or to join or start a new Discussion

14 Comments
Article Rating     Not Rated Yet

The farce that is UEFA's FFP rules

Chelsea just lost 49 mill yet still manage to comply with UEFA's FFP rules, what a complete farce of a rule this is:

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/football-chelsea-comply-ffp-rules-despite-81m-deficit-180000711--sow.html

Maybe people will now stop using FFP as an excuse for us not being able to increase our relatively low wage bill.

comment by Sol (U2745)

posted on 1/1/14

It's allowances for capital expenditure (not on players), youth development and community schemes.

The alternative would be a scheme which discourages expenditure on things like youth development and community schemes, just focusing on the first team. A scheme where no stadia will ever be invested in.

That said, I'm sure loopholes will be found, but I don't have a problem if this is really what the allowances are for in this case.

The idea that a £37m annual loss is acceptable does seem to be a joke though.

posted on 1/1/14

"You did make a 49 mill loss, it's just unfortunate that FFP allowed you to interpret things differently.
"

We made a £49m loss but in FFP rules not everything counts towards your financial report e.g. investment in infrastructure and youth development

comment by Jonty (U4614)

posted on 1/1/14

Marco, completely understand, you still made a 49 mill loss though.

posted on 1/1/14

Sure but the alternative would be like what has already been said in that you spend everything on the first team

posted on 1/1/14

Has long has any loss is covered by the owner, I've no problem with any losses

Or do we want a closed shop where only the biggest clubs at this moment in time win anything

comment by Jonty (U4614)

posted on 1/1/14

Marco, not sure that having multiple sets of accounting rules to try and make something look better is the best way to make sure that football gets its house in order regarding finances.

Now, more than ever the rules have created an environment where the same 4 or so teams are top 4 every year and it becomes harder and harder to change that.

comment by Stoopo (U4707)

posted on 1/1/14

So - if GFH spend £15m to buy the ground back does that get added to our loss account or will it be allowed as a capital expenditure?



comment by Batty (U4664)

posted on 1/1/14

Bates harped on about FFP and how we had to spend less to comply. And how we as a club would be in a position of strength because of it. And how the other
Clubs who are spending ridiculous amounts would crumble. Bollax. Complete bollax. Never believed
His twisted rationale at the time or since.

It was a convenient way for chairmen like him to pilfer
A club's resources for their own gain. Which Bates
Made a career of.

And after all his hot air, it seems all he had to do
Was employ the same accountants he employed to hide his own money and dealings, to help Leeds Utd
And we'd have been fine.

comment by Jonty (U4614)

posted on 1/1/14

batty, exactly! Happy New Year btw!

comment by Sol (U2745)

posted on 1/1/14

Stoopo,

"So - if GFH spend £15m to buy the ground back does that get added to our loss account or will it be allowed as a capital expenditure?"
_____

Yes we'd get an allowance for the amount which would have been charged to the P & L account as depreciation each year.

(I think).

Sign in if you want to comment
RATE THIS ARTICLE
Rate Breakdown
5
0 Votes
4
0 Votes
3
0 Votes
2
0 Votes
1
0 Votes

Average Rating: 0 from 0 votes

ARTICLE STATS
Day
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available
Month
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available