Report this comment
  • "
    Champagne plus charlie wrote:
    inflightmagazine wrote:
    TurfMoorTom wrote:
    I'm not sure I fully follow all the hullaballoo and frothing coming from our 6 fingered friends. If your cloth has been cut accordingly and you already have a promising squad then with a RB/CH added unless we have major injury issues, why should a transfer embargo mid season be any concern? By the time all the leaches like Best etc contracts have run dry in the next year or so all will be back in balance. Case closed

    The only real concern is that we wasted a lot of money and there are clubs coming down with an unfair advantage. That said, history shows that as often as not in all the restructuring turmoil, relegated clubs fall on their sword. Take note 6-fingered sister lovers..............

    Looking at this as well , the allowance increase is around 9 million , showing that most clubs must feel they are close to complying. Even the premier league have voiced concerns over this now, seems crazy a league one owner could pump 100 million into a club without sanction and a championship club is limited to £3 - £5 million. I think this is where the league challenge will based. What a joke FFP is becoming
    It's not if you live within your means - simple. It is designed to stop clubs gaining artificial short-term gains with owners' money and then crashing and burning when the money runs out or the owners get bored and decide to liquidate.

    But of course the likes of Blackburn and QPR feel they are above the rulings and still most of the idiot supporters don't want their team to comply - you need to look at the statement by your MD earlier this year and even the one releasde by the wonderful Venkys today, you ARE going to have to comply or you WILL be in serious trouble.
    it depends why you have bought the club really, many large business have loss leading arms that are designed to create value in other areas of the business, do we think Citys owners bought it to make money , no they where very clear it was to put their country on the global map.

    Football is now trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted, much like the banking crisis poor regulation and governance from above has allowed crooks and leeches to bleed easy targets dry.

    Better governance by means of credit checks, the removal of football debts taking priority and the holding of greater liquid assests ect is far more useful than setting rules up that long term restrict future investment by outside companies and allow the top 10 clubs in Europe to basically reap all the rewards.

    Personally much like the banking crisis I thnik there will be lots of noise about regulation followed by little or no action and then a return to everything being just like before. If football really wanted to clean up its act , its once again missed the boat."
  • This field is mandatory
  • This field is mandatory
  • Please note we will not accept reports with HTML tags or URLs in them.

  • Enter the above word in the box below

Blackburn Rovers wait on FFP rules after changes rejected

Shaun Harvey

Shaun Harvey

First published in Sport

FOUR proposed changes to Financial Fair Play regulations for Blackburn Rovers and their fellow Championship clubs have been rejected.

Several unnamed clubs have threatened legal action against the regulations, which could see Rovers hit with a transfer embargo in January, but efforts to agree changes have failed.

The legal threat and concern over the impact of the new £23million parachute payments for the three clubs relegated from the Premier League led Football League bosses to review the regulations.

But all four proposals – three of them related to boosting the level of losses and owner investment permitted – were defeated in a vote by the 24 Championship clubs.

The fourth proposal was for the rules to be imposed based on ‘real time’ financial figures instead of the existing retrospective system.

But it too failed to attract the necessary 75 per cent backing.

According to Football League chief executive Shaun Harvey, other alternatives would now be examined.

Harvey said: “While a majority of clubs did vote in favour of each of the four proposals, they did not achieve the 75 per cent support required.

”We will now continue the positive and collaborative dialogue we have had with Championship clubs on this issue to see if there is any appetite for alternative forms of change.”

Rovers will suffer a transfer embargo in January if they do meet the existing regulations.

Existing FFP regulations state that Championship clubs can make a maximum loss of £3m for the current 2013-14 campaign.

That figure rises to £8m if a club’s owner is willing to convert the additional £5m into shares in the club.

Anything above £3m or £8m will result in a transfer embargo which would come into force on January 1.

The existing regulations permit Championship clubs to lose £6m next season, 2014-15, but £3m of that must be covered by owner investment.

There were three proposals to increase that allowance to either £10m, £11.4m or £12.8m.

Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore has also expressed serious concerns about the existing system, which is based on just one year, while controls over the top-flight clubs take into account three years’ figures and allow more owner investment.

The first sanctions against Championship clubs will be announced in December based on accounts for the current 2013-14 season.

The existing FFP regulations were agreed in April 2012 by the overwhelming majority of Championship clubs. At that time Rovers were playing in the Premier League and therefore did not have a vote.

Comments (64)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree