COMMENT: FFP call will define the entire season

Ewood managing director Derek Shaw is against the introduction of FFP with Rovers having a number of high-earning players on their books

Ewood managing director Derek Shaw is against the introduction of FFP with Rovers having a number of high-earning players on their books

First published in Football Lancashire Telegraph: Photograph of the Author by , Sports reporter

IN Portugal today, they will gather and advance their arguments. Fail to come to an agreement, and the entire Championship season could be plunged into farce.

Just three letters, FFP, have the potential to dominate the 2014/15 season.

For Blackburn Rovers and others, the incoming Financial Fair Play regulations will be the most important subject up for discussion when representatives of each of the 24 Championship clubs meet at the Football League’s AGM today.

Given that the Football League have decided to go all the way to Portugal again this year – presumably the conference rooms of England and Wales are booked up every June – hopefully they can make use of the trip by sorting the issue out once and for all.

But there is no guarantee of that. The point made by each of the 24 clubs today will very much depend on that club’s own predicament.

This is a political game. Everyone wants what is best for them.

Rovers and other potential big spenders want the FFP regulations changed, since they know they are on course for a transfer embargo in January.

Those with smaller budgets will understandably want the rules to stay as they are. The FFP rules will level the playing field, and play into their hands.

The Football League have a problem now. Whatever happens, there is potential for fury.

They had noble intentions when they introduced rules that limit losses clubs can make each year, but the regulations are so unwieldy that a degree from East Lancashire’s University College of Football Business is required just to make sense of them.

Even worse, they are potentially unworkable. Clubs who could fall foul of the rules are already mooting potential legal challenges.

The prospect of a number of sides facing transfer embargoes in January could cause chaos.

Some wonder whether the embargoes will actually be enforced if too many clubs are affected, since the Championship could descend into a mockery.

So the Football League are talking further with a view to altering the regulations. But how can they change even the slightest detail now?

If they do, some clubs will rightly point out that they have been planning for some time to fall in line with FFP – cutting their wage bill, suffering on the field as a result.

If the rules are altered, they will have done all of that for nothing.

The start of the new season is still two months away, but today could be the most important day of the whole 2014/15 campaign.

If this rumbles on further, the story of the Championship season will not be about football.

It will not even be about Vincent Tan or Massimo Cellino, who have now made Venky’s only the third most headline-worthy owners in the second tier – with the national media at least.

Instead, the season will be about the complaints of those who feel they have been wronged by the new regulations, one way or the other.

It will be about three letters: FFP.

Comments (65)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:12pm Thu 5 Jun 14

jack01 says...

Unless they can find a way of forcing QPR to pay the hefty fine they are accountable for then the rules can't be taken seriously.
Unless they can find a way of forcing QPR to pay the hefty fine they are accountable for then the rules can't be taken seriously. jack01
  • Score: 16

4:18pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Harwoodstblue says...

An almighty cockup by the FL. What a mess created by an ill thoughtout idea.
An almighty cockup by the FL. What a mess created by an ill thoughtout idea. Harwoodstblue
  • Score: 9

4:25pm Thu 5 Jun 14

marcusbrfc95 says...

jack01 wrote:
Unless they can find a way of forcing QPR to pay the hefty fine they are accountable for then the rules can't be taken seriously.
Couldn't agree more
[quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: Unless they can find a way of forcing QPR to pay the hefty fine they are accountable for then the rules can't be taken seriously.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more marcusbrfc95
  • Score: 8

4:28pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Rovers.1875 says...

At last, we know who Super_Claret / WLUV is now..... ITS Chris Flanagan!!! Haha
At last, we know who Super_Claret / WLUV is now..... ITS Chris Flanagan!!! Haha Rovers.1875
  • Score: 3

4:32pm Thu 5 Jun 14

roverstid says...

Not unlike a recently promoted team up the 65's dreams, FFP is falling apart before its even started.

Watch now how they fumble uncomfortably trying to explain why they've been forced to back track. I said twelve months ago that FFP would descend into a typical farce and you can see it happening already.

By the time they get anything worth implementing, the rules will have changed again.
Not unlike a recently promoted team up the 65's dreams, FFP is falling apart before its even started. Watch now how they fumble uncomfortably trying to explain why they've been forced to back track. I said twelve months ago that FFP would descend into a typical farce and you can see it happening already. By the time they get anything worth implementing, the rules will have changed again. roverstid
  • Score: 3

4:37pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Welsh Rover says...

Rovers.1875 wrote:
At last, we know who Super_Claret / WLUV is now..... ITS Chris Flanagan!!! Haha
Nah, if it was him he would've signed off (oh, the irony) with, ''What a shambles''...
[quote][p][bold]Rovers.1875[/bold] wrote: At last, we know who Super_Claret / WLUV is now..... ITS Chris Flanagan!!! Haha[/p][/quote]Nah, if it was him he would've signed off (oh, the irony) with, ''What a shambles''... Welsh Rover
  • Score: 15

4:41pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Rovers 1495 says...

Welsh Rover wrote:
Rovers.1875 wrote:
At last, we know who Super_Claret / WLUV is now..... ITS Chris Flanagan!!! Haha
Nah, if it was him he would've signed off (oh, the irony) with, ''What a shambles''...
You couldn't make it up
[quote][p][bold]Welsh Rover[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rovers.1875[/bold] wrote: At last, we know who Super_Claret / WLUV is now..... ITS Chris Flanagan!!! Haha[/p][/quote]Nah, if it was him he would've signed off (oh, the irony) with, ''What a shambles''...[/p][/quote]You couldn't make it up Rovers 1495
  • Score: 7

4:43pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Welsh Rover says...

I agree that it's an ill-thought-out idea but I can't see how they can make any changes now because, as is pointed out in the article, other clubs have already made sacrifices to ensure they fell in line with FFP. All of those clubs will (rightly) argue that they could've done better had they spent more money on their squads. It's been a complete balls-up from the outset.
I agree that it's an ill-thought-out idea but I can't see how they can make any changes now because, as is pointed out in the article, other clubs have already made sacrifices to ensure they fell in line with FFP. All of those clubs will (rightly) argue that they could've done better had they spent more money on their squads. It's been a complete balls-up from the outset. Welsh Rover
  • Score: 8

4:49pm Thu 5 Jun 14

jim 2012 says...

i think these rules are illegal under european law
i think these rules are illegal under european law jim 2012
  • Score: 4

4:53pm Thu 5 Jun 14

owd nick says...

Excellent article, mirrors what I have been saying all along, the basic premise of FFP is fine but the way it has been implemented leaves a great deal to be desired.

The QPR situation should be interesting, they are no longer under the jurisdiction of the FL and the PL have made it very clear with their "It's nowt to do with us" attitude that that aren't going to attempt to sanction QPR for telling the FA to "go away in short, jerky movements".

The FA are hamstrung with this one and I have no sympathy whatsoever with them, because they obviously didn't consider the implications sufficiently before they brought these crass rules in.

I don't necessarily have a problem with fining clubs for overspending season on season, that is unsustainable in any business, but especially in football, when transfers are often the life blood of the majority of clubs, transfer embargo's handed out like confetti will cut off that cash flow route.

That makes FFP in it's current form self defeating if you think about it, cut off the cash flow and clubs that have complied with FFP but rely largely on transfers to keep financial heads above water suddenly find no-one can buy their players, potentially falling foul of FFP they will face fines and a transfer embargo.

Rank stupidity in my book.
Excellent article, mirrors what I have been saying all along, the basic premise of FFP is fine but the way it has been implemented leaves a great deal to be desired. The QPR situation should be interesting, they are no longer under the jurisdiction of the FL and the PL have made it very clear with their "It's nowt to do with us" attitude that that aren't going to attempt to sanction QPR for telling the FA to "go away in short, jerky movements". The FA are hamstrung with this one and I have no sympathy whatsoever with them, because they obviously didn't consider the implications sufficiently before they brought these crass rules in. I don't necessarily have a problem with fining clubs for overspending season on season, that is unsustainable in any business, but especially in football, when transfers are often the life blood of the majority of clubs, transfer embargo's handed out like confetti will cut off that cash flow route. That makes FFP in it's current form self defeating if you think about it, cut off the cash flow and clubs that have complied with FFP but rely largely on transfers to keep financial heads above water suddenly find no-one can buy their players, potentially falling foul of FFP they will face fines and a transfer embargo. Rank stupidity in my book. owd nick
  • Score: 14

4:56pm Thu 5 Jun 14

keanoutofrovers says...

Rovers.1875 wrote:
At last, we know who Super_Claret / WLUV is now..... ITS Chris Flanagan!!! Haha
Can't be, he has a job.
[quote][p][bold]Rovers.1875[/bold] wrote: At last, we know who Super_Claret / WLUV is now..... ITS Chris Flanagan!!! Haha[/p][/quote]Can't be, he has a job. keanoutofrovers
  • Score: 5

5:22pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

Squeaky bum time is finally here no-dads. Get them nappies on.
Squeaky bum time is finally here no-dads. Get them nappies on. Super_Clarets
  • Score: -17

5:23pm Thu 5 Jun 14

dallydally says...

The FFP scenario will be fascinating as it unfolds (or maybe unravels!)

Watch this space
The FFP scenario will be fascinating as it unfolds (or maybe unravels!) Watch this space dallydally
  • Score: 5

5:33pm Thu 5 Jun 14

earwego says...

UEFA reported financial losses 4 out of the last 5 years.the only profit in this period occurred during the year of their EURO 2012 competition.
UEFA frequently advise (usually each time they report another loss) that their financial performance should not be judged on an annual basis, but should be examined over a four year cycle, Of course when administering FFP they do not allow such a generously long accounting cycle for the football clubs, such a privilege is granted by themselves to themselves.What on earth makes UEFA believe it is qualified to financially interfere with clubs finances, to supposedly bring to an end what they refer to as the “financial indiscipline and excesses” of the Clubs that compete in their competitions?
Let’s do the math for UEFA; annual losses for the three years from 2008/09 to 2010/11 = €180 Million, positive result for 2011/12 = €129 Million, accrued loss over the four year period = €51 Million. Manchester City is one of the strongest financially positioned Clubs in the Premier League. Compared with all other Clubs it is has one of the lowest debts and one of the highest turnovers. This report has shown Manchester City has demonstrated a trend of reducing debt and is financially one of the strongest positioned football clubs in all of Europe. How can then UEFA claim FFP is effective in achieving its stated objective of “improving the overall financial health of European club football” when it punishes Manchester City and yet turns a blind eye to debt ridden clubs like Chelsea and Manchester United? In this regard FFP does not and will never meet its stated objectives.
UEFA reported financial losses 4 out of the last 5 years.the only profit in this period occurred during the year of their EURO 2012 competition. UEFA frequently advise (usually each time they report another loss) that their financial performance should not be judged on an annual basis, but should be examined over a four year cycle, Of course when administering FFP they do not allow such a generously long accounting cycle for the football clubs, such a privilege is granted by themselves to themselves.What on earth makes UEFA believe it is qualified to financially interfere with clubs finances, to supposedly bring to an end what they refer to as the “financial indiscipline and excesses” of the Clubs that compete in their competitions? Let’s do the math for UEFA; annual losses for the three years from 2008/09 to 2010/11 = €180 Million, positive result for 2011/12 = €129 Million, accrued loss over the four year period = €51 Million. Manchester City is one of the strongest financially positioned Clubs in the Premier League. Compared with all other Clubs it is has one of the lowest debts and one of the highest turnovers. This report has shown Manchester City has demonstrated a trend of reducing debt and is financially one of the strongest positioned football clubs in all of Europe. How can then UEFA claim FFP is effective in achieving its stated objective of “improving the overall financial health of European club football” when it punishes Manchester City and yet turns a blind eye to debt ridden clubs like Chelsea and Manchester United? In this regard FFP does not and will never meet its stated objectives. earwego
  • Score: 9

5:42pm Thu 5 Jun 14

bluenwhite says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
Squeaky bum time is finally here no-dads. Get them nappies on.
Thick as a plank :-)
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: Squeaky bum time is finally here no-dads. Get them nappies on.[/p][/quote]Thick as a plank :-) bluenwhite
  • Score: 19

5:53pm Thu 5 Jun 14

baldie says...

Welsh Rover wrote:
I agree that it's an ill-thought-out idea but I can't see how they can make any changes now because, as is pointed out in the article, other clubs have already made sacrifices to ensure they fell in line with FFP. All of those clubs will (rightly) argue that they could've done better had they spent more money on their squads. It's been a complete balls-up from the outset.
Not so much making sacrifices,most of them were never in a position to spend money in the first place.
[quote][p][bold]Welsh Rover[/bold] wrote: I agree that it's an ill-thought-out idea but I can't see how they can make any changes now because, as is pointed out in the article, other clubs have already made sacrifices to ensure they fell in line with FFP. All of those clubs will (rightly) argue that they could've done better had they spent more money on their squads. It's been a complete balls-up from the outset.[/p][/quote]Not so much making sacrifices,most of them were never in a position to spend money in the first place. baldie
  • Score: 2

6:03pm Thu 5 Jun 14

noddy57 says...

like the rest of footballs governing bodies it will be a complete waste of time and money.
like the rest of footballs governing bodies it will be a complete waste of time and money. noddy57
  • Score: 6

6:25pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Welsh Rover says...

baldie wrote:
Welsh Rover wrote:
I agree that it's an ill-thought-out idea but I can't see how they can make any changes now because, as is pointed out in the article, other clubs have already made sacrifices to ensure they fell in line with FFP. All of those clubs will (rightly) argue that they could've done better had they spent more money on their squads. It's been a complete balls-up from the outset.
Not so much making sacrifices,most of them were never in a position to spend money in the first place.
I wouldn't really know about that as, unlike Crazy Ralph, I've not been concerning myself with other clubs' finances these last few years. However, it only takes one team to prove that they've reined in their spending to fall in line with FFP to ensure that any amendments to the current rules won't go unchallenged, thus ensuring the whole sorry affair is dragged out for many more months to come.
[quote][p][bold]baldie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Welsh Rover[/bold] wrote: I agree that it's an ill-thought-out idea but I can't see how they can make any changes now because, as is pointed out in the article, other clubs have already made sacrifices to ensure they fell in line with FFP. All of those clubs will (rightly) argue that they could've done better had they spent more money on their squads. It's been a complete balls-up from the outset.[/p][/quote]Not so much making sacrifices,most of them were never in a position to spend money in the first place.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't really know about that as, unlike Crazy Ralph, I've not been concerning myself with other clubs' finances these last few years. However, it only takes one team to prove that they've reined in their spending to fall in line with FFP to ensure that any amendments to the current rules won't go unchallenged, thus ensuring the whole sorry affair is dragged out for many more months to come. Welsh Rover
  • Score: 10

6:57pm Thu 5 Jun 14

steralc says...

You are doomed
Doomed I tell thee
Doomed
You are doomed Doomed I tell thee Doomed steralc
  • Score: -6

7:33pm Thu 5 Jun 14

RobH2O says...

Its vital for the future of football that a fair form of FFP is devised and implemented. This current model is unfair. It should be about proceeds being pooled and shared equally with a weighting towards the smaller clubs in the form of a handicap against big clubs.

I readily accept that clubs, that have a tradition of pumped-in cash to amounts that pay no regard whatsoever to their asset base and potential to repay from the footprint of finance, rather like the junky injection!

With that, I'll get my coat and run for the trenches with my tin hat!
Its vital for the future of football that a fair form of FFP is devised and implemented. This current model is unfair. It should be about proceeds being pooled and shared equally with a weighting towards the smaller clubs in the form of a handicap against big clubs. I readily accept that clubs, that have a tradition of pumped-in cash to amounts that pay no regard whatsoever to their asset base and potential to repay from the footprint of finance, rather like the junky injection! With that, I'll get my coat and run for the trenches with my tin hat! RobH2O
  • Score: -4

8:21pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Old age pensioner says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
Squeaky bum time is finally here no-dads. Get them nappies on.
NH
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: Squeaky bum time is finally here no-dads. Get them nappies on.[/p][/quote]NH Old age pensioner
  • Score: 0

8:36pm Thu 5 Jun 14

dangerous dave says...

owd nick wrote:
Excellent article, mirrors what I have been saying all along, the basic premise of FFP is fine but the way it has been implemented leaves a great deal to be desired.

The QPR situation should be interesting, they are no longer under the jurisdiction of the FL and the PL have made it very clear with their "It's nowt to do with us" attitude that that aren't going to attempt to sanction QPR for telling the FA to "go away in short, jerky movements".

The FA are hamstrung with this one and I have no sympathy whatsoever with them, because they obviously didn't consider the implications sufficiently before they brought these crass rules in.

I don't necessarily have a problem with fining clubs for overspending season on season, that is unsustainable in any business, but especially in football, when transfers are often the life blood of the majority of clubs, transfer embargo's handed out like confetti will cut off that cash flow route.

That makes FFP in it's current form self defeating if you think about it, cut off the cash flow and clubs that have complied with FFP but rely largely on transfers to keep financial heads above water suddenly find no-one can buy their players, potentially falling foul of FFP they will face fines and a transfer embargo.

Rank stupidity in my book.
rank stupidity - yes goes hand in hand with the Venkys, Shaw & Co!!
OUT WITH THE COWBOYS AND INDIANS
[quote][p][bold]owd nick[/bold] wrote: Excellent article, mirrors what I have been saying all along, the basic premise of FFP is fine but the way it has been implemented leaves a great deal to be desired. The QPR situation should be interesting, they are no longer under the jurisdiction of the FL and the PL have made it very clear with their "It's nowt to do with us" attitude that that aren't going to attempt to sanction QPR for telling the FA to "go away in short, jerky movements". The FA are hamstrung with this one and I have no sympathy whatsoever with them, because they obviously didn't consider the implications sufficiently before they brought these crass rules in. I don't necessarily have a problem with fining clubs for overspending season on season, that is unsustainable in any business, but especially in football, when transfers are often the life blood of the majority of clubs, transfer embargo's handed out like confetti will cut off that cash flow route. That makes FFP in it's current form self defeating if you think about it, cut off the cash flow and clubs that have complied with FFP but rely largely on transfers to keep financial heads above water suddenly find no-one can buy their players, potentially falling foul of FFP they will face fines and a transfer embargo. Rank stupidity in my book.[/p][/quote]rank stupidity - yes goes hand in hand with the Venkys, Shaw & Co!! OUT WITH THE COWBOYS AND INDIANS dangerous dave
  • Score: -4

8:53pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

LOL

Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way.

"FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob."

I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads.

FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting.
LOL Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way. "FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob." I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads. FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting. Super_Clarets
  • Score: 0

9:15pm Thu 5 Jun 14

champs95 says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
LOL

Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way.

"FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob."

I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads.

FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting.
You are unnecessary.
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: LOL Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way. "FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob." I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads. FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting.[/p][/quote]You are unnecessary. champs95
  • Score: 8

9:25pm Thu 5 Jun 14

inflightmagazine says...

Ffp slowly unraveling, the most poorly conceived policy since the Burnley board said " it'll be all right ,we will sort Sean and ingsy contract at the end of the season"
Ffp slowly unraveling, the most poorly conceived policy since the Burnley board said " it'll be all right ,we will sort Sean and ingsy contract at the end of the season" inflightmagazine
  • Score: 10

9:27pm Thu 5 Jun 14

wilddog says...

Just coz rovers owe a fortune, you guys still want to incur more debt. Do you think the football clubs in the same league and have watch ed the spending are gonna roll over and allow you lot to get away with it? Not a chance as they will sue the FA and it will cost them millions! You lot make me sick to the teeth! No i aint a Burnley fan!
Just coz rovers owe a fortune, you guys still want to incur more debt. Do you think the football clubs in the same league and have watch ed the spending are gonna roll over and allow you lot to get away with it? Not a chance as they will sue the FA and it will cost them millions! You lot make me sick to the teeth! No i aint a Burnley fan! wilddog
  • Score: -4

9:34pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Old age pensioner says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
LOL

Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way.

"FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob."

I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads.

FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting.
NH get back on your own page, oh I forgot they don't want you either, tosser!!
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: LOL Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way. "FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob." I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads. FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting.[/p][/quote]NH get back on your own page, oh I forgot they don't want you either, tosser!! Old age pensioner
  • Score: 5

9:38pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Shane says...

bluenwhite wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
Squeaky bum time is finally here no-dads. Get them nappies on.
Thick as a plank :-)
At least a plank's useful
[quote][p][bold]bluenwhite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: Squeaky bum time is finally here no-dads. Get them nappies on.[/p][/quote]Thick as a plank :-)[/p][/quote]At least a plank's useful Shane
  • Score: 3

9:45pm Thu 5 Jun 14

inflightmagazine says...

wilddog wrote:
Just coz rovers owe a fortune, you guys still want to incur more debt. Do you think the football clubs in the same league and have watch ed the spending are gonna roll over and allow you lot to get away with it? Not a chance as they will sue the FA and it will cost them millions! You lot make me sick to the teeth! No i aint a Burnley fan!
Yes because the majority have exactly the same issue, its already clearly been stated the majority of clubs want change.
[quote][p][bold]wilddog[/bold] wrote: Just coz rovers owe a fortune, you guys still want to incur more debt. Do you think the football clubs in the same league and have watch ed the spending are gonna roll over and allow you lot to get away with it? Not a chance as they will sue the FA and it will cost them millions! You lot make me sick to the teeth! No i aint a Burnley fan![/p][/quote]Yes because the majority have exactly the same issue, its already clearly been stated the majority of clubs want change. inflightmagazine
  • Score: 3

9:46pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Brucelee5055 says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
LOL

Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way.

"FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob."

I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads.

FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting.
Funny that cause mam city's fine has been handed to them via the European compotion only and the English FA stated that city are within their FFP rules and therefor will not have any domestic sanctions, so your comparing two completely different sets of rules. Get your facts straight six fingers
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: LOL Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way. "FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob." I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads. FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting.[/p][/quote]Funny that cause mam city's fine has been handed to them via the European compotion only and the English FA stated that city are within their FFP rules and therefor will not have any domestic sanctions, so your comparing two completely different sets of rules. Get your facts straight six fingers Brucelee5055
  • Score: 5

10:30pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

Brucelee5055 wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
LOL

Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way.

"FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob."

I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads.

FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting.
Funny that cause mam city's fine has been handed to them via the European compotion only and the English FA stated that city are within their FFP rules and therefor will not have any domestic sanctions, so your comparing two completely different sets of rules. Get your facts straight six fingers
Read it and weep, retard.

http://www.financial
fairplay.co.uk/finan
cial-fair-play-expla
ined.php
[quote][p][bold]Brucelee5055[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: LOL Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way. "FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob." I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads. FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting.[/p][/quote]Funny that cause mam city's fine has been handed to them via the European compotion only and the English FA stated that city are within their FFP rules and therefor will not have any domestic sanctions, so your comparing two completely different sets of rules. Get your facts straight six fingers[/p][/quote]Read it and weep, retard. http://www.financial fairplay.co.uk/finan cial-fair-play-expla ined.php Super_Clarets
  • Score: -1

10:47pm Thu 5 Jun 14

baldie says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
Brucelee5055 wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
LOL

Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way.

"FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob."

I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads.

FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting.
Funny that cause mam city's fine has been handed to them via the European compotion only and the English FA stated that city are within their FFP rules and therefor will not have any domestic sanctions, so your comparing two completely different sets of rules. Get your facts straight six fingers
Read it and weep, retard.

http://www.financial

fairplay.co.uk/finan

cial-fair-play-expla

ined.php
Are Norwich going to play Rhodes up front with Grabban do you think?
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brucelee5055[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: LOL Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way. "FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob." I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads. FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting.[/p][/quote]Funny that cause mam city's fine has been handed to them via the European compotion only and the English FA stated that city are within their FFP rules and therefor will not have any domestic sanctions, so your comparing two completely different sets of rules. Get your facts straight six fingers[/p][/quote]Read it and weep, retard. http://www.financial fairplay.co.uk/finan cial-fair-play-expla ined.php[/p][/quote]Are Norwich going to play Rhodes up front with Grabban do you think? baldie
  • Score: 3

11:24pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Steven11 says...

steralc wrote:
You are doomed
Doomed I tell thee
Doomed
The feeling is mutual .
[quote][p][bold]steralc[/bold] wrote: You are doomed Doomed I tell thee Doomed[/p][/quote]The feeling is mutual . Steven11
  • Score: 4

11:29pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Steven11 says...

earwego wrote:
UEFA reported financial losses 4 out of the last 5 years.the only profit in this period occurred during the year of their EURO 2012 competition.
UEFA frequently advise (usually each time they report another loss) that their financial performance should not be judged on an annual basis, but should be examined over a four year cycle, Of course when administering FFP they do not allow such a generously long accounting cycle for the football clubs, such a privilege is granted by themselves to themselves.What on earth makes UEFA believe it is qualified to financially interfere with clubs finances, to supposedly bring to an end what they refer to as the “financial indiscipline and excesses” of the Clubs that compete in their competitions?
Let’s do the math for UEFA; annual losses for the three years from 2008/09 to 2010/11 = €180 Million, positive result for 2011/12 = €129 Million, accrued loss over the four year period = €51 Million. Manchester City is one of the strongest financially positioned Clubs in the Premier League. Compared with all other Clubs it is has one of the lowest debts and one of the highest turnovers. This report has shown Manchester City has demonstrated a trend of reducing debt and is financially one of the strongest positioned football clubs in all of Europe. How can then UEFA claim FFP is effective in achieving its stated objective of “improving the overall financial health of European club football” when it punishes Manchester City and yet turns a blind eye to debt ridden clubs like Chelsea and Manchester United? In this regard FFP does not and will never meet its stated objectives.
Sorry pal , Chelsea have actually made a huge profit in their last financial year . Check out their balance sheets with companies house .
[quote][p][bold]earwego[/bold] wrote: UEFA reported financial losses 4 out of the last 5 years.the only profit in this period occurred during the year of their EURO 2012 competition. UEFA frequently advise (usually each time they report another loss) that their financial performance should not be judged on an annual basis, but should be examined over a four year cycle, Of course when administering FFP they do not allow such a generously long accounting cycle for the football clubs, such a privilege is granted by themselves to themselves.What on earth makes UEFA believe it is qualified to financially interfere with clubs finances, to supposedly bring to an end what they refer to as the “financial indiscipline and excesses” of the Clubs that compete in their competitions? Let’s do the math for UEFA; annual losses for the three years from 2008/09 to 2010/11 = €180 Million, positive result for 2011/12 = €129 Million, accrued loss over the four year period = €51 Million. Manchester City is one of the strongest financially positioned Clubs in the Premier League. Compared with all other Clubs it is has one of the lowest debts and one of the highest turnovers. This report has shown Manchester City has demonstrated a trend of reducing debt and is financially one of the strongest positioned football clubs in all of Europe. How can then UEFA claim FFP is effective in achieving its stated objective of “improving the overall financial health of European club football” when it punishes Manchester City and yet turns a blind eye to debt ridden clubs like Chelsea and Manchester United? In this regard FFP does not and will never meet its stated objectives.[/p][/quote]Sorry pal , Chelsea have actually made a huge profit in their last financial year . Check out their balance sheets with companies house . Steven11
  • Score: 1

11:33pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Steven11 says...

Steven11 wrote:
earwego wrote:
UEFA reported financial losses 4 out of the last 5 years.the only profit in this period occurred during the year of their EURO 2012 competition.
UEFA frequently advise (usually each time they report another loss) that their financial performance should not be judged on an annual basis, but should be examined over a four year cycle, Of course when administering FFP they do not allow such a generously long accounting cycle for the football clubs, such a privilege is granted by themselves to themselves.What on earth makes UEFA believe it is qualified to financially interfere with clubs finances, to supposedly bring to an end what they refer to as the “financial indiscipline and excesses” of the Clubs that compete in their competitions?
Let’s do the math for UEFA; annual losses for the three years from 2008/09 to 2010/11 = €180 Million, positive result for 2011/12 = €129 Million, accrued loss over the four year period = €51 Million. Manchester City is one of the strongest financially positioned Clubs in the Premier League. Compared with all other Clubs it is has one of the lowest debts and one of the highest turnovers. This report has shown Manchester City has demonstrated a trend of reducing debt and is financially one of the strongest positioned football clubs in all of Europe. How can then UEFA claim FFP is effective in achieving its stated objective of “improving the overall financial health of European club football” when it punishes Manchester City and yet turns a blind eye to debt ridden clubs like Chelsea and Manchester United? In this regard FFP does not and will never meet its stated objectives.
Sorry pal , Chelsea have actually made a huge profit in their last financial year . Check out their balance sheets with companies house .
There accountants are KPMG.
[quote][p][bold]Steven11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]earwego[/bold] wrote: UEFA reported financial losses 4 out of the last 5 years.the only profit in this period occurred during the year of their EURO 2012 competition. UEFA frequently advise (usually each time they report another loss) that their financial performance should not be judged on an annual basis, but should be examined over a four year cycle, Of course when administering FFP they do not allow such a generously long accounting cycle for the football clubs, such a privilege is granted by themselves to themselves.What on earth makes UEFA believe it is qualified to financially interfere with clubs finances, to supposedly bring to an end what they refer to as the “financial indiscipline and excesses” of the Clubs that compete in their competitions? Let’s do the math for UEFA; annual losses for the three years from 2008/09 to 2010/11 = €180 Million, positive result for 2011/12 = €129 Million, accrued loss over the four year period = €51 Million. Manchester City is one of the strongest financially positioned Clubs in the Premier League. Compared with all other Clubs it is has one of the lowest debts and one of the highest turnovers. This report has shown Manchester City has demonstrated a trend of reducing debt and is financially one of the strongest positioned football clubs in all of Europe. How can then UEFA claim FFP is effective in achieving its stated objective of “improving the overall financial health of European club football” when it punishes Manchester City and yet turns a blind eye to debt ridden clubs like Chelsea and Manchester United? In this regard FFP does not and will never meet its stated objectives.[/p][/quote]Sorry pal , Chelsea have actually made a huge profit in their last financial year . Check out their balance sheets with companies house .[/p][/quote]There accountants are KPMG. Steven11
  • Score: 2

11:36pm Thu 5 Jun 14

Steven11 says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
LOL

Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way.

"FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob."

I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads.

FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting.
Stop putting that white powder up your nose , Dingle !
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: LOL Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way. "FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob." I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads. FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting.[/p][/quote]Stop putting that white powder up your nose , Dingle ! Steven11
  • Score: 5

12:09am Fri 6 Jun 14

keanoutofrovers says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
Brucelee5055 wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
LOL

Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way.

"FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob."

I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads.

FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting.
Funny that cause mam city's fine has been handed to them via the European compotion only and the English FA stated that city are within their FFP rules and therefor will not have any domestic sanctions, so your comparing two completely different sets of rules. Get your facts straight six fingers
Read it and weep, retard.

http://www.financial

fairplay.co.uk/finan

cial-fair-play-expla

ined.php
1) FFP probably won't happen.

2) Even if it did, so what if we can't buy anyone in January. We have a big enough squad.

3) NH
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brucelee5055[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: LOL Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way. "FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob." I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads. FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting.[/p][/quote]Funny that cause mam city's fine has been handed to them via the European compotion only and the English FA stated that city are within their FFP rules and therefor will not have any domestic sanctions, so your comparing two completely different sets of rules. Get your facts straight six fingers[/p][/quote]Read it and weep, retard. http://www.financial fairplay.co.uk/finan cial-fair-play-expla ined.php[/p][/quote]1) FFP probably won't happen. 2) Even if it did, so what if we can't buy anyone in January. We have a big enough squad. 3) NH keanoutofrovers
  • Score: 4

12:50am Fri 6 Jun 14

bluenwhite says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
LOL

Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way.

"FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob."

I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads.

FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting.
thick as a plank :-)
and twice as desperate
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: LOL Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way. "FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob." I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads. FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting.[/p][/quote]thick as a plank :-) and twice as desperate bluenwhite
  • Score: 4

6:50am Fri 6 Jun 14

J.C - Rishton says...

marcusbrfc95 wrote:
jack01 wrote:
Unless they can find a way of forcing QPR to pay the hefty fine they are accountable for then the rules can't be taken seriously.
Couldn't agree more
I dion't think QPR would fail under the championship rules - it only kicks in for teams on their 2nd year in the division.
[quote][p][bold]marcusbrfc95[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack01[/bold] wrote: Unless they can find a way of forcing QPR to pay the hefty fine they are accountable for then the rules can't be taken seriously.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more[/p][/quote]I dion't think QPR would fail under the championship rules - it only kicks in for teams on their 2nd year in the division. J.C - Rishton
  • Score: 3

7:04am Fri 6 Jun 14

Angry From Accrington says...

Most impartial observers would probably conclude that GDP makes perfect sense and is the first step towards restoring respect and sanity to a game ruined by gullible chairmen, greedy players and corrupt agents.
Unfortunately, we are not impartial and we all know that FFP shatters the dreams of the smaller club's ever breaking through into the top echelons again.
Personally, I direct my anger and disappointment not at the governing body but at the local community, too mean to support its local club to allow it to balance income and expenditure.
From Blackburns perspective, a transfer embargo might not be such a bad thing if it forces us to offload the top earning parasites and restricts the recruitment of more washed up journeymen.
The current squad is good enough to get us into the Premiership and then when all the Sky cash comes in and the glory hunting glitterballs supporters return, we move onwards and upwards.
Most impartial observers would probably conclude that GDP makes perfect sense and is the first step towards restoring respect and sanity to a game ruined by gullible chairmen, greedy players and corrupt agents. Unfortunately, we are not impartial and we all know that FFP shatters the dreams of the smaller club's ever breaking through into the top echelons again. Personally, I direct my anger and disappointment not at the governing body but at the local community, too mean to support its local club to allow it to balance income and expenditure. From Blackburns perspective, a transfer embargo might not be such a bad thing if it forces us to offload the top earning parasites and restricts the recruitment of more washed up journeymen. The current squad is good enough to get us into the Premiership and then when all the Sky cash comes in and the glory hunting glitterballs supporters return, we move onwards and upwards. Angry From Accrington
  • Score: 0

7:04am Fri 6 Jun 14

J.C - Rishton says...

keanoutofrovers wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
Brucelee5055 wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
LOL

Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way.

"FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob."

I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads.

FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting.
Funny that cause mam city's fine has been handed to them via the European compotion only and the English FA stated that city are within their FFP rules and therefor will not have any domestic sanctions, so your comparing two completely different sets of rules. Get your facts straight six fingers
Read it and weep, retard.

http://www.financial


fairplay.co.uk/finan


cial-fair-play-expla


ined.php
1) FFP probably won't happen.

2) Even if it did, so what if we can't buy anyone in January. We have a big enough squad.

3) NH
Don't you get it yet - IF we go into a transfer embargo then we will be FORCED to sell our best players BELOW market value in order to get out of it.
We wouldnt just be able to carry on as normal - FFS wake up man.

We MUST avoid a transfer embargo at all costs - it would be a DISASTER for us.
[quote][p][bold]keanoutofrovers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brucelee5055[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: LOL Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way. "FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob." I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads. FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting.[/p][/quote]Funny that cause mam city's fine has been handed to them via the European compotion only and the English FA stated that city are within their FFP rules and therefor will not have any domestic sanctions, so your comparing two completely different sets of rules. Get your facts straight six fingers[/p][/quote]Read it and weep, retard. http://www.financial fairplay.co.uk/finan cial-fair-play-expla ined.php[/p][/quote]1) FFP probably won't happen. 2) Even if it did, so what if we can't buy anyone in January. We have a big enough squad. 3) NH[/p][/quote]Don't you get it yet - IF we go into a transfer embargo then we will be FORCED to sell our best players BELOW market value in order to get out of it. We wouldnt just be able to carry on as normal - FFS wake up man. We MUST avoid a transfer embargo at all costs - it would be a DISASTER for us. J.C - Rishton
  • Score: 0

7:06am Fri 6 Jun 14

Angry From Accrington says...

Most impartial observers would probably conclude that GDP makes perfect sense and is the first step towards restoring respect and sanity to a game ruined by gullible chairmen, greedy players and corrupt agents.
Unfortunately, we are not impartial and we all know that FFP shatters the dreams of the smaller club's ever breaking through into the top echelons again.
Personally, I direct my anger and disappointment not at the governing body but at the local community, too mean to support its local club to allow it to balance income and expenditure.
From Blackburns perspective, a transfer embargo might not be such a bad thing if it forces us to offload the top earning parasites and restricts the recruitment of more washed up journeymen.
The current squad is good enough to get us into the Premiership and then when all the Sky cash comes in and the glory hunting glitterballs supporters return, we move onwards and upwards.
Most impartial observers would probably conclude that GDP makes perfect sense and is the first step towards restoring respect and sanity to a game ruined by gullible chairmen, greedy players and corrupt agents. Unfortunately, we are not impartial and we all know that FFP shatters the dreams of the smaller club's ever breaking through into the top echelons again. Personally, I direct my anger and disappointment not at the governing body but at the local community, too mean to support its local club to allow it to balance income and expenditure. From Blackburns perspective, a transfer embargo might not be such a bad thing if it forces us to offload the top earning parasites and restricts the recruitment of more washed up journeymen. The current squad is good enough to get us into the Premiership and then when all the Sky cash comes in and the glory hunting glitterballs supporters return, we move onwards and upwards. Angry From Accrington
  • Score: 0

7:06am Fri 6 Jun 14

J.C - Rishton says...

keanoutofrovers wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
Brucelee5055 wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
LOL

Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way.

"FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob."

I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads.

FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting.
Funny that cause mam city's fine has been handed to them via the European compotion only and the English FA stated that city are within their FFP rules and therefor will not have any domestic sanctions, so your comparing two completely different sets of rules. Get your facts straight six fingers
Read it and weep, retard.

http://www.financial


fairplay.co.uk/finan


cial-fair-play-expla


ined.php
1) FFP probably won't happen.

2) Even if it did, so what if we can't buy anyone in January. We have a big enough squad.

3) NH
Don't you get it yet - IF we go into a transfer embargo then we will be FORCED to sell our best players BELOW market value in order to get out of it.
We wouldnt just be able to carry on as normal - FFS wake up man.

We MUST avoid a transfer embargo at all costs - it would be a DISASTER for us.
[quote][p][bold]keanoutofrovers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brucelee5055[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: LOL Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way. "FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob." I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads. FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting.[/p][/quote]Funny that cause mam city's fine has been handed to them via the European compotion only and the English FA stated that city are within their FFP rules and therefor will not have any domestic sanctions, so your comparing two completely different sets of rules. Get your facts straight six fingers[/p][/quote]Read it and weep, retard. http://www.financial fairplay.co.uk/finan cial-fair-play-expla ined.php[/p][/quote]1) FFP probably won't happen. 2) Even if it did, so what if we can't buy anyone in January. We have a big enough squad. 3) NH[/p][/quote]Don't you get it yet - IF we go into a transfer embargo then we will be FORCED to sell our best players BELOW market value in order to get out of it. We wouldnt just be able to carry on as normal - FFS wake up man. We MUST avoid a transfer embargo at all costs - it would be a DISASTER for us. J.C - Rishton
  • Score: 1

8:16am Fri 6 Jun 14

A Darener says...

Why would it be a disaster? We have a squad of players capable of at least getting into the playoffs. Even if we had one or two injuries there is enough depth to cope. Ok we might have to play the likes of Goodwillie, Best etc but there would pull their weight.
Anyway by Jan I for one think that FFP will have been watered down at the very least. Restrictive practise is illegal under British/ EC laws so will probably be challenged in the courts allowing clubs to continue trading. But at the very worst we will get over it. We are not the only club affected so if nobody is buying because of FFP then nobody can sell. This will cause chaos throughout the leagues. Nobody at the FL will want that.
Why would it be a disaster? We have a squad of players capable of at least getting into the playoffs. Even if we had one or two injuries there is enough depth to cope. Ok we might have to play the likes of Goodwillie, Best etc but there would pull their weight. Anyway by Jan I for one think that FFP will have been watered down at the very least. Restrictive practise is illegal under British/ EC laws so will probably be challenged in the courts allowing clubs to continue trading. But at the very worst we will get over it. We are not the only club affected so if nobody is buying because of FFP then nobody can sell. This will cause chaos throughout the leagues. Nobody at the FL will want that. A Darener
  • Score: 3

8:30am Fri 6 Jun 14

Harwoodstblue says...

A Darener wrote:
Why would it be a disaster? We have a squad of players capable of at least getting into the playoffs. Even if we had one or two injuries there is enough depth to cope. Ok we might have to play the likes of Goodwillie, Best etc but there would pull their weight.
Anyway by Jan I for one think that FFP will have been watered down at the very least. Restrictive practise is illegal under British/ EC laws so will probably be challenged in the courts allowing clubs to continue trading. But at the very worst we will get over it. We are not the only club affected so if nobody is buying because of FFP then nobody can sell. This will cause chaos throughout the leagues. Nobody at the FL will want that.
Agreed, apparently half the clubs in the Championship arre affected. How could it work if all had an embago slapped on them? The whole transfer system would grind to a halt.
[quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: Why would it be a disaster? We have a squad of players capable of at least getting into the playoffs. Even if we had one or two injuries there is enough depth to cope. Ok we might have to play the likes of Goodwillie, Best etc but there would pull their weight. Anyway by Jan I for one think that FFP will have been watered down at the very least. Restrictive practise is illegal under British/ EC laws so will probably be challenged in the courts allowing clubs to continue trading. But at the very worst we will get over it. We are not the only club affected so if nobody is buying because of FFP then nobody can sell. This will cause chaos throughout the leagues. Nobody at the FL will want that.[/p][/quote]Agreed, apparently half the clubs in the Championship arre affected. How could it work if all had an embago slapped on them? The whole transfer system would grind to a halt. Harwoodstblue
  • Score: 1

9:31am Fri 6 Jun 14

owd nick says...

RobH2O wrote:
Its vital for the future of football that a fair form of FFP is devised and implemented. This current model is unfair. It should be about proceeds being pooled and shared equally with a weighting towards the smaller clubs in the form of a handicap against big clubs.

I readily accept that clubs, that have a tradition of pumped-in cash to amounts that pay no regard whatsoever to their asset base and potential to repay from the footprint of finance, rather like the junky injection!

With that, I'll get my coat and run for the trenches with my tin hat!
Couldn't agree more, but all clubs, and I mean all clubs, have spent beyond their means for well over 100 years to try and correct this in a few years, just because a handful of tight arsed owners or boards who never spend any money anyway have managed to carry on as normal doesn't make FFP.

Football clubs spending money to being in better players (sic) managers (even more sic) is deeply ingrained in the psyche of football clubs and their fans, irrespective of FFP (joke name) fans still expect their clubs to spend, and spend big.

A fairer system would be a cap on spending for every club in a particular division, with fines and points deductions for clubs that exceeded the limit, but the big boys won't like or accept that .

FFP in it's current form is a joke all it will do longer term is allow the rich clubs to get richer because they can pull in more money than the rest via sponsorship, TV rights; etc, etc.

It will have the opposite effect on clubs in the lower leagues who won't have the same opportunities.
[quote][p][bold]RobH2O[/bold] wrote: Its vital for the future of football that a fair form of FFP is devised and implemented. This current model is unfair. It should be about proceeds being pooled and shared equally with a weighting towards the smaller clubs in the form of a handicap against big clubs. I readily accept that clubs, that have a tradition of pumped-in cash to amounts that pay no regard whatsoever to their asset base and potential to repay from the footprint of finance, rather like the junky injection! With that, I'll get my coat and run for the trenches with my tin hat![/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more, but all clubs, and I mean all clubs, have spent beyond their means for well over 100 years to try and correct this in a few years, just because a handful of tight arsed owners or boards who never spend any money anyway have managed to carry on as normal doesn't make FFP. Football clubs spending money to being in better players (sic) managers (even more sic) is deeply ingrained in the psyche of football clubs and their fans, irrespective of FFP (joke name) fans still expect their clubs to spend, and spend big. A fairer system would be a cap on spending for every club in a particular division, with fines and points deductions for clubs that exceeded the limit, but the big boys won't like or accept that . FFP in it's current form is a joke all it will do longer term is allow the rich clubs to get richer because they can pull in more money than the rest via sponsorship, TV rights; etc, etc. It will have the opposite effect on clubs in the lower leagues who won't have the same opportunities. owd nick
  • Score: 1

9:47am Fri 6 Jun 14

owd nick says...

Angry From Accrington wrote:
Most impartial observers would probably conclude that GDP makes perfect sense and is the first step towards restoring respect and sanity to a game ruined by gullible chairmen, greedy players and corrupt agents.
Unfortunately, we are not impartial and we all know that FFP shatters the dreams of the smaller club's ever breaking through into the top echelons again.
Personally, I direct my anger and disappointment not at the governing body but at the local community, too mean to support its local club to allow it to balance income and expenditure.
From Blackburns perspective, a transfer embargo might not be such a bad thing if it forces us to offload the top earning parasites and restricts the recruitment of more washed up journeymen.
The current squad is good enough to get us into the Premiership and then when all the Sky cash comes in and the glory hunting glitterballs supporters return, we move onwards and upwards.
You can't offload top earning parasites, they have contracts and because they won't get better salaries elsewhere, they aren't salable assets in that respect.

Nor can Venky's pay them off because that will increase the debt for the year that the transaction is made, exceeding the amount Venky's can invest in the club annually under FFP.

It's the total inflexibility of FFP that is exacerbating the issue, many clubs are in a similar situation to Rovers with players like these they can't move on, there is no doubt that Rovers and some of the rest of the clubs are trying to comply with FFP, but in reality they don't stand a chance.

This is what GB means when he says it will take another couple of years before we can comply fully.

BTW, I don't blame Best and the rest for sticking with their contracts at all.
[quote][p][bold]Angry From Accrington[/bold] wrote: Most impartial observers would probably conclude that GDP makes perfect sense and is the first step towards restoring respect and sanity to a game ruined by gullible chairmen, greedy players and corrupt agents. Unfortunately, we are not impartial and we all know that FFP shatters the dreams of the smaller club's ever breaking through into the top echelons again. Personally, I direct my anger and disappointment not at the governing body but at the local community, too mean to support its local club to allow it to balance income and expenditure. From Blackburns perspective, a transfer embargo might not be such a bad thing if it forces us to offload the top earning parasites and restricts the recruitment of more washed up journeymen. The current squad is good enough to get us into the Premiership and then when all the Sky cash comes in and the glory hunting glitterballs supporters return, we move onwards and upwards.[/p][/quote]You can't offload top earning parasites, they have contracts and because they won't get better salaries elsewhere, they aren't salable assets in that respect. Nor can Venky's pay them off because that will increase the debt for the year that the transaction is made, exceeding the amount Venky's can invest in the club annually under FFP. It's the total inflexibility of FFP that is exacerbating the issue, many clubs are in a similar situation to Rovers with players like these they can't move on, there is no doubt that Rovers and some of the rest of the clubs are trying to comply with FFP, but in reality they don't stand a chance. This is what GB means when he says it will take another couple of years before we can comply fully. BTW, I don't blame Best and the rest for sticking with their contracts at all. owd nick
  • Score: 1

10:29am Fri 6 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

You reap what you sow...

STAYING DOWN FOREVER.... LOVE CLARETS.x
You reap what you sow... STAYING DOWN FOREVER.... LOVE CLARETS.x Super_Clarets
  • Score: 2

10:44am Fri 6 Jun 14

Whydidtheybanme? says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
LOL

Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way.

"FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob."

I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads.

FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting.
Bet you got the biggest boner of your sorry little life when you saw this story break.

All those years in our shadow and finally you have a season when you achieve something, yet you're still obsessed with the Premier League winning side of 94/95. Enjoy your moment in the sun, but unfortunately I think you'll have to agree that you're just there to make the numbers up.

FFP - in theory I agree, in practice it's a shambles, unworkable and will not serve its purpose.

Anyway my 6 fingered friend, thought for today - 'Tis better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all - Alfred Lord Tennyson

Now jog on.
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: LOL Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way. "FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob." I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads. FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting.[/p][/quote]Bet you got the biggest boner of your sorry little life when you saw this story break. All those years in our shadow and finally you have a season when you achieve something, yet you're still obsessed with the Premier League winning side of 94/95. Enjoy your moment in the sun, but unfortunately I think you'll have to agree that you're just there to make the numbers up. FFP - in theory I agree, in practice it's a shambles, unworkable and will not serve its purpose. Anyway my 6 fingered friend, thought for today - 'Tis better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all - Alfred Lord Tennyson Now jog on. Whydidtheybanme?
  • Score: 0

10:53am Fri 6 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

Whydidtheybanme? wrote:
Super_Clarets wrote:
LOL

Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way.

"FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob."

I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads.

FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting.
Bet you got the biggest boner of your sorry little life when you saw this story break.

All those years in our shadow and finally you have a season when you achieve something, yet you're still obsessed with the Premier League winning side of 94/95. Enjoy your moment in the sun, but unfortunately I think you'll have to agree that you're just there to make the numbers up.

FFP - in theory I agree, in practice it's a shambles, unworkable and will not serve its purpose.

Anyway my 6 fingered friend, thought for today - 'Tis better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all - Alfred Lord Tennyson

Now jog on.
Now then Mally, getting a little above your station again aren't you?

"FFP - in practice it's a shambles, unworkable and will not serve its purpose."

That wouldn't be down to the fact that your club is under a transfer embargo from January and has to sell all its key players would it?

What a set of desperate crying no-mark's, all dreaming of the Jack Walker days when you could buy yourself out of trouble. Well not any more, it's time to pay up. Best put that nappy on now Mally, the news stories concerning your diabolical finances are going to get far more disturbing over the coming weeks. LOL!

'Tis better to be a debt free club in the Premier League than a mid-table Championship side in financial meltdown - Super_Clarets
[quote][p][bold]Whydidtheybanme?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: LOL Look at all the panic stricken no-dad's filling their pants at the thought of what's heading their way. "FFP is unworkable, it's not fair, why should we have to stop spending, whinge, moan, sob." I'm sorry but no amount of bullsh!tting is going to make it go away lads. FFP is here, and it;'s not messing about. Man City are being FORCED to comply. If a club the size and stature of Man City accept a £50million fine, then minnows like yourselves are in for a full-on roasting.[/p][/quote]Bet you got the biggest boner of your sorry little life when you saw this story break. All those years in our shadow and finally you have a season when you achieve something, yet you're still obsessed with the Premier League winning side of 94/95. Enjoy your moment in the sun, but unfortunately I think you'll have to agree that you're just there to make the numbers up. FFP - in theory I agree, in practice it's a shambles, unworkable and will not serve its purpose. Anyway my 6 fingered friend, thought for today - 'Tis better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all - Alfred Lord Tennyson Now jog on.[/p][/quote]Now then Mally, getting a little above your station again aren't you? "FFP - in practice it's a shambles, unworkable and will not serve its purpose." That wouldn't be down to the fact that your club is under a transfer embargo from January and has to sell all its key players would it? What a set of desperate crying no-mark's, all dreaming of the Jack Walker days when you could buy yourself out of trouble. Well not any more, it's time to pay up. Best put that nappy on now Mally, the news stories concerning your diabolical finances are going to get far more disturbing over the coming weeks. LOL! 'Tis better to be a debt free club in the Premier League than a mid-table Championship side in financial meltdown - Super_Clarets Super_Clarets
  • Score: 2

11:15am Fri 6 Jun 14

Warnie says...

So Derek does not support FFP. What a surprise. However, wasn't he in charge when the club paid 8M for Rhodes @ 35k per week. Well I'm afraid you cant go on forever living beyond your means and your time is almost up. How sad. You will get exactly what you deserve.
So Derek does not support FFP. What a surprise. However, wasn't he in charge when the club paid 8M for Rhodes @ 35k per week. Well I'm afraid you cant go on forever living beyond your means and your time is almost up. How sad. You will get exactly what you deserve. Warnie
  • Score: -21

11:45am Fri 6 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

I believe Rhodes is currently on closer to £45k a week, an obscene £2.4million per year contract until 30.06.2017, with a remaining cost to Blackburn Rovers of:

Original transfer fee still owed to Huddersfield Town: £4million
Percentage of profit owed to Huddersfield Town: 20%
Remaining Wages over duration of contract: £7.2million

So for Blackburn Rovers to retain the services of Jordan Rhodes it will cost them a total of: £11.2million.

And the no-dads think they'll be keeping him. LOL!
I believe Rhodes is currently on closer to £45k a week, an obscene £2.4million per year contract until 30.06.2017, with a remaining cost to Blackburn Rovers of: Original transfer fee still owed to Huddersfield Town: £4million Percentage of profit owed to Huddersfield Town: 20% Remaining Wages over duration of contract: £7.2million So for Blackburn Rovers to retain the services of Jordan Rhodes it will cost them a total of: £11.2million. And the no-dads think they'll be keeping him. LOL! Super_Clarets
  • Score: -14

11:48am Fri 6 Jun 14

A Darener says...

We don't think we will be keeping him. No other championship club can afford to buy him and he is not good enough for the PL.
We don't think we will be keeping him. No other championship club can afford to buy him and he is not good enough for the PL. A Darener
  • Score: 0

11:49am Fri 6 Jun 14

A Darener says...

A Darener wrote:
We don't think we will be keeping him. No other championship club can afford to buy him and he is not good enough for the PL.
Meant to add, we know we will be keeping him!
[quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: We don't think we will be keeping him. No other championship club can afford to buy him and he is not good enough for the PL.[/p][/quote]Meant to add, we know we will be keeping him! A Darener
  • Score: 0

12:12pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

The hilarious truth is that you can't afford to keep him!

It comes down to a simple decision... Venky's pay out a further £11.2million on a single player over the next 3 seasons meaning that effectively the rest of your first team must be sold and replaced from the youth team..... or...... sell the highest earner in the Championship for below market value enabling another Championship club, i.e. the likes of Norwich or Fulham with finances available to pay his wages, or offload to a lower half Premier League club, Burnley perhaps.

Alternatively, as a means of demonstrating that you're working towards FFP compliance Blackburn Rovers may seek to loan him out to a club willing to take over payment of a percentage of his wages, no one would be daft enough to pay him the full £45k but maybe you could get another club to stump up say £20k a week for a loan. This brings down your wage bill. Repeat for 3 seasons and then he leaves on a free.

However, in your universe Rhodes stays at Blackburn Rovers..... and the best part will be when you get relegated next season and he ends up earning more than the combined wages of the entire league in which he's playing! You couldn't make this nonsense up.

Stop being silly, of course he's going to be sold.
The hilarious truth is that you can't afford to keep him! It comes down to a simple decision... Venky's pay out a further £11.2million on a single player over the next 3 seasons meaning that effectively the rest of your first team must be sold and replaced from the youth team..... or...... sell the highest earner in the Championship for below market value enabling another Championship club, i.e. the likes of Norwich or Fulham with finances available to pay his wages, or offload to a lower half Premier League club, Burnley perhaps. Alternatively, as a means of demonstrating that you're working towards FFP compliance Blackburn Rovers may seek to loan him out to a club willing to take over payment of a percentage of his wages, no one would be daft enough to pay him the full £45k but maybe you could get another club to stump up say £20k a week for a loan. This brings down your wage bill. Repeat for 3 seasons and then he leaves on a free. However, in your universe Rhodes stays at Blackburn Rovers..... and the best part will be when you get relegated next season and he ends up earning more than the combined wages of the entire league in which he's playing! You couldn't make this nonsense up. Stop being silly, of course he's going to be sold. Super_Clarets
  • Score: -1

12:15pm Fri 6 Jun 14

A Darener says...

S_C...."silly" is your middle name.
S_C...."silly" is your middle name. A Darener
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

Am I talking rubbish though? It's all there in black and white.

You can keep Rhodes, of course you can... but by the time he reaches the end of his contract in 2017 Blackburn Rovers will be a bankrupt League Two club.

Here's a quick summary of why I believe you clowns are completely Donald Ducked..

£11.2m yet to pay out to Jordan Rhodes
£3.65m yet to pay out to Dickson Etuhu
£3.12m yet to pay out to Leon Best
£1.3m yet to pay out to DJ Campbell
£1.1m yet to pay out to David Goodwillie

That's a total of £20.4m owed under contract to just the five players above. Now if this isn't a mess I don't know what is.

Not to mention transfer fee's, agents fee's, sell on clauses.. i.e., Rhodes was bought for £8m, Best for £3m, Goodwillie for £2.8m, etc.

And considering the fact that your club is already over £60million in debt, the future is looking decidedly grim to say the least.

As much as it upsets some of you, FFP is not a joke, it's here to fix the wrongs of years gone by when rich benefactors ploughed ridiculous sums of money into football and created the monster than could ultimately destroy the game. Some clubs will suffer as those wrongs are put right, but FFP is a necessity for the good of the game. Blackburn Rovers will find its true level over the next two seasons. It's fair, just and self-sustaining level, which I truly believe is League One.
Am I talking rubbish though? It's all there in black and white. You can keep Rhodes, of course you can... but by the time he reaches the end of his contract in 2017 Blackburn Rovers will be a bankrupt League Two club. Here's a quick summary of why I believe you clowns are completely Donald Ducked.. £11.2m yet to pay out to Jordan Rhodes £3.65m yet to pay out to Dickson Etuhu £3.12m yet to pay out to Leon Best £1.3m yet to pay out to DJ Campbell £1.1m yet to pay out to David Goodwillie That's a total of £20.4m owed under contract to just the five players above. Now if this isn't a mess I don't know what is. Not to mention transfer fee's, agents fee's, sell on clauses.. i.e., Rhodes was bought for £8m, Best for £3m, Goodwillie for £2.8m, etc. And considering the fact that your club is already over £60million in debt, the future is looking decidedly grim to say the least. As much as it upsets some of you, FFP is not a joke, it's here to fix the wrongs of years gone by when rich benefactors ploughed ridiculous sums of money into football and created the monster than could ultimately destroy the game. Some clubs will suffer as those wrongs are put right, but FFP is a necessity for the good of the game. Blackburn Rovers will find its true level over the next two seasons. It's fair, just and self-sustaining level, which I truly believe is League One. Super_Clarets
  • Score: -3

12:54pm Fri 6 Jun 14

A Darener says...

You have been talking about relegation for the Rovers for over two seasons. Well we are still here and will continue to be for years to come either in the Championship or preferably the PL. Don't get too excited about our demise. It is NOT going to happen.
You have been talking about relegation for the Rovers for over two seasons. Well we are still here and will continue to be for years to come either in the Championship or preferably the PL. Don't get too excited about our demise. It is NOT going to happen. A Darener
  • Score: -2

1:03pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

The reality of the situation would suggest otherwise.

Unless you cut your losses this season by £25million you WILL be placed under a transfer ban until you are compliant with the rules stating that a maximum loss of no more than £3million can be made. This means the sale of all players of value and the cancellation of contracts for players who refuse to move on for lower pay.

I don't make the rules.
The reality of the situation would suggest otherwise. Unless you cut your losses this season by £25million you WILL be placed under a transfer ban until you are compliant with the rules stating that a maximum loss of no more than £3million can be made. This means the sale of all players of value and the cancellation of contracts for players who refuse to move on for lower pay. I don't make the rules. Super_Clarets
  • Score: -22

1:37pm Fri 6 Jun 14

A Darener says...

A transfer ban does not mean you have to sell. Just that you cannot buy.
A transfer ban does not mean you have to sell. Just that you cannot buy. A Darener
  • Score: 2

1:39pm Fri 6 Jun 14

more bans than ray - brfc lxxv says...

Warnie wrote:
So Derek does not support FFP. What a surprise. However, wasn't he in charge when the club paid 8M for Rhodes @ 35k per week. Well I'm afraid you cant go on forever living beyond your means and your time is almost up. How sad. You will get exactly what you deserve.
What do we deserve? Is it because nasty Rovers made you cry all your life? A massively unlikely Premier League status and yet still as riddled with bitterness and hate as ever. Poor dingles, they just can't get over the decades of torture dished out. Shame really. Maybe you need to do more than have one decent season to get that massive chip off your shoulders eh...... maybe you need to win some trophies.
[quote][p][bold]Warnie[/bold] wrote: So Derek does not support FFP. What a surprise. However, wasn't he in charge when the club paid 8M for Rhodes @ 35k per week. Well I'm afraid you cant go on forever living beyond your means and your time is almost up. How sad. You will get exactly what you deserve.[/p][/quote]What do we deserve? Is it because nasty Rovers made you cry all your life? A massively unlikely Premier League status and yet still as riddled with bitterness and hate as ever. Poor dingles, they just can't get over the decades of torture dished out. Shame really. Maybe you need to do more than have one decent season to get that massive chip off your shoulders eh...... maybe you need to win some trophies. more bans than ray - brfc lxxv
  • Score: 3

1:53pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Super_Clarets says...

"A transfer ban does not mean you have to sell. Just that you cannot buy."

Correct. However for a club under a transfer ban working towards becoming compliant with the FFP rules you will then lose players at below market value in order to reduce your wage bill, and then have no means to replace them.

A transfer ban is the worst possible scenario for Blackburn Rovers.

It's the rules you have to comply with behind the embargo that will force the changes on you. The problem is that you have to reduce your losses to within the allowable limit of £3m.

That's were the requirement for a £25m cost saving comes in. And that's why players WILL have to be sold.
"A transfer ban does not mean you have to sell. Just that you cannot buy." Correct. However for a club under a transfer ban working towards becoming compliant with the FFP rules you will then lose players at below market value in order to reduce your wage bill, and then have no means to replace them. A transfer ban is the worst possible scenario for Blackburn Rovers. It's the rules you have to comply with behind the embargo that will force the changes on you. The problem is that you have to reduce your losses to within the allowable limit of £3m. That's were the requirement for a £25m cost saving comes in. And that's why players WILL have to be sold. Super_Clarets
  • Score: 2

1:58pm Fri 6 Jun 14

A Darener says...

Don't worry your little head about it. All Rovers fans aren't so why should you? We trust the club to sort out their finances without compromising the first team.
We also believe that FFP is unworkable and will be either abandoned or changed drastically before it damages the lower league clubs. It is a system that in practice cannot possibly succeed.
Don't worry your little head about it. All Rovers fans aren't so why should you? We trust the club to sort out their finances without compromising the first team. We also believe that FFP is unworkable and will be either abandoned or changed drastically before it damages the lower league clubs. It is a system that in practice cannot possibly succeed. A Darener
  • Score: 0

5:31pm Fri 6 Jun 14

baldie says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
I believe Rhodes is currently on closer to £45k a week, an obscene £2.4million per year contract until 30.06.2017, with a remaining cost to Blackburn Rovers of:

Original transfer fee still owed to Huddersfield Town: £4million
Percentage of profit owed to Huddersfield Town: 20%
Remaining Wages over duration of contract: £7.2million

So for Blackburn Rovers to retain the services of Jordan Rhodes it will cost them a total of: £11.2million.

And the no-dads think they'll be keeping him. LOL!
I thought you couldn't make it up?
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: I believe Rhodes is currently on closer to £45k a week, an obscene £2.4million per year contract until 30.06.2017, with a remaining cost to Blackburn Rovers of: Original transfer fee still owed to Huddersfield Town: £4million Percentage of profit owed to Huddersfield Town: 20% Remaining Wages over duration of contract: £7.2million So for Blackburn Rovers to retain the services of Jordan Rhodes it will cost them a total of: £11.2million. And the no-dads think they'll be keeping him. LOL![/p][/quote]I thought you couldn't make it up? baldie
  • Score: 1

6:07pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Maxrus says...

Super_Clarets wrote:
"A transfer ban does not mean you have to sell. Just that you cannot buy."

Correct. However for a club under a transfer ban working towards becoming compliant with the FFP rules you will then lose players at below market value in order to reduce your wage bill, and then have no means to replace them.

A transfer ban is the worst possible scenario for Blackburn Rovers.

It's the rules you have to comply with behind the embargo that will force the changes on you. The problem is that you have to reduce your losses to within the allowable limit of £3m.

That's were the requirement for a £25m cost saving comes in. And that's why players WILL have to be sold.
More gibberish from the no-life.
[quote][p][bold]Super_Clarets[/bold] wrote: "A transfer ban does not mean you have to sell. Just that you cannot buy." Correct. However for a club under a transfer ban working towards becoming compliant with the FFP rules you will then lose players at below market value in order to reduce your wage bill, and then have no means to replace them. A transfer ban is the worst possible scenario for Blackburn Rovers. It's the rules you have to comply with behind the embargo that will force the changes on you. The problem is that you have to reduce your losses to within the allowable limit of £3m. That's were the requirement for a £25m cost saving comes in. And that's why players WILL have to be sold.[/p][/quote]More gibberish from the no-life. Maxrus
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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