nufcnick

1 minute ago, Dokko said:

So £300m turnover allows us to spend £5m a week on wages and transfer fees, every season, without any further deals and before player trading. 

 

How's that not a positive? Say half goes on wages and the other on transfers is £127m a year on fees (Inc agents) and an avg £100kpw on a 25man squad. 

Good luck keeping your best players and being competitive only paying an average of £100k a week on players 

4 minutes ago, Stifler said:

With our current wage budget, and our current income, over a 3 year period we can spend £384,612,000 on players.

That would obviously be amortised, but would then mean it would accounted for in our revenue to spend ratio.

 

What I don’t get is that if you are only allowed to spend 70% up to 85% on your transfers and wages, assuming your none playing costs are below the 15%-30% ratio, overall you’ll end up with a massive surplus of cash that you could never spend.

It will be on a season by season basis, a team wouldn’t be able to carry over what it didn’t spend the season before 

7 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

 

“As much” as 85% of turnover is the worry, if clubs in Europe have a lower allowable %, the league is fucked. 

Just now, TBG said:

No Hall?

 

Worrying.

Can’t play as he’s on loan 

No barnes 

6 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

I'd read somewhere that it was going to be 70% for clubs in CL and 85% for the rest

That won’t work and no one would ever want to qualify for Europe or challenge for a cup(unless you were given a 3 year grace period), as you would instantly need to cut your bills from 85% to 70%, whilst needing a bigger squad to play in Europe, ie a £300m turnover allows a spend of £255m which overnight would become an allowable spend of £210m, £45m would be a catastrophic cut to any teams spending. 

This is why I'm certain we will move stadiums, we generate about £25-30m per season in fan attendances but less than a 1/4 of that is from our 57 corporate Boxes, a new stadium would give us not only at least 3x the corporate boxes but also the extra fan revenue, you could more than double what we make to £70m+

2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I think they have similar rules in Spain already.

 

It pretty much guarantees that Real Madrid will win the league more often than not. They have by far the biggest wage cap. They are #1 by a distance.

 

It's shit and reinforces dominant club positions.

This ^^^ any new rules are always going to be more beneficial to the status quo, it will be interesting to see if they align with UEFA’s punishments for breaching the rules as most are financial based. 

3 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

UEFA aren’t starting at 70% so I wouldn’t expect the PL to, I’m guessing they will both start at 90% meaning our cap would be £270m this year 

2 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Watch us be the 1 😂

Not a chance, currently more likely to be Chelsea, as it fucks them with their stupid contracts and they will be well over 80% wages and transfers to turnover 

1 minute ago, Jack27 said:

Doesn't UEFA also include infrastructure, academy and women's football into the equation?

I don’t think it does TBH 

It’s a wages and transfers to turnover, uefa implement it at 90% this year, 80% next year finishing at 70% of turnover, we currently run a about 75% so as long as the PL follow uefa we’re fine and have some room to move 

Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch of fans 

3 minutes ago, Smal said:

Surely that gets overturned . Nowhere near a red. 

Are you backward, it’s a red all day long 

Villa imploding, I dont know how f I’m happy or sad if they fail to qualify for the CL, on one hand it gives the Sly6 a bloody nose, but on the other it puts them in trouble of FFP breaches meaning we could nick a few of their players, and the way spurs play they will run into massive injury problems with the extra games 

Just now, FloydianMag said:

If you want to play in the PL you have to, Hobsons Choice. Doesn’t mean that FFP,FMV aren’t against UK Competition Law, that has to be determined and if they are they’ll be swept aside.

There is no one that wants rid of the rules implemented by the sly6 more than me, but the first question by any judge would be “why did you sign up to the rules season after season, if you thought they were illegal” there is a reason why they haven’t been challenged already, especially by Manchester City and their lawyers as it’s almost a get out of jail free card. 

4 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

You don’t have to prove it’s fair or not, you have to prove that it’s anti competitive and breaches UK Competition Law.

People keep saying that but never seem to then follow through, as a club why would you willingly sign up to something you think is illegal over and over again 

5 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

 

 

Correct, but if they don't even try to take them to court then we'll know that FFP/PSR is going to be a tough nut to crack

It’s not that it’s a tough nut to crack, it’s that teams knowingly and willingly sign up to abide by the FFP/P&S rules at the start of every season, it’s kind of hard to go to a court and convince a judge that something isn’t fair when you willingly sign up to it every single year 

3 minutes ago, Andy84 said:

Shame relegation is out of reach as these are woeful 

Is it? 9 points isn’t insurmountable 

37 minutes ago, NWMag said:

Great read. Love Gordon. Howe is a real gem isn’t he

Any chance of sharing, it’s paywalled

Just now, Keegans Export said:

We don't have to pass FMV so far!

 

Regardless, the point remains - some companies will value the sponsorship more than others. A Saudi company will probably value a link with NUFC more precisely because we are part-owned by PIF and are therefore in a position to be "the" Saudi PL club. That isn't the same for a potential sponsor from elsewhere who will value the deal at a lower amount. 

 

As @TheBrownBottle says, you're not comparing like-for-like in terms of potential outcomes for Company A versus Company B.

Even in the new rules FMV still only applies to related party transactions, it will never apply to non related parties because you would then have the sly6 calling into question each others deals 

4 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

The Adidas deal is a good example. Because of our history with Adidas, a deal is worth more to them than it would to Nike, Umbro etc. because of the opportunity to cash in on all the retro stuff, historical goodwill and so on.

 

Adidas would look at £20m/year as good value, whereas others might only see value at £10-15m. Does that mean we'd have to only take £15m? 

 

There is certain equipment I find very useful for my job, so I'd be willing to pay a decent wedge for it. You have no idea what the equipment is or what it's for, so you'd value it much lower. Which of those two is "fair market value"? 

 

The rule is a complete nonsense imo.

We don’t have to pass FMV with Adidas because PIF have no ownership of them 

3 minutes ago, STM said:

Pizza Rob in the mud.

He’s always in the mud, he got lucky once or twice, and now he thinks he’s septic peg 

55 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

 

I'll stick to the current rules here, not the UEFA ones. And even then its hard to say.

 

What we know is that a loss of £60m falls off the calcs and we will make a small profit this year so in simple terms you have what we did this year plus £60m in additional amortisation and wages (working on the basis that Adidas and EL/EC offsets Champions League). So you could spunk £200m in the summer if you wanted to.

 

However, there is a longer term view that we have £60m drop off next year and the year after, but then a profit of £15m will drop off the year after and if you keep a £60m loss in 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 you are back to where we are this season, but with bigger revenues and wages no doubt. So they may go down the route of replacing a £60m loss with a £30m loss for the next 2 years to balance this out. Really depends on how aggressive they see revenue growth.

 

Gun to the head we will spend £250m which will would add £50m of amortisation and £30m-£50m of wages. Taking last year as a starting point

 

£60m FFP loss in 2022/2023

+ £50m increased revenue (Sela, Adidas, Europe)

- £50m amortisation on new purchases (I'm going to assume that the increase from last summer is evened out with previous windows signings dropping off)

- £50m new wages (this is high but not totally unrealistic over a 2 year period)

= £110m FFP loss

 

So we would need to sell £50m profit worth of players. Likely to be Miggy, Wilson, Targett (or we keep Targett and don't follow up on Hall) and another. I don't think it would need to be a Bruno, Joe(s) or Isak

 

That would be pushing the boundaries I think but would be an ambitious summer whilst staying in the rules

 

You have added adidas to 22/23, adidas doesn’t start til the 24/25 season 

2 minutes ago, Kanji said:

If the manager considers him crucial to the overall plan, and you back the manager, and there is a way to compromise on the wages, then it's a fucking no brainer.  Looks like that's exactly what happened.

 

There was no guarnatee we'd be able to sell him for the 40m we paid for him, or getting a replacement that suits the style of play. It's a lose-lose.

In this instance, I think we would be pretty nailed on to get £40m+ for him