Tom_ITFC
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2015
- Messages
- 1,152
- Reaction score
- 212
- Points
- 63
- Supports
- Ipswich
Agree Rotherham on their own patch are like Millwall and capable of beating anyone.
I don’t understand why you would be against anyone saying all clubs should stay within FFP rules. Those rules are similar to setting a spending limit on a credit card and it’s designed to protect fans from having rogue owners who just want to gamble and continue gambling running up 100 million plus debts.
If SW were allowed to spend and build up debts of say, 200 million, the attitude seems to be “its OK because it’s not the club that’s in debt, it’s the Chairman that has the debt”.
A rule that would be interesting is any debt paid in by a Chairman is written off to the club at the end of each year or after 3 years etc. So the owner becomes liable for losses not the club but I doubt many Chairman would agree to it because the risk is too high.
FFP has been a success since it’s been introduced because it’s achieved it’s aim of stopping clubs going into admin. The parachute payments is a different argument to FFP, it was initially a good idea to stop clubs going into financial melt down because many would be to continue paying some massive PL salaries, some say they have an unfair advantage but very few relegated teams immediately return to the PL, so it’s not the advantage some people think.
From what I understand is that when Evans bought the club and took on its debt, there was an agreement that should he sell or want out, he’d not be able to recover the debt owing to him and have to write it off. So if that’s what’s happening at Sheffield Wednesday, then they are not alone.