Financial Fair Play (FFP)

[YellowBelly Red]

Interestingly, Leicester are calling their charges "unlawful".

I for one, can see the PL in a court before too long.

 

[Captain Sinister]

Ok so Leicester are going to be charged.
Let’s be absolutely clear in this, the sporting advantage is for the 22/23 season. Let’s go back and deduct 4 points of Everton, Forest and Leicester to see what would have happened.
So Leicester Leeds and Southampton all get relegated but with Leeds above Leicester.
That’s it
So who got any advantage?
No one.
And then punish them all anyway?
Bollocks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But everton should have not had just 4... they should have 6 plus 4 = 10.
Everton go down on adverse goal difference.

 

[MaxiRobriguez]

In the same way you have not committed murder.....Yet, or a different sort of way?

In that a stable, profitable business where the shareholders can earn a reliable return is a not a bad thing, whereas the last time I checked murder is a bad thing.

 

[MaxiRobriguez]

It is not controversial to me. I just wanted you to advise now much he has taken out of the club at this point in time relation to his investment? Which is nothing so far as you have said.
As Malwood says his investment in the club has grown significantly due to the value of the club and that has benefited us all.
I know you have no time for EM( that is your perogative) but he is certainly not the Glazers who have rinsed Manure for cash.
Cloughie75 wrote very eloquently the other day and demonstrated why he is the best owner we have had in our 60 years of supporting our great club.
Will he continue to be that or do exactly as you say and fill his boots nobody knows, you can only judge on what he has done to date.

To be very clear, if Marinakis is in a position to fill his boots then that will make him the best owner we've had in generations as it will mean the club is a permanent fixture of the top flight and it's being run well.

I *want* Marinakis to fill his boots.

 

[It's Baggio]

So I think you can extend a players contract and spread out the remaining amortisation amount over the duration of a new contract.

E.g. buy a player for £50m on a 5 year contract, then give another five year contract at the end of the third year. The remaining £20m amortised book amount would then be spread over the five years of the new contract.

In Wood’s case though if he signs a contract at the end of the season the remaining amortisation will be £0 I think, so it makes no difference. It’s not backdated as far as I’m aware.

I think that's correct, however there is now a 5 years limit on transfer fee amortisation.

Regards Wood, it probably depends on when he signs a new deal. If it's before year end then I assume they can spread his book value over this season and his contract extension.

 

[I'm Red Till Dead]

I just came here to see what's going on. No one has updated it for over 30 minutes.

 

[Captain Sinister]

I think that's correct, however there is now a 5 years limit on transfer fee amortisation.

Regards Wood, it probably depends on when he signs a new deal. If it's before year end then I assume they can spread his book value over this season and his contract extension.

The 5-year rule was introduced after Chelsea were handing our 8,9, and 10 year contracts so as to limit the annual write off of the massive transfer fees they paying out.
Why on earth the rule wasn't back dated is a mystery.
Chelsea were gaining a sporting advnatage and never paid the price.

 

[REDDERS78]

In that a stable, profitable business where the shareholders can earn a reliable return is a not a bad thing, whereas the last time I checked murder is a bad thing.

Ah, you mean him taking money (potentially) is a good thing, my bad.

Not sure on the murder thing though, generally yeah, but there's a good few people alive around the globe who's ending may benefit a good few.

 

[Est.1865]

The 5-year rule was introduced after Chelsea were handing our 8,9, and 10 year contracts so as to limit the annual write off of the massive transfer fees they paying out.
Why on earth the rule wasn't back dated is a mystery.
Chelsea were gaining a sporting advnatage and never paid the price.

Chelsea didn't do anything wrong in those cases thought.

They just had a more creative finance approach and ownership willing to both invest more cash and accept a greater long term financial risk.

 

[Est.1865]

I think that's correct, however there is now a 5 years limit on transfer fee amortisation.

Regards Wood, it probably depends on when he signs a new deal. If it's before year end then I assume they can spread his book value over this season and his contract extension.

I can’t see a contract extension impacting the amortisation of the original transfer fee. All you are doing is increasing your future wage burden.

 

[MaxiRobriguez]

I can’t see a contract extension impacting the amortisation of the original transfer fee.

Should be able to spread out the remaiing amortisation rather than original fee.

So for Wood, we paid £15m, to be amortised across the two year contract, so £7.5m per year.

We give him a year extension in the 2nd year then we should be able to re-amortise the £7.5m so by the time he leaves the club the fee per year would be £7.5m, £3.75m, £3.75m.

 

[It's Baggio]

I can’t see a contract extension impacting the amortisation of the original transfer fee. All you are doing is increasing your future wage burden.

As Maxi said, I think it's affects any remaining amortisation. Bit of detail here:

Loading…

priceoffootball.com

You're right though, whilst you might save a few quid by kicking some of the transfer fee down the road, you're also committing to another few million in wages.

Chelsea might've been 'clever' in spreading costs out over 8 years. However, they've now got a handful of players that probably aren't up to it, but will be on very good contracts for another 7 years and subsequently be very hard to move on.

 

[Statto]

Chelsea didn't do anything wrong in those cases thought.

They just had a more creative finance approach and ownership willing to both invest more cash and accept a greater long term financial risk.

The EPL clearly didn't like it though as they changed the rules after they'd allowed them to do it.

 

[It's Baggio]

Should be able to spread out the remaiing amortisation rather than original fee.

So for Wood, we paid £15m, to be amortised across the two year contract, so £7.5m per year.

We give him a year extension in the 2nd year then we should be able to re-amortise the £7.5m so by the time he leaves the club the fee per year would be £7.5m, £3.75m, £3.75m.

Yep, although with Wood it'd be split between loan fee (in last seasons accounts) & then transfer fee (this season and any future seasons).

 

[MaxiRobriguez]

Yep, although with Wood it'd be split between loan fee (in last seasons accounts) & then transfer fee (this season and any future seasons).

So basically to avoid FFP charges next year we just need to give Sangare a multi year extension...

 

[BristolfaninPeace]

Just to say in respect of Managala and anyone else who is not Academy or free for minimal compensation or Agents Fees Idk the Profit on Disposal is Net of..

*Book Value at Point of Disposal
*Sell-on clause (if one exists)

 

[Est.1865]

The EPL clearly didn't like it though as they changed the rules after they'd allowed them to do it.

NFL impose a similar limit on years.

All teams do now is add multiple voidable years to deals.

Give a player a 3 year contract, add 2 voidable years. Spreads original cost over 5 years, player only really contracted with salaries for 3 years.

 

[Est.1865]

Should be able to spread out the remaiing amortisation rather than original fee.

So for Wood, we paid £15m, to be amortised across the two year contract, so £7.5m per year.

We give him a year extension in the 2nd year then we should be able to re-amortise the £7.5m so by the time he leaves the club the fee per year would be £7.5m, £3.75m, £3.75m.

Thanks, didn’t know that.

 

[Robertson]

Just to say in respect of Managala and anyone else who is not Academy or free for minimal compensation or Agents Fees Idk the Profit on Disposal is Net of..

*Book Value at Point of Disposal
*Sell-on clause (if one exists)

So how does it work with players you make a loss on? Let’s say there’s a player who has £10m value split over two years left and you sell for £5m. Is that then just a £5m loss for the season you sell in? End of story?

 

[BristolfaninPeace]

So how does it work with players you make a loss on? Let’s say there’s a player who has £10m value split over two years left and you sell for £5m. Is that then just a £5m loss for the season you sell in? End of story?

Sell-on clause is mostly % of Profit, occasionally clubs may agree % of fee but quick worked example.

£20m fee, 5 year deal.
Sell for £30m after 2 years.
Sell on 15% of Profit.

£30m - £12m - £1.5m..Profit on Disposal £16.5m.

Obviously the club saves £4m a year in Annual Amortisation plus whatever in wages.

 

[Rockabilly]

I just came here to see what's going on. No one has updated it for over 30 minutes.

 

[apondaway]

Interestingly, Leicester are calling their charges "unlawful".

I for one, can see the PL in a court before too long.

Isn't the period they are being charged while they were in the EPL?

 

[BristolfaninPeace]

Isn't the period they are being charged while they were in the EPL?

They are.

Matters are still live in the EFL, reports indicate that they are investigated by then too for the period ending in this present season.

I honestly thought the sale of Maddison by end of June, the £105m limit and the more generous Covid limit for actual Covid seasons would see them narrowly fine to 2022-23.

The £83m limit, £1.5m or £2.5m max and the £92.4m Pre Tax Loss in 2021-22 would see them in deep trouble to this year.

 

[MC Plantpot]

As Maxi said, I think it's affects any remaining amortisation. Bit of detail here:

Loading…

priceoffootball.com

You're right though, whilst you might save a few quid by kicking some of the transfer fee down the road, you're also committing to another few million in wages.

Chelsea might've been 'clever' in spreading costs out over 8 years. However, they've now got a handful of players that probably aren't up to it, but will be on very good contracts for another 7 years and subsequently be very hard to move on.

Didn’t they have a player a few years ago who just sat on a fat contract and never played? You’d think they’d learn.

 

[Alf-engelos Mindminackers]

I just came here to see what's going on. No one has updated it for over 30 minutes.

Ha, I've really had to laugh at the "let's put it all behind us and move on!" shouts lol. I commend the sentiment, but it's just not that simple sadly. No chance of that happening until for some time at this rate. Same will be happening at the club too.

The damage those who have put us in position have done to our season is up there with some of the worst ever inflicted by any tenure. Stuff like this doesn't just disappear overnight sadly. Even if every Forest fan suddenly shut up about it, those other clubs who it affects wouldn't.