Buying power

kendalfox

kendalfox

Roofer
Spuds reportedly £150 million and a paper say that will buy you 3 decent players, what bloody chance have we got selling his proposed players ??
 
Newcastle's and Everton's new owners injecting £100m and Chelsea's new owners injecting £200m. What is the point of FFP?
 
Oadlad said:
Newcastle's and Everton's new owners injecting £100m and Chelsea's new owners injecting £200m. What is the point of FFP?
Click to expand...
Aston Villa must be close to breaking FFP, hundreds of millions spent with Grealish bringing in any money, supposedly big spenders again this summer.
 
That's right because everything winds up like that; big five/six petrol, banks, TVs, insurance, cars, energy suppliers, and so on...
 
Oadlad said:
Newcastle's and Everton's new owners injecting £100m and Chelsea's new owners injecting £200m. What is the point of FFP?
Click to expand...
When looking at the Premier League as a whole there is no such thing as FFP - not just in the figurative sense but in a very real sense. There are no FFP rules. What there is are Profitability & Sustainability rules which address the primary reason why what was termed FFP was first introduced; to ensure that clubs didn't overstretch themselves to the point of making them unviable. It is not and never has been about creating a level playing field across the league as a whole, it is just about stopping clubs trying to gain an advantage through a financial gamble that if it failed would see them go bust doing so. The idea of Financial Fair Play is really about where that gamble is successful any club that couldn't or wouldn't take such a gamble may lose out by, in the worst case, being relegated (hence Leeds & Burnley making a noise about Everton's spending) but as I say that isn't the reason for the rules.

In terms of the accounting I think you wouldn't normally see owner's cash injections appear in earnings accounts by which profitability & sustainability are measured so the rules & sanctions as written still apply. Of course, if the accounts show a loss over the 3 years greater than that allowed (up to a limit and it is that limit that is likely to be what Burnley & Leeds are looking at with regards to Everton) then the question is "do you have the funds to cover those losses" and the answer will be yes and the PL are happy.
 
buz_not_buzz said:
When looking at the Premier League as a whole there is no such thing as FFP - not just in the figurative sense but in a very real sense. There are no FFP rules. What there is are Profitability & Sustainability rules which address the primary reason why what was termed FFP was first introduced; to ensure that clubs didn't overstretch themselves to the point of making them unviable. It is not and never has been about creating a level playing field across the league as a whole, it is just about stopping clubs trying to gain an advantage through a financial gamble that if it failed would see them go bust doing so. The idea of Financial Fair Play is really about where that gamble is successful any club that couldn't or wouldn't take such a gamble may lose out by, in the worst case, being relegated (hence Leeds & Burnley making a noise about Everton's spending) but as I say that isn't the reason for the rules.

In terms of the accounting I think you wouldn't normally see owner's cash injections appear in earnings accounts by which profitability & sustainability are measured so the rules & sanctions as written still apply. Of course, if the accounts show a loss over the 3 years greater than that allowed (up to a limit and it is that limit that is likely to be what Burnley & Leeds are looking at with regards to Everton) then the question is "do you have the funds to cover those losses" and the answer will be yes and the PL are happy.
Click to expand...
The Price of Football podcast is very good on this sort of thing.
 
buz_not_buzz said:
In terms of the accounting I think you wouldn't normally see owner's cash injections appear in earnings accounts by which profitability & sustainability are measured so the rules & sanctions as written still apply. Of course, if the accounts show a loss over the 3 years greater than that allowed (up to a limit and it is that limit that is likely to be what Burnley & Leeds are looking at with regards to Everton) then the question is "do you have the funds to cover those losses" and the answer will be yes and the PL are happy.
Click to expand...
I think the idea is the owner or investor has to put the capital in, but not as a loan. That way it appears on the balance sheet as an asset, rather than a loan (debt). Possibly. Of course it CAN go in as a loan, but that risks upsetting people as it then shows up as "debts".
 
haardaarss said:
I think the idea is the owner or investor has to put the capital in, but not as a loan. That way it appears on the balance sheet as an asset, rather than a loan (debt). Possibly. Of course it CAN go in as a loan, but that risks upsetting people as it then shows up as "debts".
Click to expand...
Sounds about right but I have only the most rudimentary grasp of accounting. As my wife can testify!
 
But Chelsea (or their new owners) have to pay £1.5billion back to Abramovic when sale goes through, some 'loan' that is...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top