Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
FFP 12:52 - Feb 26 with 2596 viewssully49

Fifa's Financial Fair Play rules could be scrapped if a football agent wins a landmark Brussels court case. (Independent)
Does this open up the net value of our squad and allow all teams to buy addition players with impunity? This won't make any difference to the top teams in the PL as they play by a different rules to everyone else. This could open up a whole new transfer possibility, either to buy or on loan. This is like taking blinkers off a racehorse and will widen our view once the transfer reopens.
We now have to hope that the rumors that HJ and other board members are cashing in their shares and walking away, this will probably be disastrous for us with record tv money be the highest ever becoming available.

Poll: Is there any way for Lee Trundle to play in this squad?

0
FFP on 13:12 - Feb 26 with 1886 viewsLeonisGod

With our current management, I doubt this will make any difference to our spending policy. We could be run at a loss and still comply with FFP, but the board choose not to. If it pushes the price of players up generally, it could actually make things worse for us. if new owners come in, then who knows. Greedy agents running the show again....
0
FFP on 13:31 - Feb 26 with 1852 viewsNookiejack

That's very interesting if he wins.

Currently I think FFP means we have little chance of ever catching up clubs that generate large amounts of commercial revenue like Manchester United.

However it also means quite unlikely that Championship clubs can catch us up. Therefore we are likely to stay as a middling PL club.

If FFP is scrapped - then allows entrepreneurs to take the gamble/make an investment and splash the cash on players. (i.e. Make loans to the club to buy better quality players and increase the wage bill by more than £4m per season (which you can't do under FFP). Therefore more chance that we will be overtaken by Championship clubs - with rich entrepreneurs behind them.

Obviously a number of clubs taking the gamble will end in failure Portsmouth, Leeds etc.

We are in a capitalist system and in all other businesses people are allowed to take the gamble/make an investment and fail. Should football be any different? Depends how important you think football is to local communities - as what happens if your local football team goes bust.
0
FFP on 13:49 - Feb 26 with 1820 viewsApeShit

I think you've got this a bit backwards, this would mean the top PL teams with Billionaire owners could buy who they want and offer what wages they want.
1
FFP on 14:17 - Feb 26 with 1778 viewsLeonisGod

FFP on 13:49 - Feb 26 by ApeShit

I think you've got this a bit backwards, this would mean the top PL teams with Billionaire owners could buy who they want and offer what wages they want.


Indeed.
0
FFP on 14:25 - Feb 26 with 1764 viewsdgt73

Only last week i said it's only a matter of time before FFP was challenged in court and i was ridiculed. FFP is without doubt is against the free market.

Poll: Have Swansea got some of the most negative w@nkers following them

0
FFP on 14:53 - Feb 26 with 1736 viewsNookiejack

FFP on 14:25 - Feb 26 by dgt73

Only last week i said it's only a matter of time before FFP was challenged in court and i was ridiculed. FFP is without doubt is against the free market.


In fairness you did say that.

Daniel Striani a players agent that has challenged FFP seemed to bring a 'complaint' to European Commission (EC)back in May 2014 - which was rejected by the EC.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/may/20/uefa-defeats-financial-fair-play

He now seems to have taken it to court in Belgium.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/financial-fair-play

Before FFP was introduced there is an argument that PL became the most competitive league in world (hence the most attractive) because it attracted Billionaires across the world to invest in PL clubs - which can't happen now and it is the clubs that generate the most commercial revenue that are in the strongest position.

I think unless we attracted a Billionaire (and would we actually really want this?) will be in a weaker position - should FFP be abolished. Entrepreneurs then allowed to splash the cash on players and a few likely to come off / verses a number of clubs that do actually go bust.
0
FFP on 16:40 - Feb 26 with 1676 viewsjack247

FFP is great for us as it is. Means we can't spend the kind of money to compete with the likes of City and Chelsea, which we wouldn't have done anyway. More importantly, it means the likes of Tan can't throw disproportionate money at a Championship club to get them up and keep them up. It probably is some kind of restraint of trade though.
0
FFP on 16:46 - Feb 26 with 1662 viewsTom1912

FFP on 16:40 - Feb 26 by jack247

FFP is great for us as it is. Means we can't spend the kind of money to compete with the likes of City and Chelsea, which we wouldn't have done anyway. More importantly, it means the likes of Tan can't throw disproportionate money at a Championship club to get them up and keep them up. It probably is some kind of restraint of trade though.


You may consider it great for us, but our board has voted against it in the past.
0
Login to get fewer ads

FFP on 16:51 - Feb 26 with 1655 viewslondonlisa2001

FFP on 16:46 - Feb 26 by Tom1912

You may consider it great for us, but our board has voted against it in the past.


what FFP does really more than anything else is set in stone the established order.

This is negative in that it stops us from 'moving up' very easily. It is positive in that it stops other clubs moving up at our expense very easily.

So it all depends on your attitude to risk. Do we believe there is a bigger risk of being overtaken and falling away (in which case FFP is great) or of not being able to compete to get to the Champions League etc (in which case it is bad).

Of course, one could argue that the club is worth more if FFP is scrapped (since it allows a potential new purchaser more freedom to finance the club as they like). So depends I guess on why the board would be against it - could be more than one reason it seems to me.
0
FFP on 18:50 - Feb 26 with 1592 viewsFlashberryjack

FFP on 16:40 - Feb 26 by jack247

FFP is great for us as it is. Means we can't spend the kind of money to compete with the likes of City and Chelsea, which we wouldn't have done anyway. More importantly, it means the likes of Tan can't throw disproportionate money at a Championship club to get them up and keep them up. It probably is some kind of restraint of trade though.


If they consider FFP a constraint in trade......then surely the same could be said of the transfer window.

Hello
Poll: Should the Senedd be Abolished

0
FFP on 19:08 - Feb 26 with 1559 viewslondonlisa2001

FFP on 18:50 - Feb 26 by Flashberryjack

If they consider FFP a constraint in trade......then surely the same could be said of the transfer window.


there are actually all sorts of rules and regs in football that are.

Homegrown players is an obvious one - there is theoretically absolutely no difference between a 'homegrown' player and one from any other part of the European Union under EU law.

The whole point is that football signs up to rules that it agrees to adopt in order to remain 'part of the club' if you like.

That's why these challenges are a joke. Either the 'club' (i.e. all UEFA / FIFA clubs) sign up to these or not - there is not a legal basis for quite a lot of it. Now that's not to say that the 'rich and powerful' don't like this one so it could be scrapped. But nonsense about EU law is just that in this context - nonsense.
0
FFP on 20:21 - Feb 26 with 1531 viewsPacemaker

Chelsea just announced a £40 million per year shirt sponsorship deal with Yokohama tyres.

Not really being restrained by FFP when they get that sort of sponsorship, what was our big deal? GWFX £1 million?
[Post edited 26 Feb 2015 20:25]

Life is an adventure or nothing at all.

0
FFP on 20:29 - Feb 26 with 1520 viewsjack247

FFP on 16:46 - Feb 26 by Tom1912

You may consider it great for us, but our board has voted against it in the past.


They may well have done, was that before or after we were promoted?

It basically keeps us in the Premier league, or at least makes it a lot harder for championship clubs to compete with us. The longer we stay here, the richer we get and the longer we are likely to stay here.

I don't think its good for football in general, or would have been for us 5 years ago, but being selfish, I see it as a virtual ring fence that we are the right side of.
0
FFP on 21:52 - Feb 26 with 1450 viewsTom1912

FFP on 20:29 - Feb 26 by jack247

They may well have done, was that before or after we were promoted?

It basically keeps us in the Premier league, or at least makes it a lot harder for championship clubs to compete with us. The longer we stay here, the richer we get and the longer we are likely to stay here.

I don't think its good for football in general, or would have been for us 5 years ago, but being selfish, I see it as a virtual ring fence that we are the right side of.


After we got promoted-it was a Premier League vote.

And the last I heard, our stance hadn't changed.

The rules maintain the status quo. We are well run and can manage our own bills. Why do we need someone else to place restrictions on us?
0
FFP on 22:12 - Feb 26 with 1430 viewsjack247

FFP on 21:52 - Feb 26 by Tom1912

After we got promoted-it was a Premier League vote.

And the last I heard, our stance hadn't changed.

The rules maintain the status quo. We are well run and can manage our own bills. Why do we need someone else to place restrictions on us?


Because they don't place restrictions on us. Technically they do, but the way we normally operate is well within their boundaries anyway.

They place restrictions on teams like Fulham when Al-Fayed first took over, QPR in the Championship under Fernandes, potentially Cardiff under Tan etc.

Clubs with lower revenue than us (because they aren't established in the Premier league) cannot spend well beyond their means in order to bridge the financial gap. It is teams like these, without FFP, that are the biggest threat to our Premier League status.

The only restriction it really places on us, is it stops the next Abramovich buying us and putting enough money in to make us a CL team. In all reality, that isn't going to happen anyway.
0
FFP on 22:17 - Feb 26 with 1424 viewsTom1912

The people running the club believe they place restrictions on us. Hence the vote against it.
0
FFP on 22:21 - Feb 26 with 1418 viewsjack247

FFP on 22:17 - Feb 26 by Tom1912

The people running the club believe they place restrictions on us. Hence the vote against it.


Do you know what those restrictions are? Possibly something I have missed.
0
FFP on 22:28 - Feb 26 with 1405 viewsTom1912

It's all of them.

You may think they don't apply to us, but the club don't want options removed on how they can operate.
0
FFP on 22:39 - Feb 26 with 1390 viewsjack247

FFP on 22:28 - Feb 26 by Tom1912

It's all of them.

You may think they don't apply to us, but the club don't want options removed on how they can operate.


Ok well that hasn't really answered my question, but the implication is pretty worrying.

If that is the clubs stance, it reads to me:

We operate in a financially prudent manner and do not spend what we don't have. FFP does not impact on well run clubs like ourselves and in fact is set out to protect them.

However, we do not want FFP to jeapordise the potential sale of the club to an investor who could dramatically increase expenditure above manageable levels, potentially with his own money, or more likely, by leveraging debt against the club.

Other than that, can you think of a specific reason we would oppose it?
0
FFP on 00:23 - Feb 27 with 1340 viewsNookiejack

FFP on 22:39 - Feb 26 by jack247

Ok well that hasn't really answered my question, but the implication is pretty worrying.

If that is the clubs stance, it reads to me:

We operate in a financially prudent manner and do not spend what we don't have. FFP does not impact on well run clubs like ourselves and in fact is set out to protect them.

However, we do not want FFP to jeapordise the potential sale of the club to an investor who could dramatically increase expenditure above manageable levels, potentially with his own money, or more likely, by leveraging debt against the club.

Other than that, can you think of a specific reason we would oppose it?


Maybe they just want the flexibility - even though we are well run.

So that if we suddenly got drawn into a relegation battle - could then splash the cash in Jan window - which FFP would restrain.

Note I think you can still leverage debt against club under FFP - as long as resulting interest doesn't then cause you to make cumulative losses of £15m over a three year period. This worries me and think Trust has to be very wary of such a structure - as any default interest or loan repayment - could result in debt for equity swap - Trust then loses its stake - worst case.

I think FFP makes it harder for a potential buyer - to make a case for the benefit of his/her acquisition to fans etc. given wages can only increase by £4m plus commercial revenue. You can only make a case with regards to the benefit of your investment to the fans - by investing in stadium/academy as that is allowed under FFP. In our recent case because we have been well run and have no debt - we did not really need Moores/Noell's money for this - as should really be able to raise the finance for this ourselves - given no debt. Probably a lot different if we already had £50m of debt on balance sheet.
0
FFP on 01:35 - Feb 27 with 1314 viewsItchySphincter

FFP on 16:40 - Feb 26 by jack247

FFP is great for us as it is. Means we can't spend the kind of money to compete with the likes of City and Chelsea, which we wouldn't have done anyway. More importantly, it means the likes of Tan can't throw disproportionate money at a Championship club to get them up and keep them up. It probably is some kind of restraint of trade though.


It's not legislation though is it?

I thought it was the governing bodies that introduced it so I can't see how it can be realistically challenged?

‘……. like a moth to Itchy’s flame ……’
Poll: Planet Swans or Planet Swans? Which one's you favourite.

0
FFP on 01:41 - Feb 27 with 1313 viewsItchySphincter

FFP on 22:28 - Feb 26 by Tom1912

It's all of them.

You may think they don't apply to us, but the club don't want options removed on how they can operate.


That's right. FPP makes it more difficult for smaller clubs and we did vote against it as it's basically a percentage of turnover that you can spend so the lower your turnover the less you can spend. It's basically there to protect the clubs from the incompetents that run them.

‘……. like a moth to Itchy’s flame ……’
Poll: Planet Swans or Planet Swans? Which one's you favourite.

0
FFP on 04:47 - Feb 27 with 1286 viewsdgt73

FFP on 01:35 - Feb 27 by ItchySphincter

It's not legislation though is it?

I thought it was the governing bodies that introduced it so I can't see how it can be realistically challenged?


Lol. No footballing governing body can override the law of the land.

Poll: Have Swansea got some of the most negative w@nkers following them

0
FFP on 06:26 - Feb 27 with 1270 viewsjack247

FFP on 00:23 - Feb 27 by Nookiejack

Maybe they just want the flexibility - even though we are well run.

So that if we suddenly got drawn into a relegation battle - could then splash the cash in Jan window - which FFP would restrain.

Note I think you can still leverage debt against club under FFP - as long as resulting interest doesn't then cause you to make cumulative losses of £15m over a three year period. This worries me and think Trust has to be very wary of such a structure - as any default interest or loan repayment - could result in debt for equity swap - Trust then loses its stake - worst case.

I think FFP makes it harder for a potential buyer - to make a case for the benefit of his/her acquisition to fans etc. given wages can only increase by £4m plus commercial revenue. You can only make a case with regards to the benefit of your investment to the fans - by investing in stadium/academy as that is allowed under FFP. In our recent case because we have been well run and have no debt - we did not really need Moores/Noell's money for this - as should really be able to raise the finance for this ourselves - given no debt. Probably a lot different if we already had £50m of debt on balance sheet.


The potential advantages of us not having it though are surely vastly outweighed by the fact that it is basically a safety net for established premier league clubs vs the likes of the clubs I mentioned above.

I can see why not having it is good for football in general and I can see what it is good for individual shareholders who may be looking to sell. I can't see why it is good for the Swans while we are a well run premier league team though.
0
FFP on 06:29 - Feb 27 with 1266 viewsjack247

FFP on 01:41 - Feb 27 by ItchySphincter

That's right. FPP makes it more difficult for smaller clubs and we did vote against it as it's basically a percentage of turnover that you can spend so the lower your turnover the less you can spend. It's basically there to protect the clubs from the incompetents that run them.


I get that, but what are the disadvantages to a club that spends within its means? especially when you account for the fact it hinders clubs we could be competing with that aggressively overspend.
0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2024