Reconstruction time again: the summer 2018 transfer thread

[boltonboris]

Seem to be more and more people saying that up to 10 Champo clubs could be looking at an FFP embargo; the latest is no less than Chris Wilder. For once, we shouldn't be one of them. It would be right funny if half our rivals were hamstrung and we got free rein...

Losing £600,000 per month up there, before Championship promotion.

[TANGODANCER]

This might be of interest. It was to me in a general way:

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/ ... r-12408433

[Harry Genshaw]

The championship truly is the economics of the mad house. I'm reading this morning that M&S are closing stores and laying off staff because their profits have decreased. Ffp is how many millions you're allowed to lose over a 3 year period.

I see Derby are the latest to say they're reducing outgoings next year after gambling and losing on the premier league these last few years. 24 clubs all looking for a loon who likes throwing millions away. There must only be a few of those. Surely?

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I see Derby are the latest to say they're reducing outgoings next year after gambling and losing on the premier league these last few years.

Yep - hence Rowett wanting to, and being allowed to, jump ship to Stoke, who have got three years of parachute payments before they're in the same boat.

24 clubs all looking for a loon who likes throwing millions away. There must only be a few of those. Surely?

Indeed, which is worrying when we're not, on face value, among the most attractive. But I suppose our debts are actually now much lower than most. How much do we owe in loans? c£10m? Half the clubs in this league are losing that and more *per year*.

As you say HG it's truly gut-wrenchingly maddeningly implausible, the economics in this division. If FFP puts half the teams on jankers, then so be it. Saying it's impractical because it's so widespread is a bit like the argument against clamping down on dissent with yellow cards: "Everybody does it". Well, it's about time everybody didn't.

[BWFC_Insane]

I see Derby are the latest to say they're reducing outgoings next year after gambling and losing on the premier league these last few years.

Yep - hence Rowett wanting to, and being allowed to, jump ship to Stoke, who have got three years of parachute payments before they're in the same boat.

24 clubs all looking for a loon who likes throwing millions away. There must only be a few of those. Surely?

Indeed, which is worrying when we're not, on face value, among the most attractive. But I suppose our debts are actually now much lower than most. How much do we owe in loans? c£10m? Half the clubs in this league are losing that and more *per year*.

As you say HG it's truly gut-wrenchingly maddeningly implausible, the economics in this division. If FFP puts half the teams on jankers, then so be it. Saying it's impractical because it's so widespread is a bit like the argument against clamping down on dissent with yellow cards: "Everybody does it". Well, it's about time everybody didn't.

FFP is nonsense. It is an inbuilt mechanism to preserve the status quo. We may well benefit from it now, but I'm totally and utterly opposed to it.

Clubs should have to annually demonstrate they are a viable ongoing business to the league. If they can't the league should monitor and take appropriate action. But if an owner tips in 100'sM to spend, so be it. That is part of the excitement.

Anyhow, for us, life seems to be gradually getting better. We should put a statue of Wilbs outside the ground as I feel his goal may well turn out to have been the difference between extinction and salvation!

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

FFP is nonsense. It is an inbuilt mechanism to preserve the status quo. We may well benefit from it now, but I'm totally and utterly opposed to it. Clubs should have to annually demonstrate they are a viable ongoing business to the league. If they can't the league should monitor and take appropriate action.

So if I may paraphrase, "We need an ongoing viability study. The league have an ongoing viability study. I don't like it."

But if an owner tips in 100'sM to spend, so be it. That is part of the excitement.

Yep, it got exciting as f*ck when Eddie withdrew and we nearly went out of business. Thrill a minute, that, not knowing whether my club would still exist when I went to bed.

[BWFC_Insane]

FFP is nonsense. It is an inbuilt mechanism to preserve the status quo. We may well benefit from it now, but I'm totally and utterly opposed to it. Clubs should have to annually demonstrate they are a viable ongoing business to the league. If they can't the league should monitor and take appropriate action.

So if I may paraphrase, "We need an ongoing viability study. The league have an ongoing viability study. I don't like it."

But if an owner tips in 100'sM to spend, so be it. That is part of the excitement.

Yep, it got exciting as f*ck when Eddie withdrew and we nearly went out of business. Thrill a minute, that, not knowing whether my club would still exist when I went to bed.

But without ED's loans we weren't a viable business and the league should have been able to step in at that point.

Lets say instead of a loan ED wanted to pay £100M to name the ground "the Eddie stadium". He should as owner be able to do that because if he wants to fund £100M spending he should be able to. The issue was the money was lent and the debt accumulated.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Yes, but that's not how it works. When the sugar-daddy gets bored and bogs off - whether he's Russian, Mafia, Manx, Chinese or from Chorley - the overheads don't suddenly drop into his dust: contracts have to be honoured. That's what brought us close to extinction.

And frankly I don't see why the league should "step in" - and do what? Prop up an unviable business run on insane economic grounds? Or punish them further? Far better IMO to stop them gambling with the clubs' futures in the first place.

Football is now an inequitable business. The reframing of finances since the EPL was formed *expressly* to concentrate cash at the top of the pyramid means that it's now harder than ever to climb the leagues. I understand the pity in that but I'd rather watch my club survive in the third tier than gamble with its life.

There's far too much Ridsdale Rides Again – I fear football's getting cocky 'cos it's been a while since a club went bust. Might not be too much longer - and without safeguards like FFP then it might be a lot sooner.

[BWFC_Insane]

Yes, but that's not how it works. When the sugar-daddy gets bored and bogs off - whether he's Russian, Mafia, Manx, Chinese or from Chorley - the overheads don't suddenly drop into his dust: contracts have to be honoured. That's what brought us close to extinction.

And frankly I don't see why the league should "step in" - and do what? Prop up an unviable business run on insane economic grounds? Or punish them further? Far better IMO to stop them gambling with the clubs' futures in the first place.

Football is now an inequitable business. The reframing of finances since the EPL was formed *expressly* to concentrate cash at the top of the pyramid means that it's now harder than ever to climb the leagues. I understand the pity in that but I'd rather watch my club survive in the third tier than gamble with its life.

There's far too much Ridsdale Rides Again – I fear football's getting cocky 'cos it's been a while since a club went bust. Might not be too much longer - and without safeguards like FFP then it might be a lot sooner.

You're missing my point. The league should ensure all clubs each year submit a report that demonstrates they are a viable concern for the next 12 months alongside any conditions in place that ensure financial viability. That would include a club being dependent on their owners loans or ongoing support to merely survive. In those cases the league should be able to issue penalty.

HOWEVER, if an owner wants to say "here is 100M I'm going to inject it as a one off payment or staged payment for naming rights or whatever" that should be entirely permissable. The club would include that in their incomings and their financial viability statements.

FFP doesn't allow that sort of cash injection and I personally think that is wrong. Owners who lend clubs millions but want it back at the end or leave a club without long term security are one thing. But to say owners who want to support the club for a shot at glory should be barred due to FFP is entirely wrong IMHO. End of the day football clubs have been in financial trouble long before foreign owners. So long as their is a system of monitoring and accountability in place and suitable sanctions are imposed where clubs would be unable to operate should the financial support their owner is supply disappear then I don't see the issue.

Arbitrarily capping a club's spending to their traditional income is where I fundamentally disagree with FFP.

[Prufrock]

I don't. It's not an arbitrary cap, it's a perfectly logical (even if you don't agree with it) cap, designed to stop clubs gambling with their futures but spaffing millions in a bid for promotion to the promised land and sticking it on the never-never.

Football spent a hundred years plus ticking along fine on that basis and while not everyone won, plenty did. The idea that football has got *more* competitive since big external money has come in seems odd to me.

It's also contributed to the dreadful Pulis-esque football where everyone is terrified of getting relegated.

I'm happy for an external billionaire to come in and spend shit loads on things like facilities and the ground, don't think that should count for FFP (and pretty sure at least some of it doesn't) but transfers and wages? Nope. All of the money Eddie gave us could've been a gift rather than a loan and we'd have been no less screwed. We'd still have been saddled with contracts we couldn't afford to pay.

[BWFC_Insane]

I don't. It's not an arbitrary cap, it's a perfectly logical (even if you don't agree with it) cap, designed to stop clubs gambling with their futures but spaffing millions in a bid for promotion to the promised land and sticking it on the never-never.

Football spent a hundred years plus ticking along fine on that basis and while not everyone won, plenty did. The idea that football has got *more* competitive since big external money has come in seems odd to me.

It's also contributed to the dreadful Pulis-esque football where everyone is terrified of getting relegated.

I'm happy for an external billionaire to come in and spend shit loads on things like facilities and the ground, don't think that should count for FFP (and pretty sure at least some of it doesn't) but transfers and wages? Nope. All of the money Eddie gave us could've been a gift rather than a loan and we'd have been no less screwed. We'd still have been saddled with contracts we couldn't afford to pay.

It limits investment into the businesses.

The issue with ED was not with the lending of money but with how it was spent. If we'd been cautious and invested in the right players with sell on value and not spunked wages on ageing premiership mercenaries we'd have been ok. Same goes whether you have investment or lending or not. If you're left paying rubbish and you go down and so does you revenue as a result you're in a mess either way.

If an owner wants to support a club to buy players why shouldn't they, so long as the club are monitored annually and viability is assessed?

[bristol_Wanderer3]

I think FFP is a good thing. Surely at it's heart, football is a sport, and titles and trophies are there to reflect sporting excellence, not who has managed to find the richest country/multi-billionaire to bankroll them? Clubs are also an important focal point for local communities. Supporters are important! It is a romantic, old fashioned notion I accept. Like much of life rampant anarcho-capitalism rules the day and we aint going back, but at least FFP, whilst imperfect and in need of constant improvement (see PSG), tries to find some sort of balance between allowing investment, and limiting the impact of outside finance so that the game remains at least somewhat loosely tethered to it's sporting heritage.

The rules are complex, but as I understand it FFP is now assessed on a rolling three year basis. For the Championship, allowable losses are £39m over a three year period, or £13m per year spent in the Championship, and a team can exclude costs for academy, community or infrastructure. For the Premiership, allowable losses are £105m over a three year period, so £35m per year for teams that drop out. So for newly relegated (in 2017-18) Middlesbrough for example, for this season are allowed £83m losses over a three year period (£35m, £35m, £13m). So there is room in there for some "gambling" whilst also trying to enforce some sort of financial realism.

[irie Cee Bee]

Seeing on Twitter that Jem Karacan has said goodbye.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Yep, we have our first walker...

[TANGODANCER]

I'm a bit surprised (without knowing the circumstances) that Karajan is going. Should I be, though my actual knowlege is very limited? I always thought him a decent player who didn;t get much exposure. Two goals in twenty games isn't the worst in the world. What's the view from the seats?

[bristol_Wanderer3]

I'm a bit surprised (without knowing the circumstances) that Karajan is going. Should I be, though my actual knowlege is very limited? I always thought him a decent player who didn;t get much exposure. Two goals in twenty games isn't the worst in the world. What's the view from the seats?

Imho it is the right decision. He will be forever remembered for his excellent opening goal in the Peterborough game which secured our L1 promotion. However in the Championship he hasn't looked good enough, and was a big part of the problem of us getting overrun consistently at the start of the season just gone. Lots of energy, but not strong enough, doesn't pass, create or get on the end of chances well enough. It is hard to define what kind of midfielder he actually is, but not good enough in any of the midfield positions. We should be able to improve on him in the free transfer or loan market I feel.

[irie Cee Bee]

Alfie's best mate. I hope it doesn't affect him (Alfie) negatively. Was on my release list because we need better in midfield to compete next season in the Championship.

[mullayo]

Maqybe the league should set salary caps like the NFL and NBA?
Standardise things. Sustainability.

[Prufrock]

Not sure he ever got a run this year other than when the whole thing was a car crash. I thought there was a player in him but had a bust up with PP and I guess that was that.

[BWFC_Insane]

Karacan suffered from being neither one thing nor another. Not a real holding midfield player (though that is where he's played most of his career) but for us, not strong enough in that role. Not an up and down type...though that is how we used him, but he didn't really have the engine for it. Nor an attacking midfield player really. He's a bit of a jack of all trades master of none. I quite liked him but I definitely do not think we should have kept him.