Bompeter

Can’t get the link to work but is it CFG’s massive Barclays deal? That was for infrastructure spending across their City Football Group and wasn’t secured against the TV revenue. It’s also a decade in to the Abu Dhabi project when they have extremely mature revenue streams. Very different deal commercially to our short-term debt financing secured against TV revenue.

I’m sorry, this is incorrect and misunderstands accounting and how it interacts with FFP rules. Of course spending financed by the owners now could be ‘offset’ by future TV (and other commercial) revenue. Let’s say we plan to spend £x amount of future TV income now - we can do that by selling off the rights to that revenue in return for external debt financing, or we could do that by the owners fronting the cash. The FFP impact of either scenario is identical. And you’re right that it’s common practice - not for clubs owned by wealthy states though.

No-one is suggesting we should be going bananas with spending. My point is - and I’m not sure how else to phrase it at this point - is that this transaction with HSBC has nothing to do with navigating FFP rules. It doesn’t impact our reported revenue in any way. It’s purely and exclusively a cash flow move - the club doesn’t have sufficient cash on its books currently, and the owners aren’t able or willing to inject sufficient cash to cover planned operations, so the club has taken out a loan instead. That’s it.

This doesn’t bring forward the recognition of TV revenue into the P&L. I think that’s the mistake you’re making. This transaction will have no impact on the income we report in our financial statements, which is why it’s not relevant to FFP

No, the origin of revenue matters for FFP. Not cash. The raising of finance (whether it’s from the owners or externally) doesn’t touch revenue.

No, you’re completely wrong. Whether the club raises £50m/£100m/£100bn from an owner’s injection of capital, or from the raising of external debt, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever for FFP purposes. Again - if you spend £100m of owner’s money, or £100m of HSBC’s money, they’re both treated exactly the same for FFP purposes. This transaction has nothing to do with FFP or related party rules - it just doesn’t, soz.

Owner’s directly injecting cash into the club isn’t a related party transaction and wouldn’t need approval from the PL. PIF could put a billion into the club and it wouldn’t have anything to do with FFP (actually spending that amount and incurring the subsequent amortisation obviously would though). But there are no limitations on equity injections. Basically, there’s no reason to do this if PIF were willing to put (more) cash into the club. If you think that’s a desirable or undesirable thing is everyone’s own personal opinion.

Guessing about what - that we aren’t being bankrolled by the Saudis? Not really. If we were the club wouldn’t be raising external debt secured against future TV revenue, and needlessly incurring more interest costs as a result.

I just think if we’re going to suffer the reputational damage of being associated with the Saudis, the least they could do is bankroll us and not quibble over £20m here or there given how profligate they are in other areas (e.g. golf). Instead the club is forced into raising external debt?

Related party transactions relate to revenue or expenditure earned/levied by related parties, not the injection of capital.

There’s no FFP element here. It doesn’t distinguish between finance raised externally or finance raised via the owners.

What are you even on about man? What’s your actual disagreement with what I’ve posted?

This suggests we really aren’t being bankrolled by the Saudis in any way. Pretty disappointing. I’d love to know what exactly the funding agreement is between PIF and the minority owners.

Awful from Burn.

Cretinous from Joelinton to be honest.

Lovely cushioned backpass from Wood. So calm under pressure.

Found his level at League 2. Get rid ASAP. PS enjoying your nervous breakdown 25 minutes into a friendly xxx

Different camera heights

Get us on that Team Sky nutritional plan, will help with the high press.

What has Howe said or done that makes you ”pretty sure” he’d be happy to sell him?

MediaFoot is complete bollocks. It’s basically a Marseille fan blog that farms for clicks.

Draxler is an Everton/Hamez type signing - big name, been shite for ages, big European club looking to get rid with very few takers Not that it’s going to happen, but I’d be very confident he’d be crap for us if it did.

Dogbrain logic. So if you’re a wide forward and haven’t been the subject of a transfer bid from Spurs or Chelsea you’re not ‘quality’? Deary me.

Has to be questioning whether he can get sufficient game time given he only... *checks notes*... started almost every single game he was available for under Howe, including the last 9 games of the season.

“so are you trying to say [something completely different to what you were actually saying]???