NWMag Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 I believe that FMV changed from the clubs having to prove deals are fair market value, to it now being the PL having to prove they aren’t Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 36 minutes ago, 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 Interest payments on infrastructure loans are not included in SCR. We can finance the cost of our new stadium without it hitting us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 2 hours ago, Paully said: In a shock development, the club have also sold the St James' Park lease for £172.1m to a subsidiary company controlled by the ownership Sounds cheap Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunk Moreland Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 (edited) Edited March 31 by Bunk Moreland Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 So sale brought us a profit for the year, will Isak sale count towards next year's figures? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbandit Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 What a fucking mess football is in Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 So we failed UEFA rules? How have Chelsea got away with it then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 17 minutes ago, gbandit said: What a fucking mess football is in To protect the "established" top clubs across Europe they have thrown the game under the bus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 1 minute ago, NG32 said: To protect the "established" top clubs across Europe they have thrown the game under the bus. Basically this ^ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 1 hour ago, 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. I’ve said many times, if the PL was a single entity with an overall strategy it would never want to limit the clubs like this. It’s only because it’s a member’s club that it’s effectively voting to keep investment and excitement out of its own product. It’s crazy really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 They've placed everyone into a financial straight jacket with no room to grow from investment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 28 minutes ago, duo said: So we failed UEFA rules? How have Chelsea got away with it then? They also got a similar fine, along with Villa. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 Nice little revenue stream for UEFA. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 24 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said: I’ve said many times, if the PL was a single entity with an overall strategy it would never want to limit the clubs like this. It’s only because it’s a member’s club that it’s effectively voting to keep investment and excitement out of its own product. It’s crazy really. Even with the current status, it’s amazing that they don’t. How they have been able to look at the NFL teams over the last 20 years and let them take all the money for TV rights, have massive stadiums for clubs, and sponsorships and say that only 6 clubs can have that in the Premier League as they claims it’s the best league in sports is beyond me. We should be in a position right now where TV rights alone are high enough for every Premier League club to have a minimum income of £400m per year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaj Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 2 hours ago, RUHRLYASLEEVESUP said: Honestly don't believe were in any "shit" aside from the cultish "rules" were bound by apparently Maybe not in the shit as such, but we didn't buy any players really in this period so it wasn't just a case of lets spend £200m on players because we know we can sell a stadium for the same amount. This is obviously more because of the amortisation of players purchased in earlier periods. The whole thing is very frustrating and as mentioned by someone else; it was much more enjoyable when finance didn't come into it so much! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloGeordio Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufc123 Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 2 hours ago, gbandit said: What a fucking mess football is in Fucking hell. Sadly its one of my main interest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUHRLYASLEEVESUP Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 Would this mean any future stadium build would be switched to the “new owners” not the club itself ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLUMPO235 Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 1 hour ago, AyeDubbleYoo said: I’ve said many times, if the PL was a single entity with an overall strategy it would never want to limit the clubs like this. It’s only because it’s a member’s club that it’s effectively voting to keep investment and excitement out of its own product. It’s crazy really. Didn’t the government have something in their manifesto about introducing some independent government post to regulate football and the PL. I know they have bigger fish to fry, but there is a dedicated sport and culture MP and department who isn’t being distracted by wars, nhs and economic oblivion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBG Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 Gone but not forgotten Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 22 minutes ago, RUHRLYASLEEVESUP said: Would this mean any future stadium build would be switched to the “new owners” not the club itself ? No. It’s important to note that the SCR rules means that infrastructure costs are not calculated, that works both ways in terms of interest on loans for it, and revenue from sale/lease of it. For UEFA we would end up with more than a fine if we used this method again to earn money. We and Aston Villa have only got away with it because the president had been set by Chelsea and Barcelona before us. A further break of this rule would mean that we get more than a monetary fine, unless of course one of those clubs repeatedly broke the rules before us and got away with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 11 minutes ago, FLUMPO235 said: Didn’t the government have something in their manifesto about introducing some independent government post to regulate football and the PL. I know they have bigger fish to fry, but there is a dedicated sport and culture MP and department who isn’t being distracted by wars, NHS and economic oblivion. It’s been introduced, but it has as much teeth as the FA did in anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnbull2000 Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 2 hours ago, AyeDubbleYoo said: I’ve said many times, if the PL was a single entity with an overall strategy it would never want to limit the clubs like this. It’s only because it’s a member’s club that it’s effectively voting to keep investment and excitement out of its own product. It’s crazy really. I think the PL would prefer to keep the two-tier league - with the marketable, breakaway clubs remaining at the top and keeping global e-fans happy, and the chasing pack allowed to only occasionally spoil the party. Like you say, at least 10 of the PL clubs are also happy with this status quo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macphisto Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 In the news that was announced today, I found it bizarre that, under UEFA rules, selling players to Saudi Arabia are not included in our balance sheet as it's a related party transfer. Q: Do UEFA rules on associated-party player sales stop you doing business with Saudi clubs? CAPPER: It doesn't stop us doing business. What it means is if we make a profit, it doesn't count. We sell a player that's worth a pound for £10million and make a profit of £9.999million in the Premier League but make a profit of zero in UEFA. We just don't get a profit. 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