Oh, you just KNOW it'll be us. Somehow. Sullivan will stand Kevin Nolan half a pint of cranberry juice at the bar and it'll count as part of his wages, and it'll tip us over the edge by £2.50, and Lord Justice Halfdead-Already will rule that we owe every team in the Prem £5m for the next three years..Pulls up Trees wrote:One day, someone will screw up and be in breach of (FFP), and we might find out how it actually works!
Transfer Window: Summer 2013
Moderator: Gnome
Online
- last.caress
- Star Raid-er
- Posts: 16759
- Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:38 pm
- Location: Eyes that shine, burnin' red. Dreams of you all through my head.
- Has liked: 1241 likes
- Total likes: 1651 likes
- Contact:
Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014
-
- Posts: 8167
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:24 am
Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014
It sets a future limit unless our profit increases to cover it. We're 100% limited to it and under FFP.rare as rockinghorse shat wrote:But, we've stayed under £52m, so the FFP rules do not apply to us.
We are limited to 52 this year because that's what anyone can spend regardless of turnover. The allowance goes up by 4 million a year, and everyone subject to that 52 limit gets it regardless.
If a club want to spend more a club can do so at any time as long as they can prove they cover it by increased income. If that's from external sources or through selling a player it doesn't matter, but there's no other mechanism to escape the limit. We don't have the money to go above it.
The source of income that might come is the new stadium, primarily from massively increased corporate money, probably more than doubling the capacity and G&S hoping they will be charging more as well. Either that or Ravel Morrison ends up going for £100 million.
Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014
Sounds about right...last.caress wrote:One day, someone will screw up and be in breach of (FFP), and we might find out how it actually works!
Oh, you just KNOW it'll be us. Somehow. Sullivan will stand Kevin Nolan half a pint of cranberry juice at the bar and it'll count as part of his wages, and it'll tip us over the edge by £2.50, and Lord Justice Halfdead-Already will rule that we owe every team in the Prem £5m for the next three years..
- bubbles1966
- Posts: 67299
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:01 pm
- Location: I'm holding onto nothing, and trying to forget the rest
- Has liked: 2501 likes
- Total likes: 4404 likes
Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014
The FFP stuff is a lot of smoke and mirrors by our board.Ozza wrote:Hence the ffp stuff this window as rars has pointed out?
This board believe in balancing the books and avoiding overspending. Fine - no gripes.
That means there would be a finite transfer and wages budget whether we were subject to FFP or not.
Saying everything is done because of FFP purposely sets out to convey a different impression "oh,we're really ambitious we'd chuck millions at it, but unfortunately these dratted FFP rules...."
This board purposely convey ambiguous messages about money for the consumption of the wider world and the club's fans. In behind that , they have finite budgets that they stick to - FFP or not.
They have no intention of losing any money running this club (and there is no reason why they should). It is being run as a business.
That's not a complaint about them in any way - just a recognition of how they really roll.
- rare as rockinghorse shat
- Posts: 55216
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:43 am
- Location: **** the board
- Has liked: 3 likes
- Total likes: 78 likes
Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014
That's what I'm trying to clarify.Aceface wrote:Problem is there's no reason to logically think it's much less than the £52m limit. That figure includes paying for every player at the club at every level, as well as NI, image rights etc. We have 26 first teamers alone. No-one knows what each player is earning of course, but sensible estimations mean we're extremely unlikely to be anywhere other than somewhere approaching that figure.
If ours now stands at £51,999,999, due to us not slightly overspending, then doesn't it mean we can very much spend big at a point in the near future, thus going above that golden line, THEN having the FFP limit placed on us when it comes into force?
I'm not trying to state anything as fact as such, just theorising to get the jist of it.
- Turns to Stone
- Posts: 15529
- Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:21 am
- Location: Tony Almeida
- Has liked: 234 likes
- Total likes: 1520 likes
Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014
This is my understanding of it, RARS.rare as rockinghorse shat wrote:
That's what I'm trying to clarify.
If ours now stands at £51,999,999, due to us not slightly overspending, then doesn't it mean we can very much spend big at a point in the near future, thus going above that golden line, THEN having the FFP limit placed on us when it comes into force?
I'm not trying to state anything as fact as such, just theorising to get the jist of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Finan ... egulations
Obviously it's only Wikipedia, but this is the most concise and understandable version I've found. If we were to go over this year (as we could have done) it would have meant an annual increase of £4m (or £77k per week).Premier League agree new financial regulations
Any club that loses more than £105 million in that time faces possible point deductions while clubs making any loss up to the £105 million limit will come under tighter financial scrutiny from the Premier League. Clubs are restricted on how much of the Premier League Central Funds they receive that they can spend on player wages. The limit is £4 million in 2013-14, £8 million in 2014-15 and £12 million in 2015-16. However this only applies to clubs that have a wage bill higher than £52 million per year in 2013-14, £56 million in 2014-15 and £60 million in 2015-16.
Good business if you ask me.
- Ozza
- Posts: 28289
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 4:41 pm
- Location: Here, there, every f****** where
- Has liked: 943 likes
- Total likes: 2392 likes
Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014
Tts and if we have a lot of players coming to the end of their contracts that we won't renew, we will be in a place next season to recruit well and pay the according wages?
- LeonRivers
- Posts: 10448
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:57 pm
- Location: Way out of your league
- Has liked: 1033 likes
- Total likes: 392 likes
Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014
How many different ways have you seen it spelled?Pulls up Trees wrote:I've heard FPP be described about a hundred different ways!)
Online
- Aceface
- Posts: 16447
- Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:01 am
- Location: Blighty
- Has liked: 376 likes
- Total likes: 1472 likes
Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014
Reckon it's impossible to know rars.
There's so much smoke and mirrors about it that we'll never know what the true figure is. Like bubbles says, if we're being sensible then that's absolutely fine, I'm much happier to be making the club more secure and sustainable than buying another Diarra. It is mildly insulting to know you're being routinely bullsh*tted to though.
There's so much smoke and mirrors about it that we'll never know what the true figure is. Like bubbles says, if we're being sensible then that's absolutely fine, I'm much happier to be making the club more secure and sustainable than buying another Diarra. It is mildly insulting to know you're being routinely bullsh*tted to though.
- Turns to Stone
- Posts: 15529
- Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:21 am
- Location: Tony Almeida
- Has liked: 234 likes
- Total likes: 1520 likes
Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014
I think there's an element of us having to be sensible. The point is that currently G and S are servicing a large amount of debt (as we all know). This probably means that we don't have a lot of available cash to inject into the playing squad. Because of this, it makes sense for us to stay under the wage limit, until a time when the board do have available cash. There may be a time in the board's mind when this is going to happen, they may base it on factors such as absolute confirmation that we have the OS, or that we have agreed a sale for the Boleyn.Ozza wrote:Tts and if we have a lot of players coming to the end of their contracts that we won't renew, we will be in a place next season to recruit well and pay the according wages?
Regardless, the point that RARS makes is a good one. If we'd gone over £52m by a couple of quid, it would have meant that we could only increase our wage bill by £77k a week next year. This year it allows us to have a look where we are financially and make a decision next summer. It may well be that the board still feel that we aren't ready to make that step (bear in mind that next year our limit would have increased to £56m) so we will still be able to do further business.
Again though, those saying that it's an excuse that the board are making, are missing the point a little. The board aren't making excuses, they're saying about how much it would limit us if we had gone out and spent an extra £50k a week that might have taken our wage limit to £53m etc.
Last edited by Turns to Stone on Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Kitt the car
- Posts: 6860
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:41 am
- Has liked: 13 likes
- Total likes: 155 likes
Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014
carnage wrote:Are we still paying Sheff Utd and when that stops can that money be used in wages?
We've just paid the last installment and I don't think we can use it for wages as it's not income...I think.
- inter me nan
- Posts: 545
- Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:01 pm
- Location: hornchurch
Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014
The fact that both the daves have come from humble beginnings and have built up and run successful businesses, earning multiple millions in the process should not be lost on us fans, who I,m guessing the majority, if any at all have achieved anything like their success in the financial world.
I understand the fans desire to see the best players at our club, this is probably mirrored by our chairmen but they surely have a plan , it might not be what we as individuals would choose to do, but then again I,m sure that if any of us were in their position we would make mistakes along the way, mistakes that the daves have no doubt already made along the road whilst building their empire, and have learnt from them.
They took on a project with this club using money that they have worked hard to earn....I trust that they know what they are doing, and have the clubs best interests at heart.
Personally I think we have a squad and manager that can earn us 45+ points in the prem this season
Of course I,d have liked a squad full of stars but they cost money and desire something west ham can't offer at the moment.
If the daves have cut their cloth accordingly, then I guess that's what has needed to be done.
I don't remember their being a queue of investors when they bought in, and we are in a much better place now than we was then....so for me they have done and are doing a good job.
I understand the fans desire to see the best players at our club, this is probably mirrored by our chairmen but they surely have a plan , it might not be what we as individuals would choose to do, but then again I,m sure that if any of us were in their position we would make mistakes along the way, mistakes that the daves have no doubt already made along the road whilst building their empire, and have learnt from them.
They took on a project with this club using money that they have worked hard to earn....I trust that they know what they are doing, and have the clubs best interests at heart.
Personally I think we have a squad and manager that can earn us 45+ points in the prem this season
Of course I,d have liked a squad full of stars but they cost money and desire something west ham can't offer at the moment.
If the daves have cut their cloth accordingly, then I guess that's what has needed to be done.
I don't remember their being a queue of investors when they bought in, and we are in a much better place now than we was then....so for me they have done and are doing a good job.
- carnage
- Posts: 22530
- Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:22 pm
- Location: KFC
- Has liked: 84 likes
- Total likes: 709 likes
Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014
So if you cut your non wage costs(similar to increasing income) you cant use that money against wages?Kitt the car wrote:
We've just paid the last installment and I don't think we can use it for wages as it's not income...I think.
- wizzo_66
- Posts: 9639
- Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:27 pm
- Location: Long Live the Boleyn
- Has liked: 1 like
- Total likes: 32 likes
Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014
Unfortunately it's not similar enough to increasing income!carnage wrote:
So if you cut your non wage costs(similar to increasing income) you cant use that money against wages?
Look at it this way, if the club employs one less steward, you leave yourself with more disposable income, but you don't actually increase your physical income, you're just cutting a cost.
If you sign a sponsership deal which physically brings more money into the club - that's increasing your income.
- Turns to Stone
- Posts: 15529
- Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:21 am
- Location: Tony Almeida
- Has liked: 234 likes
- Total likes: 1520 likes
Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014
Let's not forget that G and S have been advocating the FFP for years and years. These are two very selfish chaps who aren't looking at what's best for football. They're looking at what's best for them.
They'll have done their homework and they will have known how they're going to best make use of the new regulations prior to the start of the window.
This is why they were so adamant with Allardyce that he could have Downing OR a striker and not both. It was imperative that they stayed below the cut-off, and like all good businessmen, they'll have wanted to give themselves a cushion.
They'll have done their homework and they will have known how they're going to best make use of the new regulations prior to the start of the window.
This is why they were so adamant with Allardyce that he could have Downing OR a striker and not both. It was imperative that they stayed below the cut-off, and like all good businessmen, they'll have wanted to give themselves a cushion.
- Pulls up Trees
- Posts: 2455
- Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:18 pm
- Has liked: 1 like
- Total likes: 1 like
Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014
Got me there, you ****!LeonRivers wrote:How many different ways have you seen it spelled?
Online
- Aceface
- Posts: 16447
- Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:01 am
- Location: Blighty
- Has liked: 376 likes
- Total likes: 1472 likes
Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014
It'll be interesting to see how more esoteric factors are able to be handled under the constraints.
Imagine Ravel has a good time of this season, and an absolutely storming season in 2014/15. It seems grossly unfair that you wouldn't be able to retain someone who's improved during their time at the club without ditching another player (or players). In some ways that's being penalised for developing your own players.
Imagine Ravel has a good time of this season, and an absolutely storming season in 2014/15. It seems grossly unfair that you wouldn't be able to retain someone who's improved during their time at the club without ditching another player (or players). In some ways that's being penalised for developing your own players.
- Turns to Stone
- Posts: 15529
- Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:21 am
- Location: Tony Almeida
- Has liked: 234 likes
- Total likes: 1520 likes
Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014
The point is that it's about wages being equivalent to club size and growth. Not about debts dropping off. This is another good reason why G and S shouldn't blow their load now, but wait until they have cleared another chunk of debt off, and can then add that to the warchest.wizzo_66 wrote:
Unfortunately it's not similar enough to increasing income!
Look at it this way, if the club employs one less steward, you leave yourself with more disposable income, but you don't actually increase your physical income, you're just cutting a cost.
If you sign a sponsership deal which physically brings more money into the club - that's increasing your income.
- rare as rockinghorse shat
- Posts: 55216
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:43 am
- Location: **** the board
- Has liked: 3 likes
- Total likes: 78 likes
Re: Summer Transfer thread - 2013/2014
I still think it was both.Turns to Stone wrote:This is why they were so adamant with Allardyce that he could have Downing OR a striker and not both. It was imperative that they stayed below the cut-off, and like all good businessmen, they'll have wanted to give themselves a cushion.
Just don't think they envisaged Vaz Te not being taken and/or Diarra's injury scuppering a move.