Report this comment
  • "
    inflightmagazine wrote:
    wilddog wrote:
    Why do you think that the majority of clubs voted and have accepted the FFP as it is?. Maybe because most have them have put there house in order! Rovers have known all about FFP for the past few years but choose to ignore it. Why is that?
    The premiership TV deal had not been released at the time so they were not aware of what the figures need to be, the majority now want change and are being held to ransom by a minority of small clubs , its in the article if you read it.
    So 2 seasons ago when rovers came down, they blinkered themselves? Do you think for one moment the clubs that are with in the FFP rules and have complied with it are going to allow clubs like yours to try and change it? Wots in it for the clubs that cut back when they also could have spent stupidly and perhaps go up to the prem? Rovers have tried to get it changed and they have failed and rightly so as they sent regardless and have continued doing so."
  • 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

10:33am Thursday 22nd May 2014 in Sport

This Is Lancashire: Shaun Harvey Shaun Harvey

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.

Local Businesses

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