Unbelievable Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 2 minutes ago, Shearergol said: They certainly appear stricter. If combined with getting rid of FMV they'll be fine for us and others with owners willing to invest their own money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 2 minutes ago, Shearergol said: They certainly appear stricter. It's still basically spend based on income. If (it's a big if) they relax related party sponsorship and introduce a luxury tax of sorts, it's a win for us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 (edited) 1 hour ago, The Prophet said: It's still basically spend based on income. If (it's a big if) they relax related party sponsorship and introduce a luxury tax of sorts, it's a win for us. With no acceptable losses - it is stricter edit: completely agree re ‘luxury tax’ element Edited April 11 by TheBrownBottle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 6 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: With no acceptable losses - it is stricter edit: completely agree re ‘luxury tax’ element Where have you got it from that there would be no acceptable losses? The UEFA rules, which the PL will apparently mirror, have allowable losses of up to £78m over 3 years, which is slightly lower than the PL's current £115 over 3 years but it's not no losses. The likelihood is we've been working to the UEFA rules anyway, because we'll be aiming to be in Europe every year. The devil is going to be in the detail of what we can get away with in terms of related party sponsorships. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 1 minute ago, Jackie Broon said: Where have you got it from that there would be no acceptable losses? The UEFA rules, which the PL will apparently mirror, have allowable losses of up to £78m over 3 years, which is slightly lower than the PL's current £115 over 3 years but it's not no losses. The likelihood is we've been working to the UEFA rules anyway, because we'll be aiming to be in Europe every year. The devil is going to be in the detail of what we can get away with in terms of related party sponsorships. Losses to the accounts ledger - they’re not losses based on player wages & transfers. The 70% of turnover rule doesn’t allow for going over that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 2 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: Losses to the accounts ledger - they’re not losses based on player wages & transfers. The 70% of turnover rule doesn’t allow for going over that 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 2 hours ago, Jack27 said: https://theathletic.com/5407740/2024/04/11/premier-league-ffp-rules-new/?source=user_shared_article This helps I find it farcical that they don't take into account the debit a club has i.e Man U - whilst they have a large commercial income they are nearly a billion dollars in debt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
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...
Optimistic Nut 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...
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