FFP

Leeds United news here, transfer rumours, club affairs, players, fans, etc.
Specific match discussions should go in the category below.

FFP

Postby NottinghamWhite » 10 Jul 2019, 08:35

I’m sure I’m not the only one who doesn’t understand this ruling. Could someone in lay mans terms explain what it covers & what it effects. It appears to be riddled with loop holes ( Villa selling their ground to the owner in order to comply )

Confused of Nottingham
User avatar
NottinghamWhite
LUFCTALK Admin
 
Posts: 23678
Joined: 11 Nov 2009, 10:10

Re: FFP

Postby ChilwellWhite » 10 Jul 2019, 09:31

Sorry I can’t help but would love to hear exactly what it’s about.
User avatar
ChilwellWhite
Dick Ray's Talent Spotter
 
Posts: 1845
Joined: 29 Dec 2014, 18:12

Re: FFP

Postby rigger » 10 Jul 2019, 09:43

I think it's £39m max over three seasons.
Debt I mean.
So Villa spent lots on fees and wages, ended up some £50-60m in the red and promptly engineered a stadium sale to cover the debt.
They basically cooked the books - legally until proven otherwise - and avoided penalties.

Not sure what's going to happen but the deal will be investigated by the EPL and they find themselves in hot water.

The trouble is timescales. There's a massive knock on effect when fixtures are involved as authorities don't like to do anything once the season is underway...
If you thought that post was good, you should check out my interesting and constantly surprising blog: http://paulridgeblog.com/
User avatar
rigger
LUFCTALK Admin
 
Posts: 12961
Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 17:35

Re: FFP

Postby rigger » 10 Jul 2019, 09:44

The stadium sale was in house which is why it looks so dodgy.
If you thought that post was good, you should check out my interesting and constantly surprising blog: http://paulridgeblog.com/
User avatar
rigger
LUFCTALK Admin
 
Posts: 12961
Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 17:35

Re: FFP

Postby johnh » 10 Jul 2019, 10:06

The problem with FFP is that it increases the advantage of the wealthy clubs. This is why the top four in the Premiership will mostly be the same names with the odd change from fifth and sixth. Plus it is a lot easier for the football authorities to take on the Blackpool's and Bolton's of this world than the 'big boys'.
The ex-Prime Minister has been in our house.
User avatar
johnh
Don Revie's bingo caller
 
Posts: 6376
Joined: 24 Jan 2012, 15:26

Re: FFP

Postby DominanceUK » 10 Jul 2019, 10:10

NottinghamWhite wrote:I’m sure I’m not the only one who doesn’t understand this ruling. Could someone in lay mans terms explain what it covers & what it effects. It appears to be riddled with loop holes ( Villa selling their ground to the owner in order to comply )

Confused of Nottingham


I'm in the same boat, Phil. Loop holes as you said would be the best way to describe it. I'll use an example of the recent transfer of Kovacic to Chelski who are supposedly under a transfer ban...
DominanceUK
Jimmy Armfield's cardigan knitter
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: 11 Aug 2014, 16:33

Re: FFP

Postby rigger » 10 Jul 2019, 12:04

That's not a loophole at all - it's because the deal was for a loan of one year with the option to buy at the end of it, which they've exercised perfectly legally.
If you thought that post was good, you should check out my interesting and constantly surprising blog: http://paulridgeblog.com/
User avatar
rigger
LUFCTALK Admin
 
Posts: 12961
Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 17:35

Re: FFP

Postby rigger » 10 Jul 2019, 12:05

If you thought that post was good, you should check out my interesting and constantly surprising blog: http://paulridgeblog.com/
User avatar
rigger
LUFCTALK Admin
 
Posts: 12961
Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 17:35

Re: FFP

Postby DominanceUK » 10 Jul 2019, 14:13

rigger wrote:That's not a loophole at all - it's because the deal was for a loan of one year with the option to buy at the end of it, which they've exercised perfectly legally.


They paid £40m for the transfer fee, Rigz. Loop hole somewhere.
DominanceUK
Jimmy Armfield's cardigan knitter
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: 11 Aug 2014, 16:33

Re: FFP

Postby Another Northern Soul » 10 Jul 2019, 14:35

DominanceUK wrote:
rigger wrote:That's not a loophole at all - it's because the deal was for a loan of one year with the option to buy at the end of it, which they've exercised perfectly legally.


They paid £40m for the transfer fee, Rigz. Loop hole somewhere.


I see your point D but it isn't really, the ban would be illegal if they tried stopping an agreed deal.

Not defending chelsea at all, I'm hoping almost anticipating a quite dramatic slide next season for them.
User avatar
Another Northern Soul
LUFCTALK Moderator
 
Posts: 4958
Joined: 01 Nov 2015, 09:55

Next

Return to LUFC TALK

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests