PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media

[Bellis80]

Saudi thing seems nonsense. None of the players that have gone over there you would want. No one was interested in Neves until he went there.

[Dr.Spaceman]

I dunno about that like.

[Nucasol]

FFP isn’t broken at all:

 

[NSG]

39 minutes ago, Bellis80 said:

Saudi thing seems nonsense. None of the players that have gone over there you would want. No one was interested in Neves until he went there.

Wouldn’t mind Gabri Veiga like.

[TRon]

3 hours 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.

 

Well at least something good will have come out of FFP.

[SUPERTOON]

1 hour ago, Bellis80 said:

Saudi thing seems nonsense. None of the players that have gone over there you would want. No one was interested in Neves until he went there.

Mahrez and Neves off the top of my head would walk into our team currently.

[Wolfcastle]

Its pretty galling when we've been doing sensible business by almost everyone's assessment, slowly building, massively below what we should be able to do and now cant even do that.

 

At least it makes Klopp's crying seem even more pathetic.

If these rules had been implemented before the 70s his club would have been in Everton's shadow forever.  The arbitrary musical chairs element to it all is especially discomforting.

[Ben]

Is the squad going to Saudi this week ?

[Shearergol]

Just now, Ben said:

Is the squad going to Saudi this week ?

Don’t think so, no

[Decky]

No they aren't. Howe said the squad has been very busy in recent months so they're giving them time off with their families. 

[TheBrownBottle]

18 hours 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.

‘There’s fack all ‘appenin’, lads’

 

[Gallowgate Toon]

Is there any meaningful proposed reform for FFP? We seemingly get daft rule change suggestions every month now for on-field matters.

[Stifler]

32 minutes ago, Gallowgate Toon said:

Is there any meaningful proposed reform for FFP? We seemingly get daft rule change suggestions every month now for on-field matters.

Nah, none. You have to remember that outside the top 6, Newcastle, Villa, West Ham, Everton, and to a lesser extent Brighton & Brentford, no one in the leagues wants to compete. The top 6 are happy with it as it means they are protected somewhat against us spending, and the other clubs are happy because it means they don’t have to spend more money just to survive or keep up.

 

In Europe, outside of your historic clubs, and PSG, everyone is happy because they don’t come from leagues that generates much revenue. They can still sell their players to those elite clubs for revenue, but they don’t want to many teams rocking the boat as that means they miss out on progression in Europe and the myth that they put across to their fans that they are competition, instead of just flopping like Celtic. 

[nufcnick]

1 hour ago, Gallowgate Toon said:

Is there any meaningful proposed reform for FFP? We seemingly get daft rule change suggestions every month now for on-field matters.

Yep, we’re looking at adapting the UEFA FFP model, where you can only spend 70% of your turnover on wages and Amortisation, it will start at 90% coming down to where it will settle at 70% a few years later. 

[Nucasol]

48 minutes ago, nufcnick said:

Yep, we’re looking at adapting the UEFA FFP model, where you can only spend 70% of your turnover on wages and Amortisation, it will start at 90% coming down to where it will settle at 70% a few years later. 

More brutal than the PL stance or more leeway?

[Dr.Spaceman]

More brutal, surely. Depends what they allow to be classed as turnover. I asssume there's nothing allowed from related parties?

[Jackie Broon]

1 hour ago, nufcnick said:

Yep, we’re looking at adapting the UEFA FFP model, where you can only spend 70% of your turnover on wages and Amortisation, it will start at 90% coming down to where it will settle at 70% a few years later. 

 

But that's in addition to rather then instead of the rule restricting losses over 3 seasons.

[Nucasol]

Just now, Dr.Spaceman said:

More brutal, surely. Depends what they allow to be classed as turnover. I asssume there's nothing allowed from related parties?

I think they’re on a sticky wicket with that one - how can you prohibit investment, the will to advertise your own company? Competition law would have a field day with that one.

[Unbelievable]

5 minutes ago, Nucasol said:

I think they’re on a sticky wicket with that one - how can you prohibit investment, the will to advertise your own company? Competition law would have a field day with that one.

Oh, you can do it like Ashley did, not pay a penny for such advertisement, no bother. “Fair” market value he lads..?

[Fezzle]

23 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

More brutal, surely. Depends what they allow to be classed as turnover. I asssume there's nothing allowed from related parties?

Might want to check that against man city's income, shame our rules and theirs are different 

[Isaksbigrightfoot]

The restriction on losses needs to be uplifted in line with football inflation.

 

And owner investment should be an allowable when it comes to the Profit figure for me. And it should not be deemed a loan and irreversible meaning they can’t take it out.

 

But that is just because I am biased.

[Jackie Broon]

1 hour ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

More brutal, surely. Depends what they allow to be classed as turnover. I asssume there's nothing allowed from related parties?

 

Income from related parties is counted, it's just restricted to whatever the PL determine to be fair market value.

 

To be truly 'fair' that market value should be the largest equivalent non-related party sponsorship deal in the league. If they were just to make that change in interpretation (both the PL and UEFA) I think FFP would be okay. As it is it's just being used as a tool to restrict competition and protect the established order.

[r0cafella]

Swiss ramble has written about us today unfortunately it’s behind paywall so can only see the except from the email. 

[PauloGeordio]

8 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Swiss ramble has written about us today unfortunately it’s behind paywall so can only see the except from the email. 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 15 by PauloGeordio

[GeordieT]

4 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Swiss ramble has written about us today unfortunately it’s behind paywall so can only see the except from the email. 

I’m a subscriber so will post a few choice excerpts later today, it’s an illuminating read as usual.

 

On FFP, his suggestion is this season might have been closer than anyone else previously had imagined:

 

 

“PIF inherited a pretty solid FFP position from Ashley, as the former owner’s tightfisted approach to spending meant that they had a fair amount of wriggle room.

 

In fact, I estimate that they were £109m better than the £105m maximum allowed loss over the three-year monitoring period up to 2021/22 (including the single period average of the COVID-impacted 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons).

 

However, the FFP monitoring period is a moving target, so the 2022/23 calculation dropped the £41m 2018/19 profit, replacing it with last season’s £73m loss, i.e. a negative swing of £114m.

 

After making deductions for “healthy” expenditure (infrastructure, academy, community and women’s football) and COVID losses, I reckon that Newcastle were still just about within target, but it must have been mighty close”.