Moore

Walmo said:
In fairness I don't think Ipswich will have much problem with FFP as they have some rich benefactors that seem happy to put money in for no return.
Click to expand...
i thought that was the whole idea though. can't just throw money about. to be fair their fans are saying they're a bit worried about their spending.
 
Last edited:


Walmo said:
In fairness I don't think Ipswich will have much problem with FFP as they have some rich benefactors that seem happy to put money in for no return.
Click to expand...
But you put too much money in you get points deducted. That could be the difference between being relegated or not or promoted or not. Them 10pts can cost a hell of a lot more than the money you’ve hoyed in & lost in the long term.
 
Longy said:
But you put too much money in you get points deducted. That could be the difference between being relegated or not or promoted or not. Them 10pts can cost a hell of a lot more than the money you’ve hoyed in & lost in the long term.
Click to expand...
Then don't put too much in. There's a certain amount that owners are allowed to put in every year (or 3 year period). As long as the owner is personally happy to lose that money there isn't really a negative for doing so. It's a clear advantage.
 
Walmo said:
Then don't put too much in. There's a certain amount that owners are allowed to put in every year (or 3 year period). As long as the owner is personally happy to lose that money there isn't really a negative for doing so. It's a clear advantage.
Click to expand...
I think it's only 8m per year they can put in per year as equity to cover losses up to £13m per year. That is, if the owner doesn't put in equity, they can only lose £5m. It isn't a lot in the scheme of things. Last accounts Ipswich lost £12.6m in a year.
 
genewolf said:
I think it's only 8m per year they can put in per year as equity to cover losses up to £13m per year. That is, if the owner doesn't put in equity, they can only lose £5m. It isn't a lot in the scheme of things. Last accounts Ipswich lost £12.6m in a year.
Click to expand...
Increasing your transfer budget by 8m per year isn't a lot? I think if you gave Speakman an extra 8m per year on his budget it would make a humongous difference.
 
Walmo said:
Increasing your transfer budget by 8m per year isn't a lot? I think if you gave Speakman an extra 8m per year on his budget it would make a humongous difference.
Click to expand...
It only increases your budget by £8 million if you are only losing £5m per year. In Ipswich's case, they are already making far bigger losses which will have to be covered by their owners. Same at Stoke, Bristol City and large swathes of the Championship.

We've made some hefty losses in the recent past will have been covered by the owners.
 
Last edited:
genewolf said:
It only increases your budget by £8 million if you are only losing £5m per year. In Ipswich's case, they are already making far bigger losses which will have to be covered by their owners. Same at Stoke, Bristol City and large swathes of the Championship.

We've made some hefty losers in the recent past will have been covered by the owners.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how that negates my point that the owner can choose to put in their own money to gain an advantage? Let's say a club was breaking even you could make £8m worth of signings, so you'd technically be losing £8m that year on the balance sheet, so the owner can put £8m in so the balance sheet says £0. So you're in the same position with £8m worth of players. It's a clear advantage to that team.
 

Back
Top