Financial Fair Play

[Ozyhibby]

Lucky we are not interested in fair play up here or one or two of clubs would be looking at point deductions.
https://www.skysports.com/football/n...nability-rules


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fuzzywuzzy]

The rangers not about £23,000,000 in the hole at the moment

[HoboHarry]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The rangers not about £23,000,000 in the hole at the moment

A good deal of that amount are soft loans so they don't count as debt. Owe it to themselves? Ahem.

[cocteautwin]

If the rules existed in Scotland one does wonder if the limits would be lowered and would HMFC and their anonymous £8,800,000 be caught by it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aim Here]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If the rules existed in Scotland one does wonder if the limits would be lowered and would HMFC and their anonymous £8,800,000 be caught by it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Almost certainly the reverse - getting free no-strings-attached money (or with easily affordable strings attached like not forcing the Jambo sugar daddy in question to wear a tie in the boardroom) is just another income source that makes their club more sustainable, not less. It would only be a problem if they were doing something like racking up bills or debts with the assumption that these anonymous donations would keep going indefinitely.

I mean, it's a bizarre state of affairs, and you do have to wonder who can afford to throw all this money at the club year after year (I dunno if your £8 million includes their Save the Children sponsorship, which is effectively a laundered donation to Hearts too), but, on the face of it, it's probably not an FFP issue.

[cocteautwin]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Almost certainly the reverse - getting free no-strings-attached money (or with easily affordable strings attached like not forcing the Jambo sugar daddy in question to wear a tie in the boardroom) is just another income source that makes their club more sustainable, not less. It would only be a problem if they were doing something like racking up bills or debts with the assumption that these anonymous donations would keep going indefinitely.

I mean, it's a bizarre state of affairs, and you do have to wonder who can afford to throw all this money at the club year after year (I dunno if your £8 million includes their Save the Children sponsorship, which is effectively a laundered donation to Hearts too), but, on the face of it, it's probably not an FFP issue.

Ah, I see the difference now. Birmingham actually racked up the recorded losses in their P&L. Why doesn’t the Birmingham owner just make donations to eliminate the losses?

The £8.8m is the round sum donations only. STC sponsorship is an extra £2m+


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[green day]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ah, I see the difference now. Birmingham actually racked up the recorded losses in their P&L. Why doesn’t the Birmingham owner just make donations to eliminate the losses?

The £8.8m is the round sum donations only. STC sponsorship is an extra £2m+


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I dont claim to understand FFP rules, but if making donations were a simple way to circumvent it then surely the owners of Man City and PSG would do the same?

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ah, I see the difference now. Birmingham actually racked up the recorded losses in their P&L. Why doesn’t the Birmingham owner just make donations to eliminate the losses?

The £8.8m is the round sum donations only. STC sponsorship is an extra £2m+


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Probably because they have proper monitoring in England.
In Scotland, borrowing to the point of administration is rewarded. All the prizes you win on the way you get to keep.
It’s Sevco doing it just now and they were rewarded with European participation this season. Will Hearts follow soon? Who knows but why not really if it gets them some silverware or European football. There is no downside.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cocteautwin]

One thing that I’ve been wondering is, if FoH are to gain ownership of HMFC on repayment of the £2.4m Bidco loan, why didn’t the anonymous donor send 1/5th of his contributions to FoH instead of piling it all in to HMFC? The fans could have had ownership by now instead of some indeterminate date in the future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

One thing that I’ve been wondering is, if FoH are to gain ownership of HMFC on repayment of the £2.4m Bidco loan, why didn’t the anonymous donor send 1/5th of his contributions to FoH instead of piling it all in to HMFC? The fans could have had ownership by now instead of some indeterminate date in the future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1. Because there is more than one donor.

2. Because none of the donors are interested in fan ownership.

[greenginger]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

1. Because there is more than one donor.

2. Because none of the donors are interested in fan ownership.

Did Budge not say some of the big donors were FoH contributors too ?

[Future17]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I dont claim to understand FFP rules, but if making donations were a simple way to circumvent it then surely the owners of Man City and PSG would do the same?

FFP is different to Profitability and Sustainability Rules - which is what Birmingham have been caught out on.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Did Budge not say some of the big donors were FoH contributors too ?

She may have; I don't recall her saying that. But the point stands 😉

[cocteautwin]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

1. Because there is more than one donor.

2. Because none of the donors are interested in fan ownership.

1. Has there been any reference at all to the donor(s) aside from the one person who wanted access to the directors box in dress down? There can’t be more than one rich lunatic surely?

2. The donor doesn’t have any say on fan ownership, it’s going ahead regardless of what he/she/they say.

The overall effect is only one of timing:

£10m thrown at the club now and £2.4m repayment of the loan in the future by FoH would be, give or take 18 months, the same as:

£7.6m thrown at the club now, £2.4m repayment of Bidco loan now, and £2.4m from FoH that would be thrown at the club by FoH if no need to repay Bidco loan.

It’s just odd that the donor would delay the future certain aim of the club being fan owned.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HoboHarry]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

She may have; I don't recall her saying that. But the point stands 😉

Don't see you post for long periods but the minute money is mentioned you're on here quicker than a rat up a drainpipe

[green day]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

FFP is different to Profitability and Sustainability Rules - which is what Birmingham have been caught out on.

Thread title needs changed then.......................

[Smartie]

I think the rules are pretty tough down there, the authorities have realised that there were too many clubs sailing too close to the wind and that they were in serious danger of getting into bother.

Sunderland have had issues rebuilding their squad whilst having so many big earners on their books from their bad old days as a huge chunk of their playing budget is still taken up on only 3 or 4 players. At least they're getting a little bit of football out of these earners this year, but the amount of money they are able to shell out on new players has needed to be seriously restricted.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

1. Has there been any reference at all to the donor(s) aside from the one person who wanted access to the directors box in dress down? There can’t be more than one rich lunatic surely?

2. The donor doesn’t have any say on fan ownership, it’s going ahead regardless of what he/she/they say.

The overall effect is only one of timing:

£10m thrown at the club now and £2.4m repayment of the loan in the future by FoH would be, give or take 18 months, the same as:

£7.6m thrown at the club now, £2.4m repayment of Bidco loan now, and £2.4m from FoH that would be thrown at the club by FoH if no need to repay Bidco loan.

It’s just odd that the donor would delay the future certain aim of the club being fan owned.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The club, Budge and the accounts have consistently referred to donors. Plural.

Had the donors been more interested in fan ownership than the purposes they donated to, they would have gone through FOH.

[Keith_M]

Hearts are not in any financial danger. Quite the contrary, in fact.

The Rangers, on the other hand...

[cocteautwin]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hearts are not in any financial danger. Quite the contrary, in fact.

The Rangers, on the other hand...

Hearts biggest financial danger is the money running out from the anonymous donor(s). They weren't in such good financial shape when their last accounts were prepared. Their cash in the bank was £199k (sod all) at a time when there should have been a large portion of season ticket sales sitting in the bank. They've had to rely on a post year end donor(s) contribution of £3.25m.

By contrast, Hibs bank account at the same time was showing a balance of £4.2m. No anonymous donation(s) needed. Although it would have been nice.

[Since452]

Hearts finances are more than fine. We need to stop kidding ourselves. Sevco on the other hand......

[Smartie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hearts biggest financial danger is the money running out from the anonymous donor(s). They weren't in such good financial shape when their last accounts were prepared. Their cash in the bank was £199k (sod all) at a time when there should have been a large portion of season ticket sales sitting in the bank. They've had to rely on a post year end donor(s) contribution of £3.25m.

By contrast, Hibs bank account at the same time was showing a balance of £4.2m. No anonymous donation(s) needed. Although it would have been nice.

Hearts are fine for now and the foreseeable, but they are used to having a decent quantity of cash, much of which comes from unorthodox sources.

If that money were to dry up and the fans retained the same sense of entitlement then they might be in trouble.

Anonymous donors losing interest, fans losing patience with a pish team, a horrific Brexit-induced recession causing ordinary folk to tighten their belts..........

Mainly wishful thinking but not impossible.

[Eyrie]

Hearts are reasonably secure due to the Save Hearts In Trouble money. Its members have been contributing for that long that they no longer notice the money going out each month.

[where'stheslope]

I think the main reason for down south being so stringent on finances, is because of the amount of money floating about in English football!
When you think about it £38 million is a pretty ordinary transfer fee down there, so it could be wiped out as soon as the transfer window opens if you have a decent player!
Up here one of those transfer fees alone could be a turning point of Scottish football if it was shared around all the clubs!!!
Its why SKY money invested in English football has completely changed their arrogant demeanor from one of the best leagues in the world, to arguably the best!!!

[Lancs Harp]

Stringent when it suites them. Ask the fans of Blackpool, Portsmouth, Coventry, Port Vale et al.

[Smartie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Stringent when it suites them. Ask the fans of Blackpool, Portsmouth, Coventry, Port Vale et al.

Are they not now stringent because of what happened to those very clubs?

They weren't always.

[Lancs Harp]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Are they not now stringent because of what happened to those very clubs?

They weren't always.

Still very much ongoing. The EFL is basically a gentlemans club regulated by club owners. All the above clubs have or continue to be mismanaged financially. I certainly wouldnt be using the EFL (EPL is more stringent but still not perfect) in particular as a beacon of light of how to run a league system, many many fans disgruntled down south about how the EFL is run.