Alviro Patterson wrote:
Financial Fair Play should be tough to a point where clubs making financial losses should only be made if either:
The club has money in the bank to cover losses
Club owners foot non-returnable losses (to a maximum limit)
Losses have occured due to upgrading club infrastructure - i.e. stadium and training ground development
In the first example, I believe the break even requirements are largely focused on a club liabilities to tax, players wages, transfers and other expenditure. In fact, I believe the first three in the Premier League all have to be paid immediately when requested, or a club fails FFP automatically. So, I dont think it is a case of simply saying a team automatically doesnt "break even" when it makes a loss. A club with cash assets to pay its losses is counted as break even, so long as those cash assets were raised by the function of the club, and not a cash investment from its owners. Thats how I understand the rules, AP. I might be wrong. Financial losses only count as such when a previous years surplus does not cover a previous loss.
In the second case, I think its 45 million quid is allowed from club owners every three years rolling. So in year 1, he puts in 45 million, he cant add anything after till year 4, when he can put in another 45 million. If, in year 4, he puts in 20 million, and in year 5 he puts in 45 million, then in year 7 he can add 20 mill again. And so on. No consecutive 3 years can there be more than a cash investment of 45 mill from an owner or sugar daddy to cover losses. Already a rule. Increasing it more distorts the market, hence it is limited.
Finally, losses on stadium developments, youth team and academy structures, charitable donations and I believe womens teams are not counted for FFP losses. So again, this is already a rule.