SCMP and Investment?

[Conroy]

How do we work around the SCMP then? I presume get some large sponsors......like a paper company

 

[Wards]

Or pay any potential signings a modest wage that fits in with the structure and provide a hefty signing on fee?

I still can't see us going crazy with the money though.

 

[BornOnShorehamStreet]

Free toilet rolls for streamers maybe?

 

[Houso]

Or pay any potential signings a modest wage that fits in with the structure and provide a hefty signing on fee?

I still can't see us going crazy with the money though.

Nor me, but I think we were maybe comfortable not spending too much yesterday as we had in mind a couple of loan signings next week. I imagine there's some way we can work around FFP with the parent clubs.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

Sounds very straight forward (if true) but as I understand it, it's just a case of say, his company paying us a ridiculously high fee for an advert somewhere thereby increasing our income and consequently 'spending power'.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Sounds very straight forward (if true) but as I understand it, it's just a case of say, his company paying us a ridiculously high fee for an advert somewhere thereby increasing our income and consequently 'spending power'.

As far as I understand it, this will mean very little in terms of this season as all the paperwork regarding turnover was based on last season.

If the stadium gets renamed for a hefty fee then next season should be more positive...

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

As far as I understand it, this will mean very little in terms of this season as all the paperwork regarding turnover was based on last season.

If the stadium gets renamed for a hefty fee then next season should be more positive...

I thought it might be a 'rolling assessment' but yep, if it is fixed and based on last season then fair enough. Weir did hint yesterday that the deals we've done had nothing to do with the pending investment.

Looking forward to visiting the 'Wipe your arse with Saudi Paper Stadium' next season

 

[Houso]

Can I just double check, but when we've seen clubs break the FFP, they've just had an embargo placed on them.

Can't we just... y'know... bring in a few big season long loans and then be under embargo till the end of the season?

 

[UnitedBlade]

I saw an interesting post on another board the other day.

Someone had written to the FL about SCMP.

You can inject one off "equity" to fund transfers on top of the 60% rule.

Sponsorship going into turnover is another way.

I haven't seen this in any other rules on the Internet.

I couldn't understand how Swindon got out of their transfer embargo but had seen a newspaper report that mentioned equity.

Equity is a one off injection, you cannot finance it through loans obviously.

This now explains how Bournemouth spent so much on their way to promotion.

There's a way round everything. I'll dig out the quote later.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Can I just double check, but when we've seen clubs break the FFP, they've just had an embargo placed on them.

Can't we just... y'know... bring in a few big season long loans and then be under embargo till the end of the season?

Yes. Yes, you can!

 

[UnitedBlade]

This is what I got from another Board as a result of communication with the FL (Coventry's board I think)

Makes interesting reading

Income generated by a club that forms part of its football activities such as, commercial revenues, gate revenues, solidarity payments, Football League payments, donations, net transfer income (transfer fees paid) all make up the relevant income within the SCMP guidelines

The relevant income figure for SCMP will be a portion of total turnover, but not necessarily agree to total turnover figure in the accounts
SCMP splits turnover into ‘normal income’ and ‘football fortune’ income. For League 1 clubs both these forms of income go into determining how much money a club can spend in relation to wages. In League 1’s case, this is set at 65% of turnover. (last season) This is calculated on an on-going basis going forward
All player wages are included in the calculation. This covers basic wage, bonuses, appearances and any other add-ons. The calculation also includes PAYE, medical costs, cars and travel and also agent payments. Basically the full cost of a player is included. Players included are all contract players (full contract, non-contract, multiplicity etc.) and loan players. Players loaned out are deducted for the period of the loan. Players not included are youth players on a professional contract (i.e. players that have been in the club’s YD scheme and have been given a pro contract. They must be 20 years of age or under at the start of the season to be discounted from the SCMP calculation

SCMP relates to playing staff only

As it applies to FFP, contributions from Equity Participants/Related Parties that can be used as an allowance for the purposes of the Championship Financial Fair Play (FFP) Calculation are injections of share capital or capital contributions, being unconditional gifts made to the Club by a Related Party which increases the Club’s equity without any obligation for repayment or liability to do anything in consideration for receiving them
Loan amounts from an owner or related party do not constitute Shareholder Equity Investment for the purposes of the FFP calculation

The Relevant Turnover figure used in the SCMP calculation includes cash invested into the club in the form of equity or donation but does not include money injected into the club through loans

 

[FleaPitBlade]

So in summary - If we're sticking to the rules, we cant spend any of his pennies until next season and it has pushed through as 'sponsorship' and 'equity'?

 

[UnitedBlade]

So in summary - If we're sticking to the rules, we cant spend any of his pennies until next season and it has pushed through as 'sponsorship' and 'equity'?

If there is an equity injection now, I think we can spend it this season.

I think they have to submit monthly statements. I can't see why we would have to wait until next season.

 

[Ted Danson]

What about personal player sponsorship like Nike etc.

Couldn't we say pay the player £1 a week but he is personally sponsored by Saudi bog roll £100,000 a week but this money doesnt come from or go anywhere near SUFC PLC?

 

[UnitedBlade]

What about personal player sportsmanship like Nike etc.

Couldn't we say pay the player £1 a week but he is personally sponsored by Saudi bog roll £100,000 a week but this money doesnt come from or go anywhere near SUFC PLC?

I'm not an expert but I think the principle is the revenue needs to go through the football club's books.

I would imagine this would not be allowed, third party ownership and that ? And we wouldn't want to be dabbling in that, would we ?

 

[Ted Danson]

But don't players get sponsored by sports brands? I would have thought that went straight to the player, it wouldn't be ownership it would be sponsorship.

When sorting out the contract with the player it could be made obvious that players who play for us are very likely to get a decent sponsorship deal. wink wink say no more

 

[UnitedBlade]

But don't players get sponsored by sports brands? I would have thought that went straight to the player, it wouldn't be ownership it would be sponsorship.

When sorting out the contract with the player it could be made obvious that players who play for us are very likely to get a decent sponsorship deal. wink wink say no more

The top players get this sponsorship in addition to the ridiculous wages the clubs play them.

I see your point, it would have to be absolutely unconnected to wages. You did initially say (we) pay the player £1 per week !

Now, what sort of sponsorship can we sort out for Porter and Williams ....................

 

[Ted Danson]

Yep SUFC pay each player £1 a week, we would still be under 60% Id of thought with a wage bill of £11 a week, infact my season ticket pretty much covers it!

 

[alcoblade]

I saw an interesting post on another board the other day.

Someone had written to the FL about SCMP.

You can inject one off "equity" to fund transfers on top of the 60% rule.

Sponsorship going into turnover is another way.

I haven't seen this in any other rules on the Internet.

I couldn't understand how Swindon got out of their transfer embargo but had seen a newspaper report that mentioned equity.

Equity is a one off injection, you cannot finance it through loans obviously.

This now explains how Bournemouth spent so much on their way to promotion.

There's a way round everything. I'll dig out the quote later.

SCMP is surely about stopping clubs living beyond their means, and not paying back what they owe. Injecting money through sponsorship (ie not shifting the burden onto tomorrow) isn't really getting round anything. SCMP was never meant to prevent this type of thing, AFAIA.

UTB

 

[Sothall_Blade]

So in summary - If we're sticking to the rules, we cant spend any of his pennies until next season and it has pushed through as 'sponsorship' and 'equity'?

Swindon had a transfer embargo imposed last season. All it took was one of their bigwigs to pump some more funds in and the embargo was lifted.

I've been saying it since last season, the SCMP does not prevent somebody like McCabe/Prince Abdullah investing in the team. That's how clubs like Bournemouth and Brentford can afford players we couldn't with gates a 1/3 of ours.

McCabe didn't invest more in the team last season because he didn't want to (any longer), maybe the Prince will?

Here's the proof:-

http://www1.skysports.com/football/...es-transfer-embargo-lifted-by-Football-League

 

[KenMcnaughtsNuts]

People getting major carried away here, the chances of us buying anybody for over a few hundred thousand quid anytime soon is pretty much zero. We haven't suddenly become Man City.

 

[alcoblade]

People getting major carried away here, the chances of us buying anybody for over a few hundred thousand quid anytime soon is pretty much zero. We haven't suddenly become Man City.

Good.

UTB

 

[Sothall_Blade]

People getting major carried away here, the chances of us buying anybody for over a few hundred thousand quid anytime soon is pretty much zero. We haven't suddenly become Man City.

Somebody better tell Scott McCabe. He says Premiership in 3 years is the realistic aim.

P.s. Amazing how much he sounds like his Dad.