Explain like I'm five: our FFP crisis

[From Despair To Where?]

And of course, the financial clusterfcuk of 2017/18 is exacerbated this season by the fact we made a profit in 2016/16 which mitigated against it last season but is now off the books for FFP.

The other issue is that we don’t know what the loss is going to be in 18/19. A bloated squad won’t have helped. Nor will our declining income. Transfer spend was better though with the sales of Bacuna and Ilori.

But we did blow £5m on Baldock apparently

£5m for Baldock? The lunatics really had taken over the asylum.

[maffff]

And of course, the financial clusterfcuk of 2017/18 is exacerbated this season by the fact we made a profit in 2016/16 which mitigated against it last season but is now off the books for FFP.

The other issue is that we don’t know what the loss is going to be in 18/19. A bloated squad won’t have helped. Nor will our declining income. Transfer spend was better though with the sales of Bacuna and Ilori.

But we did blow £5m on Baldock apparently

Thought it was £3.5m?

Anything over about 350k is insane.

[3points]

The other issue is that we don’t know what the loss is going to be in 18/19. A bloated squad won’t have helped. Nor will our declining income. Transfer spend was better though with the sales of Bacuna and Ilori.

But we did blow £5m on Baldock apparently

Thought it was £3.5m?

Anything over about 350k is insane.

don't really know, but £5m was banded around (probably by Brighton fans tbf)

[Zip]

Whatever we paid was far too much. He has been very poor value.

[Snowflake Royal]

To anyone criticising FFP as maintaining the status quo, what is the alternative?

Allowing clubs to borrow loads, get promoted at the expense of clubs who try to do it properly, and create a situation where every club has an incentive to unsustainably spend money on players they cant afford?

You dont need to spend money to be successful. Spurs got to the Champions league final, no new players in 18 months. Lower salaries than 5 other PL clubs.

Ajax got to semi finals of Champions league, almost no spend.

Few years ago Dortmund got to final low spend.

Leciester won the league, low spend.

Leeds almost got promoted, low spend.

Reading got promoted in 2005/06 with relatively low spend.

It can be done, and doing it the right way is fair on everyone.

+1. In addition do we really want our owners to go on another spending spree and see our debts rack up. No thanks.

Completely. People never remember that this 'investment' is just adding debt to the club. Chances are it has to be paid down eventually.

People were saying we should spend like Bolton to win success in the PL when Coppell was here. They've been lower than us since and in far greater financial difficulty with the real danger of ceasing to exist at points.

[Hound]

The other issue is that we don’t know what the loss is going to be in 18/19. A bloated squad won’t have helped. Nor will our declining income. Transfer spend was better though with the sales of Bacuna and Ilori.

But we did blow £5m on Baldock apparently

Thought it was £3.5m?

Anything over about 350k is insane.

3.5m would be way too much but he’s a decent striker with a good pedigree. Just shame he’s been injured so much

1.5-2m would have been about fair

[Snowflake Royal]

But we did blow £5m on Baldock apparently

Thought it was £3.5m?

Anything over about 350k is insane.

3.5m would be way too much but he’s a decent striker with a good pedigree. Just shame he’s been injured so much

1.5-2m would have been about fair

Yep. With a bit of luck we can either sell him on for £1m+ or keep him fit. Because fit he's definitely an asset, maybe not a very cost effective one, but still decent.

[Green]

To anyone criticising FFP as maintaining the status quo, what is the alternative?

Allowing clubs to borrow loads, get promoted at the expense of clubs who try to do it properly, and create a situation where every club has an incentive to unsustainably spend money on players they cant afford?

You dont need to spend money to be successful. Spurs got to the Champions league final, no new players in 18 months. Lower salaries than 5 other PL clubs.

Ajax got to semi finals of Champions league, almost no spend.

Few years ago Dortmund got to final low spend.

Leciester won the league, low spend.

Leeds almost got promoted, low spend.

Reading got promoted in 2005/06 with relatively low spend.

It can be done, and doing it the right way is fair on everyone.

+1. In addition do we really want our owners to go on another spending spree and see our debts rack up. No thanks.

Completely. People never remember that this 'investment' is just adding debt to the club. Chances are it has to be paid down eventually.

People were saying we should spend like Bolton to win success in the PL when Coppell was here. They've been lower than us since and in far greater financial difficulty with the real danger of ceasing to exist at points.

I don't know why you give these so called "people" the time of day, Snowflake.

They sound like f*cking idiots!

[Elm Park Kid]

The real question is why isn't at least half the league in FFP crisis?

The average fan just doesn't appreciate that the typical wage bill for championship standard players is far more than what a typical championship club raises in revenue. The reason this is the case is mainly due to parachute payments and rich owners 'rolling the dice' on promotion, which creates wage inflation.

Personally I would be happy if Reading just abandoned any attempts to compete at that level and re-established themselves as a lower budget club. That might mean constant relegation battles intermixed with the occasional midtable run (and League one football now and again) - but that's about right for a club which has our fan base and commercial prospects.

[sandman]

You're going to have a few one season discrepancies, like Leicester.

Using the biggest club in Holland as an example of FFP being a success is urm, interesting. Especially when they beat a team coached by Santiago shitty Solari, a man who couldn't manage a McDonalds. Dortmund had their best players taken by Bayern after that final. Spurs fluked their way through on away goals and were found out in the final. Leeds are the biggest club in the Championship and I bet Bielsa didn't come cheap. Just because Kevin Doyle was bought for a pittance don't forget that Leroy Lita was bought for a million. Would our finances at the time have complied with FFP if it was in place?

There was a reason why they based FFP on television and ticket income, plus revenues raised by commercial departments. It's common sense that it was only going to be allowed through by the big clubs if it benefitted them.

It's no coincidence that it's the new money clubs like City and PSG that are being the most forcefully investigated, because its them and an impact like Abramovich had that they want to stop.

But hey let's dress it up as stopping a Portsmouth type situation and the people will clap along like a Seal at SeaWorld.

[Snowflake Royal]

You're going to have a few one season discrepancies, like Leicester.

Using the biggest club in Holland as an example of FFP being a success is urm, interesting. Especially when they beat a team coached by Santiago shitty Solari, a man who couldn't manage a McDonalds. Dortmund had their best players taken by Bayern after that final. Spurs fluked their way through on away goals and were found out in the final. Leeds are the biggest club in the Championship and I bet Bielsa didn't come cheap. Just because Kevin Doyle was bought for a pittance don't forget that Leroy Lita was bought for a million. Would our finances at the time have complied with FFP if it was in place?

There was a reason why they based FFP on television and ticket income, plus revenues raised by commercial departments. It's common sense that it was only going to be allowed through by the big clubs if it benefitted them.

It's no coincidence that it's the new money clubs like City and PSG that are being the most forcefully investigated, because its them and an impact like Abramovich had that they want to stop.

But hey let's dress it up as stopping a Portsmouth type situation and the people will clap along like a Seal at SeaWorld.

So if we just ignore all the exceptions to your argument and forget that the small clubs vastly outnumber the rich ones and still get a say you're absolutely right.

[Elm Park Kid]

I don't see how any reasonable football fan can object to the concept of FFP.

If the only way Reading can become a PL club is by our owners spending more than our opposition then I for one wouldn't want it to happen. It makes football ultimately just a bit meaningless.

[Snowflake Royal]

I don't see how any reasonable football fan can object to the concept of FFP.

If the only way Reading can become a PL club is by our owners spending more than our opposition then I for one wouldn't want it to happen. It makes football ultimately just a bit meaningless.

Tbf FFP doesn't stop you being successful by spending more. It stops you spending unsustainably beyond your means. If you have more, you can spend more.

But anything that helps stop clubs shafting St John's Ambulance and local business by going into admin and paying them £20 for a £2k debt is good by me.

[Ascotexgunner]

I don't see how any reasonable football fan can object to the concept of FFP.

If the only way Reading can become a PL club is by our owners spending more than our opposition then I for one wouldn't want it to happen. It makes football ultimately just a bit meaningless.

Tbf FFP doesn't stop you being successful by spending more. It stops you spending unsustainably beyond your means. If you have more, you can spend more.

But anything that helps stop clubs shafting St John's Ambulance and local business by going into admin and paying them £20 for a £2k debt is good by me.

Message reported to Man City who set up companies to filter more money into their club via sponsorship and are now in trouble.
I prefer the answer further back.....its about maintaining the current status quo. Chelsea have got off rather lightly compared to what's being suggested for City which is a European ban.

[Elm Park Kid]

I don't see how any reasonable football fan can object to the concept of FFP.

If the only way Reading can become a PL club is by our owners spending more than our opposition then I for one wouldn't want it to happen. It makes football ultimately just a bit meaningless.

Tbf FFP doesn't stop you being successful by spending more. It stops you spending unsustainably beyond your means. If you have more, you can spend more.

But anything that helps stop clubs shafting St John's Ambulance and local business by going into admin and paying them £20 for a £2k debt is good by me.

That's what I meant - artificially spending more through debt or owner investment. If you're a big club with a big income then you should have an advantage; though maybe mechanisms could be set up to ensure that it's not too much of one.

The status quo never holds in football. Teams naturally rise and fall as (in the short term) money doesn't directly result in success. It is possible to spend a couple of hundred million and still not achieve anything. It's when you're spending that sort of money season in, season out that you eventually 'buy' success. And no club in the PL would be able to do that if owners were fully banned from putting in cash beyond what the club generates 'honestly'. Even today, Chelsea and Man City do not have the fan base and commercial appeal to afford their spending without external investment.

[Green]

The average fan just doesn't appreciate that the typical wage bill for championship standard players is far more than what a typical championship club raises in revenue.

I presume you’re better informed than the average fan though, EPK?

What do you put that down to? How can others attempt to emulate your wisdom?

[Hound]

Tbf, not sure the ‘average’ fan whoever that might be, would necessarily look at those nice stats tables by Swiss Rambler and co on twitter

They give you a pretty good idea of how much wages/turnover clubs spend

[Snowflake Royal]

I don't see how any reasonable football fan can object to the concept of FFP.

If the only way Reading can become a PL club is by our owners spending more than our opposition then I for one wouldn't want it to happen. It makes football ultimately just a bit meaningless.

Tbf FFP doesn't stop you being successful by spending more. It stops you spending unsustainably beyond your means. If you have more, you can spend more.

But anything that helps stop clubs shafting St John's Ambulance and local business by going into admin and paying them £20 for a £2k debt is good by me.

Message reported to Man City who set up companies to filter more money into their club via sponsorship and are now in trouble.
I prefer the answer further back.....its about maintaining the current status quo. Chelsea have got off rather lightly compared to what's being suggested for City which is a European ban.

Sticking in extra money through dodgy sponsorship to get round the rules doesn't really count as genuine income.

[Snowflake Royal]

The average fan just doesn't appreciate that the typical wage bill for championship standard players is far more than what a typical championship club raises in revenue.

I presume you’re better informed than the average fan though, EPK?

What do you put that down to? How can others attempt to emulate your wisdom?

The average fan doesn't try to learn enough to understand.

All they care about is their team winning.

[Denver Royal]

If the only way Reading can become a PL club is by our owners spending more than our opposition then I for one wouldn't want it to happen. It makes football ultimately just a bit meaningless.

Do you suppose Citeh fans think their PL titles are meaningless? How long had it been since they won one?
What about Chelski fans? They had had some lean years too.
I'm just asking, do fans of both those clubs wish their club hadn't gone down the path they did?
(Bearing in mind, those fans had little or no say in it anyway).