Profit & Sustainability Rules Change

Silent AFCB said:
From what I read it seems what they did and got -9 for is now allowed? Seems harsh
Click to expand...
Far as I understand... (and I might be wrong!) it's the other way around. Derby were the one club who tried something else other than straight line amortisation (from 2016 to 2019). Using different percentages of amortisation each season so that they could move money around on their balance sheet year to year to adjust their FFP calculations.

Derby's argument was that no specific amortisation method was stipulated in the rules. So what they did, whilst against the spirit perhaps, didn't break the letter of the law (and they probably have a point).

This is just the EFL covering their backside and making it explicit that straight line amortisation is to be used by everyone.
 
Since the pandemic don’t you think that the various leagues are getting quite comfortable changing rules during a season ? Why can’t it wait until the season has ended?
 
Fu*k FFP. What even is the point? All it actually does is destroy competition and maintain the pecking order. The big clubs can outspend everyone else and never have any real threat of actual competition. It makes me think what is the point? Even if you get to the PL the system is rigged in such a way that all you can ever hope to do is survive (bar Leicester’s once in a generation achievement.) It’s not as though it’s even stopping clubs from going out of business/avoiding administration, Derby, Bury and Macclesfield anyone? It’s actually very very depressing to be watching football in such an era. I remember my Dad telling me about the Forest team who got promoted and 2 years later won the European cup, I truly wish I was alive during this era. This just isn’t possible anymore due to the ludicrous amount of money at the top giving the top clubs a monopoly on talent. And what makes it even worse is that nobody ever seems to talk about this, we’ve all been duped by S*y sports into believing this is just the way that it is. F**k the billionaires, f**k FFP, and fu*k the greedy elite who want to eliminate any form of competition.
 
Waz afcb said:
Fu*k FFP. What even is the point? All it actually does is destroy competition and maintain the pecking order. The big clubs can outspend everyone else and never have any real threat of actual competition. It makes me think what is the point? Even if you get to the PL the system is rigged in such a way that all you can ever hope to do is survive (bar Leicester’s once in a generation achievement.) It’s not as though it’s even stopping clubs from going out of business/avoiding administration, Derby, Bury and Macclesfield anyone? It’s actually very very depressing to be watching football in such an era. I remember my Dad telling me about the Forest team who got promoted and 2 years later won the European cup, I truly wish I was alive during this era. This just isn’t possible anymore due to the ludicrous amount of money at the top giving the top clubs a monopoly on talent. And what makes it even worse is that nobody ever seems to talk about this, we’ve all been duped by S*y sports into believing this is just the way that it is. F**k the billionaires, f**k FFP, and fu*k the greedy elite who want to eliminate any form of competition.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. If we get promoted, with the EPL rights moving to Sky Sports over here meaning it will cost me almost double the price to watch the games (if I stick to online only) not sure I'll be watching anymore. Only winning a quarter of your games being seen as a good season and knowing a quarter of the games are barely worth watching, but you still do just in case it's another Chelsea, Man Utd, Chelsea, Tottenham, Chelsea - actually can we just play Chelsea every time it's a Top 6 game?
All this because there is nothing done to make it an actual competition. It's only going to get worse for the likes of us, Brentford, Watford etc as Newcastle will now pull away, rumours of massive financial injections into Leeds. It goes on.
The excitement of that first season in the Premier League is almost the exact polar opposite I feel now.
 
How are Chelsea able to keep spending ridiculous amounts on players and get away with it?
Olise leaving Palace would be excellent news for us. It would really break that special team they were starting to build. Roy even mentioned the possibility of losing Eze this window.
 
£900m split over, say, an average of a seven year contract is about £130m a year. Chelsea's turnover is around £450m. So easy.

Then add in the fact they've also generated about £250m in sales.
 
It would certainly help Chelsea’s amortisation sums add up, if they could return to Champions League qualification. Adding multiple 10s of millions to their potential income each year, over the lifetime of these transfer deals. That has to be the expectation on Pochettino this season.
 
kirsikka said:
£900m split over, say, an average of a seven year contract is about £130m a year. Chelsea's turnover is around £450m. So easy.

Then add in the fact they've also generated about £250m in sales.
Click to expand...

I was not really interested in the Chelsea saga but curious about the FFP ramifications. I did try to Google it but it's hard to get accurate information.

It does look like some of the players are on crazy long contracts so the amortisation is leveled out like you say. Wages are reported at about £180M so still "only" about ~£300M and I suspect all the pre-spending spree players like Lukaku, Sterling, Kepa, Chillwell and that are maybe another hundred or so million amortisation.

It might be much tighter than you've implied but not impossible.
 
Kudos said:
I was not really interested in the Chelsea saga but curious about the FFP ramifications. I did try to Google it but it's hard to get accurate information.
Click to expand...

I used to try and follow it, but once you read into it, then read about it changing and proposals to it changing or the EFL having their own version compared to the Premier League and then UEFA having another version…
 
DJ said:
I used to try and follow it, but once you read into it, then read about it changing and proposals to it changing or the EFL having their own version compared to the Premier League and then UEFA having another version…
Click to expand...
Apparently the PL are thinking about changing the rules too now in line with UEFA.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Premier League considering CLOSING FFP loophole exploited by Chelsea

EXCLUSIVE BY MATT HUGHES: Moises Caicedo will become the 22nd player on Chelsea's books to sign a contract longer than five years at after agreeing an eight-year deal.
www.dailymail.co.uk
 
Mark WFC said:
Apparently the PL are thinking about changing the rules too now in line with UEFA.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Premier League considering CLOSING FFP loophole exploited by Chelsea

EXCLUSIVE BY MATT HUGHES: Moises Caicedo will become the 22nd player on Chelsea's books to sign a contract longer than five years at after agreeing an eight-year deal.
www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...

That stops payments from being over 5 years but doesn't stop amortisation over more than 5 years. So if you have the cash then you can still stretch it out over a longer term. It's not an FFP issue at all

If I'm honest I can't really view it as cheating/a loophole as Chelsea is shouldering the risk of wages for a player who might bomb and the receiving clubs are clearly happy to take what is akin to mortgage payments for a player.
 
Kudos said:
That stops payments from being over 5 years but doesn't stop amortisation over more than 5 years. So if you have the cash then you can still stretch it out over a longer term. It's not an FFP issue at all

If I'm honest I can't really view it as cheating/a loophole as Chelsea is shouldering the risk of wages for a player who might bomb and the receiving clubs are clearly happy to take what is akin to mortgage payments for a player.
Click to expand...

Yeah although I'm not so sure as although there's no guarantees spending a lot of money, buying the best, or near to, players is highly likely to put you in with a stronger chance of being successful compared to clubs that don't.

It's highly unlikely they won't get champions league again and are probably the best placed club to challenge man City's stranglehold as a result. The chances of it ending horrifically are minimal imo, even though I expect a number of their signings will end up barely playing, Chelsea subsiding their subsequent moves.
 
MB1980 said:
Yeah although I'm not so sure as although there's no guarantees spending a lot of money, buying the best, or near to, players is highly likely to put you in with a stronger chance of being successful compared to clubs that don't.

It's highly unlikely they won't get champions league again and are probably the best placed club to challenge man City's stranglehold as a result. The chances of it ending horrifically are minimal imo, even though I expect a number of their signings will end up barely playing, Chelsea subsiding their subsequent moves.
Click to expand...

Of course, having better players will make you more likely to succeed but this strategy means you need to buy players that will be useful now or very soon and also be useful in 7 years' time too at the end of their contract. That's a risk appetite thing rather than an unfair advantage, similar to when Forest went for Lingard.

If Chelsea ends up subsidising their future moves then that will be hurting them in the future in the same way signing a load of 29-year-olds on 4/5 year contracts is great short term but a ticking time bomb.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

;