FFP Headroom

[Kowalski]

I keep reading we have FFP Headroom (massive, decent, significant) from a number of posters. After the last transfer window, can anybody give an explanation where they see the headroom at. Thanks.

 

[Air Resistance]

I can’t answer the question, but I do know that FFP headroom only matters if you feel the owner should be putting in money to allow the maximum allowable losses.

 

[BoroMart]

I keep reading we have FFP Headroom (massive, decent, significant) from a number of posters. After the last transfer window, can anybody give an explanation where they see the headroom at. Thanks.

We don’t budget to sell crooks or rogers. So that gives 10-16m headroom straight away.

We also have got all the big earners off the 3 year window, so that improves our FFP again.

On top of that we were said to be prepared to spend about 5m on Tom Cannon and but kept our powder dry and only spent half of that on Azaz.

So we certainly should have at least 12m headroom, maybe more. Will we spend it? Not sure. If we wanted to go all in, and lets take that 12m figure as a given, 48m on transfer and wages and not breach FFP. Purchases are amortised over the length of the contract, so signing players on 4 year deals would allow 48m expenditure. That's a big risk though, because failure to get promoted means in the second and third years you have to sell to avoid FFP breaches. I don't think Gibson would go this route.

I can’t answer the question, but I do know that FFP headroom only matters if you feel the owner should be putting in money to allow the maximum allowable losses.

No it doesn't accounting for deals and FFP are not really related. Even if losses eat up the company cash reserves and even if Gibson refused to put his 1m per month in (which he has shown no signs of stopping), then there are alternative ways of funding, such as loan agreements.