PIF and RB Sports & Media

[Groundhog63]

8 hours ago, FloydianMag said:

Article by Jason Burt in the Telegraph this morning……..behind a paywall?‍♂️

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/01/12/footballs-spending-rules-widening-gulf-between-have-nots/

 

"The flip side of this is also a worry because neither do we want all our clubs being owned by states, oligarchs and US hedge funds. A personal view is they should be community assets and that should be enshrined in some way with an element of fan ownership. But that horse has bolted."

 

Yeah, reeto, I'll do a quick Google over his full career and see how many times he's suggested that particular unicorn

[Matt1892]

The two things I would support is a is a luxury tax, where if rich owners want to spend more than the cap on transfers then they would need to pay a tax on the overspend which could be distributed evenly for academy spend between the 72 league clubs outside of the Premier League. That would support the continued development of youth players in this country.

 

I would also look at a salary cap, not on individual players but on the whole squad and that cash amount would be the same for the entire league.

 

 

[christ]

47 minutes ago, Groundhog63 said:

 

"The flip side of this is also a worry because neither do we want all our clubs being owned by states, oligarchs and US hedge funds. A personal view is they should be community assets and that should be enshrined in some way with an element of fan ownership. But that horse has bolted."

 

Yeah, reeto, I'll do a quick Google over his full career and see how many times he's suggested that particular unicorn

In fairness to him that’s not a particularly unusual position. It’s what I want.

[FloydianMag]

46 minutes ago, Groundhog63 said:

 

"The flip side of this is also a worry because neither do we want all our clubs being owned by states, oligarchs and US hedge funds. A personal view is they should be community assets and that should be enshrined in some way with an element of fan ownership. But that horse has bolted."

 

Yeah, reeto, I'll do a quick Google over his full career and see how many times he's suggested that particular unicorn

Fan ownership in the Bundesliga isn’t all that it’s made out to be, major German companies are deeply involved in the financing of the clubs, yes they have some say but I’d bet those funding the clubs get their own way nine out of ten times.

[Whitley mag]

I wouldn’t be surprised if a challenge to FFP was on the horizon, it all seems very deliberate from the club this week. Throw in recent articles from the likes of NDM around the anti competitive nature of FFP and I’d guess where there’s lawyers pushing this, somebody will eventually take the rule makers on in the courts.

 

In the short term I think the club is playing sponsorship correctly and I’ve got no doubt if they wanted a training gear or ground sponsor it would be done by now.

 

There’s a method here though and they’re drip feeding the sponsorship deals correctly to maximise revenues across the next few seasons.

 

Short term heavy investment in the youth academy and smarter transfer dealings than last summer will help us be competitive.

 

 

Edited January 13 by Whitley mag

[Nucasol]

Those highly altruistic Sinister Six clubs at it again - delaying agreement of new distribution to the 72 EFL deal because they’re pissed Amazon or Apple didn’t pay more for the PL tv rights. But they’re trying to help these clubs with FFP right? Right?

 

https://x.com/kieranmaguire/status/1745975627277124080?s=46&t=ODCi93Jpx6PQfubREKUtbA

 

[FloydianMag]

43 minutes ago, Nucasol said:

Those highly altruistic Sinister Six clubs at it again - delaying agreement of new distribution to the 72 EFL deal because they’re pissed Amazon or Apple didn’t pay more for the PL tv rights. But they’re trying to help these clubs with FFP right? Right?

 

https://x.com/kieranmaguire/status/1745975627277124080?s=46&t=ODCi93Jpx6PQfubREKUtbA

 

There appears to be a concerted effort to expose the cartel clubs for what they are…….a pack of self serving greedy cunts.

[Abacus]

51 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

I wouldn’t be surprised if a challenge to FFP was on the horizon, it all seems very deliberate from the club this week. Throw in recent articles from the likes of NDM around the anti competitive nature of FFP and I’d guess where there’s lawyers pushing this, somebody will eventually take the rule makers on in the courts.

 

In the short term I think the club is playing sponsorship correctly and I’ve got no doubt if they wanted a training gear or ground sponsor it would be done by now.

 

There’s a method here though and they’re drip feeding the sponsorship deals correctly to maximise revenues across the next few seasons.

 

Short term heavy investment in the youth academy and smarter transfer dealings than last summer will help us be competitive.

 

 

 

I also think that any challenge could be done alongside other clubs with the same issue. Say, Everton, Forest, even City (as it might get them out of a hole). 

 

Villa too - if they qualify for the CL, they'll find themselves in the exact same position as us this year. Suddenly unable to invest to a level that makes them unable to compete and vulnerable to having their players / manager picked off by the same old clubs.

[PCW1983]

Does the acceptable losses under PSR ever go up?  
 

[r0cafella]

8 minutes ago, PCW1983 said:

Does the acceptable losses under PSR ever go up?  
 

As it’s set up currently no, inflation doesn’t exist. 

[Stifler]

1 hour ago, FloydianMag said:

Fan ownership in the Bundesliga isn’t all that it’s made out to be, major German companies are deeply involved in the financing of the clubs, yes they have some say but I’d bet those funding the clubs get their own way nine out of ten times.

This. Bayern for example are owned by Adidas, Audi, and Alliance.

Wolfsburg by VW, Bayer by Bayer, Stuttgart by Mercedes and been linked with Porsche.

[Keegans Export]

1 hour ago, PCW1983 said:

Does the acceptable losses under PSR ever go up?  
 

Kieran Maguire has just tweeted this morning, if it had gone up with "football inflation" (not sure exactly what that means) then the acceptable losses would be £218m over three years.

 

 

Edited January 13 by Keegans Export

[Guest]

Eh, so the figure has stayed the same since it kicked in about 10 years ago?

 

Hmm that seems a bad mad like. A big transfer fee then was £20-30m, now you're paying double that. 

[nufcnick]

1 minute ago, Optimistic Nut said:

Eh, so the figure has stayed the same since it kicked in about 10 years ago?

 

Hmm that seems a bad mad like. A big transfer fee then was £20-30m, now you're paying double that. 

Exactly this, bale went for £78m record in 2013, now bang average players go for that 

[Guest]

Just now, nufcnick said:

Exactly this, bale went for £78m record in 2013, now bang average players go for that 

 

Aye, players in the Barnes/Gordon profile were probably £18-22m fees then even accounting for "English potential" tax. Carroll was an outlier a couple of years earlier due to Liverpool panicking with the £50m burning in their pocket from Torres but he was probably closer to the £25m mark than £35m in reality. It's almost doubled.

[Kanj]

The lack of annual adjustment that is tied to the actual performance and real world happenings of the league/football in general is just a massive massive miss and oversight by the regulators. 

[Guest]

If they changed it now, Everton would have a field day in the courts. I hope this is one of their arguments, I'd never even thought of inflation, etc. 

 

 

Edited January 13 by Optimistic Nut

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

1 hour ago, r0cafella said:

As it’s set up currently no, inflation doesn’t exist. 

That’s one of my issues with it, especially given how Chelsea and Man Utd continue to inflate the transfer market. Over three seasons you can now lose a Moises Caicedo. It’s not just at the top end of the market either. Chelsea and City have the whole foreign talented youth segment tied up too. 

[Interpolic]

It you take it back to its apparent main use case, then the maximum loss not being increased can be justified. Just because transfer fees increase doesn't mean you should be encouraging clubs to spend further beyond their means and getting in trouble, if they don't have the money. 

 

Unfortunately there is no distinction made between clubs whose owners have the money and can invest, and those who don't have it and would spend irresponsibly. It's clearly by design though, and completely stinks. They've looked at Man City and Chelsea and went "we don't want another one of those" privately, and "we don't want another Portsmouth or Leeds" publicly. 

 

 

Edited January 13 by Interpolic

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Interpolic said:

It you take it back to its apparent main use case, then the maximum loss not being increased can be justified. Just because transfer fees increase doesn't mean you should be encouraging clubs to spend further beyond their means and getting in trouble, if they don't have the money. 

 

Unfortunately there is no distinction made between clubs whose owners have the money and can invest, and those who don't have it and would spend irresponsibly. It's clearly by design though, and completely stinks. They've looked at Man City and Chelsea and went "we don't want another one of those" privately, and "we don't want another Portsmouth or Leeds" publicly. 

 

 

 

 

Problem with this is, you'd get the clubs with the money already still being able to go out and spend on the £60-80m players, everyone else would organically be in the £20m market. It's awful.

 

Also with an increase to the FFP magic number, back then selling a player for £20m would be fine to bring it all back into line, when you have the ability to sell a £60-70m player to do that, why can't the figure increase with it?

 

 

Edited January 13 by Optimistic Nut

[Interpolic]

7 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

Problem with this is, you'd get the clubs with the money already still being able to go out and spend on the £60-80m players, everyone else would organically be in the £20m market. It's awful.

 

Also with an increase the the FFP magic number, back then selling a player for £20m would be fine to bring it all back into line, when you have the ability to sell a £60-70m player to do that, why can't the figure increase with it?

 

Yeah I agree - the figure should be being increased to be fair to the likes of Villa and us, but just saying that's how it would be justified imo. That it sends the wrong message out to clubs in the old Leeds bracket and makes them more likely to get in trouble. 

 

The whole thing was outdated and overly simplistic the moment it was introduced. Like I say it's like they've just looked at what Man City have done and put rules in place to make it impossible that it happens again. The very definition of pulling the ladder up. 

 

 

Edited January 13 by Interpolic

[Nucasol]

43 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

Kieran Maguire has just tweeted this morning, if it had gone up with "football inflation" (not sure exactly what that means) then the acceptable losses would be £218m over three years.

 

 

 

[The Prophet]

Should have put them in their place after the Super League fiasco.

[DahnSahf]

I'll be surprised if Sky doesn't eventually get fed up with FFP. They love their record breaking windows. They're already saying this is going to be a quiet window and a number of clubs are affected by FFP.

At this rate it won't be long before the Transfer Show is down to 15 minutes twice a week.

[Nucasol]

3 minutes ago, DahnSahf said:

I'll be surprised if Sky doesn't eventually get fed up with FFP. They love their record breaking windows. They're already saying this is going to be a quiet window and a number of clubs are affected by FFP.

At this rate it won't be long before the Transfer Show is down to 15 minutes twice a week.

Dharmesh Sheth and Kaveh Solhekol raging at their lack of air time. Romano left repeating the micro details of the same deal for 10 days. Jacques Talbot making up even more outlandish bullshit.