PIF and RB Sports & Media

[JonBez comesock]

As someone mentioned above , does this mean (no new training grounds for anyone / no new stadiums for anyone) ? 
 

They can’t just suddenly include the infrastructure into FFP ?? …Tottenham have just spent 800 million on their stadium ? 

 

 

[The Bonk]

We’re going to be fine, we are not the operation we were under Ashley and will have advisers on every aspect of the clubs business. Our owners yield influence over a good portion of the world’s economy, have resources far more intelligent that anyone employed in football’s governing bodies.

 

Let the cunts move the goalposts, we’re coming for the top 6 regardless. 

[Decky]

So are Man Utd completely fucked after they build their new training ground and stadium? Can’t wait to see what loophole is put in to help them.

[LV]

4 minutes ago, Decky said:

So are Man Utd completely fucked after they build their new training ground and stadium? Can’t wait to see what loophole is put in to help them.

‘Heritage’ clubs don’t count. 

[Fantail Breeze]

2 hours ago, Miggys First Goal said:

Need to start fiddling the books already. Better find a good accountant. 

 

There’s one on RTG.

[NE27]

4 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

There’s one on RTG.

 

Plenty who can fiddle on RTG.

[McCormick]

32 minutes ago, LV said:

‘Heritage’ clubs don’t count. 

  just have to laugh, really. Criminal stuff.

[Abacus]

I hope we do challenge this legally. How can they just come up with this rubbish?

 

Although, they do seem to say it's OK if people put equity in (which our owners have already done once).

 

But, leaving that aside, just imagine if you took out the infrastructure bit and just said that spending to develop the women's team was to be restricted. The reaction would be immense.

[Decky]

Wonder could we just break it a couple of times. 

[Jackie Broon]

My, very much layman's, understanding is that infrastructure spending isn't actually specifically exempt from FFP. It's just that it is capital expenditure on physical assets and so doesn't affect profit/loss. Only youth, community and women's football spending is actually exempt.

[Abacus]

I thought Chelsea's new owners were required to spend over a billion on infrastructure (new stadium, mainly) as part of the takeover.

 

Not sure they'd look at it too favourably either if that's the case.

[leffe186]

5 hours ago, Kid Icarus said:

FWIW, I don't think this will stop Newcastle at all, because the double edge sword of the whole money and power thing is that Newcastle have the most money and will be able to weild the most power as a result. Then that monopoly at the top will essentially start whinging about how it was only okay to act in this way when they were doing it and now that it's being done to them it's unfair. With most of these things, they've created their own eventual downfall.  

This is it, tbh. I don’t think it will stop Newcastle at all. Might conceivably slow things down a touch, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing either. Lest we forget, it essentially took Spurs 18 years to get to this point - let’s say 15 accounting for COVID. You might not even need 3.

 

It definitely makes things harder for the next tier though. Probably the one other  team with the immediate potential to break through would be West Ham with their big cheap stadium and the subsequent potential for matchday income. It puts Everton in all kinds of trouble, and possibly Chelsea too - although they have an ongoing strategy of buying loads of players, shunting them out on loan, then making money on transfers which will help.

 

Leaves Arsenal in a precarious position too, possibly. Their continued high spending despite poor league position would be even less sustainable under this regime. They do still have the global profile that might bail them out.

[Happinesstan]

6 hours ago, Jack27 said:

When is regulation too much? Because on the face of it, this feels like too much 

Normally when it affects you directly.

[Cookie1892]

heres one, could we just go for it, get a massive fine, pay it because we can, then just include that fine in the next set of accounts which will show as a massive loss and then essentially do it again

 

and also the fines come from prize money, i dont think we would actually care if the sponsorships and exposure that follow actually ever winning anything (IF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) will be worth much much more than the fine in theory

 

 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Cookie1892

[Happinesstan]

1 minute ago, Cookie1892 said:

heres one, could we just go for it, get a massive fine, pay it because we can, then just include that fine in the next set of accounts which will show as a massive loss and then essentially do it again

As long as we're prepared to pay those bribes fines, we'll be alright.

[Gaztoon]

Lionel hutz would get this thrown out of court..

[Abacus]

40 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

My, very much layman's, understanding is that infrastructure spending isn't actually specifically exempt from FFP. It's just that it is capital expenditure on physical assets and so doesn't affect profit/loss. Only youth, community and women's football spending is actually exempt.

I believe it would, I'm afraid.

 

If you build a new stadium, you don't account for the cost all in year 1 - you spread the cost over multiple years. But it still hits your P&L, every year. A bit like player transfer fees, just over a longer period.

 

But in the case of a stadium, it would count as infrastructure costs, and the annual cost could be excluded from FFP.

 

FFP used to be all about limiting player transfer spend and wages. It explicitly said other costs were excluded because they didn't want to discourage worthwhile long term investment.

 

Interestingly though, with FFP version 1, if a player had already been signed on a big contract before those rules came in, the costs for those players that had already been signed were excluded too.

 

What's the betting there is a similar exemption for any current big clubs who have already spent a fortune on new stadiums (and already earn more income as a result)?

 

If you were suspiciously minded, it might seem like a double pincer movement. First limit income and sponsorships, then restrict what can be spent building your club, so it's even harder to make more income organically too. 

 

Anyone would think it feels like a blatant stitch up, and might wonder what has caused it to be introduced all of a sudden...

[Unbelievable]

4 hours ago, JonBez comesock said:

As someone mentioned above , does this mean (no new training grounds for anyone / no new stadiums for anyone) ? 
 

They can’t just suddenly include the infrastructure into FFP ?? …Tottenham have just spent 800 million on their stadium ? 

 

 

if we build our own 800m stadium in 2024 our FFP hit will be the same as theirs, i.e. for let’s say 10 million per year over a 80 year period.

 

I frankly don’t see a good reason why you would want to excempt infrastructure costs if the objective was to ensure clubs don’t overspend and put themselves in financial peril.

[Guest]

This will surely hit Spurs since they took out £600m in loans to build the stadium?

[xLiaaamx]

Do we even need to own the new training ground ourselves as a club? Could we not just use another company and lease it cheap? 

[Ben]

The UK government bought West Ham a stadium we'll just get the Saudis to buy ours 

[madras]

34 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

This will surely hit Spurs since they took out £600m in loans to build the stadium?

It won't be backdated man. It'll only start from whenever we look to do it.

[Dokko]

PIF loans us £400m interest free for stadium, training and other infra projects. We pay if back over 100 years. WTF they gonna do about it?

 

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Dokko

[midds]

Looks as if the cartel have written a new set of rules to directly and specifically prevent the challenge that we pose. How fucking rattled are they? 

 

Still maintain that we need to sign the deals asap and argue about it later in a court of law. Fuck it, they're not even pretending to be fair any longer. How can they say that the owners of a club can only invest a certain amount in their club? On what fucking planet does that happen man? "No, no, stop!! Stop investing all of that money into your club that you've bought, that's not allowed, you might become better than us!!" It's as transparent as it is fucking pathetic. They're scared shitless the petty, little fucking wankers.

[Scoot]

9 minutes ago, midds said:

Looks as if the cartel have written a new set of rules to directly and specifically prevent the challenge that we pose. How fucking rattled are they? 

 

Still maintain that we need to sign the deals asap and argue about it later in a court of law. Fuck it, they're not even pretending to be fair any longer. How can they say that the owners of a club can only invest a certain amount in their club? On what fucking planet does that happen man? "No, no, stop!! Stop investing all of that money into your club that you've bought, that's not allowed, you might become better than us!!" It's as transparent as it is fucking pathetic. They're scared shitless the petty, little fucking wankers.

 

Spot on this. Just go for it and tell the cunts we'll see them in court!