Did BFC get it right adhering to FFP before other clubs ?

Simple yes or no will do, should we have held off a little and seen what happened, or do the board do the right thing ? And what stance should we take this time round in your opinion ? Should we take a risk and cheat getting deep into our overdraft or tow the line play fair and get sorted ASAP .

 

I think we got it right last time, but this time I'd play it half and half take a small risk to keep one or two better players and get rid of one or two just spending a little more then we should on wages to give us a bit of a advantage over the other clubs

 

Don't think we have any choice in League 1. Our budget is set according to our income.

But to answer your question, the club should absolutely be run according to its turnover - even if that is to the detriment on the playing field. Better to have a club in league 2 or the conference even than to just have memories of something that no longer exists.

 

I'm not sure we had any choice to be honest, I belive the club may have used FFP as a reason for lack of spending, but in all honesty I'm not sure they could have spent any more than they did anyway. Quoting FFP rules for the reason of a lack of spending power sounds better to some fans than just saying we're skint get over it Either way I believe the club did the best they could with what they had, but the players we hired unfortunately did not live up to their price tag.

As for the new season, if the punishment for spending over 60% of income on wages is an immeditate transfer embargo for next season then its not worth it, even if we got promoted as a result, with a transfer embargo next season we'd be screwed. If we just get a slap on the hand then I'd take the risk.

Does anyone know if any of last seasons L1/2 teams broke the 60% rule? if so what was their punishment?

 

Regardless of FFP rules I'm happy to see us working within our means.

 

Yep, 100%. Besides, I don't think it was a lifestyle choice, there's no other option. No-one is offering to lend us the money to spend beyond our means.

 

Exactly this. We didn't adhere to FFP. We spent what money we had, which happened to be within the rules set out in FFP. Unlike many clubs, and despite the abuse he receives, Don Rowing could work a budget plan. We couldn't spend any more money because we didn't have access to any. I suppose we could have spent a few million on a striker, using up our entire budget, and close the gates by the end of August, but the people in charge of our club intend to keep BFC going for as long as possible, hopefully in perpetuity, not run it in to the ground at the first opportunity.

 

I dunno, but I bet QPR, Leicester and Burnley fans don't give a toss that they've racked up huge debts.

 

I like to see BFC being run within it's own financial parameters, and from what I can see, we have done this for many years.

The FFP rule is a joke, due to "wealthy sugar daddy" clubs not giving it a second thought.

If we have a rule, then lets impose it with strength and apply tough penalties for any club that abuses it.

 

I thought we made £2 million profit (One of only two clubs in that league to make a profit) in which case we didn't spend as much as we could have. We could have spent another 2 million and still broken even. I might be talking ****** though cos that may have been the season before accounts.

 

Invest whatever we can to try and achieve success - or at least to provide an entertaining side. If we do that and go bust - so be it. I don't go to watch a bank statement.

 

Should be a 1point deduction for every £1m spent over income. With no room for sugar-daddy payments from wealthy owners or shady sponsorship deals.

 

By the time the money came in that particular season the transfer window had shut. We sold John Stones late at night on transfer deadline day, the money from which accounts for the profit. We spent the money the following season.

 

so basically we have absolutely nothing to show from the Stones sale then

 

Re: so basically we have absolutely nothing to show from the Stones sale then

An opportunity to not adhere to it would be a fine thing! lol We didn't choose poverty, poverty chose us.

 

Jennings and cog

 

why ? the sugar daddy bit I mean?

Football is an industry now, not a sport. So investment is almost inevitable for success. Before anyone starts too, I would ask all the avid players of these computer management games ...how many of you use cheat codes to get unlimited funds? come on be honest. I know its not quite the same in reality, but it does question some people ethic on here.

 

Re: so basically we have absolutely nothing to show from the Stones sale then

I don't think expenditure is our problem.

We do need to get a grip on customer service & marketing.

 

"poverty chose us".... won't be lomg now in this thread until

Thatcher and the Miners strike gets the blame then

 

I thowt Jennings was free transfer...

and COG was only about £500K..... that's leave a lot of Moolah to account for