Gomes 3 - Dixon Etuhu 4 - Jordan Rhodes all on huge wages for this division in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to the aims and guidlines of our fellow football league members and now we are having to pay the penalty for such a misguided policy. Thats why having owners like Venkys who know nothing and seem to take little understanding about the club, the area, the sport and the rules with which we have to comply with has been a disaster. When people like me have continually banged on about the "drip drip effect" of the club being badly run and that the end of the day we will have to pay for the continually dailly mismanagement - well we now know the date we have to pay for Venkys longterm mismanagement of this club and that date is the 1st January 2015. Still, I'm sure you'll defend their mismanagement and cry "unfair practices" and "bias" against small clubs/rich owners/foreigners etc etc rather than face the reality and truth about the situation. J.C - Rishton
  • Score: 6

1:29pm Thu 22 May 14

J.C - Rishton says...

owd nick wrote:
J.C - Rishton wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed

The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers..............



..
Hi Tom

This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship.

We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous.

If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues).

Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field".

1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015.
2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers.
3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs.
4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs.
5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players.

All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.
Fair comments but I would add it's all speculation and until it happens because we can't be sure what will happen.

Right now a few teams, we have to assume Rovers are one of them, are questioning what is happening, rightly so, but we still have 6 or 7 months before any potential sanctions are applied, and a lot can happen in that time.

Prior to that I would expect that the clubs will be working with the FA as individuals (as well as talking to each other) with regard to their own situation so that any sanctions won't be a surprise.

As with Man City there is also the option to negotiate a "deal" if they can show that they are tackling the issues that are causing concern in a positive manner.

And they will also have the opportunity to appeal.

I would certainly expect a fine, not so sure about a transfer embargo at this point in time may or may not happen,

All we can do as fans is wait and see.
Nick - Yes I agree that a transfer ban is not nailed on and hopefully we can still negociate more time or a fine although it dosent sound too good as this meeting was the time for issues like more time for relegated PL times etc to be sorted and they have been rejected.

Whether or not we are going to be put into a transfer ban we need to accelrate the savings on staff wages, they are currently running around 140% of total turnover and this is obviously madness
[quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers.............. ..[/p][/quote]Hi Tom This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship. We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous. If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues). Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field". 1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015. 2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers. 3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs. 4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs. 5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players. All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.[/p][/quote]Fair comments but I would add it's all speculation and until it happens because we can't be sure what will happen. Right now a few teams, we have to assume Rovers are one of them, are questioning what is happening, rightly so, but we still have 6 or 7 months before any potential sanctions are applied, and a lot can happen in that time. Prior to that I would expect that the clubs will be working with the FA as individuals (as well as talking to each other) with regard to their own situation so that any sanctions won't be a surprise. As with Man City there is also the option to negotiate a "deal" if they can show that they are tackling the issues that are causing concern in a positive manner. And they will also have the opportunity to appeal. I would certainly expect a fine, not so sure about a transfer embargo at this point in time may or may not happen, All we can do as fans is wait and see.[/p][/quote]Nick - Yes I agree that a transfer ban is not nailed on and hopefully we can still negociate more time or a fine although it dosent sound too good as this meeting was the time for issues like more time for relegated PL times etc to be sorted and they have been rejected. Whether or not we are going to be put into a transfer ban we need to accelrate the savings on staff wages, they are currently running around 140% of total turnover and this is obviously madness J.C - Rishton
  • Score: 2

1:35pm Thu 22 May 14

Tatts says...

owd nick wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Champagne plus charlie wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Champagne plus charlie wrote:
FFP is truly a wonderful thing.

The great equaliser.
FFP for Championship clubs is based on one years finances, but for PL clubs it's three years.

Pleas explain how that is a great equaliser?

The three clubs promoted to the PL will be classed (financially) as Championship clubs in the first year, competing against the rest who will have a least two years in the PL in the bank, most will have significantly more.

How can that be regarded as a great equaliser because if they are allowed to do so they will have to mortgage some of their potential earnings from their first season in the PL, so if they are relegated, which historically is likely, the banks will be looking for their pound of flesh.

FFP isn't fair, it's designed to make the bigger clubs bigger and the sooner you self righteous idiots work that out the better.

That's why City's fine has been reduced, it's basically been spread over three years and as long as City play ball and don't overstep the mark again there is provision to reduce the fine pro rata over the following two years.

Gloating is fine, enjoy you day in the sun, but the reality is that smaller clubs like ours can no longer compete with big city clubs who can;

- fill stadiums with 40 to 80,000 fans paying a premium for the privilege.
- attract huge world wide TV audiences.
- attract huge sponsorship deals.

And under the auspices of FFP have been given a huge financial advantage.

City have been given a £16 million fine, Dyche has be given a £16 million transfer kitty that has to cover not only any transfer fees but agents fees, signing on fees, salaries; etc, etc.

I suppose that's another example of a great equaliser?
Live within your means then.

Spend what you actually earn then

Try and actually run your football club based on the incomings vs outgoings instead of the falsely inflated **** situation you are currently in which has been provided by outside people injecting money into your club, which in itself gives you an unfair advantage on the clubs trying to live within their means.

FFP is going to happen, I suggest you stop whining and bleating about how unfair it all is and try and deal with it, and prepare yourself for the inevitable selling of players and tightening of your belts that will be happening this summer.
I am saying it's unfair for you as well you stupid ****.
Apologies, I missed out the word jealous.
The problem is that the Dingles that come on here are too thick to look into the future. If it wasn't for the investment put in by Kilby and Flood back in 2008, they wouldn't have had the cash from previous Premier League campaign and wouldn't be in the Premier League now. That kind of investment won't be allowed under FFP rules. Once they go through a 4 year period of not being in the top flight then they too will suffer along with other small town clubs.

Maybe they can see that but are solely driven out of bitterness towards us? It would certainly explain why they seem to get so agitated in their discussions about it.

FFP is purely a protectionist ruse by the big clubs and I can't see it continuing in the long term. How can an owner of a business be restricted in how much money he or she can invest in it? No other EU business could be restricted in this fashion, so ultimately why is a football business any different? It will be interesting to see what happens if and when a proper legal challenge is made by an affected club. I'm well aware that an agent has made a legal challenge but the case was thrown out on the grounds that he himself had no basis to make a case.

These things come down to politics - the FFP supporters are currently getting their way, but times change and politics change.
[quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Champagne plus charlie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Champagne plus charlie[/bold] wrote: FFP is truly a wonderful thing. The great equaliser.[/p][/quote]FFP for Championship clubs is based on one years finances, but for PL clubs it's three years. Pleas explain how that is a great equaliser? The three clubs promoted to the PL will be classed (financially) as Championship clubs in the first year, competing against the rest who will have a least two years in the PL in the bank, most will have significantly more. How can that be regarded as a great equaliser because if they are allowed to do so they will have to mortgage some of their potential earnings from their first season in the PL, so if they are relegated, which historically is likely, the banks will be looking for their pound of flesh. FFP isn't fair, it's designed to make the bigger clubs bigger and the sooner you self righteous idiots work that out the better. That's why City's fine has been reduced, it's basically been spread over three years and as long as City play ball and don't overstep the mark again there is provision to reduce the fine pro rata over the following two years. Gloating is fine, enjoy you day in the sun, but the reality is that smaller clubs like ours can no longer compete with big city clubs who can; - fill stadiums with 40 to 80,000 fans paying a premium for the privilege. - attract huge world wide TV audiences. - attract huge sponsorship deals. And under the auspices of FFP have been given a huge financial advantage. City have been given a £16 million fine, Dyche has be given a £16 million transfer kitty that has to cover not only any transfer fees but agents fees, signing on fees, salaries; etc, etc. I suppose that's another example of a great equaliser?[/p][/quote]Live within your means then. Spend what you actually earn then Try and actually run your football club based on the incomings vs outgoings instead of the falsely inflated **** situation you are currently in which has been provided by outside people injecting money into your club, which in itself gives you an unfair advantage on the clubs trying to live within their means. FFP is going to happen, I suggest you stop whining and bleating about how unfair it all is and try and deal with it, and prepare yourself for the inevitable selling of players and tightening of your belts that will be happening this summer.[/p][/quote]I am saying it's unfair for you as well you stupid ****.[/p][/quote]Apologies, I missed out the word jealous.[/p][/quote]The problem is that the Dingles that come on here are too thick to look into the future. If it wasn't for the investment put in by Kilby and Flood back in 2008, they wouldn't have had the cash from previous Premier League campaign and wouldn't be in the Premier League now. That kind of investment won't be allowed under FFP rules. Once they go through a 4 year period of not being in the top flight then they too will suffer along with other small town clubs. Maybe they can see that but are solely driven out of bitterness towards us? It would certainly explain why they seem to get so agitated in their discussions about it. FFP is purely a protectionist ruse by the big clubs and I can't see it continuing in the long term. How can an owner of a business be restricted in how much money he or she can invest in it? No other EU business could be restricted in this fashion, so ultimately why is a football business any different? It will be interesting to see what happens if and when a proper legal challenge is made by an affected club. I'm well aware that an agent has made a legal challenge but the case was thrown out on the grounds that he himself had no basis to make a case. These things come down to politics - the FFP supporters are currently getting their way, but times change and politics change. Tatts
  • Score: -1

1:35pm Thu 22 May 14

J.C - Rishton says...

TurfMoorTom wrote:
J.C - Rishton wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed

The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers..............



..
Hi Tom

This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship.

We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous.

If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues).

Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field".

1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015.
2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers.
3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs.
4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs.
5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players.

All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.
Fair do's but I'm not sure where you're pulling your £17m figure from? You think we're going to be £17m over the allowed £8m?

This is how I saw it some time back:

So sell the £35k earners (Best, Robinson, Etuhu, Dann & possibly DJ Campbell?) asap and at the same time reduce squad numbers from an over-inflated 31 to a more manageable and focussed core of ~26. Even though he's on high wages, keeping Rhodes for now has to be the way.

That would net us ~£8m (assuming a free transfer replacement for Dann could be found) and reduce the wage bill by around a further £8m/year from currently assumed (£25m) bringing our wages to ~£17m. With 2 years of £8m parachute payments and some money injected from India we could hold on to Rhodes until he decides to move on though would need to sell should we not get promoted in the 2yr time frame.

So that would get us to:
Championship TV £3m
Gates (13000 @ £15) £4.5m
Sponsorships say £3m
Parachute £8m
Player trading £8m
Wages (~£18m)
Running costs (~£6m) still high, exactly how you got to £15.4m needs full transparency

The above figures would make us £2.5m in PROFIT!!! (or £10.5m within FFP) and sustainable + still with a better remaining squad than the 6 fingered folk.

With only selling Dann, what we actually see is £2m coming in (rather than my rose tinted £8m) and wages up at £24m (rather than my rose tinted £18m).

This still leaves us at £10m in the red - admittedly just outside FFP though if we can shift Best or Etuhu not far away. I'd also hope that the running costs of the club are being tightened up because that was a big unexplained black hole and the assumed £6m can't be right.

Basically we need to shift the deadwood before the parachute payments run out which we will for certain as their contracts will run to conclusion in the worst case. If we don't go up in the next two seasons we'll also need to sell Rhodes. With the above taken into account, as long as Venkys put in their £5m/yr we're not in such a bad situation as a Dingle might like to believe.
Yes but you havent included any player purchases in your figures.

You can't include the sale of Scott Dann without the purchase of JR £8m, Marshall £1m, Gestede Cainry and Conway about £1m = £10m in outgoings which your figures have totally excluded.

(JR trnafer went through AFTER the yr end of our last published accounts and therefore must be in this years).

I am sure the figures of £13m-£16m will be around the savings we will be required to make with more the season after.
[quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers.............. ..[/p][/quote]Hi Tom This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship. We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous. If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues). Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field". 1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015. 2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers. 3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs. 4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs. 5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players. All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.[/p][/quote]Fair do's but I'm not sure where you're pulling your £17m figure from? You think we're going to be £17m over the allowed £8m? This is how I saw it some time back: So sell the £35k earners (Best, Robinson, Etuhu, Dann & possibly DJ Campbell?) asap and at the same time reduce squad numbers from an over-inflated 31 to a more manageable and focussed core of ~26. Even though he's on high wages, keeping Rhodes for now has to be the way. That would net us ~£8m (assuming a free transfer replacement for Dann could be found) and reduce the wage bill by around a further £8m/year from currently assumed (£25m) bringing our wages to ~£17m. With 2 years of £8m parachute payments and some money injected from India we could hold on to Rhodes until he decides to move on though would need to sell should we not get promoted in the 2yr time frame. So that would get us to: Championship TV £3m Gates (13000 @ £15) £4.5m Sponsorships say £3m Parachute £8m Player trading £8m Wages (~£18m) Running costs (~£6m) still high, exactly how you got to £15.4m needs full transparency The above figures would make us £2.5m in PROFIT!!! (or £10.5m within FFP) and sustainable + still with a better remaining squad than the 6 fingered folk. With only selling Dann, what we actually see is £2m coming in (rather than my rose tinted £8m) and wages up at £24m (rather than my rose tinted £18m). This still leaves us at £10m in the red - admittedly just outside FFP though if we can shift Best or Etuhu not far away. I'd also hope that the running costs of the club are being tightened up because that was a big unexplained black hole and the assumed £6m can't be right. Basically we need to shift the deadwood before the parachute payments run out which we will for certain as their contracts will run to conclusion in the worst case. If we don't go up in the next two seasons we'll also need to sell Rhodes. With the above taken into account, as long as Venkys put in their £5m/yr we're not in such a bad situation as a Dingle might like to believe.[/p][/quote]Yes but you havent included any player purchases in your figures. You can't include the sale of Scott Dann without the purchase of JR £8m, Marshall £1m, Gestede Cainry and Conway about £1m = £10m in outgoings which your figures have totally excluded. (JR trnafer went through AFTER the yr end of our last published accounts and therefore must be in this years). I am sure the figures of £13m-£16m will be around the savings we will be required to make with more the season after. J.C - Rishton
  • Score: 2

1:42pm Thu 22 May 14

inflightmagazine says...

J.C - Rishton wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
J.C - Rishton wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed

The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers..............




..
Hi Tom

This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship.

We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous.

If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues).

Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field".

1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015.
2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers.
3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs.
4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs.
5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players.

All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.
Fair do's but I'm not sure where you're pulling your £17m figure from? You think we're going to be £17m over the allowed £8m?

This is how I saw it some time back:

So sell the £35k earners (Best, Robinson, Etuhu, Dann & possibly DJ Campbell?) asap and at the same time reduce squad numbers from an over-inflated 31 to a more manageable and focussed core of ~26. Even though he's on high wages, keeping Rhodes for now has to be the way.

That would net us ~£8m (assuming a free transfer replacement for Dann could be found) and reduce the wage bill by around a further £8m/year from currently assumed (£25m) bringing our wages to ~£17m. With 2 years of £8m parachute payments and some money injected from India we could hold on to Rhodes until he decides to move on though would need to sell should we not get promoted in the 2yr time frame.

So that would get us to:
Championship TV £3m
Gates (13000 @ £15) £4.5m
Sponsorships say £3m
Parachute £8m
Player trading £8m
Wages (~£18m)
Running costs (~£6m) still high, exactly how you got to £15.4m needs full transparency

The above figures would make us £2.5m in PROFIT!!! (or £10.5m within FFP) and sustainable + still with a better remaining squad than the 6 fingered folk.

With only selling Dann, what we actually see is £2m coming in (rather than my rose tinted £8m) and wages up at £24m (rather than my rose tinted £18m).

This still leaves us at £10m in the red - admittedly just outside FFP though if we can shift Best or Etuhu not far away. I'd also hope that the running costs of the club are being tightened up because that was a big unexplained black hole and the assumed £6m can't be right.

Basically we need to shift the deadwood before the parachute payments run out which we will for certain as their contracts will run to conclusion in the worst case. If we don't go up in the next two seasons we'll also need to sell Rhodes. With the above taken into account, as long as Venkys put in their £5m/yr we're not in such a bad situation as a Dingle might like to believe.
Yes but you havent included any player purchases in your figures.

You can't include the sale of Scott Dann without the purchase of JR £8m, Marshall £1m, Gestede Cainry and Conway about £1m = £10m in outgoings which your figures have totally excluded.

(JR trnafer went through AFTER the yr end of our last published accounts and therefore must be in this years).

I am sure the figures of £13m-£16m will be around the savings we will be required to make with more the season after.
if you check the accounts it was actually accrued and included in the end of june 2013 accounts , as was the best purchase , also included wasthe paying up of Nuno Gomes and Danny murphys contracts, as well as henning Bergs and Appletons pay offs. Downloadable for £1 at companies house.
[quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers.............. ..[/p][/quote]Hi Tom This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship. We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous. If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues). Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field". 1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015. 2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers. 3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs. 4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs. 5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players. All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.[/p][/quote]Fair do's but I'm not sure where you're pulling your £17m figure from? You think we're going to be £17m over the allowed £8m? This is how I saw it some time back: So sell the £35k earners (Best, Robinson, Etuhu, Dann & possibly DJ Campbell?) asap and at the same time reduce squad numbers from an over-inflated 31 to a more manageable and focussed core of ~26. Even though he's on high wages, keeping Rhodes for now has to be the way. That would net us ~£8m (assuming a free transfer replacement for Dann could be found) and reduce the wage bill by around a further £8m/year from currently assumed (£25m) bringing our wages to ~£17m. With 2 years of £8m parachute payments and some money injected from India we could hold on to Rhodes until he decides to move on though would need to sell should we not get promoted in the 2yr time frame. So that would get us to: Championship TV £3m Gates (13000 @ £15) £4.5m Sponsorships say £3m Parachute £8m Player trading £8m Wages (~£18m) Running costs (~£6m) still high, exactly how you got to £15.4m needs full transparency The above figures would make us £2.5m in PROFIT!!! (or £10.5m within FFP) and sustainable + still with a better remaining squad than the 6 fingered folk. With only selling Dann, what we actually see is £2m coming in (rather than my rose tinted £8m) and wages up at £24m (rather than my rose tinted £18m). This still leaves us at £10m in the red - admittedly just outside FFP though if we can shift Best or Etuhu not far away. I'd also hope that the running costs of the club are being tightened up because that was a big unexplained black hole and the assumed £6m can't be right. Basically we need to shift the deadwood before the parachute payments run out which we will for certain as their contracts will run to conclusion in the worst case. If we don't go up in the next two seasons we'll also need to sell Rhodes. With the above taken into account, as long as Venkys put in their £5m/yr we're not in such a bad situation as a Dingle might like to believe.[/p][/quote]Yes but you havent included any player purchases in your figures. You can't include the sale of Scott Dann without the purchase of JR £8m, Marshall £1m, Gestede Cainry and Conway about £1m = £10m in outgoings which your figures have totally excluded. (JR trnafer went through AFTER the yr end of our last published accounts and therefore must be in this years). I am sure the figures of £13m-£16m will be around the savings we will be required to make with more the season after.[/p][/quote]if you check the accounts it was actually accrued and included in the end of june 2013 accounts , as was the best purchase , also included wasthe paying up of Nuno Gomes and Danny murphys contracts, as well as henning Bergs and Appletons pay offs. Downloadable for £1 at companies house. inflightmagazine
  • Score: -1

1:42pm Thu 22 May 14

roverstid says...

Champagne plus charlie wrote:
FFP is truly a wonderful thing.

The great equaliser.
It sure will be next season when you come down and realise that it's effects on you.. after your board realises it needs to spend to stay up and you have Premiership wages to cover.

What goes around usually ...
[quote][p][bold]Champagne plus charlie[/bold] wrote: FFP is truly a wonderful thing. The great equaliser.[/p][/quote]It sure will be next season when you come down and realise that it's effects on you.. after your board realises it needs to spend to stay up and you have Premiership wages to cover. What goes around usually ... roverstid
  • Score: 1

1:43pm Thu 22 May 14

J.C - Rishton says...

Tatts wrote:
owd nick wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Champagne plus charlie wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Champagne plus charlie wrote:
FFP is truly a wonderful thing.

The great equaliser.
FFP for Championship clubs is based on one years finances, but for PL clubs it's three years.

Pleas explain how that is a great equaliser?

The three clubs promoted to the PL will be classed (financially) as Championship clubs in the first year, competing against the rest who will have a least two years in the PL in the bank, most will have significantly more.

How can that be regarded as a great equaliser because if they are allowed to do so they will have to mortgage some of their potential earnings from their first season in the PL, so if they are relegated, which historically is likely, the banks will be looking for their pound of flesh.

FFP isn't fair, it's designed to make the bigger clubs bigger and the sooner you self righteous idiots work that out the better.

That's why City's fine has been reduced, it's basically been spread over three years and as long as City play ball and don't overstep the mark again there is provision to reduce the fine pro rata over the following two years.

Gloating is fine, enjoy you day in the sun, but the reality is that smaller clubs like ours can no longer compete with big city clubs who can;

- fill stadiums with 40 to 80,000 fans paying a premium for the privilege.
- attract huge world wide TV audiences.
- attract huge sponsorship deals.

And under the auspices of FFP have been given a huge financial advantage.

City have been given a £16 million fine, Dyche has be given a £16 million transfer kitty that has to cover not only any transfer fees but agents fees, signing on fees, salaries; etc, etc.

I suppose that's another example of a great equaliser?
Live within your means then.

Spend what you actually earn then

Try and actually run your football club based on the incomings vs outgoings instead of the falsely inflated **** situation you are currently in which has been provided by outside people injecting money into your club, which in itself gives you an unfair advantage on the clubs trying to live within their means.

FFP is going to happen, I suggest you stop whining and bleating about how unfair it all is and try and deal with it, and prepare yourself for the inevitable selling of players and tightening of your belts that will be happening this summer.
I am saying it's unfair for you as well you stupid ****.
Apologies, I missed out the word jealous.
The problem is that the Dingles that come on here are too thick to look into the future. If it wasn't for the investment put in by Kilby and Flood back in 2008, they wouldn't have had the cash from previous Premier League campaign and wouldn't be in the Premier League now. That kind of investment won't be allowed under FFP rules. Once they go through a 4 year period of not being in the top flight then they too will suffer along with other small town clubs.

Maybe they can see that but are solely driven out of bitterness towards us? It would certainly explain why they seem to get so agitated in their discussions about it.

FFP is purely a protectionist ruse by the big clubs and I can't see it continuing in the long term. How can an owner of a business be restricted in how much money he or she can invest in it? No other EU business could be restricted in this fashion, so ultimately why is a football business any different? It will be interesting to see what happens if and when a proper legal challenge is made by an affected club. I'm well aware that an agent has made a legal challenge but the case was thrown out on the grounds that he himself had no basis to make a case.

These things come down to politics - the FFP supporters are currently getting their way, but times change and politics change.
sorry tatts but you are wrong - their is no pending "legal challenge" by any club, this is some made up fantasy of some Rovers fans on this forum - infact in Venkys statement to fans today they strongly indicate in that message that they are intending to try to comply and implement cost cutting to come within football league FFP guidelines.

Also, every PL club and major player in the champions league have all accepted and been working with the PL and UEFA in order to comply.

Also, Rugby union and Rugby league clubs have had FFP regulations with enforced punishments for a number of years now, as have other sports throught the EU
[quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Champagne plus charlie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Champagne plus charlie[/bold] wrote: FFP is truly a wonderful thing. The great equaliser.[/p][/quote]FFP for Championship clubs is based on one years finances, but for PL clubs it's three years. Pleas explain how that is a great equaliser? The three clubs promoted to the PL will be classed (financially) as Championship clubs in the first year, competing against the rest who will have a least two years in the PL in the bank, most will have significantly more. How can that be regarded as a great equaliser because if they are allowed to do so they will have to mortgage some of their potential earnings from their first season in the PL, so if they are relegated, which historically is likely, the banks will be looking for their pound of flesh. FFP isn't fair, it's designed to make the bigger clubs bigger and the sooner you self righteous idiots work that out the better. That's why City's fine has been reduced, it's basically been spread over three years and as long as City play ball and don't overstep the mark again there is provision to reduce the fine pro rata over the following two years. Gloating is fine, enjoy you day in the sun, but the reality is that smaller clubs like ours can no longer compete with big city clubs who can; - fill stadiums with 40 to 80,000 fans paying a premium for the privilege. - attract huge world wide TV audiences. - attract huge sponsorship deals. And under the auspices of FFP have been given a huge financial advantage. City have been given a £16 million fine, Dyche has be given a £16 million transfer kitty that has to cover not only any transfer fees but agents fees, signing on fees, salaries; etc, etc. I suppose that's another example of a great equaliser?[/p][/quote]Live within your means then. Spend what you actually earn then Try and actually run your football club based on the incomings vs outgoings instead of the falsely inflated **** situation you are currently in which has been provided by outside people injecting money into your club, which in itself gives you an unfair advantage on the clubs trying to live within their means. FFP is going to happen, I suggest you stop whining and bleating about how unfair it all is and try and deal with it, and prepare yourself for the inevitable selling of players and tightening of your belts that will be happening this summer.[/p][/quote]I am saying it's unfair for you as well you stupid ****.[/p][/quote]Apologies, I missed out the word jealous.[/p][/quote]The problem is that the Dingles that come on here are too thick to look into the future. If it wasn't for the investment put in by Kilby and Flood back in 2008, they wouldn't have had the cash from previous Premier League campaign and wouldn't be in the Premier League now. That kind of investment won't be allowed under FFP rules. Once they go through a 4 year period of not being in the top flight then they too will suffer along with other small town clubs. Maybe they can see that but are solely driven out of bitterness towards us? It would certainly explain why they seem to get so agitated in their discussions about it. FFP is purely a protectionist ruse by the big clubs and I can't see it continuing in the long term. How can an owner of a business be restricted in how much money he or she can invest in it? No other EU business could be restricted in this fashion, so ultimately why is a football business any different? It will be interesting to see what happens if and when a proper legal challenge is made by an affected club. I'm well aware that an agent has made a legal challenge but the case was thrown out on the grounds that he himself had no basis to make a case. These things come down to politics - the FFP supporters are currently getting their way, but times change and politics change.[/p][/quote]sorry tatts but you are wrong - their is no pending "legal challenge" by any club, this is some made up fantasy of some Rovers fans on this forum - infact in Venkys statement to fans today they strongly indicate in that message that they are intending to try to comply and implement cost cutting to come within football league FFP guidelines. Also, every PL club and major player in the champions league have all accepted and been working with the PL and UEFA in order to comply. Also, Rugby union and Rugby league clubs have had FFP regulations with enforced punishments for a number of years now, as have other sports throught the EU J.C - Rishton
  • Score: 1

1:46pm Thu 22 May 14

Super_Clarets says...

Well, well, well. Would you just look what we have here....

Financial Fair Play is here boys and girls. A vote has been put to the clubs in the Championship with regard to relaxing the sanctions applied to non-compliant clubs. That vote has been understandably unsuccessful and therefore the rules as agreed upon by all clubs back in 2012 will now come into force, with sanctions imposed as of December 2014.

The clubs who objected to the rulings are Leicester City, QPR, Nottingham Forest and Blackburn Rovers, much to the frustration of the deluded one above who thinks every team in the country is run as poorly as his own. Leicester City are now a Premier League club, QPR could also join them via the play-off's which leaves Nottingham Forest and serial over-spenders Blackburn Rovers.

The truth, as hard is it is for no-dads to accept, is that the VAST majority of clubs have been getting their house in order progressively since 2012 when the rules were agreed. The two year adjustment period was time enough for clubs to handle any extortionate contracts, reduce the wage bill, sell higher earners, and begin the process of concentrating on youth development. All essential to correct the wrongs that have occurred all too frequently in football over recent years. The basic premise being to only spend what you earn, why is this such an alien concept to some?

Clubs like Burnley began making preparations for FFP almost immediately and took steps to reduce the squad size and the wage bill whilst securing their important players on reduced contracts where possible, Ross Wallace being one example of this. Other clubs such as Brighton have also had to cut their cloth accordingly, as have many others who have suffered in terms of league position as a result.

I see there are plenty of teary eyed no-dads above who are finally coming to terms with what WILL happen to their club, along with the usual head-in-the-sand brigade who simply reject the notion that their "famous" club will be dealt with so harshly.

The simple fact is that Blackburn Rovers WILL have to restructure on a massive scale to become compliant with the rules, this process will take many seasons to complete. The excesses of years gone by are now causing major problems for a small club with an average attendance of only 14k following relegation.

This combined with ridiculous contracts being handed out, i.e., Dickson Etuhu £35,000 a week, 4 year contract, Jordan Rhodes, £40,000 a week, Leon Best, DJ Campbell, David Goodwillie, etc,. is why you will suffer the most.

A saving of around £25million must be made to align with the maximum loss figures quoted for this season, and as JC states above this is just the tip of the iceberg when you consider the further £8million deficit due to the parachute payment reduction this season, and the cessation of parachute payments all together after the 2015 season.

There is a whole lot of trouble heading for Blackburn Rovers and the sooner people accept it the less of a shock its going to be.
Well, well, well. Would you just look what we have here.... Financial Fair Play is here boys and girls. A vote has been put to the clubs in the Championship with regard to relaxing the sanctions applied to non-compliant clubs. That vote has been understandably unsuccessful and therefore the rules as agreed upon by all clubs back in 2012 will now come into force, with sanctions imposed as of December 2014. The clubs who objected to the rulings are Leicester City, QPR, Nottingham Forest and Blackburn Rovers, much to the frustration of the deluded one above who thinks every team in the country is run as poorly as his own. Leicester City are now a Premier League club, QPR could also join them via the play-off's which leaves Nottingham Forest and serial over-spenders Blackburn Rovers. The truth, as hard is it is for no-dads to accept, is that the VAST majority of clubs have been getting their house in order progressively since 2012 when the rules were agreed. The two year adjustment period was time enough for clubs to handle any extortionate contracts, reduce the wage bill, sell higher earners, and begin the process of concentrating on youth development. All essential to correct the wrongs that have occurred all too frequently in football over recent years. The basic premise being to only spend what you earn, why is this such an alien concept to some? Clubs like Burnley began making preparations for FFP almost immediately and took steps to reduce the squad size and the wage bill whilst securing their important players on reduced contracts where possible, Ross Wallace being one example of this. Other clubs such as Brighton have also had to cut their cloth accordingly, as have many others who have suffered in terms of league position as a result. I see there are plenty of teary eyed no-dads above who are finally coming to terms with what WILL happen to their club, along with the usual head-in-the-sand brigade who simply reject the notion that their "famous" club will be dealt with so harshly. The simple fact is that Blackburn Rovers WILL have to restructure on a massive scale to become compliant with the rules, this process will take many seasons to complete. The excesses of years gone by are now causing major problems for a small club with an average attendance of only 14k following relegation. This combined with ridiculous contracts being handed out, i.e., Dickson Etuhu £35,000 a week, 4 year contract, Jordan Rhodes, £40,000 a week, Leon Best, DJ Campbell, David Goodwillie, etc,. is why you will suffer the most. A saving of around £25million must be made to align with the maximum loss figures quoted for this season, and as JC states above this is just the tip of the iceberg when you consider the further £8million deficit due to the parachute payment reduction this season, and the cessation of parachute payments all together after the 2015 season. There is a whole lot of trouble heading for Blackburn Rovers and the sooner people accept it the less of a shock its going to be. Super_Clarets
  • Score: 3

1:49pm Thu 22 May 14

J.C - Rishton says...

jack01 wrote:
These rules cannot and therefore will not be enforced in their current format.

There seems to be a belief that Rovers/QPR are the only two offending clubs. Newsflash - half the clubs in the Championship are falling foul of the regulations. Forest, Bolton, Reading, Brighton, Bournemouth, Boro, Leeds and Birmingham have all lost in excess of £10 million in their most recent accounts. I'm sure there will be more too, especially if Fulham/Cardiff try to buy their way back up.

For these rules to be enforced it would require the authorities to come along and put a minimum of 10-12 clubs in the Championship under a transfer embargo. All of a sudden what is arguably the most unpredictable and competitive second division in world football would be made into a laughing stock. That's before wealthy businessmen get their lawyers involved to take it on.

The League knows what a **** up it has made with these nonsensical and arbitrary rules and knows that it will cause chaos with the league system. Hence their increasingly regular meetings to discuss 'alternatives' as the penny drops that these rules are unworkable.

All the while relegated sides like Cardiff, Norwich and Fulham will be at an immediate advantage - rewarded for their failure to stay up - by being allowed to spend more than those already in the Championship.

Why these self-important bigwigs can't just leave football alone I don't know. Things seemed to work reasonably well for the last 70 years so why they think they should now start telling clubs how to do their business is beyond me. Presumably trying to justify their salaries whilst absolving themselves of any blame in the event another Portsmouth occurs.
Theres one flaw in your arguament and reasoning - "the league" as you put it IS the 20 member clubs and I can tell you for a fact that FOREST, BRIGHTON, BOURNEMOUTH and BIRMINGHAM all voted FOR the introduction of FFP - so that kinda kills your argument and reasoning.

And as stated previously, this "legal chanllenge" is all in your head - read Venkys open letter today - there is no indication that they are contemplating doing anything other than now trying to complay with the FFP rules
[quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: These rules cannot and therefore will not be enforced in their current format. There seems to be a belief that Rovers/QPR are the only two offending clubs. Newsflash - half the clubs in the Championship are falling foul of the regulations. Forest, Bolton, Reading, Brighton, Bournemouth, Boro, Leeds and Birmingham have all lost in excess of £10 million in their most recent accounts. I'm sure there will be more too, especially if Fulham/Cardiff try to buy their way back up. For these rules to be enforced it would require the authorities to come along and put a minimum of 10-12 clubs in the Championship under a transfer embargo. All of a sudden what is arguably the most unpredictable and competitive second division in world football would be made into a laughing stock. That's before wealthy businessmen get their lawyers involved to take it on. The League knows what a **** up it has made with these nonsensical and arbitrary rules and knows that it will cause chaos with the league system. Hence their increasingly regular meetings to discuss 'alternatives' as the penny drops that these rules are unworkable. All the while relegated sides like Cardiff, Norwich and Fulham will be at an immediate advantage - rewarded for their failure to stay up - by being allowed to spend more than those already in the Championship. Why these self-important bigwigs can't just leave football alone I don't know. Things seemed to work reasonably well for the last 70 years so why they think they should now start telling clubs how to do their business is beyond me. Presumably trying to justify their salaries whilst absolving themselves of any blame in the event another Portsmouth occurs.[/p][/quote]Theres one flaw in your arguament and reasoning - "the league" as you put it IS the 20 member clubs and I can tell you for a fact that FOREST, BRIGHTON, BOURNEMOUTH and BIRMINGHAM all voted FOR the introduction of FFP - so that kinda kills your argument and reasoning. And as stated previously, this "legal chanllenge" is all in your head - read Venkys open letter today - there is no indication that they are contemplating doing anything other than now trying to complay with the FFP rules J.C - Rishton
  • Score: 6

1:49pm Thu 22 May 14

Champagne plus charlie says...

roverstid wrote:
Champagne plus charlie wrote:
FFP is truly a wonderful thing.

The great equaliser.
It sure will be next season when you come down and realise that it's effects on you.. after your board realises it needs to spend to stay up and you have Premiership wages to cover.

What goes around usually ...
Re: your last comment, Exactly, I couldn't agree more.

After years of throwing money away and falsely inflating the transfer markets by over-paying for players both in transfer fees and wages, then the chickens are finally coming home to roost at your club and you are going to be one of the first clubs to get hit by the FFP rules, and hit hard. You spent first Fat Jack's, then the Walker Trust's and now Venky's money, whilst the vast majority of the rest of us struggled to survive on the income we actually generated, and look at you all crying about how unfair it is. What IS unfair is when clubs are allowed to pi55 money away while financially prudent clubs are forced to play catch up, well guess what - the FFP is designed to help the so-called poor clubs catch up.

As you rightly say. 'What goes around usually....'
[quote][p][bold]roverstid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Champagne plus charlie[/bold] wrote: FFP is truly a wonderful thing. The great equaliser.[/p][/quote]It sure will be next season when you come down and realise that it's effects on you.. after your board realises it needs to spend to stay up and you have Premiership wages to cover. What goes around usually ...[/p][/quote]Re: your last comment, Exactly, I couldn't agree more. After years of throwing money away and falsely inflating the transfer markets by over-paying for players both in transfer fees and wages, then the chickens are finally coming home to roost at your club and you are going to be one of the first clubs to get hit by the FFP rules, and hit hard. You spent first Fat Jack's, then the Walker Trust's and now Venky's money, whilst the vast majority of the rest of us struggled to survive on the income we actually generated, and look at you all crying about how unfair it is. What IS unfair is when clubs are allowed to pi55 money away while financially prudent clubs are forced to play catch up, well guess what - the FFP is designed to help the so-called poor clubs catch up. As you rightly say. 'What goes around usually....' Champagne plus charlie
  • Score: 2

1:51pm Thu 22 May 14

FCBurnley says...

J.C - Rishton wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed

The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers..............


..
Hi Tom

This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship.

We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous.

If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues).

Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field".

1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015.
2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers.
3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs.
4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs.
5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players.

All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.
A Rovers fan with a brain. The penny has finally dropped.Well written JC.
[quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers.............. ..[/p][/quote]Hi Tom This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship. We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous. If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues). Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field". 1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015. 2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers. 3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs. 4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs. 5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players. All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.[/p][/quote]A Rovers fan with a brain. The penny has finally dropped.Well written JC. FCBurnley
  • Score: 4

2:04pm Thu 22 May 14

Tatts says...

J.C - Rishton wrote:
Tatts wrote:
owd nick wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Champagne plus charlie wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Champagne plus charlie wrote:
FFP is truly a wonderful thing.

The great equaliser.
FFP for Championship clubs is based on one years finances, but for PL clubs it's three years.

Pleas explain how that is a great equaliser?

The three clubs promoted to the PL will be classed (financially) as Championship clubs in the first year, competing against the rest who will have a least two years in the PL in the bank, most will have significantly more.

How can that be regarded as a great equaliser because if they are allowed to do so they will have to mortgage some of their potential earnings from their first season in the PL, so if they are relegated, which historically is likely, the banks will be looking for their pound of flesh.

FFP isn't fair, it's designed to make the bigger clubs bigger and the sooner you self righteous idiots work that out the better.

That's why City's fine has been reduced, it's basically been spread over three years and as long as City play ball and don't overstep the mark again there is provision to reduce the fine pro rata over the following two years.

Gloating is fine, enjoy you day in the sun, but the reality is that smaller clubs like ours can no longer compete with big city clubs who can;

- fill stadiums with 40 to 80,000 fans paying a premium for the privilege.
- attract huge world wide TV audiences.
- attract huge sponsorship deals.

And under the auspices of FFP have been given a huge financial advantage.

City have been given a £16 million fine, Dyche has be given a £16 million transfer kitty that has to cover not only any transfer fees but agents fees, signing on fees, salaries; etc, etc.

I suppose that's another example of a great equaliser?
Live within your means then.

Spend what you actually earn then

Try and actually run your football club based on the incomings vs outgoings instead of the falsely inflated **** situation you are currently in which has been provided by outside people injecting money into your club, which in itself gives you an unfair advantage on the clubs trying to live within their means.

FFP is going to happen, I suggest you stop whining and bleating about how unfair it all is and try and deal with it, and prepare yourself for the inevitable selling of players and tightening of your belts that will be happening this summer.
I am saying it's unfair for you as well you stupid ****.
Apologies, I missed out the word jealous.
The problem is that the Dingles that come on here are too thick to look into the future. If it wasn't for the investment put in by Kilby and Flood back in 2008, they wouldn't have had the cash from previous Premier League campaign and wouldn't be in the Premier League now. That kind of investment won't be allowed under FFP rules. Once they go through a 4 year period of not being in the top flight then they too will suffer along with other small town clubs.

Maybe they can see that but are solely driven out of bitterness towards us? It would certainly explain why they seem to get so agitated in their discussions about it.

FFP is purely a protectionist ruse by the big clubs and I can't see it continuing in the long term. How can an owner of a business be restricted in how much money he or she can invest in it? No other EU business could be restricted in this fashion, so ultimately why is a football business any different? It will be interesting to see what happens if and when a proper legal challenge is made by an affected club. I'm well aware that an agent has made a legal challenge but the case was thrown out on the grounds that he himself had no basis to make a case.

These things come down to politics - the FFP supporters are currently getting their way, but times change and politics change.
sorry tatts but you are wrong - their is no pending "legal challenge" by any club, this is some made up fantasy of some Rovers fans on this forum - infact in Venkys statement to fans today they strongly indicate in that message that they are intending to try to comply and implement cost cutting to come within football league FFP guidelines.

Also, every PL club and major player in the champions league have all accepted and been working with the PL and UEFA in order to comply.

Also, Rugby union and Rugby league clubs have had FFP regulations with enforced punishments for a number of years now, as have other sports throught the EU
You can go ahead and think it's cut and dried - that's your choice. But whether you like it or not FFP is still in its infancy and I think there is a lot of legal wrangling to come.
[quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tatts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Champagne plus charlie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Champagne plus charlie[/bold] wrote: FFP is truly a wonderful thing. The great equaliser.[/p][/quote]FFP for Championship clubs is based on one years finances, but for PL clubs it's three years. Pleas explain how that is a great equaliser? The three clubs promoted to the PL will be classed (financially) as Championship clubs in the first year, competing against the rest who will have a least two years in the PL in the bank, most will have significantly more. How can that be regarded as a great equaliser because if they are allowed to do so they will have to mortgage some of their potential earnings from their first season in the PL, so if they are relegated, which historically is likely, the banks will be looking for their pound of flesh. FFP isn't fair, it's designed to make the bigger clubs bigger and the sooner you self righteous idiots work that out the better. That's why City's fine has been reduced, it's basically been spread over three years and as long as City play ball and don't overstep the mark again there is provision to reduce the fine pro rata over the following two years. Gloating is fine, enjoy you day in the sun, but the reality is that smaller clubs like ours can no longer compete with big city clubs who can; - fill stadiums with 40 to 80,000 fans paying a premium for the privilege. - attract huge world wide TV audiences. - attract huge sponsorship deals. And under the auspices of FFP have been given a huge financial advantage. City have been given a £16 million fine, Dyche has be given a £16 million transfer kitty that has to cover not only any transfer fees but agents fees, signing on fees, salaries; etc, etc. I suppose that's another example of a great equaliser?[/p][/quote]Live within your means then. Spend what you actually earn then Try and actually run your football club based on the incomings vs outgoings instead of the falsely inflated **** situation you are currently in which has been provided by outside people injecting money into your club, which in itself gives you an unfair advantage on the clubs trying to live within their means. FFP is going to happen, I suggest you stop whining and bleating about how unfair it all is and try and deal with it, and prepare yourself for the inevitable selling of players and tightening of your belts that will be happening this summer.[/p][/quote]I am saying it's unfair for you as well you stupid ****.[/p][/quote]Apologies, I missed out the word jealous.[/p][/quote]The problem is that the Dingles that come on here are too thick to look into the future. If it wasn't for the investment put in by Kilby and Flood back in 2008, they wouldn't have had the cash from previous Premier League campaign and wouldn't be in the Premier League now. That kind of investment won't be allowed under FFP rules. Once they go through a 4 year period of not being in the top flight then they too will suffer along with other small town clubs. Maybe they can see that but are solely driven out of bitterness towards us? It would certainly explain why they seem to get so agitated in their discussions about it. FFP is purely a protectionist ruse by the big clubs and I can't see it continuing in the long term. How can an owner of a business be restricted in how much money he or she can invest in it? No other EU business could be restricted in this fashion, so ultimately why is a football business any different? It will be interesting to see what happens if and when a proper legal challenge is made by an affected club. I'm well aware that an agent has made a legal challenge but the case was thrown out on the grounds that he himself had no basis to make a case. These things come down to politics - the FFP supporters are currently getting their way, but times change and politics change.[/p][/quote]sorry tatts but you are wrong - their is no pending "legal challenge" by any club, this is some made up fantasy of some Rovers fans on this forum - infact in Venkys statement to fans today they strongly indicate in that message that they are intending to try to comply and implement cost cutting to come within football league FFP guidelines. Also, every PL club and major player in the champions league have all accepted and been working with the PL and UEFA in order to comply. Also, Rugby union and Rugby league clubs have had FFP regulations with enforced punishments for a number of years now, as have other sports throught the EU[/p][/quote]You can go ahead and think it's cut and dried - that's your choice. But whether you like it or not FFP is still in its infancy and I think there is a lot of legal wrangling to come. Tatts
  • Score: 1

2:05pm Thu 22 May 14

burnleyglentoran says...

Final result just in......

FFP 1 . BLACKBUUUURRRRRN ROVUUURRRS league 2
Final result just in...... FFP 1 . BLACKBUUUURRRRRN ROVUUURRRS league 2 burnleyglentoran
  • Score: 0

2:05pm Thu 22 May 14

roverstid says...

J.C - Rishton wrote:
owd nick wrote:
J.C - Rishton wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed

The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers..............




..
Hi Tom

This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship.

We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous.

If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues).

Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field".

1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015.
2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers.
3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs.
4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs.
5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players.

All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.
Fair comments but I would add it's all speculation and until it happens because we can't be sure what will happen.

Right now a few teams, we have to assume Rovers are one of them, are questioning what is happening, rightly so, but we still have 6 or 7 months before any potential sanctions are applied, and a lot can happen in that time.

Prior to that I would expect that the clubs will be working with the FA as individuals (as well as talking to each other) with regard to their own situation so that any sanctions won't be a surprise.

As with Man City there is also the option to negotiate a "deal" if they can show that they are tackling the issues that are causing concern in a positive manner.

And they will also have the opportunity to appeal.

I would certainly expect a fine, not so sure about a transfer embargo at this point in time may or may not happen,

All we can do as fans is wait and see.
Nick - Yes I agree that a transfer ban is not nailed on and hopefully we can still negociate more time or a fine although it dosent sound too good as this meeting was the time for issues like more time for relegated PL times etc to be sorted and they have been rejected.

Whether or not we are going to be put into a transfer ban we need to accelrate the savings on staff wages, they are currently running around 140% of total turnover and this is obviously madness
We need one more season to comply. Best, Etuhu and a few other high rollers will be off our books in 2015.

Jan 2015 I expect Rovers to be worried but will be granted time to comply, which by the start of next season we will.

You make valid points JC, the problem is its only the worst case scenario and for the worst case scenario to be played out, many more championship teams will suffer and and although it's not a given it won't happen, I don't believe it will.

This is a wake up call. Its been coming and but for the keaningly long contracts offered to the worthless pile of rubbish, we would already be if not close to compliance.

Shoulders up, we can see the iceberg. But we havent hit it yet.
[quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers.............. ..[/p][/quote]Hi Tom This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship. We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous. If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues). Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field". 1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015. 2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers. 3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs. 4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs. 5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players. All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.[/p][/quote]Fair comments but I would add it's all speculation and until it happens because we can't be sure what will happen. Right now a few teams, we have to assume Rovers are one of them, are questioning what is happening, rightly so, but we still have 6 or 7 months before any potential sanctions are applied, and a lot can happen in that time. Prior to that I would expect that the clubs will be working with the FA as individuals (as well as talking to each other) with regard to their own situation so that any sanctions won't be a surprise. As with Man City there is also the option to negotiate a "deal" if they can show that they are tackling the issues that are causing concern in a positive manner. And they will also have the opportunity to appeal. I would certainly expect a fine, not so sure about a transfer embargo at this point in time may or may not happen, All we can do as fans is wait and see.[/p][/quote]Nick - Yes I agree that a transfer ban is not nailed on and hopefully we can still negociate more time or a fine although it dosent sound too good as this meeting was the time for issues like more time for relegated PL times etc to be sorted and they have been rejected. Whether or not we are going to be put into a transfer ban we need to accelrate the savings on staff wages, they are currently running around 140% of total turnover and this is obviously madness[/p][/quote]We need one more season to comply. Best, Etuhu and a few other high rollers will be off our books in 2015. Jan 2015 I expect Rovers to be worried but will be granted time to comply, which by the start of next season we will. You make valid points JC, the problem is its only the worst case scenario and for the worst case scenario to be played out, many more championship teams will suffer and and although it's not a given it won't happen, I don't believe it will. This is a wake up call. Its been coming and but for the keaningly long contracts offered to the worthless pile of rubbish, we would already be if not close to compliance. Shoulders up, we can see the iceberg. But we havent hit it yet. roverstid
  • Score: 1

2:07pm Thu 22 May 14

Super_Clarets says...

TurfMoorTom wrote:
J.C - Rishton wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed

The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers..............



..
Hi Tom

This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship.

We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous.

If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues).

Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field".

1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015.
2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers.
3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs.
4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs.
5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players.

All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.
Fair do's but I'm not sure where you're pulling your £17m figure from? You think we're going to be £17m over the allowed £8m?

This is how I saw it some time back:

So sell the £35k earners (Best, Robinson, Etuhu, Dann & possibly DJ Campbell?) asap and at the same time reduce squad numbers from an over-inflated 31 to a more manageable and focussed core of ~26. Even though he's on high wages, keeping Rhodes for now has to be the way.

That would net us ~£8m (assuming a free transfer replacement for Dann could be found) and reduce the wage bill by around a further £8m/year from currently assumed (£25m) bringing our wages to ~£17m. With 2 years of £8m parachute payments and some money injected from India we could hold on to Rhodes until he decides to move on though would need to sell should we not get promoted in the 2yr time frame.

So that would get us to:
Championship TV £3m
Gates (13000 @ £15) £4.5m
Sponsorships say £3m
Parachute £8m
Player trading £8m
Wages (~£18m)
Running costs (~£6m) still high, exactly how you got to £15.4m needs full transparency

The above figures would make us £2.5m in PROFIT!!! (or £10.5m within FFP) and sustainable + still with a better remaining squad than the 6 fingered folk.

With only selling Dann, what we actually see is £2m coming in (rather than my rose tinted £8m) and wages up at £24m (rather than my rose tinted £18m).

This still leaves us at £10m in the red - admittedly just outside FFP though if we can shift Best or Etuhu not far away. I'd also hope that the running costs of the club are being tightened up because that was a big unexplained black hole and the assumed £6m can't be right.

Basically we need to shift the deadwood before the parachute payments run out which we will for certain as their contracts will run to conclusion in the worst case. If we don't go up in the next two seasons we'll also need to sell Rhodes. With the above taken into account, as long as Venkys put in their £5m/yr we're not in such a bad situation as a Dingle might like to believe.
Oh dear, even TurfMoorTom is suffering from squeaky bum syndrome. Things must be even worse than I thought. He's even acknowledging the need to sell Rhodes... who would have ever thought it. Is Tom finally joining the real world??

Hang on a minute....

no, no he's not.

His state of mind and general unravelling is exposed further with claims that Blackburn Rovers is now a profit making enterprise! LOL. Even for you Tom that's a funny one.

In truth, and looking beyond your financial wish list, which was admitted comical, it truly is an awful situation, and your optimistic massaging of the figures is pointless. Your club lost £36.5million (THIRTY SIX POINT FIVE MILLION ENGLISH POUNDS) in the last accounting period.

Since then several players have been shifted out on loan with the club still paying the vast majority of the salary (I believe Sheffield Wednesday contributed only a sixth of Leon Best's weekly wage during his loan spell), whilst other players on smaller contracts have been released. Dann was sold for a quarter of what you paid for him resulting in a net loss to Blackburn Rovers of £4million on that one single deal.

The contract of Dickson Etuhu, £35,000 a week for 4 years adds up to a staggering £7.28million! That's your entire parachute payment for this season. Consider all the other deadwood you are carrying and its gets far, far worse.

The fact that only minimal savings have been made thus far is compounded by the further £8million deficit due to the reduction in parachute payments, so in all honesty the 2013/14 loss figure is likely to be astronomical yet again.

The overall picture is very, very bleak, and it will only get worse I'm afraid.
[quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers.............. ..[/p][/quote]Hi Tom This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship. We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous. If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues). Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field". 1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015. 2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers. 3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs. 4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs. 5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players. All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.[/p][/quote]Fair do's but I'm not sure where you're pulling your £17m figure from? You think we're going to be £17m over the allowed £8m? This is how I saw it some time back: So sell the £35k earners (Best, Robinson, Etuhu, Dann & possibly DJ Campbell?) asap and at the same time reduce squad numbers from an over-inflated 31 to a more manageable and focussed core of ~26. Even though he's on high wages, keeping Rhodes for now has to be the way. That would net us ~£8m (assuming a free transfer replacement for Dann could be found) and reduce the wage bill by around a further £8m/year from currently assumed (£25m) bringing our wages to ~£17m. With 2 years of £8m parachute payments and some money injected from India we could hold on to Rhodes until he decides to move on though would need to sell should we not get promoted in the 2yr time frame. So that would get us to: Championship TV £3m Gates (13000 @ £15) £4.5m Sponsorships say £3m Parachute £8m Player trading £8m Wages (~£18m) Running costs (~£6m) still high, exactly how you got to £15.4m needs full transparency The above figures would make us £2.5m in PROFIT!!! (or £10.5m within FFP) and sustainable + still with a better remaining squad than the 6 fingered folk. With only selling Dann, what we actually see is £2m coming in (rather than my rose tinted £8m) and wages up at £24m (rather than my rose tinted £18m). This still leaves us at £10m in the red - admittedly just outside FFP though if we can shift Best or Etuhu not far away. I'd also hope that the running costs of the club are being tightened up because that was a big unexplained black hole and the assumed £6m can't be right. Basically we need to shift the deadwood before the parachute payments run out which we will for certain as their contracts will run to conclusion in the worst case. If we don't go up in the next two seasons we'll also need to sell Rhodes. With the above taken into account, as long as Venkys put in their £5m/yr we're not in such a bad situation as a Dingle might like to believe.[/p][/quote]Oh dear, even TurfMoorTom is suffering from squeaky bum syndrome. Things must be even worse than I thought. He's even acknowledging the need to sell Rhodes... who would have ever thought it. Is Tom finally joining the real world?? Hang on a minute.... no, no he's not. His state of mind and general unravelling is exposed further with claims that Blackburn Rovers is now a profit making enterprise! LOL. Even for you Tom that's a funny one. In truth, and looking beyond your financial wish list, which was admitted comical, it truly is an awful situation, and your optimistic massaging of the figures is pointless. Your club lost £36.5million (THIRTY SIX POINT FIVE MILLION ENGLISH POUNDS) in the last accounting period. Since then several players have been shifted out on loan with the club still paying the vast majority of the salary (I believe Sheffield Wednesday contributed only a sixth of Leon Best's weekly wage during his loan spell), whilst other players on smaller contracts have been released. Dann was sold for a quarter of what you paid for him resulting in a net loss to Blackburn Rovers of £4million on that one single deal. The contract of Dickson Etuhu, £35,000 a week for 4 years adds up to a staggering £7.28million! That's your entire parachute payment for this season. Consider all the other deadwood you are carrying and its gets far, far worse. The fact that only minimal savings have been made thus far is compounded by the further £8million deficit due to the reduction in parachute payments, so in all honesty the 2013/14 loss figure is likely to be astronomical yet again. The overall picture is very, very bleak, and it will only get worse I'm afraid. Super_Clarets
  • Score: 2

2:08pm Thu 22 May 14

Tatts says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
Well, well, well. Would you just look what we have here....

Financial Fair Play is here boys and girls. A vote has been put to the clubs in the Championship with regard to relaxing the sanctions applied to non-compliant clubs. That vote has been understandably unsuccessful and therefore the rules as agreed upon by all clubs back in 2012 will now come into force, with sanctions imposed as of December 2014.

The clubs who objected to the rulings are Leicester City, QPR, Nottingham Forest and Blackburn Rovers, much to the frustration of the deluded one above who thinks every team in the country is run as poorly as his own. Leicester City are now a Premier League club, QPR could also join them via the play-off's which leaves Nottingham Forest and serial over-spenders Blackburn Rovers.

The truth, as hard is it is for no-dads to accept, is that the VAST majority of clubs have been getting their house in order progressively since 2012 when the rules were agreed. The two year adjustment period was time enough for clubs to handle any extortionate contracts, reduce the wage bill, sell higher earners, and begin the process of concentrating on youth development. All essential to correct the wrongs that have occurred all too frequently in football over recent years. The basic premise being to only spend what you earn, why is this such an alien concept to some?

Clubs like Burnley began making preparations for FFP almost immediately and took steps to reduce the squad size and the wage bill whilst securing their important players on reduced contracts where possible, Ross Wallace being one example of this. Other clubs such as Brighton have also had to cut their cloth accordingly, as have many others who have suffered in terms of league position as a result.

I see there are plenty of teary eyed no-dads above who are finally coming to terms with what WILL happen to their club, along with the usual head-in-the-sand brigade who simply reject the notion that their "famous" club will be dealt with so harshly.

The simple fact is that Blackburn Rovers WILL have to restructure on a massive scale to become compliant with the rules, this process will take many seasons to complete. The excesses of years gone by are now causing major problems for a small club with an average attendance of only 14k following relegation.

This combined with ridiculous contracts being handed out, i.e., Dickson Etuhu £35,000 a week, 4 year contract, Jordan Rhodes, £40,000 a week, Leon Best, DJ Campbell, David Goodwillie, etc,. is why you will suffer the most.

A saving of around £25million must be made to align with the maximum loss figures quoted for this season, and as JC states above this is just the tip of the iceberg when you consider the further £8million deficit due to the parachute payment reduction this season, and the cessation of parachute payments all together after the 2015 season.

There is a whole lot of trouble heading for Blackburn Rovers and the sooner people accept it the less of a shock its going to be.
Reek, do you love Rovers?
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: Well, well, well. Would you just look what we have here.... Financial Fair Play is here boys and girls. A vote has been put to the clubs in the Championship with regard to relaxing the sanctions applied to non-compliant clubs. That vote has been understandably unsuccessful and therefore the rules as agreed upon by all clubs back in 2012 will now come into force, with sanctions imposed as of December 2014. The clubs who objected to the rulings are Leicester City, QPR, Nottingham Forest and Blackburn Rovers, much to the frustration of the deluded one above who thinks every team in the country is run as poorly as his own. Leicester City are now a Premier League club, QPR could also join them via the play-off's which leaves Nottingham Forest and serial over-spenders Blackburn Rovers. The truth, as hard is it is for no-dads to accept, is that the VAST majority of clubs have been getting their house in order progressively since 2012 when the rules were agreed. The two year adjustment period was time enough for clubs to handle any extortionate contracts, reduce the wage bill, sell higher earners, and begin the process of concentrating on youth development. All essential to correct the wrongs that have occurred all too frequently in football over recent years. The basic premise being to only spend what you earn, why is this such an alien concept to some? Clubs like Burnley began making preparations for FFP almost immediately and took steps to reduce the squad size and the wage bill whilst securing their important players on reduced contracts where possible, Ross Wallace being one example of this. Other clubs such as Brighton have also had to cut their cloth accordingly, as have many others who have suffered in terms of league position as a result. I see there are plenty of teary eyed no-dads above who are finally coming to terms with what WILL happen to their club, along with the usual head-in-the-sand brigade who simply reject the notion that their "famous" club will be dealt with so harshly. The simple fact is that Blackburn Rovers WILL have to restructure on a massive scale to become compliant with the rules, this process will take many seasons to complete. The excesses of years gone by are now causing major problems for a small club with an average attendance of only 14k following relegation. This combined with ridiculous contracts being handed out, i.e., Dickson Etuhu £35,000 a week, 4 year contract, Jordan Rhodes, £40,000 a week, Leon Best, DJ Campbell, David Goodwillie, etc,. is why you will suffer the most. A saving of around £25million must be made to align with the maximum loss figures quoted for this season, and as JC states above this is just the tip of the iceberg when you consider the further £8million deficit due to the parachute payment reduction this season, and the cessation of parachute payments all together after the 2015 season. There is a whole lot of trouble heading for Blackburn Rovers and the sooner people accept it the less of a shock its going to be.[/p][/quote]Reek, do you love Rovers? Tatts
  • Score: 4

2:30pm Thu 22 May 14

Harwoodstblue says...

Warnie wrote:
ha ha. you talk of relegated clubs having an unfair advantage yet your own club is currently receiving parachute payments. jan will be interesting!
I'm not just talking about us. You will probably be in the same position next season. Can you not see beyond the end of your nose , fool.
[quote][p][bold]Warnie[/bold] wrote: ha ha. you talk of relegated clubs having an unfair advantage yet your own club is currently receiving parachute payments. jan will be interesting![/p][/quote]I'm not just talking about us. You will probably be in the same position next season. Can you not see beyond the end of your nose , fool. Harwoodstblue
  • Score: 5

2:59pm Thu 22 May 14

slants says...

This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship.
hahaha why will it effect the jibbs team ??you didnt have one last year and you were still shiit .You jibbs are priceless.
This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship. hahaha why will it effect the jibbs team ??you didnt have one last year and you were still shiit .You jibbs are priceless. slants
  • Score: 0

3:22pm Thu 22 May 14

TurfMoorTom says...

inflightmagazine wrote:
J.C - Rishton wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
J.C - Rishton wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed

The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers..............





..
Hi Tom

This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship.

We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous.

If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues).

Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field".

1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015.
2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers.
3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs.
4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs.
5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players.

All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.
Fair do's but I'm not sure where you're pulling your £17m figure from? You think we're going to be £17m over the allowed £8m?

This is how I saw it some time back:

So sell the £35k earners (Best, Robinson, Etuhu, Dann & possibly DJ Campbell?) asap and at the same time reduce squad numbers from an over-inflated 31 to a more manageable and focussed core of ~26. Even though he's on high wages, keeping Rhodes for now has to be the way.

That would net us ~£8m (assuming a free transfer replacement for Dann could be found) and reduce the wage bill by around a further £8m/year from currently assumed (£25m) bringing our wages to ~£17m. With 2 years of £8m parachute payments and some money injected from India we could hold on to Rhodes until he decides to move on though would need to sell should we not get promoted in the 2yr time frame.

So that would get us to:
Championship TV £3m
Gates (13000 @ £15) £4.5m
Sponsorships say £3m
Parachute £8m
Player trading £8m
Wages (~£18m)
Running costs (~£6m) still high, exactly how you got to £15.4m needs full transparency

The above figures would make us £2.5m in PROFIT!!! (or £10.5m within FFP) and sustainable + still with a better remaining squad than the 6 fingered folk.

With only selling Dann, what we actually see is £2m coming in (rather than my rose tinted £8m) and wages up at £24m (rather than my rose tinted £18m).

This still leaves us at £10m in the red - admittedly just outside FFP though if we can shift Best or Etuhu not far away. I'd also hope that the running costs of the club are being tightened up because that was a big unexplained black hole and the assumed £6m can't be right.

Basically we need to shift the deadwood before the parachute payments run out which we will for certain as their contracts will run to conclusion in the worst case. If we don't go up in the next two seasons we'll also need to sell Rhodes. With the above taken into account, as long as Venkys put in their £5m/yr we're not in such a bad situation as a Dingle might like to believe.
Yes but you havent included any player purchases in your figures.

You can't include the sale of Scott Dann without the purchase of JR £8m, Marshall £1m, Gestede Cainry and Conway about £1m = £10m in outgoings which your figures have totally excluded.

(JR trnafer went through AFTER the yr end of our last published accounts and therefore must be in this years).

I am sure the figures of £13m-£16m will be around the savings we will be required to make with more the season after.
if you check the accounts it was actually accrued and included in the end of june 2013 accounts , as was the best purchase , also included wasthe paying up of Nuno Gomes and Danny murphys contracts, as well as henning Bergs and Appletons pay offs. Downloadable for £1 at companies house.
Thanks. So there you go, the figures I give can't be that far out. While the parachute payments are still in place we're not that far away from meeting FFP.
[quote][p][bold]inflightmagazine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers.............. ..[/p][/quote]Hi Tom This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship. We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous. If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues). Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field". 1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015. 2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers. 3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs. 4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs. 5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players. All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.[/p][/quote]Fair do's but I'm not sure where you're pulling your £17m figure from? You think we're going to be £17m over the allowed £8m? This is how I saw it some time back: So sell the £35k earners (Best, Robinson, Etuhu, Dann & possibly DJ Campbell?) asap and at the same time reduce squad numbers from an over-inflated 31 to a more manageable and focussed core of ~26. Even though he's on high wages, keeping Rhodes for now has to be the way. That would net us ~£8m (assuming a free transfer replacement for Dann could be found) and reduce the wage bill by around a further £8m/year from currently assumed (£25m) bringing our wages to ~£17m. With 2 years of £8m parachute payments and some money injected from India we could hold on to Rhodes until he decides to move on though would need to sell should we not get promoted in the 2yr time frame. So that would get us to: Championship TV £3m Gates (13000 @ £15) £4.5m Sponsorships say £3m Parachute £8m Player trading £8m Wages (~£18m) Running costs (~£6m) still high, exactly how you got to £15.4m needs full transparency The above figures would make us £2.5m in PROFIT!!! (or £10.5m within FFP) and sustainable + still with a better remaining squad than the 6 fingered folk. With only selling Dann, what we actually see is £2m coming in (rather than my rose tinted £8m) and wages up at £24m (rather than my rose tinted £18m). This still leaves us at £10m in the red - admittedly just outside FFP though if we can shift Best or Etuhu not far away. I'd also hope that the running costs of the club are being tightened up because that was a big unexplained black hole and the assumed £6m can't be right. Basically we need to shift the deadwood before the parachute payments run out which we will for certain as their contracts will run to conclusion in the worst case. If we don't go up in the next two seasons we'll also need to sell Rhodes. With the above taken into account, as long as Venkys put in their £5m/yr we're not in such a bad situation as a Dingle might like to believe.[/p][/quote]Yes but you havent included any player purchases in your figures. You can't include the sale of Scott Dann without the purchase of JR £8m, Marshall £1m, Gestede Cainry and Conway about £1m = £10m in outgoings which your figures have totally excluded. (JR trnafer went through AFTER the yr end of our last published accounts and therefore must be in this years). I am sure the figures of £13m-£16m will be around the savings we will be required to make with more the season after.[/p][/quote]if you check the accounts it was actually accrued and included in the end of june 2013 accounts , as was the best purchase , also included wasthe paying up of Nuno Gomes and Danny murphys contracts, as well as henning Bergs and Appletons pay offs. Downloadable for £1 at companies house.[/p][/quote]Thanks. So there you go, the figures I give can't be that far out. While the parachute payments are still in place we're not that far away from meeting FFP. TurfMoorTom
  • Score: 0

3:23pm Thu 22 May 14

jack01 says...

J.C - Rishton wrote:
jack01 wrote:
These rules cannot and therefore will not be enforced in their current format.

There seems to be a belief that Rovers/QPR are the only two offending clubs. Newsflash - half the clubs in the Championship are falling foul of the regulations. Forest, Bolton, Reading, Brighton, Bournemouth, Boro, Leeds and Birmingham have all lost in excess of £10 million in their most recent accounts. I'm sure there will be more too, especially if Fulham/Cardiff try to buy their way back up.

For these rules to be enforced it would require the authorities to come along and put a minimum of 10-12 clubs in the Championship under a transfer embargo. All of a sudden what is arguably the most unpredictable and competitive second division in world football would be made into a laughing stock. That's before wealthy businessmen get their lawyers involved to take it on.

The League knows what a **** up it has made with these nonsensical and arbitrary rules and knows that it will cause chaos with the league system. Hence their increasingly regular meetings to discuss 'alternatives' as the penny drops that these rules are unworkable.

All the while relegated sides like Cardiff, Norwich and Fulham will be at an immediate advantage - rewarded for their failure to stay up - by being allowed to spend more than those already in the Championship.

Why these self-important bigwigs can't just leave football alone I don't know. Things seemed to work reasonably well for the last 70 years so why they think they should now start telling clubs how to do their business is beyond me. Presumably trying to justify their salaries whilst absolving themselves of any blame in the event another Portsmouth occurs.
Theres one flaw in your arguament and reasoning - "the league" as you put it IS the 20 member clubs and I can tell you for a fact that FOREST, BRIGHTON, BOURNEMOUTH and BIRMINGHAM all voted FOR the introduction of FFP - so that kinda kills your argument and reasoning.

And as stated previously, this "legal chanllenge" is all in your head - read Venkys open letter today - there is no indication that they are contemplating doing anything other than now trying to complay with the FFP rules
I'm not interested who voted the rules in. Forest, Brighton and Bournemouth are three of the clubs who have benefited the most from having wealthy backers behind them in recent years. Brighton have gone from a League One side with no stadium to back to back Championship play-off campaigns - and lost the thick end of £20million last year - all thanks to Tony Bloom's cash. Forest have spent a fortune under Al-Hasawi chasing the Premier League. Bournemouth have gone from League Two to the Championship on gates of 7,000 thanks to their Russian owner.

As things stand all three of those clubs, like Rovers, will be put under an embargo (unless they manage to find a loophole). So the joke's on them if they voted to introduce the very rules which could hinder their promotion chances.

The legal challenge isn't in my head. Its been well documented in numerous newspapers that more than one club is considering taking it to court in the event they are put under an embargo. That's the reason why the numpties at the Football League are now running around trying to find a compromise, because they know what trouble will come their way if they try to enforce the rules as they stand.

Why should we be put at a disadvantage to Cardiff, Fulham and the like? I imagine that Rovers will argue that they are trying to get their finances in order and adjust to the Championship after a decade in the top flight (which they are doing). How can the League punish clubs for trying to adjust to a completely different financial structure in a short period of time? Its not our fault that we can't get rid of Campbell because nobody else wants him or Etuhu because he's permanently injured.
[quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: These rules cannot and therefore will not be enforced in their current format. There seems to be a belief that Rovers/QPR are the only two offending clubs. Newsflash - half the clubs in the Championship are falling foul of the regulations. Forest, Bolton, Reading, Brighton, Bournemouth, Boro, Leeds and Birmingham have all lost in excess of £10 million in their most recent accounts. I'm sure there will be more too, especially if Fulham/Cardiff try to buy their way back up. For these rules to be enforced it would require the authorities to come along and put a minimum of 10-12 clubs in the Championship under a transfer embargo. All of a sudden what is arguably the most unpredictable and competitive second division in world football would be made into a laughing stock. That's before wealthy businessmen get their lawyers involved to take it on. The League knows what a **** up it has made with these nonsensical and arbitrary rules and knows that it will cause chaos with the league system. Hence their increasingly regular meetings to discuss 'alternatives' as the penny drops that these rules are unworkable. All the while relegated sides like Cardiff, Norwich and Fulham will be at an immediate advantage - rewarded for their failure to stay up - by being allowed to spend more than those already in the Championship. Why these self-important bigwigs can't just leave football alone I don't know. Things seemed to work reasonably well for the last 70 years so why they think they should now start telling clubs how to do their business is beyond me. Presumably trying to justify their salaries whilst absolving themselves of any blame in the event another Portsmouth occurs.[/p][/quote]Theres one flaw in your arguament and reasoning - "the league" as you put it IS the 20 member clubs and I can tell you for a fact that FOREST, BRIGHTON, BOURNEMOUTH and BIRMINGHAM all voted FOR the introduction of FFP - so that kinda kills your argument and reasoning. And as stated previously, this "legal chanllenge" is all in your head - read Venkys open letter today - there is no indication that they are contemplating doing anything other than now trying to complay with the FFP rules[/p][/quote]I'm not interested who voted the rules in. Forest, Brighton and Bournemouth are three of the clubs who have benefited the most from having wealthy backers behind them in recent years. Brighton have gone from a League One side with no stadium to back to back Championship play-off campaigns - and lost the thick end of £20million last year - all thanks to Tony Bloom's cash. Forest have spent a fortune under Al-Hasawi chasing the Premier League. Bournemouth have gone from League Two to the Championship on gates of 7,000 thanks to their Russian owner. As things stand all three of those clubs, like Rovers, will be put under an embargo (unless they manage to find a loophole). So the joke's on them if they voted to introduce the very rules which could hinder their promotion chances. The legal challenge isn't in my head. Its been well documented in numerous newspapers that more than one club is considering taking it to court in the event they are put under an embargo. That's the reason why the numpties at the Football League are now running around trying to find a compromise, because they know what trouble will come their way if they try to enforce the rules as they stand. Why should we be put at a disadvantage to Cardiff, Fulham and the like? I imagine that Rovers will argue that they are trying to get their finances in order and adjust to the Championship after a decade in the top flight (which they are doing). How can the League punish clubs for trying to adjust to a completely different financial structure in a short period of time? Its not our fault that we can't get rid of Campbell because nobody else wants him or Etuhu because he's permanently injured. jack01
  • Score: 2

3:26pm Thu 22 May 14

Stretch_22 says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
Well, well, well. Would you just look what we have here....

Financial Fair Play is here boys and girls. A vote has been put to the clubs in the Championship with regard to relaxing the sanctions applied to non-compliant clubs. That vote has been understandably unsuccessful and therefore the rules as agreed upon by all clubs back in 2012 will now come into force, with sanctions imposed as of December 2014.

The clubs who objected to the rulings are Leicester City, QPR, Nottingham Forest and Blackburn Rovers, much to the frustration of the deluded one above who thinks every team in the country is run as poorly as his own. Leicester City are now a Premier League club, QPR could also join them via the play-off's which leaves Nottingham Forest and serial over-spenders Blackburn Rovers.

The truth, as hard is it is for no-dads to accept, is that the VAST majority of clubs have been getting their house in order progressively since 2012 when the rules were agreed. The two year adjustment period was time enough for clubs to handle any extortionate contracts, reduce the wage bill, sell higher earners, and begin the process of concentrating on youth development. All essential to correct the wrongs that have occurred all too frequently in football over recent years. The basic premise being to only spend what you earn, why is this such an alien concept to some?

Clubs like Burnley began making preparations for FFP almost immediately and took steps to reduce the squad size and the wage bill whilst securing their important players on reduced contracts where possible, Ross Wallace being one example of this. Other clubs such as Brighton have also had to cut their cloth accordingly, as have many others who have suffered in terms of league position as a result.

I see there are plenty of teary eyed no-dads above who are finally coming to terms with what WILL happen to their club, along with the usual head-in-the-sand brigade who simply reject the notion that their "famous" club will be dealt with so harshly.

The simple fact is that Blackburn Rovers WILL have to restructure on a massive scale to become compliant with the rules, this process will take many seasons to complete. The excesses of years gone by are now causing major problems for a small club with an average attendance of only 14k following relegation.

This combined with ridiculous contracts being handed out, i.e., Dickson Etuhu £35,000 a week, 4 year contract, Jordan Rhodes, £40,000 a week, Leon Best, DJ Campbell, David Goodwillie, etc,. is why you will suffer the most.

A saving of around £25million must be made to align with the maximum loss figures quoted for this season, and as JC states above this is just the tip of the iceberg when you consider the further £8million deficit due to the parachute payment reduction this season, and the cessation of parachute payments all together after the 2015 season.

There is a whole lot of trouble heading for Blackburn Rovers and the sooner people accept it the less of a shock its going to be.
Are we pretending that you have only just joined the converstation?
No one is fooled by your multiple accounts dingle...
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: Well, well, well. Would you just look what we have here.... Financial Fair Play is here boys and girls. A vote has been put to the clubs in the Championship with regard to relaxing the sanctions applied to non-compliant clubs. That vote has been understandably unsuccessful and therefore the rules as agreed upon by all clubs back in 2012 will now come into force, with sanctions imposed as of December 2014. The clubs who objected to the rulings are Leicester City, QPR, Nottingham Forest and Blackburn Rovers, much to the frustration of the deluded one above who thinks every team in the country is run as poorly as his own. Leicester City are now a Premier League club, QPR could also join them via the play-off's which leaves Nottingham Forest and serial over-spenders Blackburn Rovers. The truth, as hard is it is for no-dads to accept, is that the VAST majority of clubs have been getting their house in order progressively since 2012 when the rules were agreed. The two year adjustment period was time enough for clubs to handle any extortionate contracts, reduce the wage bill, sell higher earners, and begin the process of concentrating on youth development. All essential to correct the wrongs that have occurred all too frequently in football over recent years. The basic premise being to only spend what you earn, why is this such an alien concept to some? Clubs like Burnley began making preparations for FFP almost immediately and took steps to reduce the squad size and the wage bill whilst securing their important players on reduced contracts where possible, Ross Wallace being one example of this. Other clubs such as Brighton have also had to cut their cloth accordingly, as have many others who have suffered in terms of league position as a result. I see there are plenty of teary eyed no-dads above who are finally coming to terms with what WILL happen to their club, along with the usual head-in-the-sand brigade who simply reject the notion that their "famous" club will be dealt with so harshly. The simple fact is that Blackburn Rovers WILL have to restructure on a massive scale to become compliant with the rules, this process will take many seasons to complete. The excesses of years gone by are now causing major problems for a small club with an average attendance of only 14k following relegation. This combined with ridiculous contracts being handed out, i.e., Dickson Etuhu £35,000 a week, 4 year contract, Jordan Rhodes, £40,000 a week, Leon Best, DJ Campbell, David Goodwillie, etc,. is why you will suffer the most. A saving of around £25million must be made to align with the maximum loss figures quoted for this season, and as JC states above this is just the tip of the iceberg when you consider the further £8million deficit due to the parachute payment reduction this season, and the cessation of parachute payments all together after the 2015 season. There is a whole lot of trouble heading for Blackburn Rovers and the sooner people accept it the less of a shock its going to be.[/p][/quote]Are we pretending that you have only just joined the converstation? No one is fooled by your multiple accounts dingle... Stretch_22
  • Score: 1

3:34pm Thu 22 May 14

inflightmagazine says...

the get out of jail card for the league is already there ,transfer embargo is in place until such time as the club can show its on track to comply.

i.e heres the ban 2 days later latest projections show everything ok Ban lifted


The majority of clubs voted for it , just not the 75% required, how long before they change the voting rules.

Its becoming a farce , the moment a foreign investor pulls out of a deal to by a club because of FFP the whole thing will unravel. Money talks,
the get out of jail card for the league is already there ,transfer embargo is in place until such time as the club can show its on track to comply. i.e heres the ban 2 days later latest projections show everything ok Ban lifted The majority of clubs voted for it , just not the 75% required, how long before they change the voting rules. Its becoming a farce , the moment a foreign investor pulls out of a deal to by a club because of FFP the whole thing will unravel. Money talks, inflightmagazine
  • Score: 3

3:55pm Thu 22 May 14

Super_Clarets says...

TurfMoorTom wrote:
inflightmagazine wrote:
J.C - Rishton wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
J.C - Rishton wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed

The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers..............






..
Hi Tom

This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship.

We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous.

If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues).

Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field".

1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015.
2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers.
3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs.
4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs.
5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players.

All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.
Fair do's but I'm not sure where you're pulling your £17m figure from? You think we're going to be £17m over the allowed £8m?

This is how I saw it some time back:

So sell the £35k earners (Best, Robinson, Etuhu, Dann & possibly DJ Campbell?) asap and at the same time reduce squad numbers from an over-inflated 31 to a more manageable and focussed core of ~26. Even though he's on high wages, keeping Rhodes for now has to be the way.

That would net us ~£8m (assuming a free transfer replacement for Dann could be found) and reduce the wage bill by around a further £8m/year from currently assumed (£25m) bringing our wages to ~£17m. With 2 years of £8m parachute payments and some money injected from India we could hold on to Rhodes until he decides to move on though would need to sell should we not get promoted in the 2yr time frame.

So that would get us to:
Championship TV £3m
Gates (13000 @ £15) £4.5m
Sponsorships say £3m
Parachute £8m
Player trading £8m
Wages (~£18m)
Running costs (~£6m) still high, exactly how you got to £15.4m needs full transparency

The above figures would make us £2.5m in PROFIT!!! (or £10.5m within FFP) and sustainable + still with a better remaining squad than the 6 fingered folk.

With only selling Dann, what we actually see is £2m coming in (rather than my rose tinted £8m) and wages up at £24m (rather than my rose tinted £18m).

This still leaves us at £10m in the red - admittedly just outside FFP though if we can shift Best or Etuhu not far away. I'd also hope that the running costs of the club are being tightened up because that was a big unexplained black hole and the assumed £6m can't be right.

Basically we need to shift the deadwood before the parachute payments run out which we will for certain as their contracts will run to conclusion in the worst case. If we don't go up in the next two seasons we'll also need to sell Rhodes. With the above taken into account, as long as Venkys put in their £5m/yr we're not in such a bad situation as a Dingle might like to believe.
Yes but you havent included any player purchases in your figures.

You can't include the sale of Scott Dann without the purchase of JR £8m, Marshall £1m, Gestede Cainry and Conway about £1m = £10m in outgoings which your figures have totally excluded.

(JR trnafer went through AFTER the yr end of our last published accounts and therefore must be in this years).

I am sure the figures of £13m-£16m will be around the savings we will be required to make with more the season after.
if you check the accounts it was actually accrued and included in the end of june 2013 accounts , as was the best purchase , also included wasthe paying up of Nuno Gomes and Danny murphys contracts, as well as henning Bergs and Appletons pay offs. Downloadable for £1 at companies house.
Thanks. So there you go, the figures I give can't be that far out. While the parachute payments are still in place we're not that far away from meeting FFP.
Sadly you are wide of the mark yet again Tom

So what you're saying is that your club, having lost £36.5million last season, having made a minimal reduction to running costs and wage bill this season, and having now to find an additional £8million on top of the current seasons losses, will somehow magically be not too far away from meeting FFP?

Nonsense.
[quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inflightmagazine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers.............. ..[/p][/quote]Hi Tom This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship. We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous. If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues). Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field". 1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015. 2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers. 3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs. 4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs. 5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players. All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.[/p][/quote]Fair do's but I'm not sure where you're pulling your £17m figure from? You think we're going to be £17m over the allowed £8m? This is how I saw it some time back: So sell the £35k earners (Best, Robinson, Etuhu, Dann & possibly DJ Campbell?) asap and at the same time reduce squad numbers from an over-inflated 31 to a more manageable and focussed core of ~26. Even though he's on high wages, keeping Rhodes for now has to be the way. That would net us ~£8m (assuming a free transfer replacement for Dann could be found) and reduce the wage bill by around a further £8m/year from currently assumed (£25m) bringing our wages to ~£17m. With 2 years of £8m parachute payments and some money injected from India we could hold on to Rhodes until he decides to move on though would need to sell should we not get promoted in the 2yr time frame. So that would get us to: Championship TV £3m Gates (13000 @ £15) £4.5m Sponsorships say £3m Parachute £8m Player trading £8m Wages (~£18m) Running costs (~£6m) still high, exactly how you got to £15.4m needs full transparency The above figures would make us £2.5m in PROFIT!!! (or £10.5m within FFP) and sustainable + still with a better remaining squad than the 6 fingered folk. With only selling Dann, what we actually see is £2m coming in (rather than my rose tinted £8m) and wages up at £24m (rather than my rose tinted £18m). This still leaves us at £10m in the red - admittedly just outside FFP though if we can shift Best or Etuhu not far away. I'd also hope that the running costs of the club are being tightened up because that was a big unexplained black hole and the assumed £6m can't be right. Basically we need to shift the deadwood before the parachute payments run out which we will for certain as their contracts will run to conclusion in the worst case. If we don't go up in the next two seasons we'll also need to sell Rhodes. With the above taken into account, as long as Venkys put in their £5m/yr we're not in such a bad situation as a Dingle might like to believe.[/p][/quote]Yes but you havent included any player purchases in your figures. You can't include the sale of Scott Dann without the purchase of JR £8m, Marshall £1m, Gestede Cainry and Conway about £1m = £10m in outgoings which your figures have totally excluded. (JR trnafer went through AFTER the yr end of our last published accounts and therefore must be in this years). I am sure the figures of £13m-£16m will be around the savings we will be required to make with more the season after.[/p][/quote]if you check the accounts it was actually accrued and included in the end of june 2013 accounts , as was the best purchase , also included wasthe paying up of Nuno Gomes and Danny murphys contracts, as well as henning Bergs and Appletons pay offs. Downloadable for £1 at companies house.[/p][/quote]Thanks. So there you go, the figures I give can't be that far out. While the parachute payments are still in place we're not that far away from meeting FFP.[/p][/quote]Sadly you are wide of the mark yet again Tom So what you're saying is that your club, having lost £36.5million last season, having made a minimal reduction to running costs and wage bill this season, and having now to find an additional £8million on top of the current seasons losses, will somehow magically be not too far away from meeting FFP? Nonsense. Super_Clarets
  • Score: 3

4:02pm Thu 22 May 14

Super_Clarets says...

inflightmagazine wrote:
the get out of jail card for the league is already there ,transfer embargo is in place until such time as the club can show its on track to comply.

i.e heres the ban 2 days later latest projections show everything ok Ban lifted


The majority of clubs voted for it , just not the 75% required, how long before they change the voting rules.

Its becoming a farce , the moment a foreign investor pulls out of a deal to by a club because of FFP the whole thing will unravel. Money talks,
The ban is only lifted however when your club can prove that it will meet the requirements of FFP, that being a self financing business plan. This will involve a massive cost cutting operation and the sale of assets of value along with a drastic cut to the wage bill. The transfer embargo itself is neither here nor there in the bigger picture, it's the effect of reducing your costs that will turn things to liquid sh!t for Blackburn Rovers.
[quote][p][bold]inflightmagazine[/bold] wrote: the get out of jail card for the league is already there ,transfer embargo is in place until such time as the club can show its on track to comply. i.e heres the ban 2 days later latest projections show everything ok Ban lifted The majority of clubs voted for it , just not the 75% required, how long before they change the voting rules. Its becoming a farce , the moment a foreign investor pulls out of a deal to by a club because of FFP the whole thing will unravel. Money talks,[/p][/quote]The ban is only lifted however when your club can prove that it will meet the requirements of FFP, that being a self financing business plan. This will involve a massive cost cutting operation and the sale of assets of value along with a drastic cut to the wage bill. The transfer embargo itself is neither here nor there in the bigger picture, it's the effect of reducing your costs that will turn things to liquid sh!t for Blackburn Rovers. Super_Clarets
  • Score: 2

4:04pm Thu 22 May 14

wilddog says...

Why do you think that the majority of clubs voted and have accepted the FFP as it is?. Maybe because most have them have put there house in order! Rovers have known all about FFP for the past few years but choose to ignore it. Why is that?
Why do you think that the majority of clubs voted and have accepted the FFP as it is?. Maybe because most have them have put there house in order! Rovers have known all about FFP for the past few years but choose to ignore it. Why is that? wilddog
  • Score: 1

4:13pm Thu 22 May 14

inflightmagazine says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
inflightmagazine wrote:
J.C - Rishton wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
J.C - Rishton wrote:
TurfMoorTom wrote:
I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed

The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers..............







..
Hi Tom

This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship.

We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous.

If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues).

Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field".

1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015.
2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers.
3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs.
4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs.
5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players.

All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.
Fair do's but I'm not sure where you're pulling your £17m figure from? You think we're going to be £17m over the allowed £8m?

This is how I saw it some time back:

So sell the £35k earners (Best, Robinson, Etuhu, Dann & possibly DJ Campbell?) asap and at the same time reduce squad numbers from an over-inflated 31 to a more manageable and focussed core of ~26. Even though he's on high wages, keeping Rhodes for now has to be the way.

That would net us ~£8m (assuming a free transfer replacement for Dann could be found) and reduce the wage bill by around a further £8m/year from currently assumed (£25m) bringing our wages to ~£17m. With 2 years of £8m parachute payments and some money injected from India we could hold on to Rhodes until he decides to move on though would need to sell should we not get promoted in the 2yr time frame.

So that would get us to:
Championship TV £3m
Gates (13000 @ £15) £4.5m
Sponsorships say £3m
Parachute £8m
Player trading £8m
Wages (~£18m)
Running costs (~£6m) still high, exactly how you got to £15.4m needs full transparency

The above figures would make us £2.5m in PROFIT!!! (or £10.5m within FFP) and sustainable + still with a better remaining squad than the 6 fingered folk.

With only selling Dann, what we actually see is £2m coming in (rather than my rose tinted £8m) and wages up at £24m (rather than my rose tinted £18m).

This still leaves us at £10m in the red - admittedly just outside FFP though if we can shift Best or Etuhu not far away. I'd also hope that the running costs of the club are being tightened up because that was a big unexplained black hole and the assumed £6m can't be right.

Basically we need to shift the deadwood before the parachute payments run out which we will for certain as their contracts will run to conclusion in the worst case. If we don't go up in the next two seasons we'll also need to sell Rhodes. With the above taken into account, as long as Venkys put in their £5m/yr we're not in such a bad situation as a Dingle might like to believe.
Yes but you havent included any player purchases in your figures.

You can't include the sale of Scott Dann without the purchase of JR £8m, Marshall £1m, Gestede Cainry and Conway about £1m = £10m in outgoings which your figures have totally excluded.

(JR trnafer went through AFTER the yr end of our last published accounts and therefore must be in this years).

I am sure the figures of £13m-£16m will be around the savings we will be required to make with more the season after.
if you check the accounts it was actually accrued and included in the end of june 2013 accounts , as was the best purchase , also included wasthe paying up of Nuno Gomes and Danny murphys contracts, as well as henning Bergs and Appletons pay offs. Downloadable for £1 at companies house.
Thanks. So there you go, the figures I give can't be that far out. While the parachute payments are still in place we're not that far away from meeting FFP.
Sadly you are wide of the mark yet again Tom

So what you're saying is that your club, having lost £36.5million last season, having made a minimal reduction to running costs and wage bill this season, and having now to find an additional £8million on top of the current seasons losses, will somehow magically be not too far away from meeting FFP?

Nonsense.
how do you get a minimal reduction in costs ect. £11m in 2013 on transfers not spent , £2m Henning Berg settlement not spent, Nuno gomes and Danny Murphy contracts paid up in 2013 not spent circa £3-5 million. Appleton settlement not spent

16 Fring players released.

The lower league clubs will be desperate for the bigger clubs to be released from Transfer embargos, they need bigger clubs to come in and buy their players to survive.

Look what sending Rangers down has done to Scottish club revenues.

They would not even be having these meetings if there was not a problem
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inflightmagazine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TurfMoorTom[/bold] wrote: I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers.............. ..[/p][/quote]Hi Tom This news is very very disapointing for us Rovers fans and IF a transfer embargo is enforced on us it will potencially have a devastating effect on our ability to compete in the Championship. We won't be able to get out of a transfer ambargo by simply "allowing the fringe players and high wage earners to run out their contracts" - the amount of money we will have to find to "get out of" or avoid the transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2014 will be in the region of £17m (Best, our joint hightest wage earner earns about £1,820,000 per year). Given that you can't leave a transfer embargo until you are within the finantial boundaries the cuts to the squad will have to be enormous. If we then fail to get out of a tranfer embargo our accounts for the 2014-15 season will have to find a further £10m in savings, just to keep us standing still (as we lose another £2m in support, allowable, from the owners and we will shortly lose another £8m in TV revenues). Also, other reasons why a transfer embargo will massively impact on our ability to compete "on field". 1 - Much harder to sign "good" players - if we want to sign a good (indemand) player this summer he is more likely to think twice if he knows the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015. 2 - Much more likely to lose our better players. They can see the squad can't be improved from 1st Jan 2015 so they are more likely to look esewhere for their careers. 3 - Other clubs are more likely to try to unsettle our better players and then buy them cheaply - knowing we HAVE to reduce costs. 4 - Players we do want to off load will have to virtually be given away (below market value) as clubs know we are desperate to cut costs. 5 - If we have an injury crisis from Dec 2014 onwards we can't sign players to cover our injuryed players. All in all, if we are forced into a transfer embargo on 1st Jan 2015 then on a playing side it will be game over for us (and other clubs in the same situation) until they can get out of it. No way will we be able to compete at the top end of the table - it will make it impossible.[/p][/quote]Fair do's but I'm not sure where you're pulling your £17m figure from? You think we're going to be £17m over the allowed £8m? This is how I saw it some time back: So sell the £35k earners (Best, Robinson, Etuhu, Dann & possibly DJ Campbell?) asap and at the same time reduce squad numbers from an over-inflated 31 to a more manageable and focussed core of ~26. Even though he's on high wages, keeping Rhodes for now has to be the way. That would net us ~£8m (assuming a free transfer replacement for Dann could be found) and reduce the wage bill by around a further £8m/year from currently assumed (£25m) bringing our wages to ~£17m. With 2 years of £8m parachute payments and some money injected from India we could hold on to Rhodes until he decides to move on though would need to sell should we not get promoted in the 2yr time frame. So that would get us to: Championship TV £3m Gates (13000 @ £15) £4.5m Sponsorships say £3m Parachute £8m Player trading £8m Wages (~£18m) Running costs (~£6m) still high, exactly how you got to £15.4m needs full transparency The above figures would make us £2.5m in PROFIT!!! (or £10.5m within FFP) and sustainable + still with a better remaining squad than the 6 fingered folk. With only selling Dann, what we actually see is £2m coming in (rather than my rose tinted £8m) and wages up at £24m (rather than my rose tinted £18m). This still leaves us at £10m in the red - admittedly just outside FFP though if we can shift Best or Etuhu not far away. I'd also hope that the running costs of the club are being tightened up because that was a big unexplained black hole and the assumed £6m can't be right. Basically we need to shift the deadwood before the parachute payments run out which we will for certain as their contracts will run to conclusion in the worst case. If we don't go up in the next two seasons we'll also need to sell Rhodes. With the above taken into account, as long as Venkys put in their £5m/yr we're not in such a bad situation as a Dingle might like to believe.[/p][/quote]Yes but you havent included any player purchases in your figures. You can't include the sale of Scott Dann without the purchase of JR £8m, Marshall £1m, Gestede Cainry and Conway about £1m = £10m in outgoings which your figures have totally excluded. (JR trnafer went through AFTER the yr end of our last published accounts and therefore must be in this years). I am sure the figures of £13m-£16m will be around the savings we will be required to make with more the season after.[/p][/quote]if you check the accounts it was actually accrued and included in the end of june 2013 accounts , as was the best purchase , also included wasthe paying up of Nuno Gomes and Danny murphys contracts, as well as henning Bergs and Appletons pay offs. Downloadable for £1 at companies house.[/p][/quote]Thanks. So there you go, the figures I give can't be that far out. While the parachute payments are still in place we're not that far away from meeting FFP.[/p][/quote]Sadly you are wide of the mark yet again Tom So what you're saying is that your club, having lost £36.5million last season, having made a minimal reduction to running costs and wage bill this season, and having now to find an additional £8million on top of the current seasons losses, will somehow magically be not too far away from meeting FFP? Nonsense.[/p][/quote]how do you get a minimal reduction in costs ect. £11m in 2013 on transfers not spent , £2m Henning Berg settlement not spent, Nuno gomes and Danny Murphy contracts paid up in 2013 not spent circa £3-5 million. Appleton settlement not spent 16 Fring players released. The lower league clubs will be desperate for the bigger clubs to be released from Transfer embargos, they need bigger clubs to come in and buy their players to survive. Look what sending Rangers down has done to Scottish club revenues. They would not even be having these meetings if there was not a problem inflightmagazine
  • Score: 4

4:15pm Thu 22 May 14

inflightmagazine says...

wilddog wrote:
Why do you think that the majority of clubs voted and have accepted the FFP as it is?. Maybe because most have them have put there house in order! Rovers have known all about FFP for the past few years but choose to ignore it. Why is that?
The premiership TV deal had not been released at the time so they were not aware of what the figures need to be, the majority now want change and are being held to ransom by a minority of small clubs , its in the article if you read it.
[quote][p][bold]wilddog[/bold] wrote: Why do you think that the majority of clubs voted and have accepted the FFP as it is?. Maybe because most have them have put there house in order! Rovers have known all about FFP for the past few years but choose to ignore it. Why is that?[/p][/quote]The premiership TV deal had not been released at the time so they were not aware of what the figures need to be, the majority now want change and are being held to ransom by a minority of small clubs , its in the article if you read it. inflightmagazine
  • Score: 2

4:33pm Thu 22 May 14

Harwoodstblue says...

inflightmagazine wrote:
wilddog wrote:
Why do you think that the majority of clubs voted and have accepted the FFP as it is?. Maybe because most have them have put there house in order! Rovers have known all about FFP for the past few years but choose to ignore it. Why is that?
The premiership TV deal had not been released at the time so they were not aware of what the figures need to be, the majority now want change and are being held to ransom by a minority of small clubs , its in the article if you read it.
But they don't read it. They just spout what they would like to happen in Rovers case.

Btw....Widdog is another alias of WLUV.
[quote][p][bold]inflightmagazine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wilddog[/bold] wrote: Why do you think that the majority of clubs voted and have accepted the FFP as it is?. Maybe because most have them have put there house in order! Rovers have known all about FFP for the past few years but choose to ignore it. Why is that?[/p][/quote]The premiership TV deal had not been released at the time so they were not aware of what the figures need to be, the majority now want change and are being held to ransom by a minority of small clubs , its in the article if you read it.[/p][/quote]But they don't read it. They just spout what they would like to happen in Rovers case. Btw....Widdog is another alias of WLUV. Harwoodstblue
  • Score: 0

4:54pm Thu 22 May 14

wilddog says...

inflightmagazine wrote:
wilddog wrote:
Why do you think that the majority of clubs voted and have accepted the FFP as it is?. Maybe because most have them have put there house in order! Rovers have known all about FFP for the past few years but choose to ignore it. Why is that?
The premiership TV deal had not been released at the time so they were not aware of what the figures need to be, the majority now want change and are being held to ransom by a minority of small clubs , its in the article if you read it.
So 2 seasons ago when rovers came down, they blinkered themselves? Do you think for one moment the clubs that are with in the FFP rules and have complied with it are going to allow clubs like yours to try and change it? Wots in it for the clubs that cut back when they also could have spent stupidly and perhaps go up to the prem? Rovers have tried to get it changed and they have failed and rightly so as they sent regardless and have continued doing so.
[quote][p][bold]inflightmagazine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wilddog[/bold] wrote: Why do you think that the majority of clubs voted and have accepted the FFP as it is?. Maybe because most have them have put there house in order! Rovers have known all about FFP for the past few years but choose to ignore it. Why is that?[/p][/quote]The premiership TV deal had not been released at the time so they were not aware of what the figures need to be, the majority now want change and are being held to ransom by a minority of small clubs , its in the article if you read it.[/p][/quote]So 2 seasons ago when rovers came down, they blinkered themselves? Do you think for one moment the clubs that are with in the FFP rules and have complied with it are going to allow clubs like yours to try and change it? Wots in it for the clubs that cut back when they also could have spent stupidly and perhaps go up to the prem? Rovers have tried to get it changed and they have failed and rightly so as they sent regardless and have continued doing so. wilddog
  • Score: 3

4:56pm Thu 22 May 14

wilddog says...

Harwoodstblue wrote:
inflightmagazine wrote:
wilddog wrote:
Why do you think that the majority of clubs voted and have accepted the FFP as it is?. Maybe because most have them have put there house in order! Rovers have known all about FFP for the past few years but choose to ignore it. Why is that?
The premiership TV deal had not been released at the time so they were not aware of what the figures need to be, the majority now want change and are being held to ransom by a minority of small clubs , its in the article if you read it.
But they don't read it. They just spout what they would like to happen in Rovers case.

Btw....Widdog is another alias of WLUV.
Oh the pain you guys are gonna suffer! Tough, get over it, time you wannabe bigs boys came down to earth.

Who is wluv?
[quote][p][bold]Harwoodstblue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inflightmagazine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wilddog[/bold] wrote: Why do you think that the majority of clubs voted and have accepted the FFP as it is?. Maybe because most have them have put there house in order! Rovers have known all about FFP for the past few years but choose to ignore it. Why is that?[/p][/quote]The premiership TV deal had not been released at the time so they were not aware of what the figures need to be, the majority now want change and are being held to ransom by a minority of small clubs , its in the article if you read it.[/p][/quote]But they don't read it. They just spout what they would like to happen in Rovers case. Btw....Widdog is another alias of WLUV.[/p][/quote]Oh the pain you guys are gonna suffer! Tough, get over it, time you wannabe bigs boys came down to earth. Who is wluv? wilddog
  • Score: 2

5:08pm Thu 22 May 14

owd nick says...

J.C - Rishton wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Champagne plus charlie wrote:
FFP is truly a wonderful thing.

The great equaliser.
FFP for Championship clubs is based on one years finances, but for PL clubs it's three years.

Pleas explain how that is a great equaliser?

The three clubs promoted to the PL will be classed (financially) as Championship clubs in the first year, competing against the rest who will have a least two years in the PL in the bank, most will have significantly more.

How can that be regarded as a great equaliser because if they are allowed to do so they will have to mortgage some of their potential earnings from their first season in the PL, so if they are relegated, which historically is likely, the banks will be looking for their pound of flesh.

FFP isn't fair, it's designed to make the bigger clubs bigger and the sooner you self righteous idiots work that out the better.

That's why City's fine has been reduced, it's basically been spread over three years and as long as City play ball and don't overstep the mark again there is provision to reduce the fine pro rata over the following two years.

Gloating is fine, enjoy you day in the sun, but the reality is that smaller clubs like ours can no longer compete with big city clubs who can;

- fill stadiums with 40 to 80,000 fans paying a premium for the privilege.
- attract huge world wide TV audiences.
- attract huge sponsorship deals.

And under the auspices of FFP have been given a huge financial advantage.

City have been given a £16 million fine, Dyche has be given a £16 million transfer kitty that has to cover not only any transfer fees but agents fees, signing on fees, salaries; etc, etc.

I suppose that's another example of a great equaliser?
compete and utter rubbish and totally irrelevant.

Like I have stated earlier, UEFA, the English premier league and the football league are all seperate and make their own rules and punishments on FFP - so comparing Man City and BRFC is utter nonsense.

Also, we are in the football league and FFP was voted in by the 20 members - it had NOTHING to do with the premier league or UEFA.

This is democracy, although you and I may not like or agree with it, the majority of the FOOTBALL LEAGUE MEMBERS (ie the "other clubs") want FFP intruduced and they want clubs that have failed to comply to be punished by the introduction of a transfer ban.

If we receive one then it will be tough for us but we won't be alble to complain because although we didnt vote on it (because we were in the PLat the time), we knew it was going to be enforced and instead of starting to reduce our wage bill once we had ben relegated we signed -
1 - Danny Murphy
2 - Nunes Gomes
3 - Dixon Etuhu
4 - Jordan Rhodes

all on huge wages for this division in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to the aims and guidlines of our fellow football league members and now we are having to pay the penalty for such a misguided policy.

Thats why having owners like Venkys who know nothing and seem to take little understanding about the club, the area, the sport and the rules with which we have to comply with has been a disaster.

When people like me have continually banged on about the "drip drip effect" of the club being badly run and that the end of the day we will have to pay for the continually dailly mismanagement - well we now know the date we have to pay for Venkys longterm mismanagement of this club and that date is the 1st January 2015.

Still, I'm sure you'll defend their mismanagement and cry "unfair practices" and "bias" against small clubs/rich owners/foreigners etc etc rather than face the reality and truth about the situation.
JC, thanks for the rant, my comments were aimed at the village idiot, but if you want to join him in idiot land please be my guest.

It doesn't matter one iota whether its UEFA or the FA, these rules are driven by Platini who just happens to be the President of UEFA, that's were FFP has it's origins. (and his hatred of everything English is legendary).

The point I was trying to make is if it's all about "Fair Play" why aren't every club in the country working to the same rules? Established PL clubs, and those in their equivalent leagues across Europe now have a huge financial advantage over everyone else, and it will only get greater under FFP.

How on earth can it be deemed fair when some club owners can invest in their clubs to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds yet other clubs, whose owners are more than willing to invest aren't allowed to?

It's madness and it will destroy football at the lower levels because clubs will no longer be able to attract sufficient investment to progress.

Let's look at it with a slightly different slant, if FFP had been introduced in the early 90's Jack Walker would not have been allowed to invest in Rovers.
[quote][p][bold]J.C - Rishton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Champagne plus charlie[/bold] wrote: FFP is truly a wonderful thing. The great equaliser.[/p][/quote]FFP for Championship clubs is based on one years finances, but for PL clubs it's three years. Pleas explain how that is a great equaliser? The three clubs promoted to the PL will be classed (financially) as Championship clubs in the first year, competing against the rest who will have a least two years in the PL in the bank, most will have significantly more. How can that be regarded as a great equaliser because if they are allowed to do so they will have to mortgage some of their potential earnings from their first season in the PL, so if they are relegated, which historically is likely, the banks will be looking for their pound of flesh. FFP isn't fair, it's designed to make the bigger clubs bigger and the sooner you self righteous idiots work that out the better. That's why City's fine has been reduced, it's basically been spread over three years and as long as City play ball and don't overstep the mark again there is provision to reduce the fine pro rata over the following two years. Gloating is fine, enjoy you day in the sun, but the reality is that smaller clubs like ours can no longer compete with big city clubs who can; - fill stadiums with 40 to 80,000 fans paying a premium for the privilege. - attract huge world wide TV audiences. - attract huge sponsorship deals. And under the auspices of FFP have been given a huge financial advantage. City have been given a £16 million fine, Dyche has be given a £16 million transfer kitty that has to cover not only any transfer fees but agents fees, signing on fees, salaries; etc, etc. I suppose that's another example of a great equaliser?[/p][/quote]compete and utter rubbish and totally irrelevant. Like I have stated earlier, UEFA, the English premier league and the football league are all seperate and make their own rules and punishments on FFP - so comparing Man City and BRFC is utter nonsense. Also, we are in the football league and FFP was voted in by the 20 members - it had NOTHING to do with the premier league or UEFA. This is democracy, although you and I may not like or agree with it, the majority of the FOOTBALL LEAGUE MEMBERS (ie the "other clubs") want FFP intruduced and they want clubs that have failed to comply to be punished by the introduction of a transfer ban. If we receive one then it will be tough for us but we won't be alble to complain because although we didnt vote on it (because we were in the PLat the time), we knew it was going to be enforced and instead of starting to reduce our wage bill once we had ben relegated we signed - 1 - Danny Murphy 2 - Nunes Gomes 3 - Dixon Etuhu 4 - Jordan Rhodes all on huge wages for this division in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to the aims and guidlines of our fellow football league members and now we are having to pay the penalty for such a misguided policy. Thats why having owners like Venkys who know nothing and seem to take little understanding about the club, the area, the sport and the rules with which we have to comply with has been a disaster. When people like me have continually banged on about the "drip drip effect" of the club being badly run and that the end of the day we will have to pay for the continually dailly mismanagement - well we now know the date we have to pay for Venkys longterm mismanagement of this club and that date is the 1st January 2015. Still, I'm sure you'll defend their mismanagement and cry "unfair practices" and "bias" against small clubs/rich owners/foreigners etc etc rather than face the reality and truth about the situation.[/p][/quote]JC, thanks for the rant, my comments were aimed at the village idiot, but if you want to join him in idiot land please be my guest. It doesn't matter one iota whether its UEFA or the FA, these rules are driven by Platini who just happens to be the President of UEFA, that's were FFP has it's origins. (and his hatred of everything English is legendary). The point I was trying to make is if it's all about "Fair Play" why aren't every club in the country working to the same rules? Established PL clubs, and those in their equivalent leagues across Europe now have a huge financial advantage over everyone else, and it will only get greater under FFP. How on earth can it be deemed fair when some club owners can invest in their clubs to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds yet other clubs, whose owners are more than willing to invest aren't allowed to? It's madness and it will destroy football at the lower levels because clubs will no longer be able to attract sufficient investment to progress. Let's look at it with a slightly different slant, if FFP had been introduced in the early 90's Jack Walker would not have been allowed to invest in Rovers. owd nick
  • Score: 1

5:12pm Thu 22 May 14

inflightmagazine says...

wilddog wrote:
inflightmagazine wrote:
wilddog wrote: Why do you think that the majority of clubs voted and have accepted the FFP as it is?. Maybe because most have them have put there house in order! Rovers have known all about FFP for the past few years but choose to ignore it. Why is that?
The premiership TV deal had not been released at the time so they were not aware of what the figures need to be, the majority now want change and are being held to ransom by a minority of small clubs , its in the article if you read it.
So 2 seasons ago when rovers came down, they blinkered themselves? Do you think for one moment the clubs that are with in the FFP rules and have complied with it are going to allow clubs like yours to try and change it? Wots in it for the clubs that cut back when they also could have spent stupidly and perhaps go up to the prem? Rovers have tried to get it changed and they have failed and rightly so as they sent regardless and have continued doing so.
Yes as soon as they get the right financial insensitive to do so
[quote][p][bold]wilddog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inflightmagazine[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wilddog[/bold] wrote: Why do you think that the majority of clubs voted and have accepted the FFP as it is?. Maybe because most have them have put there house in order! Rovers have known all about FFP for the past few years but choose to ignore it. Why is that?[/p][/quote]The premiership TV deal had not been released at the time so they were not aware of what the figures need to be, the majority now want change and are being held to ransom by a minority of small clubs , its in the article if you read it.[/p][/quote]So 2 seasons ago when rovers came down, they blinkered themselves? Do you think for one moment the clubs that are with in the FFP rules and have complied with it are going to allow clubs like yours to try and change it? Wots in it for the clubs that cut back when they also could have spent stupidly and perhaps go up to the prem? Rovers have tried to get it changed and they have failed and rightly so as they sent regardless and have continued doing so.[/p][/quote]Yes as soon as they get the right financial insensitive to do so inflightmagazine
  • Score: -1

7:14pm Thu 22 May 14

baldie says...

Would the embargo include loans?Can't find it anywhere.
Would the embargo include loans?Can't find it anywhere. baldie
  • Score: 0

10:49pm Thu 22 May 14

wilddog says...

I agree that it should be right across all leagues regardless! In saying that, a lot of average footballers get a high wage which they dont merit nor really earn on the field of play. Players wages have hit the roof and thats wrong also. Look at him on 300k a week! Not worth it to be honest but if his wage was earned on goals and chances taken, he would be on about 37.50 a week. Wage bills need to come down but again, the elite can afford it knowing that they will not be included in FFP!
I agree that it should be right across all leagues regardless! In saying that, a lot of average footballers get a high wage which they dont merit nor really earn on the field of play. Players wages have hit the roof and thats wrong also. Look at him on 300k a week! Not worth it to be honest but if his wage was earned on goals and chances taken, he would be on about 37.50 a week. Wage bills need to come down but again, the elite can afford it knowing that they will not be included in FFP! wilddog
  • Score: 0

11:04pm Thu 22 May 14

Welsh Rover says...

I won't lie, when it comes to Financial Fair Play I'm not exactly on top of everything. I understand the implications, but I'm not clear on the exact figures involved. Are there any published articles (not doom-mongering from Internet trolls) which explain, in detail, the ideal course of action that Rovers should take this season?

Selling all of our better players in the summer is not a viable option, surely? This is the last chance for Gary Bowyer to put together a squad capable of pushing for the top 6 so, if we are hit with a transfer embargo, as expected, it might not be so detrimental to our season.
I won't lie, when it comes to Financial Fair Play I'm not exactly on top of everything. I understand the implications, but I'm not clear on the exact figures involved. Are there any published articles (not doom-mongering from Internet trolls) which explain, in detail, the ideal course of action that Rovers should take this season? Selling all of our better players in the summer is not a viable option, surely? This is the last chance for Gary Bowyer to put together a squad capable of pushing for the top 6 so, if we are hit with a transfer embargo, as expected, it might not be so detrimental to our season. Welsh Rover
  • Score: 0

2:48am Fri 23 May 14

jim 2012 says...

Champagne plus charlie wrote:
FFP is truly a wonderful thing.

The great equaliser.
FFP is a violation of EU competition law. FFP may also infringe other EU freedoms such as the free movement of workers and services
European Court of Justice ruled against restrictions that prevented football players from moving to new clubs after their contracts expired. The Luxembourg-based court also prohibited domestic football leagues and UEFA from placing quotas on the number of non-EU players allowed on teams
. European Court of Justice set an even more important precedent: that sports do not constitute a special case before EU law.
[quote][p][bold]Champagne plus charlie[/bold] wrote: FFP is truly a wonderful thing. The great equaliser.[/p][/quote]FFP is a violation of EU competition law. FFP may also infringe other EU freedoms such as the free movement of workers and services European Court of Justice ruled against restrictions that prevented football players from moving to new clubs after their contracts expired. The Luxembourg-based court also prohibited domestic football leagues and UEFA from placing quotas on the number of non-EU players allowed on teams . European Court of Justice set an even more important precedent: that sports do not constitute a special case before EU law. jim 2012
  • Score: 1

8:52am Fri 23 May 14

Super_Clarets says...

Wrong again Jim, I do wish you'd stop making things up....


UEFA and the European Commission have signed a joint agreement intended to prevent clubs using the EU legal system to challenge the validity of FFP, for example by claiming that it conflicted with anti-competition legislation.

The European Union - who acknowledged the unique "specificity of sport" in the Treaty of Lisbon - policy on sport stated "good governance in sport is a condition for the autonomy and self-regulation of sport organisations".

The vice-president of the EC and the Commissioner for Competition Joaquin Almunia confirmed that the existing FFP rules were both valid and in accordance with European legislation, saying; "I fully support the objectives of UEFA's FFP rules as I believe it is essential for football clubs to have a solid financial foundation.

The rules are in accordance with European law and the European Union has already acknowledged the need for FFP.

Get back in your box moron.
Wrong again Jim, I do wish you'd stop making things up.... UEFA and the European Commission have signed a joint agreement intended to prevent clubs using the EU legal system to challenge the validity of FFP, for example by claiming that it conflicted with anti-competition legislation. The European Union - who acknowledged the unique "specificity of sport" in the Treaty of Lisbon - policy on sport stated "good governance in sport is a condition for the autonomy and self-regulation of sport organisations". The vice-president of the EC and the Commissioner for Competition Joaquin Almunia confirmed that the existing FFP rules were both valid and in accordance with European legislation, saying; "I fully support the objectives of UEFA's FFP rules as I believe it is essential for football clubs to have a solid financial foundation. The rules are in accordance with European law and the European Union has already acknowledged the need for FFP. Get back in your box moron. Super_Clarets
  • Score: 2

9:42am Fri 23 May 14

owd nick says...

Welsh Rover wrote:
I won't lie, when it comes to Financial Fair Play I'm not exactly on top of everything. I understand the implications, but I'm not clear on the exact figures involved. Are there any published articles (not doom-mongering from Internet trolls) which explain, in detail, the ideal course of action that Rovers should take this season?

Selling all of our better players in the summer is not a viable option, surely? This is the last chance for Gary Bowyer to put together a squad capable of pushing for the top 6 so, if we are hit with a transfer embargo, as expected, it might not be so detrimental to our season.
The main document is free to download, just type in Football Fair Play and you should find it, if not have a look at the UEFA site, it's a bit of a tome though.

Have a look at this website: I use it a lot.

http://www.sportingi
ntelligence.com/
[quote][p][bold]Welsh Rover[/bold] wrote: I won't lie, when it comes to Financial Fair Play I'm not exactly on top of everything. I understand the implications, but I'm not clear on the exact figures involved. Are there any published articles (not doom-mongering from Internet trolls) which explain, in detail, the ideal course of action that Rovers should take this season? Selling all of our better players in the summer is not a viable option, surely? This is the last chance for Gary Bowyer to put together a squad capable of pushing for the top 6 so, if we are hit with a transfer embargo, as expected, it might not be so detrimental to our season.[/p][/quote]The main document is free to download, just type in Football Fair Play and you should find it, if not have a look at the UEFA site, it's a bit of a tome though. Have a look at this website: I use it a lot. http://www.sportingi ntelligence.com/ owd nick
  • Score: 1

10:34am Fri 23 May 14

Welsh Rover says...

owd nick wrote:
Welsh Rover wrote:
I won't lie, when it comes to Financial Fair Play I'm not exactly on top of everything. I understand the implications, but I'm not clear on the exact figures involved. Are there any published articles (not doom-mongering from Internet trolls) which explain, in detail, the ideal course of action that Rovers should take this season?

Selling all of our better players in the summer is not a viable option, surely? This is the last chance for Gary Bowyer to put together a squad capable of pushing for the top 6 so, if we are hit with a transfer embargo, as expected, it might not be so detrimental to our season.
The main document is free to download, just type in Football Fair Play and you should find it, if not have a look at the UEFA site, it's a bit of a tome though.

Have a look at this website: I use it a lot.

http://www.sportingi

ntelligence.com/
Cheers, Nick, but I've read up on FFP, it's just the numbers pertaining to our club in particular that I haven't got my head around yet. I'm looking for an article which pretty much spells out exactly what Rovers need to do this forthcoming season, based on facts and figures, as opposed to the conflicting comments I've read on Rovers forums. You're right about all the official FFP legislation being a tome though! It does make you wonder why, in this day and age, they don't just explain these things in layman's terms. Not everyone has done an evening class on accounting at Tenby Library...

Dewch Ar Chi Gleision!
[quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Welsh Rover[/bold] wrote: I won't lie, when it comes to Financial Fair Play I'm not exactly on top of everything. I understand the implications, but I'm not clear on the exact figures involved. Are there any published articles (not doom-mongering from Internet trolls) which explain, in detail, the ideal course of action that Rovers should take this season? Selling all of our better players in the summer is not a viable option, surely? This is the last chance for Gary Bowyer to put together a squad capable of pushing for the top 6 so, if we are hit with a transfer embargo, as expected, it might not be so detrimental to our season.[/p][/quote]The main document is free to download, just type in Football Fair Play and you should find it, if not have a look at the UEFA site, it's a bit of a tome though. Have a look at this website: I use it a lot. http://www.sportingi ntelligence.com/[/p][/quote]Cheers, Nick, but I've read up on FFP, it's just the numbers pertaining to our club in particular that I haven't got my head around yet. I'm looking for an article which pretty much spells out exactly what Rovers need to do this forthcoming season, based on facts and figures, as opposed to the conflicting comments I've read on Rovers forums. You're right about all the official FFP legislation being a tome though! It does make you wonder why, in this day and age, they don't just explain these things in layman's terms. Not everyone has done an evening class on accounting at Tenby Library... Dewch Ar Chi Gleision! Welsh Rover
  • Score: 1

10:38am Fri 23 May 14

Albionclaret says...

AnotherPounding4Burn
ley
wrote:
I think the Ftp rules are ridiculous. I'm a Burnley fan and when we get relegated at the end of the season we will be lucky not to spiral right out of the football league if we can't spend the parachute money on players
The parachute payments arnt designed to buy players.they are designed to help pay the prem wages of the players you have who have 2 or 3 years left I their contracts
[quote][p][bold]AnotherPounding4Burn ley[/bold] wrote: I think the Ftp rules are ridiculous. I'm a Burnley fan and when we get relegated at the end of the season we will be lucky not to spiral right out of the football league if we can't spend the parachute money on players[/p][/quote]The parachute payments arnt designed to buy players.they are designed to help pay the prem wages of the players you have who have 2 or 3 years left I their contracts Albionclaret
  • Score: 2

7:26pm Fri 23 May 14

owd nick says...

Welsh Rover wrote:
owd nick wrote:
Welsh Rover wrote:
I won't lie, when it comes to Financial Fair Play I'm not exactly on top of everything. I understand the implications, but I'm not clear on the exact figures involved. Are there any published articles (not doom-mongering from Internet trolls) which explain, in detail, the ideal course of action that Rovers should take this season?

Selling all of our better players in the summer is not a viable option, surely? This is the last chance for Gary Bowyer to put together a squad capable of pushing for the top 6 so, if we are hit with a transfer embargo, as expected, it might not be so detrimental to our season.
The main document is free to download, just type in Football Fair Play and you should find it, if not have a look at the UEFA site, it's a bit of a tome though.

Have a look at this website: I use it a lot.

http://www.sportingi


ntelligence.com/
Cheers, Nick, but I've read up on FFP, it's just the numbers pertaining to our club in particular that I haven't got my head around yet. I'm looking for an article which pretty much spells out exactly what Rovers need to do this forthcoming season, based on facts and figures, as opposed to the conflicting comments I've read on Rovers forums. You're right about all the official FFP legislation being a tome though! It does make you wonder why, in this day and age, they don't just explain these things in layman's terms. Not everyone has done an evening class on accounting at Tenby Library...

Dewch Ar Chi Gleision!
It's all speculation really, people looking at balance sheets and guessing out loud, the more optimistic Rovers fans don't appear to have cottoned on to the fact that it can't be ignored and it won't be a problem, hence the spend, spend, spend cries.

The more obdurate ex Rovers fans and our esteemed Burnley contingent are hoping that the full force of the rules will be applied and Rovers will be forced down the league structure at worst or forced into liquidation at best.

The truth probably falls somewhere in between, as with the Man City situation, irrespective of who dishes out the penalties that is now the benchmark.

From what I understand Rovers face a fine based on a percentage of their debt at a specific point in time, that fine has been quoted at anywhere between £8 to 12 million, and it has to be paid by the club, not the owners, the owners can continue to invest in the club but only up to an agreed limit, but that investment cannot be used to pay the fine.

There is proviso for the club to argue it's case regarding steps it is taking to reduce it's debt and I am pretty sure that's the route Rovers will take.

Personally I don't think there will be any issue with an embargo next season because if Rovers face one I am pretty certain that between 50 to 75% of the rest of the clubs in the Championship and Football League will face the same sanction.

So if you can't transfer players in, and no-one can buy the players you need to transfer out it all becomes a bit pointless.

A bit like Burnley in the PL.
[quote][p][bold]Welsh Rover[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Welsh Rover[/bold] wrote: I won't lie, when it comes to Financial Fair Play I'm not exactly on top of everything. I understand the implications, but I'm not clear on the exact figures involved. Are there any published articles (not doom-mongering from Internet trolls) which explain, in detail, the ideal course of action that Rovers should take this season? Selling all of our better players in the summer is not a viable option, surely? This is the last chance for Gary Bowyer to put together a squad capable of pushing for the top 6 so, if we are hit with a transfer embargo, as expected, it might not be so detrimental to our season.[/p][/quote]The main document is free to download, just type in Football Fair Play and you should find it, if not have a look at the UEFA site, it's a bit of a tome though. Have a look at this website: I use it a lot. http://www.sportingi ntelligence.com/[/p][/quote]Cheers, Nick, but I've read up on FFP, it's just the numbers pertaining to our club in particular that I haven't got my head around yet. I'm looking for an article which pretty much spells out exactly what Rovers need to do this forthcoming season, based on facts and figures, as opposed to the conflicting comments I've read on Rovers forums. You're right about all the official FFP legislation being a tome though! It does make you wonder why, in this day and age, they don't just explain these things in layman's terms. Not everyone has done an evening class on accounting at Tenby Library... Dewch Ar Chi Gleision![/p][/quote]It's all speculation really, people looking at balance sheets and guessing out loud, the more optimistic Rovers fans don't appear to have cottoned on to the fact that it can't be ignored and it won't be a problem, hence the spend, spend, spend cries. The more obdurate ex Rovers fans and our esteemed Burnley contingent are hoping that the full force of the rules will be applied and Rovers will be forced down the league structure at worst or forced into liquidation at best. The truth probably falls somewhere in between, as with the Man City situation, irrespective of who dishes out the penalties that is now the benchmark. From what I understand Rovers face a fine based on a percentage of their debt at a specific point in time, that fine has been quoted at anywhere between £8 to 12 million, and it has to be paid by the club, not the owners, the owners can continue to invest in the club but only up to an agreed limit, but that investment cannot be used to pay the fine. There is proviso for the club to argue it's case regarding steps it is taking to reduce it's debt and I am pretty sure that's the route Rovers will take. Personally I don't think there will be any issue with an embargo next season because if Rovers face one I am pretty certain that between 50 to 75% of the rest of the clubs in the Championship and Football League will face the same sanction. So if you can't transfer players in, and no-one can buy the players you need to transfer out it all becomes a bit pointless. A bit like Burnley in the PL. owd nick
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree