Takeover

[Fulham Fallout]

No, because we’d still have to rent it on arms length which, whilst exempt from FFP, still means paying out to rent it each year from the owner.  It just shifts the problem.

I don't understand that. The club pays the rent, but as it's academy related, the rent doesn't figure in ffp.

Whether you want a separate company owning the training facilities is another matter....

Put FFP to one side, the fact is that in simple cash flow terms we’d be paying out rent to a third party for something that we already currently own, which increases our annual outgoings.  A bit like selling your mortgage-free house and having to pay out rent instead.

That's not a fair analogy, the circumstances  are very different. If we had rich owners, losing money on the academy side isn't the issue, ffp is!

The real problem would be exercising financial discipline and getting it back again. Should we finally get to the point that ffp wasnt a critical issue, I'm  guessing the money would go on a new player, instead.

Academy costs are excluded from the FFP figure, as are wonen’s football costs.

[fuzzbox]

No, because we’d still have to rent it on arms length which, whilst exempt from FFP, still means paying out to rent it each year from the owner.  It just shifts the problem.

I don't understand that. The club pays the rent, but as it's academy related, the rent doesn't figure in ffp.

Whether you want a separate company owning the training facilities is another matter....

Put FFP to one side, the fact is that in simple cash flow terms we’d be paying out rent to a third party for something that we already currently own, which increases our annual outgoings.  A bit like selling your mortgage-free house and having to pay out rent instead.

That's not a fair analogy, the circumstances  are very different. If we had rich owners, losing money on the academy side isn't the issue, ffp is!

The real problem would be exercising financial discipline and getting it back again. Should we finally get to the point that ffp wasnt a critical issue, I'm  guessing the money would go on a new player, instead.

Academy costs are excluded from the FFP figure, as are wonen’s football costs.

Exactly.

[Pragmatist]

Selling the training ground to the owners other company, paying a market rent that gets reinvested into academy by the owners.  The money the club would spend on the academy anyway would pay the lease and the monies being reinvested would pay the academy costs. 

I thought owners could invest/inject money for infrastructure type things like the academy?

You’re missing the point. The sale would have to be to a third party, otherwise everything gets consolidated and the transaction would be neutral. And by selling to a third party, that means paying rent to a third party which would be an additional rental expense that the club wouldn’t otherwise be paying. 

The club would still be paying out the operational costs of the academy but outgoing rent would be in addition.

---

No, because we’d still have to rent it on arms length which, whilst exempt from FFP, still means paying out to rent it each year from the owner.  It just shifts the problem.

I don't understand that. The club pays the rent, but as it's academy related, the rent doesn't figure in ffp.

Whether you want a separate company owning the training facilities is another matter....

Put FFP to one side, the fact is that in simple cash flow terms we’d be paying out rent to a third party for something that we already currently own, which increases our annual outgoings.  A bit like selling your mortgage-free house and having to pay out rent instead.

That's not a fair analogy, the circumstances  are very different. If we had rich owners, losing money on the academy side isn't the issue, ffp is!

The real problem would be exercising financial discipline and getting it back again. Should we finally get to the point that ffp wasnt a critical issue, I'm  guessing the money would go on a new player, instead.

Academy costs are excluded from the FFP figure, as are wonen’s football costs.

Excluded from FFP, but still a cash outgoing expense.

[CaptainFantastico]

I think one of the benefits of the increasing scrutiny etc is the pressure it will put on what type of owners consider getting involved now. In my view we will soon be one of the better positioned clubs to work under this in the champ. Downside I suppose is that it doesn’t solve the crazy chasm that clubs spending time between the 2 divisions have to plan for additionally to have any chance of eventually consolidating that gulf

[Woodman scoreboard]

Well, it’s gone from a guaranteed firesale to we may bring one or two on loan.
No-one on here truly knows as much as they profess to.
The future is looking brighter whatever happens so hope we win today and get new owners in the week.

If we run out of cashflow we have to sell players or how do we pay the wages ......don't pay and it can cost us points

[sickParrot]

No, because we’d still have to rent it on arms length which, whilst exempt from FFP, still means paying out to rent it each year from the owner.  It just shifts the problem.

I don't understand that. The club pays the rent, but as it's academy related, the rent doesn't figure in ffp

Isn't the Academy based at the Training Ground?

Eh? The Academy is opposite the ground ay it?

It is, on Halfords lane. The training ground is off m6 junction 7.

[CA Baggie]

Selling the training ground to the owners other company, paying a market rent that gets reinvested into academy by the owners.  The money the club would spend on the academy anyway would pay the lease and the monies being reinvested would pay the academy costs. 

I thought owners could invest/inject money for infrastructure type things like the academy?

You’re missing the point. The sale would have to be to a third party, otherwise everything gets consolidated and the transaction would be neutral. And by selling to a third party, that means paying rent to a third party which would be an additional rental expense that the club wouldn’t otherwise be paying. 

The club would still be paying out the operational costs of the academy but outgoing rent would be in addition.

---

I don't understand that. The club pays the rent, but as it's academy related, the rent doesn't figure in ffp.

Whether you want a separate company owning the training facilities is another matter....

Put FFP to one side, the fact is that in simple cash flow terms we’d be paying out rent to a third party for something that we already currently own, which increases our annual outgoings.  A bit like selling your mortgage-free house and having to pay out rent instead.

That's not a fair analogy, the circumstances  are very different. If we had rich owners, losing money on the academy side isn't the issue, ffp is!

The real problem would be exercising financial discipline and getting it back again. Should we finally get to the point that ffp wasnt a critical issue, I'm  guessing the money would go on a new player, instead.

Academy costs are excluded from the FFP figure, as are wonen’s football costs.

Excluded from FFP, but still a cash outgoing expense.

[TTM2]

https://t.co/06CKdKorU0

[fuzzbox]

Obviously it's an outgoing expense, but it could be a loss new owners would be willing to pay if it frees up ffp by adding the proceeds of a sale. Especially if there's a buy back clause.

Hopefully I've made it clear I'm not advocating it, I'm just saying that unlike what other posts have said, I believe having wealthy owners does actually make a difference in the options available. Not huge differences, but maybe enough to see us limp through this crisis without long term injury.

For me,  it is at least a small comfort to know we may have other options if we move towards the punishment stage. With our current owners, as you have rightly pointed out, we haven't. It would be just kicking the can a few months down the road until there's nothing left.

Personally I just hope that the new owners invest heavily in the academy - which again, is something our current owners can't afford to do

[SW4Baggie]

Selling the training ground to the owners other company, paying a market rent that gets reinvested into academy by the owners.  The money the club would spend on the academy anyway would pay the lease and the monies being reinvested would pay the academy costs. 

I thought owners could invest/inject money for infrastructure type things like the academy?

You’re missing the point. The sale would have to be to a third party, otherwise everything gets consolidated and the transaction would be neutral. And by selling to a third party, that means paying rent to a third party which would be an additional rental expense that the club wouldn’t otherwise be paying. 

The club would still be paying out the operational costs of the academy but outgoing rent would be in addition.

---

I don't understand that. The club pays the rent, but as it's academy related, the rent doesn't figure in ffp.

Whether you want a separate company owning the training facilities is another matter....

Put FFP to one side, the fact is that in simple cash flow terms we’d be paying out rent to a third party for something that we already currently own, which increases our annual outgoings.  A bit like selling your mortgage-free house and having to pay out rent instead.

That's not a fair analogy, the circumstances  are very different. If we had rich owners, losing money on the academy side isn't the issue, ffp is!

The real problem would be exercising financial discipline and getting it back again. Should we finally get to the point that ffp wasnt a critical issue, I'm  guessing the money would go on a new player, instead.

Academy costs are excluded from the FFP figure, as are wonen’s football costs.

Excluded from FFP, but still a cash outgoing expense.

Yes… when those fishy fuckers were spunking AOTS not enough scrutiny was given to their claim they were spending over £10m on their academy costs…