League 1 FFP rules and myths debunked (CET article) (1 Viewer)

CraigSBA said:

Worth a read
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/sport/football/football-news/financial-fair-play-league-one-8560150

Click to expand...

Yep. It does make the point that the Wasps deal has rather scuppered the club now, although it's also fair to point out that the owners can fund the club with 'donations', at least in this league. On which note, is there a 'waiting patiently' smiley that I can use here?

Yep decent article, well done Telegraph.

It's hardly news though is it... We've been going on about it for bloody months.

Ian1779 said:

It's hardly news though is it... We've been going on about it for bloody months.

Click to expand...

Years rather.

CraigSBA said:

In theorry , if our owners wanted to get us out of this league ....they could

Click to expand...

They certainly could--to Division 2 and then the Conference. In sisu speak it's full steam downwards.

What you can easily forget of course is that a player's value correlates pretty strongly with the player's wage.
So a free - transfer would command a much lower wage than a £5m one. Both eat into that 60% of turnover cap...but at different rates. Our current turnover is suffering thanks to the insane miscalculation about the Sickfields move...although whether an agreement with ACL for a Ricoh arrangement would have had us in any better turnover position or not we will never know now.

PUSB

SkyblueBazza said:

What you can easily forget of course is that a player's value correlates pretty strongly with the player's wage.
So a free - transfer would command a much lower wage than a £5m one. Both eat into that 60% of turnover cap...but at different rates. Our current turnover is suffering thanks to the insane miscalculation about the Sickfields move...although whether an agreement with ACL for a Ricoh arrangement would have had us in any better turnover position or not we will never know now.

PUSB

Click to expand...

A players value correlates strongly with the players wage but that isn't the same as saying a free transfer commands a much lower wage than a 5million one as in many cases the opposite is true. Players purposefully run down their contract so they can leave on a free so that they can get a much higher wage and better benefit package. They can negotiate themselves (or rather their agents do) a very decent chunk of the transfer fee that would have been paid but now isn't.

players with low value (ie bad players) of course do for the most part have lower wages than players with higher value of course. If you are picking up desperate players you can certainly pay less for them per week, but if you are picking up out of contract players who have many options you're probably paying higher wages than if you'd paid for the player (though still likely paying less total money)

SkyblueBazza said:

What you can easily forget of course is that a player's value correlates pretty strongly with the player's wage.
So a free - transfer would command a much lower wage than a £5m one. Both eat into that 60% of turnover cap...but at different rates. Our current turnover is suffering thanks to the insane miscalculation about the Sickfields move...although whether an agreement with ACL for a Ricoh arrangement would have had us in any better turnover position or not we will never know now.

PUSB

Click to expand...

Hang on are you suggesting that Bayern are paying Lewandowski less wages than Dortmand did?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

So the SMCP calculation provides a budget and is set based on turnover including player sales and the deduction of certain costs but doesn't apply to all players and definitely does not provide 60p in every £ received to the manager

It is monitored half yearly but so long as anyone breaking the limit says they wont do it again then all is forgiven

The "budget" can be distorted by donations or share issues if owners wish/want

The budget is just that a budget and does not mean it will be spent in full, indeed put out a team of new academy players and it would be hardly spent at all. It still relies on there being physical cash available and if self reliant then a club cash flow is the important figure

Which is pretty much what we already thought isn't it?

oldskyblue58 said:

So the SMCP calculation provides a budget and is set based on turnover including player sales and the deduction of certain costs but doesn't apply to all players and definitely does not provide 60p in every £ received to the manager

It is monitored half yearly but so long as anyone breaking the limit says they wont do it again then all is forgiven

The "budget" can be distorted by donations or share issues if owners wish/want

The budget is just that a budget and does not mean it will be spent in full, indeed put out a team of new academy players and it would be hardly spent at all. It still relies on there being physical cash available and if self reliant then a club cash flow is the important figure

Which is pretty much what we already thought isn't it?

Click to expand...

exactly but while it's not news to anyone who spent the couple of minutes to look it up (or taken it in here), it is news to everyone whose understanding comes from Fisher and Waggots comments which I suspect is the majority (less so on this forum of course, though even here I think there is alot of misunderstanding about this) with that in mind it's a good article.

stupot07 said:

Hang on are you suggesting that Bayern are paying Lewandowski less wages than Dortmand did?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Click to expand...

No...Noggin made a good point on that thinking too - although we aren't talking top notch players signing for us on a free. The ones we sign will happily play for a few quid a week. The ones we would pay relatively big money for would want much more - that's the point I was trying to make.

PUSB