Jackie Broon Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 18 minutes ago, r0cafella said: Precisely obviously the details have been outlined, but I imagine the punishments are what matters, if they remain the same with immediate points deduction for breaches it’s game over. Game over for what? We're clearly operating within the rules, the club obviously have no intention of just breaching them and taking the punishment. The goal is and always has been to grow our revenue to the point where we can compete financially with the top 6. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 Just now, Jackie Broon said: Game over for what? We're clearly operating within the rules, the club obviously have no intention of just breaching them and taking the punishment. The goal is and always has been to grow our revenue to the point where we can compete financially with the top 6. Game over in terms of competing for the league. We can only grow our revenue so much, but hi would I sponsor us when I can sponsor man united? In order to be as big as them we need to be able to invest which the rules prevent. We are playing on the most competitive league in the world, if city have a blip we have 5 other behemoths to compete with, we simply aren’t even close to being in that league. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 7 minutes ago, r0cafella said: Game over in terms of competing for the league. We can only grow our revenue so much, but hi would I sponsor us when I can sponsor man united? In order to be as big as them we need to be able to invest which the rules prevent. We are playing on the most competitive league in the world, if city have a blip we have 5 other behemoths to compete with, we simply aren’t even close to being in that league. It really depends on the FMV rules though, if they are relaxed it would make it much easier for us to grow our revenue. We've voted against every other change to the FFP rules since the takeover as far as I'm aware, if we've voted for this change there's likely to be something advantageous in there for us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 2 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said: It really depends on the FMV rules though, if they are relaxed it would make it much easier for us to grow our revenue. We've voted against every other change to the FFP rules since the takeover as far as I'm aware, if we've voted for this change there's likely to be something advantageous in there for us. Oh yeah, absolutely my post is based on a couple of assumptions. 1, the owners are actually willing to invest to the point of us being successful. 2, FMV rules remain in place (I see absolutely zero reason why they wouldn’t be though). Obviously we don’t have all the information so we have to make very broad assumptions, personally I’m starting to think our objectives have shifted, it goes without saying but I hope I’m wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 7 minutes ago, r0cafella said: Oh yeah, absolutely my post is based on a couple of assumptions. 1, the owners are actually willing to invest to the point of us being successful. 2, FMV rules remain in place (I see absolutely zero reason why they wouldn’t be though). Obviously we don’t have all the information so we have to make very broad assumptions, personally I’m starting to think our objectives have shifted, it goes without saying but I hope I’m wrong. I'm sure FMV rules will remain in place but it's the detail of those rules, how fair market value is assessed, that is important. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 Has the new ruling specified how the money comes in, or just that 85% of the income can be spent? Anything stopping payments like that £36m being made by the owners for instance as part of that income? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Spaceman Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 7 hours ago, The Prophet said: We don't know if they're stricter yet. That's the point I'm making. There's clearly a few key details we're all unaware of at this stage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 13 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said: Has the new ruling specified how the money comes in, or just that 85% of the income can be spent? Anything stopping payments like that £36m being made by the owners for instance as part of that income? No information officially, but as far as I’m aware Uefa don’t make such allowances and the new rules are based on Uefas (not the punishments though seemingly). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 12 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said: Has the new ruling specified how the money comes in, or just that 85% of the income can be spent? Anything stopping payments like that £36m being made by the owners for instance as part of that income? Yep, under rule J.2 of UEFA’s Club Licensing and FFP Regs. It also makes provision for a correction for overvaluation of sponsorship deals. It’s there to prevent financial ‘doping’. And it is 70% of this income that can be spent on salaries, agents and amortised transfers (ignore the 85% - we should be aiming for European football). https://documents.uefa.com/r/UEFA-Club-Licensing-and-Financial-Sustainability-Regulations-2023/J.2-Relevant-income-Online Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 The regs are worth a read tbh, they’re not written in legalese Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said: The regs are worth a read tbh, they’re not written in legalese Rage inducing id imagine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 Just now, r0cafella said: Rage inducing id imagine. Yeah, they’re pretty prescriptive. I just don’t see UEFA backing down on it just because it would put Newcastle, Villa and any other English club’s danders up. Personally, I think the regs are locked in and unlikely to change any time soon. My concern is how slow the club have been to act and get their shit together. They’re not going to be able to just chuck money at the playing staff - so what can be pumped with cash (ground, training facilities etc) would’ve been target number one. Target number two should have been sponsoring everything they can at ‘fair market value’. I’ve seen little on either so far. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 4 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: Yep, under rule J.2 of UEFA’s Club Licensing and FFP Regs. It also makes provision for a correction for overvaluation of sponsorship deals. It’s there to prevent financial ‘doping’. And it is 70% of this income that can be spent on salaries, agents and amortised transfers (ignore the 85% - we should be aiming for European football). https://documents.uefa.com/r/UEFA-Club-Licensing-and-Financial-Sustainability-Regulations-2023/J.2-Relevant-income-Online So basically: we are in excess of this figure by a mile on salary alone, without considering amortisation which will be high for us throughout any growth stage and agent fees which will also be high for the same reason. I wonder how the league will handle those clubs which are in European competition but are at say 85% basically in line with the rules if they didn’t qualify for Europe. It’s laughable how they’ve actually made the rules worst. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said: Yeah, they’re pretty prescriptive. I just don’t see UEFA backing down on it just because it would put Newcastle, Villa and any other English club’s danders up. Personally, I think the regs are locked in and unlikely to change any time soon. My concern is how slow the club have been to act and get their shit together. They’re not going to be able to just chuck money at the playing staff - so what can be pumped with cash (ground, training facilities etc) would’ve been target number one. Target number two should have been sponsoring everything they can at ‘fair market value’. I’ve seen little on either so far. You stand where I do; but I do have some sympathy also, as let’s be honest a lot of things need to be done for us to be successful simply are palatable to our fans. Also, I can’t help but wonder. Basically the teams ambitions stated by the ownership don’t seem at all realistic under these rules. If we aren’t going do a man city (it seems we aren’t on the face of it) then we are looking at say the Arsenal/spurs models and evidently we are miles behind them with absolutely huge investment needed to catch them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 Just now, r0cafella said: So basically: we are in excess of this figure by a mile on salary alone, without considering amortisation which will be high for us throughout any growth stage and agent fees which will also be high for the same reason. I wonder how the league will handle those clubs which are in European competition but are at say 85% basically in line with the rules if they didn’t qualify for Europe. It’s laughable how they’ve actually made the rules worst. Amortisation is sat at around £90m. So yeah, we’re crippled by it. UEFA won’t see the rules as being worse - they’ll see it at protecting clubs by forcing only sustainable growth (limiting to 70% outgoings directly out of the clubs) and preventing financial doping (which causes costs to rise). I think they have a point. The problem is that it effectively locks into place the current order of things. For most European football nations this isn’t an issue - pretty much every European league looks similar to what it did 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ago. Same old clubs. The difference is that England has far more potentially big clubs than any other country - we don’t view Chelsea as being bigger than Villa, Spurs as being bigger than Everton, Man City as being bigger than Newcastle (all historically). We know that they could all easily swap positions without the current finances being locked in Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 2 minutes ago, r0cafella said: You stand where I do; but I do have some sympathy also, as let’s be honest a lot of things need to be done for us to be successful simply are palatable to our fans. Also, I can’t help but wonder. Basically the teams ambitions stated by the ownership don’t seem at all realistic under these rules. If we aren’t going do a man city (it seems we aren’t on the face of it) then we are looking at say the Arsenal/spurs models and evidently we are miles behind them with absolutely huge investment needed to catch them. The stated ambitions aren’t; I also think it’s notable that the club has went quite quiet in terms of public statements over the last 12 months Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said: Amortisation is sat at around £90m. So yeah, we’re crippled by it. UEFA won’t see the rules as being worse - they’ll see it at protecting clubs by forcing only sustainable growth (limiting to 70% outgoings directly out of the clubs) and preventing financial doping (which causes costs to rise). I think they have a point. The problem is that it effectively locks into place the current order of things. For most European football nations this isn’t an issue - pretty much every European league looks similar to what it did 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ago. Same old clubs. The difference is that England has far more potentially big clubs than any other country - we don’t view Chelsea as being bigger than Villa, Spurs as being bigger than Everton, Man City as being bigger than Newcastle (all historically). We know that they could all easily swap positions without the current finances being locked in I take issue with said definitions personally, why was so called financial doping ok for Chelsea, City, PSG etc but isn’t now. In modern investing it’s quite common to see companies make big losses during a growth period, it’s happened countless times Amazon obviously being the poster child for such practices. I think linking sustainably to profit and loss only makes sense up to a point, if owners are willing to under write losses it’s fine after all it’s competition at the end of the day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said: The stated ambitions aren’t; I also think it’s notable that the club has went quite quiet in terms of public statements over the last 12 months I thought I was going mad, glad I wasn’t the only one who noticed this. on a practical level, I don’t see how we can challenge rules our owners have voted for either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 3 minutes ago, r0cafella said: I take issue with said definitions personally, why was so called financial doping ok for Chelsea, City, PSG etc but isn’t now. In modern investing it’s quite common to see companies make big losses during a growth period, it’s happened countless times Amazon obviously being the poster child for such practices. I think linking sustainably to profit and loss only makes sense up to a point, if owners are willing to under write losses it’s fine after all it’s competition at the end of the day. I didn’t think it was ok when Chelsea, PSG and Man City did it tbh. But that’s just my view. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 2 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: I didn’t think it was ok when Chelsea, PSG and Man City did it tbh. But that’s just my view. Personally no, but it was accepted as it’s always been the way the little woods family jack walker general franco etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 Anyways, as we are both seemingly questioning the stated goals, what do you think they really are? Ride the valuation up and wait for the correct moment to exit? More of a traditional investment? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 15 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: The stated ambitions aren’t; I also think it’s notable that the club has went quite quiet in terms of public statements over the last 12 months Didn't Darren Eales say a few weeks ago, on the record, that our aim is top 6 and major trophies within 5 years? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 3 minutes ago, Keegans Export said: Didn't Darren Eales say a few weeks ago, on the record, that our aim is top 6 and major trophies within 5 years? Yes, which is not the same as being ‘no 1’ or ‘we will win the premier league, we will win the champions league’ etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 The doom duo going strong this morning I see Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sima Posted April 12 Share Posted April 12 (edited) 11 minutes ago, r0cafella said: Anyways, as we are both seemingly questioning the stated goals, what do you think they really are? Ride the valuation up and wait for the correct moment to exit? More of a traditional investment? Run it sustainably and use it for PR purposes. Exit if a really strong offer comes in. There has been nothing stopping PIF building a state of the art training ground and investing even more in refurbishing the stadium. I’m particularly surprised a second screen hasn’t gone up on the L7 Milburn SW wall, for example. Edited April 12 by Sima Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now