Swindon first victims of FFP rules?

[MachoMadness]

Been placed under a transfer embargo for exceeding the 65% wage/fee cap.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19857015

[Dagenham Rover]

A bit unfair considering it was a tribunal decision that took them over

[Mr1Croft]

I disagree, the football authorities had to stamp down hard on the first club to step out of line to show that  they do really mean it.


They must have been close to the limit for the 340000 to push them over by 1.5% considering you need to be under 65% of you turnover.

[MachoMadness]

Notice they spent big on Gary Roberts, which was reportedly the only reason he didn't come to us in the summer. Makes you wonder how close to the 65% we are, apparently we have a bit, but it can't be that much if Deano is keeping it for emergencies.

For what it's worth, I do agree with the principle of the FFP rules, but in practice all it seems to do is increase the divide between big and small clubs. There's too much money invested in the game for there to ever be true 'financial fair play'.

[Mr1Croft]

Well on the flip side Macho, Norwich are the only club (Maybe Southampton as well, not checked their figures) in the last 10 years to win promotion to the Championship by NOT spending more than 100% of their turnover on wages, which (considering that only 3 can get promoted) how many clubs are doing this and not going up and leading to financial difficulty.

[MachoMadness]

That's true, but I'd argue that Norwich and Saints are both massive clubs anyway who easily drew 20,000 plus crowds that any club in this league today could only dream of. I just see it widening the gap between Championship and Leagues 1 and 2, just as the gap between PL and Championship is getting wider all the time.

[Mr1Croft]

I do agree, but was offering a different view. But the problem is how do you combat the overspending in football without creating greater inequality?

[MachoMadness]

That's the problem, really, there's so much money in football it's just impossible to manage. If I knew the answer I think I'd have a bit of money of my own to be fair!

[silent majority]

I can guarantee that this is not the first club to suffer under ffp rules . They are the first to go public though.

[BobG]

Wasn't us was it SM?!

BobG

[The Red Baron]

I did wonder that myself, especially when DS said that he was able to bring in Michael Woods because he wasn't costing us anything.

Of course it could be that we're just being careful with what budget we have left for signings. I suppose we'll find out if McCombe is out for any length of time, because surely then we'd need to bring in a central defender on loan.

[Drover]

I wondered too,Bob.Especially when you think,we did'nt sign any players on loan after Copps left,although I do accept/understand Deano's reasons he stated.Also we would'nt have been able to sign Michael Woods,would we?Or are Non-contract terms allowed?Is that what Pompey have their players on?

[Drover]

Just had a thought?If we was to suffer the transfer embargo,and we became very short in numbers due to injuries,could we recall Copps?(not that I think it would be wise seeing has it would put us further above our allowance)But curious as to whether it's technically possible?Or does copps loan terms not allow a recall?

[silent majority]

 

Wasn't us was it SM?!

BobG

No, not us Bob! 

[Rovin Reporter]

Just had a thought?If we was to suffer the transfer embargo,and we became very short in numbers due to injuries,could we recall Copps?(not that I think it would be wise seeing has it would put us further above our allowance)But curious as to whether it's technically possible?Or does copps loan terms not allow a recall?

But we such large budget ! Or so some on here mistakenly believe be,  the reality is we are POTLESS ,  that's why we have spent NO money in the transfer market and are reduced to signing none contract players like Portsmouth . 

[Dagenham Rover]

Could this be the latest incarnation?

[DRNaith]

I think a transfer embargo is a bit soft really, all it means is they've gone beyond the budget and had to stop whereas the compliant teams have stopped before going beyond the budget....Swindon still hold the advantage.

[MachoMadness]

I think a transfer embargo is a bit soft really, all it means is they've gone beyond the budget and had to stop whereas the compliant teams have stopped before going beyond the budget....Swindon still hold the advantage.

Fair point, this will only really punish them if they go on to have a few injuries.

[silent majority]

I think a transfer embargo is a bit soft really, all it means is they've gone beyond the budget and had to stop whereas the compliant teams have stopped before going beyond the budget....Swindon still hold the advantage.

Fair point, this will only really punish them if they go on to have a few injuries.

I think a transfer embargo is a bit soft really, all it means is they've gone beyond the budget and had to stop whereas the compliant teams have stopped before going beyond the budget....Swindon still hold the advantage.

Fair point, this will only really punish them if they go on to have a few injuries.

According to the Football League they see it as a serious penalty for football clubs and soon brings about the necessary changes. The other alternative would be financial penalties but clubs with deep pockets would not find that so restrictive.

[DRNaith]

My point is, once they've hit their respective limit aren't all clubs under a form of transfer embargo?!

[RobTheRover]

Surely our limit, like all clubs, is based on last season's turnover so ours will include the increased TV money share, etc.

[PDS]

See where you're coming from RTR but if that's the case - that we can operate at league 1 level with a budget based on a championship season revenue then wouldn't the converse be true ie that a promoted team would have to compete in league 1 with a budget based on a league 2 seasons revenue? Now that would be a challenge and would hardly seem fair

[silent majority]

No but that's not right, not this season anyway. For this season Lg1 clubs are operating against a turnover forecast . And for Lg1 and 2 clubs its not the FFP but a separate FL scheme called the SCMP (Salary Cap Management Protocol).

This is a decent attempt to explain it all;

http://www.danielgeey.com/football-league-financial-fair-play-domestic-league-regulation/

[DearneValleyRover]

The only way I see the cap working is for point deductions to be given, ie: 5 points for exceeding 65% and 1 extra point per 1% above say 70%

[Sammy Chung was King]

Man city should be one of the main team's,that should be fined,it's always the little club's!!