what i dont understand about FFP

[cross it Dave]

I didn't count the "simply" Dave.

"Money put in by owners is classed as capital not income" is 11

Got yer⛷��

[Tarbie]

All you need to do is wisely milk the cash cow that is the PL.

Burnley have been absolutely superb at this and clubs like Huddersfield and Brighton should look at them as a great example of pushing a small club forward.

They should also look at us as to how NOT to do it.

Nail on head!

[klonk]

The FFP rules under which Football League are trying to fine us are not the same as now. Aston Villa with 63 players on their wage bill would fail the old test
but now basicaly have 3 years to adjust. So by changing them,and the Premiership refusing to collect any fines, they have admitted they were flawed.

i think the idea of the new rules is that they can be combined with the prem rules.

under the old rules for the championship, everything was based on a single season and the permitted loss was unrealistically low.

under the new rules for both prem and championship, losses are aggregated over a 3-year period (which is fairer in my view), the punishments are less draconian and there are different permitted loss levels for a season spent in the prem (£35m) and the championship (£13m) (meaning that promotion and relegation don't involve a reset of the rules).

i think that in villa's case, this means that their permitted 3-season loss is £83m. their losses for their final 2 years in the prem combined were £13.3m - so as long as their loss for the season just gone is less than £70m (which is unlikely), they will have no immediate problem this season (or next probably).

before we all get upset about this good fortune for villa, it's worth bearing in mind that, depending on how the football league view the debt write-off, we would have broken the new rules as well.

[Milesawayranger]

all in all , for those calling for uncle to step down , new people coming in really couldn't do anything other than manage money better. Horse and stable door comes to mind.

[stanistheman]

Apologies , FFP , (and i said i wasn't thick!!)
thanks C club.
so if the owners wanted to take us forward they couldn't even Sponsor it in some way to dress things up?
I think the point i am trying to make is that if someone wanted to really take us forward with big money , they actually couldn't?

Well they could, just as long as they are not stupid enough to then go and get relegated at the 1st hurdle as they did in 2015.

[Olly]

We have to stay within a 3 year rolling limit, no matter how much money is available to put in?

[klonk]

We have to stay within a 3 year rolling limit, no matter how much money is available to put in?

yes... although the purchase cost of a new player is spread over the length of the contract rather than in one big hit. so buy a player for £4m on a 4-year contract and the amount in the accounts over the 4 years of the contract for the purchase is £1m/1m/1m/1m rather than £4m/0/0/0.

this means 2 things...

first, owners can opt to spend (relatively) big and gamble on promotion and its associated increase in tv money.
secondly, it means that we're still making charges in the accounts for old purchases like caulker (yes, on top of his wages). we're coming to a point where most of the very expensive players have either left or have been fully charged to the accounts now, so hopefully there may be more room to recruit.

[Stanley]

I've put the poor thread title out of its misery. After four days it was starting to irritate me.