01-07-2024, 06:50 PM
(01-07-2024, 06:27 PM)fuzzbox Wrote:(01-07-2024, 04:01 PM)Pragmatist Wrote: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!(01-07-2024, 03:32 PM)fuzzbox Wrote:(01-07-2024, 01:39 PM)Pragmatist Wrote: 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.
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.
