Financial Fair Play

399 posts
Royals and Racers
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1002
Joined: 05 Jan 2012 16:48

Re: Financial Fair Play

by Royals and Racers » 07 May 2019 07:28

Denver Royal How did Wolves do it? They made some signings early doors, after which everyone was playing for 2nd place. Heard FFP rumours, but then it went quiet. Haven’t even really changed their team all that much in PL, and not only stayed up, but likely in Europe.

Not out of the wood yet - report from March http://financialfootballnews.com/wolves ... osun-play/

User avatar
RoyalBlue
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 10169
Joined: 13 Apr 2004 22:39
Location: Thank you Jose for turning our club around

Re: Financial Fair Play

by RoyalBlue » 07 May 2019 08:40

Victor Meldrew This may well have been a non-story with unpaid wages (Bolton, Bury etc.) being the latest trend in reporting football club matters.
How did the National Press get hold of the story?
Presumably a player or other member of staff was a bit miffed so leaked the info or was it our Defence Secretary who seems guilty of almost anything that happens?

Hopefully it was just a glitch but, as others have posted, payroll is normally automatic so there is just a small element of concern.


The bank being closed due to a holiday sounds credible, depending on when and how the payroll is set up to run, particularly if the funds are coming in from offshore. Perhaps someone forgot to bring the fund transfer date forward to take account of the holiday.

What surprised me more is that the club appear to pay salaries a month in advance (the references were to May salary).

SWLR
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1058
Joined: 27 Apr 2004 20:21
Location: South West Trains siding

Re: Financial Fair Play

by SWLR » 07 May 2019 13:04

Seem to recall back in the early 70's the entire team was transfer listed. Can't recall any detail (I'm sure someone will), but puts current position in perspective.

User avatar
Sutekh
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 8345
Joined: 12 Feb 2014 14:05
Location: Destroying things.... just like Michael Gilkes used to

Re: Financial Fair Play

by Sutekh » 07 May 2019 14:17

SWLR Seem to recall back in the early 70's the entire team was transfer listed. Can't recall any detail (I'm sure someone will), but puts current position in perspective.


Think it was February 1977. After the standard embarrassment of Bury at home ? Believe the whole squad was transfer listed. No doubt someone who was there can confirm....

User avatar
Sutekh
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 8345
Joined: 12 Feb 2014 14:05
Location: Destroying things.... just like Michael Gilkes used to

Re: Financial Fair Play

by Sutekh » 07 May 2019 14:19

Royals and Racers
Denver Royal How did Wolves do it? They made some signings early doors, after which everyone was playing for 2nd place. Heard FFP rumours, but then it went quiet. Haven’t even really changed their team all that much in PL, and not only stayed up, but likely in Europe.

Not out of the wood yet - report from March http://financialfootballnews.com/wolves ... osun-play/


Similar to Bournemouth I think. When they get relegated the FL will become very interested in them.


User avatar
Denver Royal
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 1800
Joined: 02 Jun 2004 10:58
Location: Between Emmer Green duck pond and The White Horse

Re: Financial Fair Play

by Denver Royal » 07 May 2019 14:22

Sutekh
Royals and Racers
Denver Royal How did Wolves do it? They made some signings early doors, after which everyone was playing for 2nd place. Heard FFP rumours, but then it went quiet. Haven’t even really changed their team all that much in PL, and not only stayed up, but likely in Europe.

Not out of the wood yet - report from March http://financialfootballnews.com/wolves ... osun-play/

Similar to Bournemouth I think. When they get relegated the FL will become very interested in them.

Sutekh, yep, agree with that.
R&R, thx for the link, interesting read.

Royals and Racers
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1002
Joined: 05 Jan 2012 16:48

Re: Financial Fair Play

by Royals and Racers » 17 May 2019 11:55

Report in the Times today that the EFL are set to review the FFP rules this summer after complaints from Championship clubs that their rivals are exploiting the system by selling off their grounds and leasing them back as a way of balancing the books- Sheffield Wednesday, Derby and 2 other clubs are believed to have done this recently.

The Royal Forester
Member
Posts: 470
Joined: 25 Dec 2015 13:53

Re: Financial Fair Play

by The Royal Forester » 17 May 2019 13:34

Sutekh
Royals and Racers
Denver Royal How did Wolves do it? They made some signings early doors, after which everyone was playing for 2nd place. Heard FFP rumours, but then it went quiet. Haven’t even really changed their team all that much in PL, and not only stayed up, but likely in Europe.

Not out of the wood yet - report from March http://financialfootballnews.com/wolves ... osun-play/


Similar to Bournemouth I think. When they get relegated the FL will become very interested in them.

When QPR broke the rules, wasn't the maximum punishment not being allowed back into the EFL, if relegated from the PL? If so, does this option still exist? Bunging them into the National league would solve the problem of teams breaking FFP rules.

Greatwesternline
Member
Posts: 864
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 14:36

Re: Financial Fair Play

by Greatwesternline » 17 May 2019 13:40

Royals and Racers Report in the Times today that the EFL are set to review the FFP rules this summer after complaints from Championship clubs that their rivals are exploiting the system by selling off their grounds and leasing them back as a way of balancing the books- Sheffield Wednesday, Derby and 2 other clubs are believed to have done this recently.


This wouldnt balance the books, its clubs basically remortgaging their homes. Not sustainable, not to be encouraged, but very transparent.


Royals and Racers
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1002
Joined: 05 Jan 2012 16:48

Re: Financial Fair Play

by Royals and Racers » 17 May 2019 13:53

Greatwesternline
Royals and Racers Report in the Times today that the EFL are set to review the FFP rules this summer after complaints from Championship clubs that their rivals are exploiting the system by selling off their grounds and leasing them back as a way of balancing the books- Sheffield Wednesday, Derby and 2 other clubs are believed to have done this recently.


This wouldnt balance the books, its clubs basically remortgaging their homes. Not sustainable, not to be encouraged, but very transparent.

This is part of what 3 points wrote in March after studying the accounts
"Just started to take a look through the accounts for both the football club and Renhe Sports Management (its formal UK parent company). Here are some key points coming out for me

1. While we lost £21m (which including a net spend on players of £6.8m), the club actually burnt through £27m in cash. This was basically funded by new shares of £15m plus £12m of loans from the parent company (Renhe Sports) to the RFC company
2. The stadium has been moved from RFC to Renhe Sports. Basically, the football club no longer owns its own ground. I assume that is in consideration for the £27m of cash thrown at the football operations.
3. As a consequence of 2) the club now has to pay rent to Renhe Sports of £750,000 per year until 2043."

Has what we have done the same as the other clubs being complained about ??

El Diablo
Member
Posts: 230
Joined: 03 Oct 2012 13:20

Re: Financial Fair Play

by El Diablo » 17 May 2019 14:44

Royals and Racers Report in the Times today that the EFL are set to review the FFP rules this summer after complaints from Championship clubs that their rivals are exploiting the system by selling off their grounds and leasing them back as a way of balancing the books- Sheffield Wednesday, Derby and 2 other clubs are believed to have done this recently.


+ Reading FC

£26.5m sale and leaseback deal

User avatar
CountryRoyal
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6581
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 13:44

Re: Financial Fair Play

by CountryRoyal » 17 May 2019 14:53

FFP is just a fcking joke anyway, its entire inception is designed to keep the large elite clubs in power, any guise of it being for the "long term financial stability" of smaller clubs is a blatant lie.

El Diablo
Member
Posts: 230
Joined: 03 Oct 2012 13:20

Re: Financial Fair Play

by El Diablo » 17 May 2019 14:57

CountryRoyal FFP is just a fcking joke anyway, its entire inception is designed to keep the large elite clubs in power, any guise of it being for the "long term financial stability" of smaller clubs is a blatant lie.


+ ironically the spiralling revenue / disparity between the EFL & the PL , with out of control player costs / fees/ wages - only makes things worse for those in the divisions below - as we still have to pay PL money , for Champ quality players...


Greatwesternline
Member
Posts: 864
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 14:36

Re: Financial Fair Play

by Greatwesternline » 17 May 2019 15:13

Royals and Racers
Greatwesternline
Royals and Racers Report in the Times today that the EFL are set to review the FFP rules this summer after complaints from Championship clubs that their rivals are exploiting the system by selling off their grounds and leasing them back as a way of balancing the books- Sheffield Wednesday, Derby and 2 other clubs are believed to have done this recently.


This wouldnt balance the books, its clubs basically remortgaging their homes. Not sustainable, not to be encouraged, but very transparent.

This is part of what 3 points wrote in March after studying the accounts
"Just started to take a look through the accounts for both the football club and Renhe Sports Management (its formal UK parent company). Here are some key points coming out for me

1. While we lost £21m (which including a net spend on players of £6.8m), the club actually burnt through £27m in cash. This was basically funded by new shares of £15m plus £12m of loans from the parent company (Renhe Sports) to the RFC company
2. The stadium has been moved from RFC to Renhe Sports. Basically, the football club no longer owns its own ground. I assume that is in consideration for the £27m of cash thrown at the football operations.
3. As a consequence of 2) the club now has to pay rent to Renhe Sports of £750,000 per year until 2043."

Has what we have done the same as the other clubs being complained about ??


I had no idea we'd done this. Yes as per that analysis we have sold our stadium to Renhe and now we rent it off them. That's a big minus in my eyes vis-a-vis the owners. It means when they come to sell the club the club has very few assets, other than its registered players and its membership of the football league, other than that, zilch. Mind you we all know this, a football club nowadays is only as healthy financially as it attractive to a new buyer once your current benefactor gets bored.

The only thing owners can spend money on exempt from FFP is training facilities, so at least we have an owner prepared to spend on that. In the future our academy and its sold graduates may be our best source of income.

Nameless
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5435
Joined: 23 Aug 2013 12:25

Re: Financial Fair Play

by Nameless » 17 May 2019 15:30

Greatwesternline
Royals and Racers
Greatwesternline
This wouldnt balance the books, its clubs basically remortgaging their homes. Not sustainable, not to be encouraged, but very transparent.

This is part of what 3 points wrote in March after studying the accounts
"Just started to take a look through the accounts for both the football club and Renhe Sports Management (its formal UK parent company). Here are some key points coming out for me

1. While we lost £21m (which including a net spend on players of £6.8m), the club actually burnt through £27m in cash. This was basically funded by new shares of £15m plus £12m of loans from the parent company (Renhe Sports) to the RFC company
2. The stadium has been moved from RFC to Renhe Sports. Basically, the football club no longer owns its own ground. I assume that is in consideration for the £27m of cash thrown at the football operations.
3. As a consequence of 2) the club now has to pay rent to Renhe Sports of £750,000 per year until 2043."

Has what we have done the same as the other clubs being complained about ??


I had no idea we'd done this. Yes as per that analysis we have sold our stadium to Renhe and now we rent it off them. That's a big minus in my eyes vis-a-vis the owners. It means when they come to sell the club the club has very few assets, other than its registered players and its membership of the football league, other than that, zilch. Mind you we all know this, a football club nowadays is only as healthy financially as it attractive to a new buyer once your current benefactor gets bored.

The only thing owners can spend money on exempt from FFP is training facilities, so at least we have an owner prepared to spend on that. In the future our academy and its sold graduates may be our best source of income.



1. If the owners injected £27 million in return for the ground then that money kept us afloat. An asset is useless if you can’t use the value in some way
2. If they decide to sell then they can sell the ground as well. It’s irrelevant what assets the club has as it is the owners who might have to sell for a lower price. The proceeds from a sale don’t go to the club, they go to the owners. Plus lots of clubs don’t own their ground (Man City, West Ham, Chelsea , just about every club in Europe)
3. The Academy is not the only exemption for FFP. Spending on the ground is also not counted

I also think there is an element of FFP which is flexible. Birmingham didn’t get their points deduction just for overspending. They got it because they ignored warnings that they were over spending and also breached a transfer ban. I believe part of what we are doing is making it very clear to the authorities that we are taking plenty of action to try and meet FFP rules so if we don’t quite do it we have a good case for leniency. Bear in mind what Nigel Howe’s Previous job was, he will not only know the rules but how they are interpreted and what wriggle room there is.

Nameless
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5435
Joined: 23 Aug 2013 12:25

Re: Financial Fair Play

by Nameless » 17 May 2019 15:34

The other consideration of the ground sale is what the exact terms are. If all we pay for 12 months use of the ground is 750k and Renhe cover maintenanace, pitch costs, insurance, rates, electricity etc etc and we keep all revenue generated then it actually might be a very good deal !
from an FFP perspective you would think the only issues would be was the ground sold at a realistic price and is the rent reasonable. There can be no issue with the principle of a sale and lease back given ownership of a ground is not a requirement for league membership, you just need primacy of tenancy. We

Greatwesternline
Member
Posts: 864
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 14:36

Re: Financial Fair Play

by Greatwesternline » 17 May 2019 18:12

Nameless
Greatwesternline
Royals and Racers This is part of what 3 points wrote in March after studying the accounts
"Just started to take a look through the accounts for both the football club and Renhe Sports Management (its formal UK parent company). Here are some key points coming out for me

1. While we lost £21m (which including a net spend on players of £6.8m), the club actually burnt through £27m in cash. This was basically funded by new shares of £15m plus £12m of loans from the parent company (Renhe Sports) to the RFC company
2. The stadium has been moved from RFC to Renhe Sports. Basically, the football club no longer owns its own ground. I assume that is in consideration for the £27m of cash thrown at the football operations.
3. As a consequence of 2) the club now has to pay rent to Renhe Sports of £750,000 per year until 2043."

Has what we have done the same as the other clubs being complained about ??


I had no idea we'd done this. Yes as per that analysis we have sold our stadium to Renhe and now we rent it off them. That's a big minus in my eyes vis-a-vis the owners. It means when they come to sell the club the club has very few assets, other than its registered players and its membership of the football league, other than that, zilch. Mind you we all know this, a football club nowadays is only as healthy financially as it attractive to a new buyer once your current benefactor gets bored.

The only thing owners can spend money on exempt from FFP is training facilities, so at least we have an owner prepared to spend on that. In the future our academy and its sold graduates may be our best source of income.



1. If the owners injected £27 million in return for the ground then that money kept us afloat. An asset is useless if you can’t use the value in some way
2. If they decide to sell then they can sell the ground as well. It’s irrelevant what assets the club has as it is the owners who might have to sell for a lower price. The proceeds from a sale don’t go to the club, they go to the owners. Plus lots of clubs don’t own their ground (Man City, West Ham, Chelsea , just about every club in Europe)
3. The Academy is not the only exemption for FFP. Spending on the ground is also not counted

I also think there is an element of FFP which is flexible. Birmingham didn’t get their points deduction just for overspending. They got it because they ignored warnings that they were over spending and also breached a transfer ban. I believe part of what we are doing is making it very clear to the authorities that we are taking plenty of action to try and meet FFP rules so if we don’t quite do it we have a good case for leniency. Bear in mind what Nigel Howe’s Previous job was, he will not only know the rules but how they are interpreted and what wriggle room there is.


One of the reasons you as a club might want to keep ownership of your stadium is who will own it in the future. Coventry had no problem allowing their local authority to own the stadium, until they hit hard times, as did the local authority, who chose to sell it to a rugby club instead. You'd rather an owner who simply pumps money in as equity rather than loans secured against stadiums. Obviously we dont get to choose, but not owning your own stadium can really screw you over depending on how things turn out in the future. It relies on to a certain extent the benevolence of the owner to keep the club and the ground together when selling it in the future. If they find a developer who wants the land more for something else, but isn't interested in buying the football club, you can see what the opportunities the separation of the two entities might provide.

muirinho
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1468
Joined: 20 Jan 2016 12:10

Re: Financial Fair Play

by muirinho » 17 May 2019 18:54

Greatwesternline
Nameless
Greatwesternline
I had no idea we'd done this. Yes as per that analysis we have sold our stadium to Renhe and now we rent it off them. That's a big minus in my eyes vis-a-vis the owners. It means when they come to sell the club the club has very few assets, other than its registered players and its membership of the football league, other than that, zilch. Mind you we all know this, a football club nowadays is only as healthy financially as it attractive to a new buyer once your current benefactor gets bored.

The only thing owners can spend money on exempt from FFP is training facilities, so at least we have an owner prepared to spend on that. In the future our academy and its sold graduates may be our best source of income.



1. If the owners injected £27 million in return for the ground then that money kept us afloat. An asset is useless if you can’t use the value in some way
2. If they decide to sell then they can sell the ground as well. It’s irrelevant what assets the club has as it is the owners who might have to sell for a lower price. The proceeds from a sale don’t go to the club, they go to the owners. Plus lots of clubs don’t own their ground (Man City, West Ham, Chelsea , just about every club in Europe)
3. The Academy is not the only exemption for FFP. Spending on the ground is also not counted

I also think there is an element of FFP which is flexible. Birmingham didn’t get their points deduction just for overspending. They got it because they ignored warnings that they were over spending and also breached a transfer ban. I believe part of what we are doing is making it very clear to the authorities that we are taking plenty of action to try and meet FFP rules so if we don’t quite do it we have a good case for leniency. Bear in mind what Nigel Howe’s Previous job was, he will not only know the rules but how they are interpreted and what wriggle room there is.


One of the reasons you as a club might want to keep ownership of your stadium is who will own it in the future. Coventry had no problem allowing their local authority to own the stadium, until they hit hard times, as did the local authority, who chose to sell it to a rugby club instead. You'd rather an owner who simply pumps money in as equity rather than loans secured against stadiums. Obviously we dont get to choose, but not owning your own stadium can really screw you over depending on how things turn out in the future. It relies on to a certain extent the benevolence of the owner to keep the club and the ground together when selling it in the future. If they find a developer who wants the land more for something else, but isn't interested in buying the football club, you can see what the opportunities the separation of the two entities might provide.


As the stadium is a public amenity or something (forget the actual term), it's unlikely they'd ever be able to sell it for development.

However, what could happen is they sell it on to somebody who proceeds to gouge the club for rent. And leverages their asset as much as they can by maybe letting it to another club also. And skimps on ground refurbishment etc etc.

But - that could also happen if it was owned by the club, if the club owners chose to do so.

Nameless
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5435
Joined: 23 Aug 2013 12:25

Re: Financial Fair Play

by Nameless » 17 May 2019 21:51

muirinho
Greatwesternline
Nameless

1. If the owners injected £27 million in return for the ground then that money kept us afloat. An asset is useless if you can’t use the value in some way
2. If they decide to sell then they can sell the ground as well. It’s irrelevant what assets the club has as it is the owners who might have to sell for a lower price. The proceeds from a sale don’t go to the club, they go to the owners. Plus lots of clubs don’t own their ground (Man City, West Ham, Chelsea , just about every club in Europe)
3. The Academy is not the only exemption for FFP. Spending on the ground is also not counted

I also think there is an element of FFP which is flexible. Birmingham didn’t get their points deduction just for overspending. They got it because they ignored warnings that they were over spending and also breached a transfer ban. I believe part of what we are doing is making it very clear to the authorities that we are taking plenty of action to try and meet FFP rules so if we don’t quite do it we have a good case for leniency. Bear in mind what Nigel Howe’s Previous job was, he will not only know the rules but how they are interpreted and what wriggle room there is.


One of the reasons you as a club might want to keep ownership of your stadium is who will own it in the future. Coventry had no problem allowing their local authority to own the stadium, until they hit hard times, as did the local authority, who chose to sell it to a rugby club instead. You'd rather an owner who simply pumps money in as equity rather than loans secured against stadiums. Obviously we dont get to choose, but not owning your own stadium can really screw you over depending on how things turn out in the future. It relies on to a certain extent the benevolence of the owner to keep the club and the ground together when selling it in the future. If they find a developer who wants the land more for something else, but isn't interested in buying the football club, you can see what the opportunities the separation of the two entities might provide.


As the stadium is a public amenity or something (forget the actual term), it's unlikely they'd ever be able to sell it for development.

However, what could happen is they sell it on to somebody who proceeds to gouge the club for rent. And leverages their asset as much as they can by maybe letting it to another club also. And skimps on ground refurbishment etc etc.

But - that could also happen if it was owned by the club, if the club owners chose to do so.


Asset of Community Value.
Offers very minimal protection, in theory I think if the owners want to sell it they have to give community groups the chance to buy it. Realistically I can’t see STARbeing able to raise £20 million plus !

muirinho
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1468
Joined: 20 Jan 2016 12:10

Re: Financial Fair Play

by muirinho » 18 May 2019 00:31

Nameless
muirinho
Greatwesternline
One of the reasons you as a club might want to keep ownership of your stadium is who will own it in the future. Coventry had no problem allowing their local authority to own the stadium, until they hit hard times, as did the local authority, who chose to sell it to a rugby club instead. You'd rather an owner who simply pumps money in as equity rather than loans secured against stadiums. Obviously we dont get to choose, but not owning your own stadium can really screw you over depending on how things turn out in the future. It relies on to a certain extent the benevolence of the owner to keep the club and the ground together when selling it in the future. If they find a developer who wants the land more for something else, but isn't interested in buying the football club, you can see what the opportunities the separation of the two entities might provide.


As the stadium is a public amenity or something (forget the actual term), it's unlikely they'd ever be able to sell it for development.

However, what could happen is they sell it on to somebody who proceeds to gouge the club for rent. And leverages their asset as much as they can by maybe letting it to another club also. And skimps on ground refurbishment etc etc.

But - that could also happen if it was owned by the club, if the club owners chose to do so.


Asset of Community Value.
Offers very minimal protection, in theory I think if the owners want to sell it they have to give community groups the chance to buy it. Realistically I can’t see STARbeing able to raise £20 million plus !


It's more important in planning terms - it's something that the council and planning authorities must consider before allowing planning permission.

But my main point is, it doesn't really make any difference if the stadium is owned by the club, or someone else - as club owners, the club could still sell the stadium and move in to the Kassam or whatever. Owning our own stadium doesn't actually give us any protection, because, *we* don't own the stadium - the club does. And we don't own the club.

399 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Munster1871 and 11 guests

It is currently 21 Aug 2019 20:01