Jump to content

PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media


Yorkie

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

I don’t expect it to change sadly, I believe Palace are having internal issues so a lot of politicking going on where they are concerned. 

Textor will oust Parish soon enough. Now they have that land package for stadium works and need to expand anything that threatens that, like the proposed inclusion of infrastructure costs in FFP calcs, means they switch sides of the table to being anti FFP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nucasol said:

Textor will oust Parish soon enough. Now they have that land package for stadium works and need to expand anything that threatens that, like the proposed inclusion of infrastructure costs in FFP calcs, means they switch sides of the table to being anti FFP.

I can see that element being watered down in the future, that is actually too much even for those idiots. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest reefatoon
6 hours ago, Nobody said:

How fucking sad is that though? We were ok par with Spurs before Ashley, now we can at best get up to 60% of their income :anguish:


That’s just a forum members opinion though. We don't know what’s in the pipeline down the road.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, these aren't the rules forever. We'll either figure out how to circumnavigate these rules or we'll see them change again. I highly doubt if they change they're going to be even more restrictive, given how close Villa & Chelsea are reported to be to joining Everton & Forest.

 

I could see a breakaway UK only Super League at some point if nothing changes from here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, r0cafella said:

Why would they be fucked on FFP? The big 6 are smart enough to know (FFP is the creation of the big clubs btw) that FFP is fantastic for them. 
 

Infact it’s fantastic anyone who isn’t ambitious and is happy to exist, it limits competition throughout the whole pyramid so if your backwards looking either by choice or circumstance FFP is great, your costs are limited and your competition can’t just outspend you so your market position is protected. 
 

when thinking about these financial rules throw away the “fan” hat and put on the business one. Everything then becomes crystal clear. 

I was on about the non-top 6 clubs. Out of them you have us, and Villa who want to kick on. You have Everton, and Forest currently under investigation and facing a points deduction for spending money to compete at their respective levels. You also have Leicester coming up who also face sanctions. You then have Palace who can’t build their new stand that they have been trying to buy land for over the past 5 years or more, and have only just bought.

 

There is also a growing discontent with Masters over the TV deals not being as high as they would expect, as well as losing iconic sponsors such as Nike.

Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

I can see that element being watered down in the future, that is actually too much even for those idiots. 

Agreed, quite Man Utd would go for it when they’ll have to sink a billion to sort the shit pile that is Old Trafford is peculiar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

Remember, these aren't the rules forever. We'll either figure out how to circumnavigate these rules or we'll see them change again. I highly doubt if they change they're going to be even more restrictive, given how close Villa & Chelsea are reported to be to joining Everton & Forest.

 

I could see a breakaway UK only Super League at some point if nothing changes from here.

 

This isn't being driven by the PL board, it's being driven by the 'big 6' (minus Man City) with the other clubs tagging along.

 

The PL board have accidentally been advising against some of the changes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

The adidas deal is a five-year one.  Fan zones and training ground sponsorships won’t put a dent in the quarter of a billion difference between us and Spurs.  I can guarantee that next season’s accounts, like this season’s when they’re produced, will not show anything close to the growth in 22/23. 
 

I’m not convinced that this is a clever game - the club needs a big state-of-the-art new stadium or I’d say we’re close to our ceiling at the moment, without something extraordinary being achieved on the pitch.  


I've already stated what I think is happening with the new stadium and that will obviously increase revenue massively. We're not going to get revenue levels of spurs within a couple of years, but then again I didn't mention them in my reply. I stated that revenue will continue to increase and that will happen. As for the owners playing cute, I disagree with you and I think this is the case even with regards to a new stadium. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, et tu brute said:


I've already stated what I think is happening with the new stadium and that will obviously increase revenue massively. We're not going to get revenue levels of spurs within a couple of years, but then again I didn't mention them in my reply. I stated that revenue will continue to increase and that will happen. As for the owners playing cute, I disagree with you and I think this is the case even with regards to a new stadium. 

I know you didn’t mention Spurs; it is more that Spurs have been seen as the lesser of the Sky Six - so overtaking them would be the first battle to win.

 

I don’t KSA ever does ‘cute’.  It does overconfident statements and financial waste.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Stifler said:

I was on about the non-top 6 clubs. Out of them you have us, and Villa who want to kick on. You have Everton, and Forest currently under investigation and facing a points deduction for spending money to compete at their respective levels. You also have Leicester coming up who also face sanctions. You then have Palace who can’t build their new stand that they have been trying to buy land for over the past 5 years or more, and have only just bought.

 

There is also a growing discontent with Masters over the TV deals not being as high as they would expect, as well as losing iconic sponsors such as Nike.

19 of the 20 clubs just supported the changes being put through.  They’re not exactly queueing up to knock it on the head - probably because it suits most of them down to the ground. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, r0cafella said:

Of course it is, if you look at the owners of the clubs they are the most ardent capitalist in the world, but they adopt socialist structures such as parachute payments and solidarity payments it’s all rather bizarre but at its core as you mention is absolute self interest. 
 

Again, what FFP is when you strip it back is cost control and the more you control your cost the more profit you make, sadly for the owners they are also extremely egotistical so these rules create a brake and help them all control costs. 
 

Ultimately they all want to make money. 

All capitalists are socialists when it comes to bail-outs … ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I know you didn’t mention Spurs; it is more that Spurs have been seen as the lesser of the Sky Six - so overtaking them would be the first battle to win.

 

I don’t KSA ever does ‘cute’.  It does overconfident statements and financial waste.  


Time will tell and I'll be the first to post if you're ultimately right. It might take another year, but I think we will get a clearer guide on the path the club are following (especially in regards to the stadium). I also think it's only a matter of time before a legal challenge is mounted. As I've said numerous times only time will tell who is right. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, et tu brute said:


Time will tell and I'll be the first to post if you're ultimately right. It might take another year, but I think we will get a clearer guide on the path the club are following (especially in regards to the stadium). I also think it's only a matter of time before a legal challenge is mounted. As I've said numerous times only time will tell who is right. 

Aye, we’re both guessing really (not trying to be disrespectful in saying that; just that we don’t know what the owners think).

 

I hope you’re right, believe me - I’d be more than happy if you are

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jack27 said:

https://x.com/matt_law_dt/status/1767529252004548942?s=46&t=qch8y64njTIa-YpWt4BfqA Less than ideal if PIF-owned Riyadh Air start sponsoring Chelsea. Rumoured 60m a year is what Chelsea want 

 

You mean the Chelsea with about to be two straight years of no CL football who we finished way ahead of last year and are competing with this year? I look forward to the benchmark for our next deal...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fans: We need more commercial partners!

 

Club: Here's a new commercial partner :thup:

 

Fans: NOT THAT TYPE OF COMMERCIAL PARTNER!!!!11

 

Remember though, we only demand a club that tries......right lads?

 

 

Edited by Dr.Spaceman

Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

Fans: We need more commercial partners!

 

Club: Here's a new commercial partner :thup:

 

Fans: NOT THAT TYPE OF COMMERCIAL PARTNER!!!!11

 

Remember though, we only demand a club that tries......right lads?

 

 

 

Aye, but I mean I’m not interested in that stuff myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...