Report this comment
  • "
    Harwoodstblue wrote:
    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.
    But they don't read it. They just spout what they would like to happen in Rovers case.

    Btw....Widdog is another alias of WLUV.
    Oh the pain you guys are gonna suffer! Tough, get over it, time you wannabe bigs boys came down to earth.

    Who is wluv?"
  • 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