Abacus

Thinking of inventing a new game next season of Fantasy Legal and Accountancy Football League. It ditches all the boring football bits and really focuses on the minutiae of financial results and their legal interpretation across both domestic and European competitions. Who's in?

Not sure how we'd have gotten into that position. Maybe banking on a higher league finish? That's if it's even true. Whatever, you'd think it can't be over by much. So either sell a fringe player or two, or challenge the ruling endlessly, dispute any points deduction to get it reduced, which surely won't be that much in the first place, and then start on minus a couple of points along with a third of the league, rather than sell anyone we don't want to. Failing that, hope Man City win their case, and announce a bumper shoelace sponsor on June 30.

NB, to answer your actual question, I don't know. So, was sadly just skimming the Uefa regs that I can find online on my phone in the pub. In short, I think they do. Anything above FMV to a related party looked to me to have been treated as a capital contribution. Capital contributions could then be set against your FMV losses with the target of essentially hitting break even. If it was just that then, in theory you could sponsor to whatever level you want as an related/associated party absorb any losses through capital contributions and carry on. Except if you did that, you'd then hit the hard spending/revenue cap of 70%, both of which are assessed at FMV in the first place. So, you can't do that after all, because you couldn't artificially inflate the income, if you're already close to that spending threshold. More than happy to be corrected if being a dumb dumb, though.

Nah, I was saying I'd rather FFP went than APT (so we could invest via owner capital), whereas SAK was responding saying that wouldn't help us in UEFA due to their own version of the FFP rules.

Those rules were never going to go by a majority, the only way was a legal challenge. In saying all that, having read the article, City really are throwing the kitchen sink at this one. I've been trying to decide if I want FFP gone or APT gone first (or at all). But in either case, the effect is the same - if an owner can afford to invest, let them. On balance, I'd rather FFP went. It's more transparent to say that owners have invested £xm and the club won't go bust than having a million and one elastic band sponsors, which everyone could see through anyway. Does it create a new inequality? Yes. So, then, come up with a better FFP that doesn't force clubs to sell homegrown talent that fans want to keep, or farm young players for future home-grown sales, or stop anyone competing with the established clubs, as just a few examples.

He'll be thinking of it as a stepping stone to Bayern.

Anchoring would have been ok for us in the short term - it would have held down the richer clubs a bit allowing us more time to catch up while we're constrained by the revenue rules. Saying that, I did read an article that said the anchoring limit would actually make no difference to Man City's current spend, so I'm not sure how much it would have held them back in reality. But yes, in the wider scheme of things it's a bad idea as we're competing against other European leagues too, so it's not just internal competition. Just as the current PSR rules are a bad idea for clubs like us, and consequently for the whole league. One small example - give us the money to have invested last summer to compete in the CL, and there's every chance we at least hold on against PSG, qualify for the next round and from there who knows. Would have given the English leagues European coefficient a boost anyway.

It's for any transaction including player sales and purchases, I believe, not just sponsors. Anyway, like millions of others, I'd certainly be looking for a pro league subscription to watch Casemiro hobble around the pitch, so that move would definitely make sense.

No, it's only us that can't sell at those prices, as we'd be a related party. Anyone else can sell at whatever they like, without having to prove it.

If true, can they not see how that would look if they get drawn together? Do they care?

If the Connor Gallagher rumours resurface, then you know what you've got to do.

It did feel like the only reason for our interest to be leaked was as a bargaining chip. I blame Jack27

Yeah, I agree. That rivalry is in the blood, and you can't switch it off to be a rival of someone else or else football dies a bit.

Fight! Fight! Fight!

Well, completely new frog avatared member, what do you think of all the cost cutting stuff? (I've no idea why both this and putting new skylights into the training ground offices were the main story on the Times sports pages today btw) On the one hand, I think taking out unnecessary back office waste always has to be a good thing. You can question the way he's doing it maybe, but not the general idea. But then, we had an owner like that and it turns out he ran our club like any of his other businesses, without understanding the sport at all and look where that went. Initially, I was fully supportive of him driving hard bargains and cutting out unnecessary stuff too. If he does that on the football side too though, that's a worry. But not for me obviously . Basically, are you worried he is just another Glazer? If he's prepared to leave the football side well alone to people that do know that side of it fair enough. But in which case, why attempt to penny pinch for months over Ashworth whom he surely needs? Time will tell if he can keep his hands off once they're in place, because to me there are a few things he's not showing the best judgement on in his public utterances.

No, but they finished 10th, and might think they could sneak 8th one year. It's the only reason I can think a few mid table clubs might like the idea or vote for it.

Yeah, I read earlier that Man U are confident that by Ratcliffe removing himself from the Nice board the issue gets settled. I'm not fussed either way, since as has been pointed out, it just means them and Chelsea swap competitions. Was thinking earlier about Villa's proposal to raise FFP limits for European teams, and why Palace might be for it. All I could guess is they'll be thinking that if English teams do better in Europe next season, there would be an extra European place for the PL next time, which they or another mildly ambitious team might have the chance to get. I still think it's a worse idea than just raising the FFP limit for everyone. That way also, promoted teams might have slightly more of a chance. Which itself is a worse idea than just scrapping the whole fandango and starting again.

Whenever a deal is reported as close, but then it isn't essentially done and other rumours emerge, there's a feeling you are being used as a bargaining chip. Who would have leaked it? Doubt it would be us. Can't see why Fulham would either, since he's off on a free. Could be wrong and usually am.

Under managers both teams have dumped, or are likely to, to be fair. I do get why a player waits for all offers though and joins for his own reasons, of course. If those reasons for joining us aren't good enough, then qué sera.

That's how I'm reading it based purely on that tweet, and also assuming it's right. Happy to be corrected. But in short to your question, in my personal opinion no. Edit - sorry, I should take this to the FFP thread, but agree we need a RW.

Sorry if answered elsewhere. Let's say you're at exactly your FFP limit now to the penny, so you need to sell to buy. That year runs to 30 June for all clubs. When you sell a player, all that income comes in the year, on the exact day, you sell them. So if you sell a player on 30 June, that income counts this year. But you sell on 1 July, it counts next year. Buying is different. You buy a player for £30m on a 5 year contract, and they cost you £6m per year, is how we're used to seeing it. What he's saying is, the cost is actually spread day by day depending on when you make the signing. So, on 30 June that £6m a year doesn't hit all in this year. Only one day's worth does. Leading to the ridiculous situation that you could sell one player for £30m on 30 June, and buy 365 other players at £30m each on the exact same day, and it would make no difference to this year alone from an FFP point of view. Or just buy one £10.9 billion player. You'd be stuffed next year, but there you go. If true, so many ways this could be exploited, so up to and near to 30 June becomes critical, particularly in terms of sales. Looking forward to Jim White getting his transfer clobber on to celebrate Sky Accountancy Deadline Day on 30 June.

Man U deserved it today, in fairness.

I'll start. Bloody Eddie Howe not phoning Pep yet