PIF and RB Sports & Media

[Jackie Broon]

On 06/05/2022 at 13:28, nbthree3 said:

 

 

Update on the application: It all seemed to be going swimmingly, until yesterday when comments came in from the Council’s ecology and landscape officers.

 

There is the potential for a bat roost within the buildings and surveys will need to be carried out to check for bats. The ecological impact assessment submitted by the architect actually recommends that the surveys are needed, but it seems that they haven’t been carried out and submitted with the application. That’s a frustratingly common oversight, I suspect most architects/agents don't actually read those reports before submitting them.

 

There are also a couple of trees that will need to be removed to make way for the extensions but the architect has not submitted a tree survey, that will need to be done, submitted and assessed. Another frustratingly common oversight.

 

There has also been Japanese Knotweed identified in the area of the extensions and further survey work and a remediation scheme will be needed for that, which will probably be conditioned but with a pre-commencement condition. Which will result in needing to make a discharge of conditions application before starting.

 

Very unlikely they’re going to be able to start this summer now. If a bat roost is identified it isn't necessarily terminal to the application, but would at least delay things further if it would be disturbed, which would require a licence from Natural England.

 

 

Edited May 24, 2022 by Jackie Broon

[Wilson]

Sounds like they've went in blind. 

[madras]

13 minutes ago, Wilson said:

Sounds like they've went in blind. 

So nar then ?

[Ben]

Is this sort of investment ok ? Can the Saudis just pump money in as Capital Investment ? Or does the Top 6 have different rules ? 

[bowlingcrofty]

They can pump in as much capital as they like, but from a FFP point of view they can only have £105m losses over three years - so they have to pick and choose what they spend it on etc.

[Keegans Export]

19 minutes ago, Ben said:

Is this sort of investment ok ? Can the Saudis just pump money in as Capital Investment ? Or does the Top 6 have different rules ? 

Yeah they can, that in itself isn't against the rules as long as its covered by income (which it will be due to them being in the CL next season)

 

FFP is just a stripped down version of profit & loss and capital investment doesn't count as income so they can't just pump money in and say "Look, we made an extra £150m!"

[Guest]

FFP is shite like. If this had been around from the start of the PL era then Blackburn wouldn’t have happened, the Keegan era wouldn’t have happened, Chelsea & Man City wouldn’t have happened to the extent it did. The champions for the last 30 years would likely have just been Man U, Arsenal & Liverpool. Get to fuck. If an owner wants to pump their own cash in then they should be allowed. It’s the opposite they should be clamping down on, ie, owners taking money out of it.

[Gaztoon]

4 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

FFP is shite like. If this had been around from the start of the PL era then Blackburn wouldn’t have happened, the Keegan era wouldn’t have happened, Chelsea & Man City wouldn’t have happened to the extent it did. The champions for the last 30 years would likely have just been Man U, Arsenal & Liverpool. Get to fuck. If an owner wants to pump their own cash in then they should be allowed. It’s the opposite they should be clamping down on, ie, owners taking money out of it.

 

Totally agree 

 

 

[Kid Icarus]

7 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Update on the application: It all seemed to be going swimmingly, until yesterday when comments came in from the Council’s ecology and landscape officers.

 

There is the potential for a bat roost within the buildings and surveys will need to be carried out to check for bats. The ecological impact assessment submitted by the architect actually recommends that the surveys are needed, but it seems that they haven’t been carried out and submitted with the application. That’s a frustratingly common oversight, I suspect most architects/agents don't actually read those reports before submitting them.

 

There are also a couple of trees that will need to be removed to make way for the extensions but the architect has not submitted a tree survey, that will need to be done, submitted and assessed. Another frustratingly common oversight.

 

There has also been Japanese Knotweed identified in the area of the extensions and further survey work and a remediation scheme will be needed for that, which will probably be conditioned but with a pre-commencement condition. Which will result in needing to make a discharge of conditions application before starting.

 

Very unlikely they’re going to be able to start this summer now. If a bat roost is identified it isn't necessarily terminal to the application, but would at least delay things further if it would be disturbed, which would require a licence from Natural England.

 

 

 

 

Me and my lass were part of the bat survey before Spanish City was upgraded and I think it delayed things by about a month IIRC.

[Gaztoon]

Feck FFP anyway, budget for the fine and blow everyone out the water.

[FloydianMag]

3 minutes ago, Gaztoon said:

Feck FFP anyway, budget for the fine and blow everyone out the water.

Fines aren’t the problem though, points deductions for breach of FFP are and the PL would use points deductions against us if we breached FFP.

[NE27]

2 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Fines aren’t the problem though, points deductions for breach of FFP are and the PL would use points deductions against us if we breached FFP.

 

Have they done it to anyone as of yet?

[Guest]

Even if the PL didn’t, UEFA will bar us from European competition.

[Sima]

1 minute ago, Optimistic Nut said:

Even if the PL didn’t, UEFA will bar us from European competition.

 

When that has happened to other clubs  it's been knocked back as soon as it has went to the CAS.

[Gaztoon]

I don't know the ins and outs of this FFP.

 

But could it be classed as a restriction of trade ?

[FloydianMag]

43 minutes ago, NE27 said:

 

Have they done it to anyone as of yet?

No, you just know they’d enjoy implementing a points deduction if we breached FFP

[FloydianMag]

5 minutes ago, Gaztoon said:

I don't know the ins and outs of this FFP.

 

But could it be classed as a restriction of trade ?

Some legal people believe it is a restriction on trade. Needs to be tested in court. Arguably transfer windows could be deemed the same.

[The Prophet]

1 hour ago, Optimistic Nut said:

FFP is shite like. If this had been around from the start of the PL era then Blackburn wouldn’t have happened, the Keegan era wouldn’t have happened, Chelsea & Man City wouldn’t have happened to the extent it did. The champions for the last 30 years would likely have just been Man U, Arsenal & Liverpool. Get to fuck. If an owner wants to pump their own cash in then they should be allowed. It’s the opposite they should be clamping down on, ie, owners taking money out of it.

 

Absolutely, that's the whole point too. It's yet another way that the league has tried to pull the ladder up on the sly, championing it as fairness.

[Gaztoon]

3 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Some legal people believe it is a restriction on trade. Needs to be tested in court. Arguably transfer windows could be deemed the same.

 

Thats why they will never give points deductions.

 

It would last two mins in court

[gbandit]

1 hour ago, Optimistic Nut said:

FFP is shite like. If this had been around from the start of the PL era then Blackburn wouldn’t have happened, the Keegan era wouldn’t have happened, Chelsea & Man City wouldn’t have happened to the extent it did. The champions for the last 30 years would likely have just been Man U, Arsenal & Liverpool. Get to fuck. If an owner wants to pump their own cash in then they should be allowed. It’s the opposite they should be clamping down on, ie, owners taking money out of it.

I get your point that big money has brought with it some amazing teams and eras, and that in theory clubs being able to spend what they want can level the playing field. However it creates a broken system where clubs are in huge amounts of debt and their owners (Abramovich aside due to sanctions) won’t sell unless they get a profit and the new owner takes on the debt. The bigger and bigger you stack that system the more likely it’ll come crashing down and clubs will go out of business when they aren’t getting bankrolled anymore. We’re entering a period of big inflation so clubs with large debts are going to be even more screwed. That’s fine as long as an owner doesn’t mind major losses but we know that the vast majority are in it for money 

[The Prophet]

2 minutes ago, gbandit said:

I get your point that big money has brought with it some amazing teams and eras, and that in theory clubs being able to spend what they want can level the playing field. However it creates a broken system where clubs are in huge amounts of debt and their owners (Abramovich aside due to sanctions) won’t sell unless they get a profit and the new owner takes on the debt. The bigger and bigger you stack that system the more likely it’ll come crashing down and clubs will go out of business when they aren’t getting bankrolled anymore. We’re entering a period of big inflation so clubs with large debts are going to be even more screwed. That’s fine as long as an owner doesn’t mind major losses but we know that the vast majority are in it for money 

 

It hasn't prevented clubs racking up massive debts though. It just puts a limit on player purchasing power.

 

Hand in hand with the limits on club sponsorship, it's pretty obvious what they're trying to achieve.

[gbandit]

Just now, The Prophet said:

 

It hasn't prevented clubs racking up massive debts though. It just puts a limit on player purchasing power.

 

Hand in hand with the limits on club sponsorship, it's pretty obvious what they're trying to achieve.

I agree, the current situation is massively flawed and it has done the opposite of what was intended. However, I don’t think letting clubs spend whatever they want is a perfect solution either if the owners don’t have to deal with the risk by offloading it onto the club and siphoning cash off 

[r0cafella]

2 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

It hasn't prevented clubs racking up massive debts though. It just puts a limit on player purchasing power.

 

Hand in hand with the limits on club sponsorship, it's pretty obvious what they're trying to achieve.

Oh, if it’s ever challenged then it’s the end of FFP. But let’s be honest here the other clubs owners (Villa being the exception)aren’t ambitious and are just happy to ride on the gravy train. 

[The Prophet]

Aye, it's essentially:

 

"Don't spend too much on players, it's for your own good."

 

"Oh you want to increase your revenue so that you can afford those players, we need to watch that for the integrity of the league." 

 

"Ah, that lesser known club is subject to a leveraged buyout that threatens their future aa a club, that's fine."

[Keegans Export]

Even worse - it's not even called "Financial Fair Play" any more. At least not in the PL. It's "Profit and Sustainability".

 

Now, what's sustainable about Burnley being bought using money owed to the creditors...from Burnley FC? And a huge chunk of that payable when they get relegated and are at their most vulnerable position financially? What's profitable about Spurs' £700m debt on <£400m revenue? Or Manchester United making a £90m loss and owing over half a billion pounds to its own creditors?

 

It's a flawed system because there's no way that controls spending that doesn't create a closed shop consisting of the teams who got in there before the rules changed (Chelsea and Man City most recently) and there's no way to stop clubs spending beyond their means that doesn't limit/control what the clubs can and can't spend. The problem is, the current rules clearly don't work because clubs are still laden with debt and still incredibly vulnerable to any drop in income eg. via relegation.