Matt Ritchie signs for...

[Belle Vue Popside]

... Bournemouth - 500k!!

Deary me.

[Nudga]

Bournemouth the next Pompey. How the bloody hell can Bournemouth spend like this with the new financial rulings?

[MachoMadness]

Unbelievable. They are going to be back in the shit sometime soon, mark my words.

[Chris]

I saw this on Twitter earlier. Bournemouth fans seem to think anyone who questions their spending is jealous of their position. Short memories!

[andysly]

And that is why I never feel sorry for the fans of these clubs. The fans love it when their team is trying to buy success then bleat and blame the directors when it all goes tits up.

[Mr1Croft]

On the topic of the new financial fair play rules, there is a big difference between League 1 and the Championship. Here are the rules for League One clubs (written 25/4/12):

League 1 and League 2, clubs have chosen to implement the Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP) first used in League 2 in 2004/05, although it will operate at different thresholds in each division.

The SCMP broadly limits spending on total player wages to a proportion of each club's turnover, with clubs providing budgetary information to The League at the beginning of the season that is updated as the campaign progresses.

Any club that is deemed to have breached the permitted spending threshold will be subject to a transfer embargo. Wherever possible, The League will seek to tackle the issue 'at source' by refusing player registrations that take clubs beyond the threshold.

At the beginning of the current season, League 2 clubs reduced the permitted spending threshold to 55% from 60% and this figure will continue to be operated next season.

League 1 clubs are currently operating a 'pilot' of the SCMP with clubs complying with a 75% threshold but with no sanctions being applicable this season. This threshold will reduce to 65% in 2012/13 and 60% in 2013/14 with sanctions (transfer embargoes) being applicable in both seasons.

Taken from: http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/FLExplainedDetail/0,,10794~2748246,00.html

[MachoMadness]

I did read somewhere that if you have a sugar daddy, you can get around the FFP rules by having him purchase a mug or something from the club shop for a couple of million quid. That's probably putting it in oversimplified terms and I don't know the ins and outs of it, but I wonder if that could be at play here. If Bournemouth aren't the next Pompey, they'll be 2nd or 3rd in line.

[Filo]

I did read somewhere that if you have a sugar daddy, you can get around the FFP rules by having him purchase a mug or something from the club shop for a couple of million quid. That's probably putting it in oversimplified terms and I don't know the ins and outs of it, but I wonder if that could be at play here. If Bournemouth aren't the next Pompey, they'll be 2nd or 3rd in line.

The FFP rules state the amount they are allowed to pay on players wages, it says nothing about how much you pay for a player, as I see it, the transfer fee paid for Ritchie does n`t even enter the calculations

[pubteam]

I did read somewhere that if you have a sugar daddy, you can get around the FFP rules by having him purchase a mug or something from the club shop for a couple of million quid. That's probably putting it in oversimplified terms and I don't know the ins and outs of it, but I wonder if that could be at play here. If Bournemouth aren't the next Pompey, they'll be 2nd or 3rd in line.

I think they've got round it by having the Russian owners take up a massive sponsorship deal on one of the stands.

I think it's similar to how Man City got round it, because I'm pretty sure Man City are owned by the same family that own Etihad (the airline).

[Mr1Croft]

I did read somewhere that if you have a sugar daddy, you can get around the FFP rules by having him purchase a mug or something from the club shop for a couple of million quid. That's probably putting it in oversimplified terms and I don't know the ins and outs of it, but I wonder if that could be at play here. If Bournemouth aren't the next Pompey, they'll be 2nd or 3rd in line.

I think they've got round it by having the Russian owners take up a massive sponsorship deal on one of the stands.

I think it's similar to how Man City got round it, because I'm pretty sure Man City are owned by the same family that own Etihad (the airline).

As Filo says above their is no FFP rules in League one for transfer fees only wages. When you reach the Championship however the FFP rules change slightly for transfer fees which is why it is probably better to do what Bournemouth are doing and buy bigger in League one and keep them in the Championship or sell them to allow you to buy...

[BobG]

Surely Rovers are another club who bend the rules somewhat? As I understand it the contributions by our directors are recorded as purchases of shares in the company - and that this therefore is recorded in the accounts as part of turnover. If Bournemouth are doing something similar, and I have no idea how they manage their finances, we can hardly call the pot black can we?

Bobg

[BillyStubbsTears]

And that is why I never feel sorry for the fans of these clubs. The fans love it when their team is trying to buy success then bleat and blame the directors when it all goes tits up.

Ahem! I assume this is a barb at some of the babbying that went on here over the last couple of years?

[wilts rover]

And that is why I never feel sorry for the fans of these clubs. The fans love it when their team is trying to buy success then bleat and blame the directors when it all goes tits up.

Ahem! I assume this is a barb at some of the babbying that went on here over the last couple of years?

I was taking it as a dig at clubs like Portsmouth where no one was asking where the money was coming from when they were waving the FA Cup around - that they couldn't pay for. It seems exactly the same scenario at Bournmouth, do people really believe that Richie has gone there to pay for free donkey rides and bingo? Swindon racked up £13m in debts over 2 seasons - how much were they paying their players? Bournmouth may have huge sponsorship deals for the tea-lady or the car park attendent, but they may also be racking up debt which they have to pay-off when these owners cant sell the ground for housing/get bored......as per Portsmouth. If it is a donation for shares, all well and good, but  it just has the air of a diaster lurking further down the line to me.

[Norfolk N Chance]

Bournemouth the next Pompey. How the bloody hell can Bournemouth spend like this with the new financial rulings?

Massively rich man in charge ....

Swindon and Bournmouth could derail what we have.....

Thus we need to win every game otherwise they will!

[andysly]

And that is why I never feel sorry for the fans of these clubs. The fans love it when their team is trying to buy success then bleat and blame the directors when it all goes tits up.

Ahem! I assume this is a barb at some of the babbying that went on here over the last couple of years?

My post was nothing to do with rovers it was a pop at the likes of Portsmouth, Leeds and rest

[BillyStubbsTears]

My point was that we have been and probably still are in a similar situation, in that the running costs of the club are much higher than the income. We rely on money being put in by the club's major shareholders to cover the shortfall.

And in terms of fans' attitude, we were all chuffed to bits when the club was pushing the boat out and signing the likes of Sharp, but there was plenty of moaning when we pulled in our belt and had to make do with The Experiment last year.

Last thing I want to do us open old wounds, but I don't think we're really in a position to criticise the attitudes of other clubs' fans.

Any road. Onwards and upwards.

[hoolahoop]

My point was that we have been and probably still are in a similar situation, in that the running costs of the club are much higher than the income. We rely on money being put in by the club's major shareholders to cover the shortfall.

And in terms of fans' attitude, we were all chuffed to bits when the club was pushing the boat out and signing the likes of Sharp, but there was plenty of moaning when we pulled in our belt and had to make do with The Experiment last year.

Last thing I want to do us open old wounds, but I don't think we're really in a position to criticise the attitudes of other clubs' fans.

Any road. Onwards and upwards.

Absolutely right Billy certainly not until we can put 10,000 a week into the stadium and the club can stand completely on it's own two feet.

[Jenny]

Surely Rovers are another club who bend the rules somewhat? As I understand it the contributions by our directors are recorded as purchases of shares in the company - and that this therefore is recorded in the accounts as part of turnover. If Bournemouth are doing something similar, and I have no idea how they manage their finances, we can hardly call the pot black can we?

Bobg

Shares purchases will never touch the profit and loss account....

[River Don]

I did read somewhere that if you have a sugar daddy, you can get around the FFP rules by having him purchase a mug or something from the club shop for a couple of million quid. That's probably putting it in oversimplified terms and I don't know the ins and outs of it, but I wonder if that could be at play here. If Bournemouth aren't the next Pompey, they'll be 2nd or 3rd in line.

I think they've got round it by having the Russian owners take up a massive sponsorship deal on one of the stands.

I think it's similar to how Man City got round it, because I'm pretty sure Man City are owned by the same family that own Etihad (the airline).

As Filo says above their is no FFP rules in League one for transfer fees only wages. When you reach the Championship however the FFP rules change slightly for transfer fees which is why it is probably better to do what Bournemouth are doing and buy bigger in League one and keep them in the Championship or sell them to allow you to buy...

It just goes to show how difficult it is to have any sort of control over money in football. There are always ways around the rules. Throughout its history football has always struggled with it, in the early days there was a push to keep the game amateur but they just couldn't enforce it, players would just be offered very well paid jobs for club owners for instance. The minimum wage eventually went not quite so much through the campaigning of Jimmy Hill as is often sited but through alarm at seeing players like Jimmy Greaves and John Charles leave for bigger money in Italy.

[BobG]

I know Jenny. But it's probably a bit complicated to write down on here. It's the principle that's important in this conversation - not the detail. Sorry for the short hand if it offends the sense of what is fit and right. 

BobG

[wilts rover]

Interesting to read that Richie was sold without Di Canio knowing:
http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/sport/10200873.Di_Canio_did_not_know_of_Ritchie_sale/?ref=mr

and that the FL refused to let Swindon bring anyone in:
http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/sport/swindontown/news/10199934.Town_blocked_in_moves_for_three_transfer_targets/

[RedJ]

He must be raging after that move by the FL.

[DearneValleyRover]

Bournemouth have 3 very rich Russians involved, 1 main one and 2 of his pals in the background. A Russian energy company with no ties to Britain has also sponsored one of their stands, I would imagine it will have been a very lucrative deal, the only problem will come if they get bored. The Russian wants to follow Fortunate Dusseldorf in Germany, owned by his pal and financed from lower league to mid table top division.