Other clubs' transfers

[midds]

1 minute ago, STM said:

Out of interest, which clubs aren't sticking to FFP?

Everton are the obvious example. Their 'covid losses' were ridiculous. 

[LionOfGosforth]

I think maybe it's more that a lot of clubs are finding ways around it, than flat out ignoring it. Everton and their bollocks covid lies. Barcelona with their selling of TV rights, Man City and their weird sponsorships etc.

 

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by LionOfGosforth

[Manxst]

2 minutes ago, STM said:

Out of interest, which clubs aren't sticking to FFP?

Man City for one- still under investigation for various things including false sponsorship payments

[black_n_white]

We spent over 90 million in January, not an expert in FFP but I’m guessing spending all that plus what we’ve already spent this summer with no outgoing transfers for money hasn’t helped, plus lack of a high end sponsorship deal?

 

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by black_n_white

[Manxst]

1 minute ago, black_n_white said:

We spent over 90 million in January, not an expert in FFP but I’m guessing spending all that plus what we’ve already spent this summer with no outgoing transfers for money hasn’t helped?

We’re still well within ffp limitations due to how Ashley ran the club. We just don’t seem to want to splash lots at the current time due to then not being able to spend lots again in the future under our current sponsorship income. Once sponsorship improves to match the top clubs, we’ll be able to have more leeway for transfers, but it seems we’ll have to wait until next year for that.

[STM]

Everton are fucked and are having to sell their best players in order to make a few shite signings.

 

Chelsea got caught up and prevented from signing players 2 seasons ago.

 

I haven't looked closely at Man City's spending this window but it looks as though they haven't spent much; sold Sterling, Zinchenko and Phillips.

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative, it just seems as though the "big six" spend alot of money because they have huge commercial income, combined with regular champions league football. They aren't playing the same FFP game as us.

 

Meanwhile the likes of Villa and Leeds are spending money because they sold players.

 

We've spent 150m and are likely to spend more and we have neither the commercial deals or the players to sell at this stage.

[wfmk2]

I reckon we're keeping the powder dry until we get a bluechip Saudi sponsor on our shirts and then we'll go fucking banzai, particularly if it's that new Saudi airline that's been mooted. 

[Manxst]

4 minutes ago, STM said:

Everton are fucked and are having to sell their best players in order to make a few shite signings.

 

Chelsea got caught up and prevented from signing players 2 seasons ago.

 

I haven't looked closely at Man City's spending this window but it looks as though they haven't spent much; sold Sterling, Zinchenko and Phillips.

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative, it just seems as though the "big six" spend alot of money because they have huge commercial income, combined with regular champions league football. They aren't playing the same FFP game as us.

 

Meanwhile the likes of Villa and Leeds are spending money because they sold players.

 

We've spent 150m and are likely to spend more and we have neither the commercial deals or the players to sell at this stage.

Man City have bought over £100m with Haaland and Philips, although, as you say, they’ve sold Sterling and Zinchenko too. 
 

we have spent our cash, but are still well within what we can and (are allowed to) spend, due to the relative thrift we’ve had in previous years. 
 

you’re right though, in that the top clubs spend what seems like a disproportionately excessive amount due purely to the huge sponsorship and commercial deals they have- far above the likes of us as it currently stands. Hopefully this will be rectified next year. 

[STM]

2 minutes ago, Manxst said:

Man City have bought over £100m with Haaland and Philips, although, as you say, they’ve sold Sterling and Zinchenko too. 
 

we have spent our cash, but are still well within what we can and (are allowed to) spend, due to the relative thrift we’ve had in previous years. 
 

you’re right though, in that the top clubs spend what seems like a disproportionately excessive amount due purely to the huge sponsorship and commercial deals they have- far above the likes of us as it currently stands. Hopefully this will be rectified next year. 

 

Yeah that's why I'm not getting worked up. The eyes of the league are on our spending right now. They would love nothing better than preventing us from spending by us getting in trouble with FFP. Let's go under the radar and let Eales work his magic for the next 12 months. Next summer will be a different game.

 

In 12 months we will have a set of squad players who will look remotely attractive to other clubs. Resigning Schar and Longstaff might look a masterstroke when we add x amount to our kitty.

[Mikky]

Levi Colwill to Brighton is such a clever signing 

[TRon]

32 minutes ago, midds said:

Sticking rigidly to FFP when other clubs are casually giving it the V's as they ride by laughing at it is going to get annoying sooner or later. Other clubs don't give the first fuck about it, why do we? 

 

Doing things by the book is admirable. And it'll also take us twice as long to get where we want to be.  

 

Other clubs won't get nailed to the wall if they find ways round FFP, we absolutely will.

[midds]

8 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

Other clubs won't get nailed to the wall if they find ways round FFP, we absolutely will.

In which case the lawyers take over and look for inconsistencies in the interpretation and applications of the rules. Let's see how that plays out

[Stifler]

31 minutes ago, STM said:

Everton are fucked and are having to sell their best players in order to make a few shite signings.

 

Chelsea got caught up and prevented from signing players 2 seasons ago.

 

I haven't looked closely at Man City's spending this window but it looks as though they haven't spent much; sold Sterling, Zinchenko and Phillips.

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative, it just seems as though the "big six" spend alot of money because they have huge commercial income, combined with regular champions league football. They aren't playing the same FFP game as us.

 

Meanwhile the likes of Villa and Leeds are spending money because they sold players.

 

We've spent 150m and are likely to spend more and we have neither the commercial deals or the players to sell at this stage.

Chelsea got banned from signing players because they were tapping up players and looking to sign them before they legally could, it had nothing to do with FFP.

[STM]

Just now, Stifler said:

Chelsea got banned from signing players because they were tapping up players and looking to sign them before they legally could, it had nothing to do with FFP.

Ah didn't know that. Interesting.

[STM]

4 minutes ago, midds said:

In which case the lawyers take over and look for inconsistencies in the interpretation and applications of the rules. Let's see how that plays out

TBF, we have just hired lawyers, almost certainly for this purpose.

[triggs]

45 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Man City almost certainly aren't 

Aye they only got away with it because of a technicality 

[Manxst]

4 minutes ago, Stifler said:

Chelsea got banned from signing players because they were tapping up players and looking to sign them before they legally could, it had nothing to do with FFP.

They also got warned by UEFA regarding over inflated sponsorship deals…

[Manxst]

2 minutes ago, triggs said:

Aye they only got away with it because of a technicality 

They’re still under investigation by some agencies (including the PL?) I believe? 

[BeloEmre]

 

[jack j]

Haha love owt like that

[et tu brute]

1 minute ago, BeloEmre said:

 

Just backs up what I've been saying the whole window, don't take any media/journalist reports as gospel, as nearly all of it is clickbait guesswork.

[jack j]

But Fabrizio here we go said so

[et tu brute]

1 minute ago, jack j said:

But Fabrizio here we go said so

Most of his info usually comes out just after someone else has reported it. 

 

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by et tu brute

[Manxst]

this is why I don’t get people saying wiping Chelsea’s debt shouldn’t have any bearing on their ffp:

 

“Chelsea's Premier League rivals are questioning whether owner Roman Abramovich can act on his promise to write off the club's £1.5bn debt without breaking profit and sustainability rules.

Chelsea have been clear that he can but some clubs want the issue investigated, which could ultimately lead to a points deduction or the debt having to be repaid, complicating an already-complex transaction. The Premier League board would ultimately make the decision whether to charge the club.

 

The Premier League's Profit and Sustainability rules are its version of UEFA's Financial Fair Play rules, though far more generous.

 

Premier League clubs can make losses of £105m over three years if the owners guarantee £90m worth of secure funding. But anything greater than that is subject to disciplinary action, which can results in a points penalty.

Leading football QC Nick De Marco, who acted for Newcastle United in the Saudi takeover, believes that the Premier League may have to take action, just as the English Football League did when QPR's owners tried to write off a much smaller debt to get round the Football League's Financial Fair Play rules. QPR ended paying a £20m in fines and legal costs.

Under current Premier League rules, the owners are only allowed to put in £90m over three years and anything in excess of that is treated as a debt. So, if Chelsea's owner had written off the £1.5bn debt it would likely then become a £1.5bn debt for Profit and Sustainability accounting purposes. 
 

De Marco said: 'It may not be treated as debt for the purposes of an annual return under UEFA's Financial Fair Play or the Premier League's Profit and Sustainability rules. And large parts of the debt was entered into before Premier League or UEFA rules existed.

'If a club normally had a debt of £1.5bn it would obviously be in significant breach of those rules, and likely be subject to a substantial points deduction.

'However, what is the accounting treatment of writing off that debt? This was a direct issue in the QPR Financial Fair Play case.

 

'It was a different set of rules [EFL] and circumstances but when QPR were charged, the owners said: "We will write off the £60m shareholders debt. And that will then improve the accounts, so the club won’t be in breach." The Football League looked at that and had expert accounting advice which said that if you do that, that’s treated as an equity contribution by the owner. In other words, the owner putting in £60m in that year.

 

'Under current Premier League rules, the owners are only allowed to put in £90m over three years and anything in excess of that is treated as a debt. So, if Chelsea’s owner had written off the £1.5bn debt it would likely then become a £1.5bn debt for Profit and Sustainability accounting purposes.

 

‘Things are made more complicated by the government sanctions, which are likely to mean Roman Abramovich can neither write off the debt or be paid it. Unless the government relaxes the sanctions, anyone who buys Chelsea isn’t allowed to pay back the debt to Roman Abramovich. 

'But if that means that Chelsea gets an unfair advantage under the Profit and Sustainability rules because of government sanctions, it’s still an unfair advantage.

‘The fact that the debt can't be paid back is a defence Chelsea might run in any charge were forthcoming. Maybe the Premier League will say you have to pay the £1.5bn back but it's legally impossible to pay it to Abramovich so you're going to have to set up a charity or foundation or pay it that way, so that neither Abramovich nor the club get the benefit.”
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10631815/amp/Chelseas-rivals-question-Roman-Abramovich-write-debt-without-breaking-rules.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The College Dropout]

34 minutes ago, Mikky said:

Levi Colwill to Brighton is such a clever signing 

Buy back clause.