Fair Play Rules

[pip_y]

Ok so we know Villa seem to have overstepped the mark, but what are the full rules? It just seems we haven’t got much hope when even Forest can £13.2m one one player. Can someone please give a simple breakdown of the rules please?

[Casper64Frank]

It usually goes on a percentage of turnover from the previous season pip.
Not sure what the actual % is in the Championship.
League 1 used to be around 60% and League 2 somewhere near 50%.
It's worked in the lower leagues although I doubt many if any are turning over a profit.
Championship is a different beast, loans can be added in although the FA don't approve of any ott loans. A loan is debt and the owner can call it in at anytime.
Owners can also put ' gift money ' in, giveaway cash they won't want back.Incoming pre-season transfer fees received used to be added in to the pot, not sure if that's still the case.
Club's could always flout the rules like QPR did quite some time ago although the rules have been altered slightly since then.
Club's can't be more than £39M in debt over a three season period, which is why Villa have to trim their wages bill.
My opinion is parachute payments were not brought out so clubs could pay way over the odds for wages.

In Tony we Trust.......no other option atm.

EDIT : Forest had a transfer embargo quite a while ago.
Somehow, somewhere the club may need to squeeze a little bit more out although it seems we haven't yet hit 7k season ticket sales, unless there's been a big rush on the last few days.

[HensonsPRman]

I will post more when I have time. In the meantime a good explanation can be found here
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/c...les-201617.php

[mellowmiller]

In 1990 Swindon Town were demoted (after gaining promotion) for financial irregularities.
Perhaps clubs would be less inclined to flout the rules if the football authorities were as ruthless today in dealing with cheats.
Fines and transfer embargoes are clearly not the answer whereas significant points deductions or the threat of relegation might be a more effective deterrent.

[BramleyMiller58]

My opinion is parachute payments were not brought out so clubs could pay way over the odds for wages.

Agreed IMO Parachute payments if paid out (ideally should be scrapped, why reward failure) should not be given to the club but to an independent administrator who would ensure it was only used to cover existing contracts and commitments NOT for use as a transfer & wages kitty

[pip_y]

Thanks for the details, it’s as clear as mud other than the loss you can make is clear. Maximising income seems crucial. No wonder the massives charge over inflated prices for visitors. If away end is always going to be full maybe we should consider using the prices

[BramleyMiller58]

Thanks for the details, it’s as clear as mud other than the loss you can make is clear. Maximising income seems crucial. No wonder the massives charge over inflated prices for visitors. If away end is always going to be full maybe we should consider using the prices

Thought you couldn't charge more for away than the max price of home tickets ?

Was under impression that the Massives have an A B C pricing structure for games but being a SWFC member gives a discount off the "list" price

[pip_y]

Thought you couldn't charge more for away than the max price of home tickets ?

Was under impression that the Massives have an A B C pricing structure for games but being a SWFC member gives a discount off the "list" price

Not sure about that. I was just going on the comments on here when we were last in Championship about the prices at SW6

[dantpen]

As I understand it, parachute payments were originally brought out to bridge the massive gap in finances between the Premier League and The Championship after a relegation.

I know the actual figure lost from Premier League relegation is a lot higher but I would argue now that the difference between The Championship and League One is just as significant in terms of a clubs future and the size of the clubs that are usually relegated from The Championship in comparrison to the rest of the league, The Rotherham's, Burton Albion, Barnsley, MK Dons, Blackpool, Yeovil, Doncaster etc.

Yes, you get the odd bigger team being relegated but they usually bounce back within a season or 2 and they usually have mega-rich owners who can sustain it anyway , clubs like Wigan, Blackburn, Wolves etc.

I know that we have bounced back but it clearly wasn't down to financial wealth, more down to teamwork and determination.

When clubs in The Championship are regularly spending fees of around £5/6/7 million on players with some clubs paying £40/50k a week and with the odd player being signed for around the £15m mark then how are clubs like us, Burton, Barnsley etc supposed to compete.

Compare that to the kind of fees and wages in League One which are mainly loans, free transfers and regular fees of around £200/300k and wages of around £1500/3000 a week then it's clear to see that a relegation from The Championship to League One could be equally as financially devastating for a club of our size if the club has gambled and tried to compete.

There is zero financial fair play when you consider the size of the clubs being promoted from League 1 to The Championship. Unless the clubs are bankrolled by mega rich owners, the difference in the finances will never constitue fair play. The gap is already too big, and it's only going to get bigger.

[caytonmiller]

Reduce the financial gap the fall wouldn't be as far.
Not really clear what teams are getting. It's along the lines of (ish)
Premier league 100 million +
Championship 7 million +
League one 1.4 million +
League 2 800k +

Apparently 109 million per team per season and top division gets 100 of it.. shocking...

Imo top teams get 85 million,
Championship 15 million
Lg 1 6 million
Lg 2 3 million

They only need to see what clubs in each division have spent over the last 5 seasons and take the AVG to get a fair split..

It's gotten silly over the past 20 years and if it carried on for a further 20 years clubs would disappear due to debt or lack of investment