Jackie Broon

It's good because it limits the spending at the very top without limiting us, we're a long way off being able to inflate our income to the point where it becomes an issue for us. It gives us more of a chance to catch up.

Southampton got £103.6m last season.

I think it'll be the same as the FFP calcluation which is essentially wages, transfers and agent's fees.

Bottom club PL TV money x 5.

It went through by a narrow margin and there was talk that some clubs had got cold feet on it and were willing to vote to change it back, don't know if that was part of today's proposal.

Aye, yet UEFA aren't handing out lots of FFP breach charges like the PL are under what are, on paper, currently more lenient rules.

I doubt it because of the influence the likles of PSG and Real Madrid and it limits top PL's clubs spending rather thna giving them any advantage. In terms of FMV it seems that UEFA have been less strict than the PL in scrutinising deals. And the PL were planning to bring a new FMV rule that would switch the burden of proof from the PL to the clubs to prove that deals are fair market value rather than the PL prove that they are not. That possibly would have been a killer for us.

@The College Dropout I'm not sure I'd go round making accusations of fraud on a public forum. Man City and the indaviduals involved haven't been charged with any criminal offence, there's no suggestion that there is any criminal investigation, the only accusations relate to breaching the PL's rules.

I don't think that's true, they haven't been charged with criminal offences, only breaching the PL's rules.

I wondered for a while whether the "legally binding assurances" we gave to the PL before they allowed the takeover could have included some sort of commitment that we would play nice and not legally challenge the FFP rules, and we're trying to nudge other clubs towalds doing that.

I think it's based the money the bottom club gets from the PL, rather than the total revenue of the bottom club.

Nope, the High Court only had jurisdiction over the arbitration process around disclosure of documents because it was under the Arbitration Act. Man City's only route if they lose a PL appeal would probably be to challenge the legality of the Profit and Sustainability rules themselves under competition law, which would be via the Competition Appeals Tribunal. However, they'd have to argue that they're anti-competitive in that they keep the top 6 a closed shop, Man City benefits from that, would they really want them to be set aside? Unless the club is going to be relegated I think they might just take the punishment if they lose an appeal through the PL process. I hope they do successfully challenge the rules though, because we'd probably be the biggest beneficiaries of that.

Nope, the appeal would be to an appeal panel as set out in the PL's rules. Man City went to the High Court in 2021 to challenge the PL's juristiction to force them to formally disclose documents, and lost. The documents the PL wanted access to were probably documents that the PL already knew existed through the leaked emails, like this one: Most of us are expecting we're going to try to do the same kind of thing, but won't be daft enough to put it in emails and allow them to be hacked. If we were caught red handed I think most would say "fair cop" rather than blindly claiming our club is innocent, I certainly would.

There's only one United on this forum.

They've put in £400m on the books already, plus potentially other off the books stuff like the Sela Adidas partnership and associated party sponsorships. If we are an investment we're probably past the peak already, and they'd currently need to get £700m just to break even on the on the books investment.

I'm sure FMV rules will remain in place but it's the detail of those rules, how fair market value is assessed, that is important.

It really depends on the FMV rules though, if they are relaxed it would make it much easier for us to grow our revenue. We've voted against every other change to the FFP rules since the takeover as far as I'm aware, if we've voted for this change there's likely to be something advantageous in there for us.

Game over for what? We're clearly operating within the rules, the club obviously have no intention of just breaching them and taking the punishment. The goal is and always has been to grow our revenue to the point where we can compete financially with the top 6.

Where have you got it from that there would be no acceptable losses? The UEFA rules, which the PL will apparently mirror, have allowable losses of up to £78m over 3 years, which is slightly lower than the PL's current £115 over 3 years but it's not no losses. The likelihood is we've been working to the UEFA rules anyway, because we'll be aiming to be in Europe every year. The devil is going to be in the detail of what we can get away with in terms of related party sponsorships.

Nothing new or unusual, it's the seventh time they've done that: 07/10/2021 - £89.4m 09/11/2021 - £38.5m 24/01/2022 - £40m 26/10/2022 - £70.4m 10/02/2023 - £57m 22/08/2023 - £60m

No, the club runs at a loss so they need to inject money to cover that. They've periodically done that since the takeover, totalling about £400m.

And ticket prices, our most expensive season tickets are about the same as their cheapest.

Not as a result of the football regulator, even if they got rid the the PL's FFP rules clubs in europe would still be subject to UEFA's. The only way would be is if there's a successful challenge of the FFP rules which affects both the PL and UEFA rules. Even then, it would probably result in them changing the rules so they allow more scope to allow clubs to catch-up than it being a free-for-all.

Is this what you're referring to, at 8:50? She was responding to a question about where she wants to see us long term, Keith Downie says 5-10 years but she clearly isn't putting a timescale on it in her response. Across the whole interview she's actually pretty measured and talks about it being a long term investment, the need for patience and to work within FFP.

That's kind of my original point, I was replying to a suggestion that NDM being involved means we're dictating it from the background. Which it doesn't, Forest have just engaged one of the best from a very small pool.