Kid Icarus Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 Just now, Froggy said: So is Maguire's figures including that you think? He didn't mention it at all when talking about you. He didn't but if you read the article, the sale was apparently to cover losses and without it we'd have been 90 odd million in the red, so - taking that at its word - this is nothing to do with future spending, but to cover previous losses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordie Magpie Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 4 minutes ago, Froggy said: Kieran Maguire said you were in a healthy position PSR wise in January and that you could spend £200m this summer and be fine, and that was before the stadium sale. You're in an incredible position now PSR wise and I'd say this move is so you can offer your top players better contracts while still strengthening the squad. It's a signal of intent for me. Not sure how it can be spun as a negative. Could be saw in two ways really, either we were in the shit so they did this Or it's a positive and we've eventually started doing tactics like City and Chelsea have to get around the financial rules. Just when you see if the stadium stuff hasn't happened, it's a massive loss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Icarus Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 FWIW, Chelsea also sold these assets to themselves to cover existing losses. The spending spree with them had already happened. It could be an indication that we'll use more of these moves in the future, but taking that article at its word, this stadium sale specifically isn't for future spending. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Froggy Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 3 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said: He didn't but if you read the article, the sale was apparently to cover losses and without it we'd have been 90 odd million in the red, so - taking that at its word - this is nothing to do with future spending, but to cover previous losses. I'll get reading it shortly. I would have thought you'd have been able to lose £90m without breaking the rules. Feels like the stadium sale kills two birds with one stone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteV Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Geordie Magpie said: Just when you see if the stadium stuff hasn't happened, it's a massive loss. Depends how you want to view it? Did they find themselves in this situation and have to pivot to using the stadium to get themselves out of it? Or, did they always know they had the stadium to fall back on, so were comfortable in running to a certain level of debt, because they knew they had it covered? Edited March 31 by SteV Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianovthetoon Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 34 minutes ago, UpTheToon said: Looks like it saved us from a breach last year but won't help us going forward as the rules move to SCR based accounting. I’d say it’s more so stadium costs stay separate when we move or redevelop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miggys First Goal Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 Remember when football was just about football and not having to worry about finances. Good times. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderson Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 Stadium sale was pre-Isak wasn't it, so that comes in through this year's results. Should be ok this summer, but probably indicative that we're going to struggle without the income from European football. 4 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said: FWIW, Chelsea also sold these assets to themselves to cover existing losses. The spending spree with them had already happened. It could be an indication that we'll use more of these moves in the future, but taking that article at its word, this stadium sale specifically isn't for future spending. Those loopholes now effectively closed with new rules, iirc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUHRLYASLEEVESUP Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 41 minutes ago, UpTheToon said: Looks like it saved us from a breach last year but won't help us going forward as the rules move to SCR based accounting. That's the spirit lad Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUHRLYASLEEVESUP Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 33 minutes ago, Vaj said: Yeah as mentioned this doesn't look like it will do anything for us going forward and is actually quite concerning that we were that much in the shit which showed with the lack of signings for a number of windows before the summer just gone. Happy that the owners found a way around it and shows there commitment but looks like we will be doing more player trading going forward to navigate the rules to prevent us from getting this much in the shit again. Honestly don't believe were in any "shit" aside from the cultish "rules" were bound by apparently Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbo2 Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 16 minutes ago, Miggys First Goal said: Remember when football was just about football and not having to worry about finances. Good times. Between this and VAR it's mental how different the game is now to even a few years ago. Watching Premier League Years is a lovely nostalgic holiday to a sport that doesn't exist any more Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 35 minutes ago, r0cafella said: PSR is over it's squad cost now which is really bad for us as our revenue still pales compared to cartel clubs. If SCR is really bad for us why the fuck did the club vote for it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 2 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: If SCR is really bad for us why the fuck did the club vote for it? It would have passed anyway. Plus they did get a concession which is the higher limit for clubs not in Europe. Lose lose situation Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 Just now, r0cafella said: It would have passed anyway. Plus they did get a concession which is the higher limit for clubs not in Europe. Lose lose situation It wouldn’t have passed, the vote was 14 for and 6 against, if we had voted against it wouldn’t have passed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 Just now, FloydianMag said: It wouldn’t have passed, the vote was 14 for and 6 against, if we had voted against it wouldn’t have passed. They could just have made further concessions. Maybe the club see the value in aligning to Uefa rules? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 Just now, r0cafella said: They could just have made further concessions. Maybe the club see the value in aligning to Uefa rules? Possibly, or there’s sponsorship plans in the works we know nothing about yet to turbo charge revenues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 Just now, FloydianMag said: Possibly, or there’s sponsorship plans in the works we know nothing about yet to turbo charge revenues. If im not mistaken FMV still applies and it makes little sense for an external sponsor to throw money at us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 These results don’t include CL either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLUMPO235 Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 What a fucking mess this has all become. The PL deserves to eat itself and bankrupt the owners of some of these clubs. Start again with jumpers for goalposts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 Just now, r0cafella said: If im not mistaken FMV still applies and it makes little sense for an external sponsor to throw money at us. Yes correct, but didn’t City’s APT ruling change how FMV assessments are undertaken, including what value there was to sponsors? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 7 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: Yes correct, but didn’t City’s APT ruling change how FMV assessments are undertaken, including what value there was to sponsors? For them We aren't going to be in a position to sign the type of deals they do as a result of that. Middle east is also on fire which has to make them think twice about putting money Into the many cash incinerators they do Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 7 minutes ago, FLUMPO235 said: What a fucking mess this has all become. The PL deserves to eat itself and bankrupt the owners of some of these clubs. Start again with jumpers for goalposts. I wonder if the PL ever stop to reflect that it was the big spending of Chelsea and Man City which propelled English football to the top of the pile in the first place? Yes it was always popular, but then so was Italian football and Spanish when they had all the money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 Just now, TRon said: I wonder if the PL ever stop to reflect that it was the big spending of Chelsea and Man City which propelled English football to the top of the pile in the first place? Yes it was always popular, but then so was Italian football and Spanish when they had all the money. It's important to remember the PL is just a collection of members (the club's) they set the agenda and they don't want competition or cost Inflation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 (edited) 6 minutes ago, r0cafella said: For them We aren't going to be in a position to sign the type of deals they do as a result of that. Middle east is also on fire which has to make them think twice about putting money Into the many cash incinerators they do Any rule changes how FMV is assessed has to apply to all clubs, not just City. I wasn’t expecting to sign City level deals either. Edited March 31 by FloydianMag Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 Just now, FloydianMag said: Any rule changes how FMV is assessed has to apply to all clubs, not just City. Yeah I'm not arguing that but we don't come to close them in any metric unfortunately. 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