he is you know!
Well-Known Member
- Dec 31, 2012
- 1,847
- 3,535
Financial Fair Play (general thread)
- Thread starter GMI
- Start date
SirHarryHotspur
Well-Known Member
- Aug 9, 2017
- 5,157
- 7,699
So under UEFA regs Villa are already on the borderline and they look sure to qualify for one of the Euro comps next season , it's going to be an interesting Summer in the FFP world.
Given Villa's wage bill last season was £194.2m and their revenue was £217.7m, this is a squad cost ratio of 89 per cent. This season, the maximum allowed squad cost ratio was 90 per cent, but this drops to 80 per cent for the 2024-25 season and 70 per cent in 2025-26
Given Villa's wage bill last season was £194.2m and their revenue was £217.7m, this is a squad cost ratio of 89 per cent. This season, the maximum allowed squad cost ratio was 90 per cent, but this drops to 80 per cent for the 2024-25 season and 70 per cent in 2025-26
razor1981
Well-Known Member
- Jun 27, 2012
- 1,269
- 8,984
It's not just the wage bill that counts, you have to add on player amortisation as well (£93m for Villa).
Neon_Knight_
Well-Known Member
- Jul 20, 2011
- 4,016
- 6,676
Is December the cut-off for when the PL has to finish reviewing and potential breaches and formally charge a club then?
A change approved and introduced before the end of June could theoretically create a loophole for Chelsea (and anyone else who overspent in the three years to 30/06/24), as the regulation would have changed just before the outgoing regulation had officially been breached. This would be very shady, but I wouldn't rule it out.
razor1981
Well-Known Member
- Jun 27, 2012
- 1,269
- 8,984
No, the end of the current monitoring period is 30th June 2024. The cut-off for reporting of the results for this period to the PL will be December 31st, and charges will be brought based on whether clubs met PSR.Is December the cut-off for when the PL has to finish reviewing and potential breaches and formally charge a club then?
A change approved and introduced before the end of June could theoretically create a loophole for Chelsea (and anyone else who overspent in the three years to 30/06/24), as the regulation would have changed just before the outgoing regulation had officially been breached. This would be very shady, but I wouldn't rule it out.
Any changes to the rules will only apply from the 2024/25 monitoring period onwards.
There's no way Everton (even if outvoted) wouldnt kick off massively in public if the rules were to change so dramatically that it effectively wipes out the last few years, especially if they get another lot of points deducted.And you can guarantee the Forest Chairman wouldnt keep quiet if their docked points too.
Westmorlandspur
Well-Known Member
- Feb 1, 2013
- 2,860
- 4,723
Problem with the prem lge is that it is run by the 20 clubs in it at any given time. In 2 years there might be 6 clubs in it who didn’t vote for changes this season . The FA should have had some form of control.
I know they do have a golden share which they can use to block something detrimental to the game.
For example… If the American owners tried to do away with relegation , something they don’t have in their country.
I know they do have a golden share which they can use to block something detrimental to the game.
For example… If the American owners tried to do away with relegation , something they don’t have in their country.
SirHarryHotspur
Well-Known Member
- Aug 9, 2017
- 5,157
- 7,699
If verdicts in the Everton & Forest cases are not settled by the end of this season, the Premier League are going to look even more stupid than they are already.
Some newspaper sources are reporting desicions including appeals no later than May 24th which is actually five days after end of the season so that is not very satisfactory, bit like waiting a VAR desicion.
You would think that now they have the recent Everton original verdict of 10 points and the appeals result that they should be able to deal with the cases far quicker.
Some newspaper sources are reporting desicions including appeals no later than May 24th which is actually five days after end of the season so that is not very satisfactory, bit like waiting a VAR desicion.
You would think that now they have the recent Everton original verdict of 10 points and the appeals result that they should be able to deal with the cases far quicker.
razor1981
Well-Known Member
- Jun 27, 2012
- 1,269
- 8,984
May 24th is the very latest date it can be concluded, and the hope is that it will be settled well before that.
Initial verdicts are due no later than April 8th. Clubs then have 2 weeks after that to appeal, followed by a further week for the PL to respond to any appeals, then another week later the appeals board have an initial hearing and set the date for the final decision.
It's a tight timescale, so getting the initial decisions made sooner would help to ensure its all wrapped up before the final games.
vegassd
The ghost of Johnny Cash
- Aug 5, 2006
- 3,360
- 3,340
And as more clubs within that 20 are threatened by the rules, there are going to be more potential votes to soften those rules.
As fans we kind of buy into the idea of black and white rules, and loads of clubs being handed points deductions. But if the long-term objective is to level the financial playing field, then there is a degree of sense in allowing the offending clubs to gradually reach that point rather than hitting a cliff edge.
What would really blunt the rules (in my opinion) would be a scenario where clubs actually build it into their MO. For example, a club like Villa taking the view that they can sacrifice league points and a place in Europe in order to build a squad that can compete in the domestic trophies. Or someone like Leicester being happy to yo-yo between the PL/Championship because the bursts of PL money are worth more than being financially sustainable.
I think that once you start delving into things there is a potential to do as much harm as good if the penalties are either too harsh or too soft.
mightyspur
Now with lovely smooth balls
- Aug 21, 2014
- 9,789
- 27,071
Forest docked 4pts, which is random considering Everton had 6 and then 1pt for every 5m over the threshold. I assume they have come up with some new forumla on the basis Everton had their total points reduced?
TheHodFather
Well-Known Member
- Aug 22, 2013
- 547
- 1,561
Are we going to end up with penalties so small that clubs end up figuring the upside of breaking the rules in terms of improved results outweighs the lost points?
neilp
Well-Known Member
- Jul 9, 2007
- 3,379
- 14,885
I hope the reason or justification for only a 4 point is given in this case. And I certainly hope that it isn’t reduced on appeal as it will make it even more ridiculous.
SirHarryHotspur
Well-Known Member
- Aug 9, 2017
- 5,157
- 7,699
It was a 6 point deduction but for mitigating circumstances was reduced by 2, all here....
We're in the report again, at this rate we will be the most famous club in the world.
On 1 September 2023, the last day of the summer transfer window, Forest agreed to transfer Player A’s registration on a permanent basis to Tottenham Hotspur FC (“Spurs”). Pursuant to a transfer agreement between the two clubs, Player A’s registration was transferred to Spurs for a guaranteed transfer fee of £47.5m, payable to Forest in instalments.
We're in the report again, at this rate we will be the most famous club in the world.
On 1 September 2023, the last day of the summer transfer window, Forest agreed to transfer Player A’s registration on a permanent basis to Tottenham Hotspur FC (“Spurs”). Pursuant to a transfer agreement between the two clubs, Player A’s registration was transferred to Spurs for a guaranteed transfer fee of £47.5m, payable to Forest in instalments.
Last edited:
Marty
Audere est farce
- Mar 10, 2005
- 40,177
- 63,906
It has been given. Two off for good behaviour and cooperation. I'm not a fan of this mitigation tbh.
Marty
Audere est farce
- Mar 10, 2005
- 40,177
- 63,906
Is 10 points a fair punishment when a club going into administration is only nine?
I suppose it depends on the severity of the breach but I felt 10 was excessive at the time and six felt about right.
Given how tight it is down the bottom - 25% mitigation feels pretty big I think.
SirHarryHotspur
Well-Known Member
- Aug 9, 2017
- 5,157
- 7,699
Just wonder if Forest will appeal, it seems 6 points is now the norm and as it was reduced by 2 points for mitigation maybe the appeals board might see any appeal as frivolous and re-instate the 2 points assuming they have that power.
Similar threads
