| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column 14:01 - Jul 24 with 9469 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 16:23 - Jul 26 with 1644 views | SimonD |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 11:22 - Jul 25 by 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? |
As an Overview, the basis for FFP has changed from being based on the club’s annual accounts to being based on cash flow. In the club’s accounts all of the profit from Eze would have been accounted for when the deal was made, where as the receipts would only have been shown in the cash flow when they were received. |  | | |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 10:43 - Jul 27 with 1234 views | nick_hammersmith |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 15:45 - Jul 24 by 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. |
Not one of Nourry's fans, I think he gets stuff wrong, but this is a bit unfair.
The Development Squad is one of the areas that has had radical change.
It wasn't that long ago the club were keeping dev prospects hanging around until they were well in their 20's with very little league experience, just hoping they would come good on their own.
CN has been pretty ruthless in this regard, letting a lot of our youngsters move on if they are nowhere near the first team at 21.
I wouldn't describe this as a puppy farm anymore |  | | |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 17:02 - Jul 27 with 1098 views | Stainrod |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 10:43 - Jul 27 by nick_hammersmith |
Not one of Nourry's fans, I think he gets stuff wrong, but this is a bit unfair.
The Development Squad is one of the areas that has had radical change.
It wasn't that long ago the club were keeping dev prospects hanging around until they were well in their 20's with very little league experience, just hoping they would come good on their own.
CN has been pretty ruthless in this regard, letting a lot of our youngsters move on if they are nowhere near the first team at 21.
I wouldn't describe this as a puppy farm anymore |
Don’t think the term “puppy farm” necessarily derogatory. Clubs like Chelsea seem to make millions developing players, including those who never get near the first team. I’m normally slated on here for being too pro-Nourry! My point tho is that if puppy farming is rewarded under the new rules we need to make that work, and so far it is too early to judge (IMHO anyway) whether it has been a success for us. That will be measured in results, not process, so a) how many players develop into our first team and b) how many are sold for decent wedge. | | | |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 07:39 - Sep 5 with 556 views | SimonD |
I definitely got one part of this wrong.
The money paid for players is not part of the player related expenditure, it is deducted from the money received for players with 85% of the resulting figure counting towards relevant revenue.
The EFL have produced their own summary.
https://www.efl.com/governance | | | |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 09:41 - Sep 5 with 373 views | dutch |
| 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. |
Sorry to interject, but that is not communism. 'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.' That's communism. We need to get promoted. | | | |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 10:26 - Sep 5 with 318 views | davman |
| Breaking down the EFL’s latest iteration of FFP - Column on 09:41 - Sep 5 by dutch |
Sorry to interject, but that is not communism. 'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.' That's communism. We need to get promoted. |
It might not be communism, but it is simply wrong. If the intent of these restrictions is to "protect" the clubs, then "gifting" the money without restriction threatens nothing.
If the value of each and every contract is given up front, all HAS to be well.
It just re-enforces the view that this is all about stopping upstarts from getting visions of grandeur and daring the challenge the Corrupt Six. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.