Capital spending ( stadium/training ground etc ) doesn't count towards ffp, an owner can spend as much as they like. Any reporting losses will be linked to the loan terms
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Sorry was referring to our general accounts not FFP. Apologies for the mix up.
You can have contracts for as many years as you like - even 10 year contracts
But under ffp/sustainability rules the maximum amortisation period os 5 years.
So if you sign a player for 100m because you've got him signed up for 10 years, tough because the maximum amortisation or annual cost is 100m/5 (ie 20m), not 100m/10 (10m) - and that higher cost may mean you breach sustainability/ffp rules
Yeah it’s a little strange, but you can lose money and spend “too much” on infrastructure and things like that. You just can’t on players. I guess it kind of makes sense, and I can see what they’re hoping to do, but of course I can also see how futile it’s been anyway. It’s not even a hush-hush scenario that some clubs have taken advantage of things and broken the rules (Chavs and City…with Newcastle widely seen to follow), and of course it’s basically accepted.
I do think for FFP is makes sense to encourage clubs to spend on infrastructure, good for the game.
But in regard to our accounts I find it funny we can just pretend the stadium will soon be worthless for tax (which is totally legal and obviously helps the club). Only reason it was interesting was that we reported a small loss driven by this accounting trick so in the real world we didn’t have a loss but we just found a way to get one.
You'd know about not following up with somethingWhich is exactly what I think it'll be.
Sarr's contract is about locking him up long term rather than trying to game FFP by spreading a huge transfer fee over 7 years.
Incidentally Eddie Howe at Newcastle was quite open a few days ago suggesting Newcastle may need to sell some players because they have spent too much money on transfer fees - naming Gordon as one and I think they paid £45m for him
I think this can be turned round - its fair to say Newcastle probably needed the player but if their total budget they could afford under sustainability/ffp rules and they needed say 4 players, it means they need to be careful not to overspend on each individual player.
And in turn that means that Newcastle (and all other clubs) will not be able to £45m on all the players they want (as otherwise it means they get in breach) and that in turn means that transfer fees in general will come down - maybe only £30m or £40m (tops) per player is affordable as clubs still need say 2 or 3 players a year but under ffp/sustainability the ffp budget is still say £100m.
I think this can be turned round - its fair to say Newcastle probably needed the player but if their total budget they could afford under sustainability/ffp rules and they needed say 4 players, it means they need to be careful not to overspend on each individual player.
And in turn that means that Newcastle (and all other clubs) will not be able to £45m on all the players they want (as otherwise it means they get in breach) and that in turn means that transfer fees in general will come down - maybe only £30m or £40m (tops) per player is affordable as clubs still need say 2 or 3 players a year but under ffp/sustainability the ffp budget is still say £100m.
The other fun fact is that penalties under ffp/sustainability are NOT an allowable cost for corporation tax - so effect is clubs tax bills will go up if they get caught and fined under ffp/sustainability
(Off topic but Post Office now finding this with all the penalties they are racking up due to Horizon software scandals - its got to the extent the matter had to be referred to in Post Office annual accounts !)
(Off topic but Post Office now finding this with all the penalties they are racking up due to Horizon software scandals - its got to the extent the matter had to be referred to in Post Office annual accounts !)
Tax has its own rules about the rate at which capital costs can be written down and set off against taxable profits.
If Newcastle are in the shitter as well i'd be testing their resolve for Isak in the summer
It's just a shame it only kicked off then, as City especially were going mental. Quite how Chelsea think they'll balance their books after the last 18 months and no Europe is beyond me too
Contracts aren't reatricted, it's transfer fees that are. Chelsea (or anyone) can still sign players on right year contracts but the fee is split over five maximum I think.
Sarr now though is surely a proven Premiership player who,is nowhere near his peak performance and not,on crazy wages. The players Chelsea have bought on 8 year deals have not proven the,selves to be Premiership quality players , are,probably on huge wages and cannot be got rid of easily.
He'll be classed as club trained next year and cost peanuts.
All of a sudden, that deal makes a lot of sense.
Keep him because he's good or sell for enormous FFP satisfying profit.
Exactly!
So this is where their arguments fall down about it being unfair. Even city have realised this now with them adding to the capacity of the Etihad numerous times with plans to keep doing so. Chelsea are fucked because of where their stadium is. The only way their owners can build a bigger stadium is to leave Fulham. Newcastle owners realise it too, they are trying to expand their stadium, trouble is, it’s in newcastle. So only Geordies are going to go there. They don’t have the tourists us or even Manchester has for football. Nobody visits newcastle for the weekend from another country think I’ll grab a game on the off chance, while in London they might do.
Without FFP we are probably still sat in the old stadium.
And isn't it hilarious
The problem with buying small clubs like City and Newcastle and building 80k seat stadiums is they'd still only sell 50k tickets every week
Not to mention the average wage in the north is that much lower, they won't even be able to charge excessive amounts to make up for it either.
BrilliantAnd isn't it hilarious