| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column 14:01 - Jul 24 with 9452 views | Northernr |
Thanks to Simon for wading into the latest FFP regulations for the EFL from this season onwards. No more three-season rolling calcs...
https://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/ |  | | |  |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 14:21 - Jul 24 with 7707 views | R_from_afar |
Great insight, we are very lucky to have such content, thank you  .
As for the new rules themselves, it looks to my untrained eye as if they still favour the larger clubs, given that the calculations are based on revenues and incomes.
Just have one number which all clubs need to stay below, that would actually be fair  . |  |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 14:21 - Jul 24 with 7705 views | thehat |
Utter nonsense owners should be allowed to invest as much as they want as long as they convert thier debt to equity as ours do.
It is a completely restrictive practice rule and not in conjunction with free trade. It is a rule more akin to communism.
Every club is equal but some are more equal than others. |  | | |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 14:48 - Jul 24 with 7558 views | Jeff |
Thanks Simon, appreciated!
could you clear up a burning question i have?
my understanding previously was that when a transfer occurs, the headline figure was the one that was considered for FFP/PSR/Whatever, regardless of installments etc. so for example a player that was bought for £15m in three installments of £5m a year, the whole £15m went into the calculations for FFP etc., whilst the actual £5m a year recevied into the bank was in fact just a more boring 'backend' cash flow situation.
however with the new Squad Cost Rules / SCR calcs, the £5m a year actually received is now actually the headline figure when crunching and balancing numbers, not the £15m. in fact, for those of a fairly sound financial footing, the £5m a year may in fact be preferable, as a 'contstant' source of income for SCR, as opposed to the single hit of £15m which could end up being 'wasted' if you're way in the black? |  |
| |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 15:21 - Jul 24 with 7401 views | nick_hammersmith |
I'm no expert, but to me this looks like it favours a West Ham type club, who have a larger fan base, other sources of income and the parachute payments etc.
Not sure where the help is for a smaller club with the financial backing who want to progress?
I don't see a way that Brighton, Bournemouth or Brentford would have been able to compete when they were getting out of the Championship, which makes it all the more frustrating that we were there and buggered it up |  | | |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 15:26 - Jul 24 with 7388 views | Northernr |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 15:21 - Jul 24 by nick_hammersmith |
I'm no expert, but to me this looks like it favours a West Ham type club, who have a larger fan base, other sources of income and the parachute payments etc.
Not sure where the help is for a smaller club with the financial backing who want to progress?
I don't see a way that Brighton, Bournemouth or Brentford would have been able to compete when they were getting out of the Championship, which makes it all the more frustrating that we were there and buggered it up |
Bournemouth absolutely, but Brighton and Brentford would be fine for the reason they’re fine now - a recruitment model that regularly produces assets they sell for tens of millions of pounds. | | | |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 15:36 - Jul 24 with 7326 views | Dorse |
Always like Simon's articles. Makes me feel like I can have an opinion on an area of the club that always seems arcane to me.
Nice work, as always! |  |
| 'What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!' |
| |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 15:45 - Jul 24 with 7267 views | Stainrod |
If all but very highly paid U21s who play less than 10 games don't count I could see this encouraging Noury's puppy farm policy. I guess it's too early to assess whether this is working: Morgan I guess a partial success, Smith looks promising, but the Aussies, Esquire etc, arguably less so. | | | |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 15:56 - Jul 24 with 7198 views | loftus77 |
Superb work, Simon, on this most complex yet important topic.
I think that - reading it , re-reading it, and re-re-reading it - this all means that we would/could be ever-so-slightly better off, but not by anything meaningful to get excited about in any way, shape or form. Fair assumption?
Thank you. [Post edited 24 Jul 16:00]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 17:32 - Jul 24 with 6935 views | CroydonCaptJack |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 14:48 - Jul 24 by Jeff |
Thanks Simon, appreciated!
could you clear up a burning question i have?
my understanding previously was that when a transfer occurs, the headline figure was the one that was considered for FFP/PSR/Whatever, regardless of installments etc. so for example a player that was bought for £15m in three installments of £5m a year, the whole £15m went into the calculations for FFP etc., whilst the actual £5m a year recevied into the bank was in fact just a more boring 'backend' cash flow situation.
however with the new Squad Cost Rules / SCR calcs, the £5m a year actually received is now actually the headline figure when crunching and balancing numbers, not the £15m. in fact, for those of a fairly sound financial footing, the £5m a year may in fact be preferable, as a 'contstant' source of income for SCR, as opposed to the single hit of £15m which could end up being 'wasted' if you're way in the black? |
Hopefully Simon will see that and reply Mike but my understanding of the previous situation was not as you say there. If a player costs say £20m and is signed on a four year contract then FFP (and financial accounting) would allow the cost of that player to be depreciated (or amortised) at £5m per year. The financial accounting will still treat it that way but it does look like the new FFP rules will treat it differently and be more related to the payments.
I would ask Si directly but it might cost me a pint so hopefully he will see this.  |  |
| |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 17:40 - Jul 24 with 6903 views | terryb |
Simon, my question is on the three years FFP period ending May 2026.
Although this season the rules have changed to SCR, will clubs still be liable if they've breached the allowable loss figure for that period? My assumption is that they would be, but who knows with the EFL.
At least, we can forget about previous years from now on! | | | |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 17:59 - Jul 24 with 6846 views | Wilkinswatercarrier |
Just watched Kieran Maguire on the second tier YouTube video.
My God, Sheffield Utd are in serious trouble and Burnley have become a basket case.
We weren't mentioned. 😀 | |
| |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 18:12 - Jul 24 with 6807 views | SimonD |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 14:48 - Jul 24 by Jeff |
Thanks Simon, appreciated!
could you clear up a burning question i have?
my understanding previously was that when a transfer occurs, the headline figure was the one that was considered for FFP/PSR/Whatever, regardless of installments etc. so for example a player that was bought for £15m in three installments of £5m a year, the whole £15m went into the calculations for FFP etc., whilst the actual £5m a year recevied into the bank was in fact just a more boring 'backend' cash flow situation.
however with the new Squad Cost Rules / SCR calcs, the £5m a year actually received is now actually the headline figure when crunching and balancing numbers, not the £15m. in fact, for those of a fairly sound financial footing, the £5m a year may in fact be preferable, as a 'contstant' source of income for SCR, as opposed to the single hit of £15m which could end up being 'wasted' if you're way in the black? |
Sorry Jeff, I’m in a bit of a rush. Long day and early flight tomorrow morning.
Yes, will that do?
Money received is now king. Obviously there are a few provisos around that, but the total deal is now irrelevant it is the payment instalments. So our favourite deal, the sale of Eze, would have put £8m into two consecutive seasons rather than £16m into one. | | | |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 18:17 - Jul 24 with 6794 views | SimonD |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 17:32 - Jul 24 by CroydonCaptJack |
Hopefully Simon will see that and reply Mike but my understanding of the previous situation was not as you say there. If a player costs say £20m and is signed on a four year contract then FFP (and financial accounting) would allow the cost of that player to be depreciated (or amortised) at £5m per year. The financial accounting will still treat it that way but it does look like the new FFP rules will treat it differently and be more related to the payments.
I would ask Si directly but it might cost me a pint so hopefully he will see this. |
I think Jeff is talking about selling rather than buying, or I’ve just made a tw@t of myself. | | | |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 18:21 - Jul 24 with 6780 views | SimonD |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 17:40 - Jul 24 by terryb |
Simon, my question is on the three years FFP period ending May 2026.
Although this season the rules have changed to SCR, will clubs still be liable if they've breached the allowable loss figure for that period? My assumption is that they would be, but who knows with the EFL.
At least, we can forget about previous years from now on! |
Yes Terry, the old rules still needed to be adhered to for last season.
Hopefully these rules, as they are more financial transaction based, are harder to find work arounds. | | | |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 18:28 - Jul 24 with 6751 views | SimonD |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 14:21 - Jul 24 by thehat |
Utter nonsense owners should be allowed to invest as much as they want as long as they convert thier debt to equity as ours do.
It is a completely restrictive practice rule and not in conjunction with free trade. It is a rule more akin to communism.
Every club is equal but some are more equal than others. |
You do understand that it is the club owners and their representatives that bring these rules into existence? | | | |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 18:52 - Jul 24 with 6668 views | stevec |
I like the new rules.
It’s in the interests of the owners now to grow the infrastructure of their club to compete. The alternative is to rest easy on the infrastructure you’ve got, gamely hanging onto 15th position until the visionaries behind gradually swallow you up.
I believe leg room will become the defining measure of a clubs success. |  | | |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 21:01 - Jul 24 with 6430 views | QPROslo |
I could well be wrong but overall this sounds more complicated to me, especially with the 3 submissions per year. I would think a lot of the number crunching for the PSR calculations would have to have been done anyway for Management information and the yearly accounts, but not so much this. Hope the Club don't need to hire more Accountants than Footballers! | | | |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 22:46 - Jul 24 with 6270 views | CroydonCaptJack |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 18:17 - Jul 24 by SimonD |
I think Jeff is talking about selling rather than buying, or I’ve just made a tw@t of myself. |
Ah ok. Yes, I see that now having re-read mate. | |
| |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 23:38 - Jul 24 with 6193 views | Stainrod |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 17:40 - Jul 24 by terryb |
Simon, my question is on the three years FFP period ending May 2026.
Although this season the rules have changed to SCR, will clubs still be liable if they've breached the allowable loss figure for that period? My assumption is that they would be, but who knows with the EFL.
At least, we can forget about previous years from now on! |
What did it say mate? | | | |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 23:55 - Jul 24 with 6160 views | langtoft |
I like to think Im a reasonably intelligent chap. Worked in finance for a very long time. But I also find trying to decipher all of this way too unecessary - bit like I've always found trying to learn a new language (Welsh I'm looking at you) harder than I think it should be.
Dorse does a great job helping me 'better' understand the incomprehensible so perhaps it's more that I like seeing an 89th minute winner than trying to fathom what all this really means. Analysis much appreciated nonetheless | | | |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 09:01 - Jul 25 with 5725 views | kernowhoop |
Huge credit to Simon and many thanks for that work.
It is wonderful when someone can cut through complexity to highlight what matters. Having said that, making clubs manage such complex rules is a mistake. It is rather like when two parties have agreed a contract. If, thereafter, the contract can stay in a drawer without needing to be referred to, it is probably a good one. If it often needs to be scrutinised, it was probably not as good as it should have been. | | | |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 11:19 - Jul 25 with 5476 views | themodfather |
well done for reading thru and trying to explain a complex system to us, i am still lost.
was it less media that made it seem simpler in the old days , say pre sky?
someone said on sky sports, karveh? where there is money there are lawyers and the games is bogged down in wrangles.
and agents take so much out of the game, never to be seen again. | | | |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 11:22 - Jul 25 with 5457 views | PunteR |
Unless ive got this wrong , i dont really follow the accounts, but seems crazy that the calculations for ffp originally took just contract figures (£16 mill for Eze for example) and not actual cash flow going in or out of the bank. Have i read that right? |  |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 21:11 - Jul 25 with 4938 views | francisbowles |
Thank you again, Simon. You had got my head around FFP and amortisation now you are doing similar work with SCR. | | | |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 16:14 - Jul 26 with 4378 views | SimonD |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 21:01 - Jul 24 by QPROslo |
I could well be wrong but overall this sounds more complicated to me, especially with the 3 submissions per year. I would think a lot of the number crunching for the PSR calculations would have to have been done anyway for Management information and the yearly accounts, but not so much this. Hope the Club don't need to hire more Accountants than Footballers! |
I think the club would readily have all the required information available.
As you’d expect it goes deeper than I’ve covered, but there is nothing that I’d regard as unreasonable or complicated. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.