PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media

[gbandit]

1 hour ago, Optimistic Nut said:

FFP is shite like. If this had been around from the start of the PL era then Blackburn wouldn’t have happened, the Keegan era wouldn’t have happened, Chelsea & Man City wouldn’t have happened to the extent it did. The champions for the last 30 years would likely have just been Man U, Arsenal & Liverpool. Get to fuck. If an owner wants to pump their own cash in then they should be allowed. It’s the opposite they should be clamping down on, ie, owners taking money out of it.

I get your point that big money has brought with it some amazing teams and eras, and that in theory clubs being able to spend what they want can level the playing field. However it creates a broken system where clubs are in huge amounts of debt and their owners (Abramovich aside due to sanctions) won’t sell unless they get a profit and the new owner takes on the debt. The bigger and bigger you stack that system the more likely it’ll come crashing down and clubs will go out of business when they aren’t getting bankrolled anymore. We’re entering a period of big inflation so clubs with large debts are going to be even more screwed. That’s fine as long as an owner doesn’t mind major losses but we know that the vast majority are in it for money 

[The Prophet]

2 minutes ago, gbandit said:

I get your point that big money has brought with it some amazing teams and eras, and that in theory clubs being able to spend what they want can level the playing field. However it creates a broken system where clubs are in huge amounts of debt and their owners (Abramovich aside due to sanctions) won’t sell unless they get a profit and the new owner takes on the debt. The bigger and bigger you stack that system the more likely it’ll come crashing down and clubs will go out of business when they aren’t getting bankrolled anymore. We’re entering a period of big inflation so clubs with large debts are going to be even more screwed. That’s fine as long as an owner doesn’t mind major losses but we know that the vast majority are in it for money 

 

It hasn't prevented clubs racking up massive debts though. It just puts a limit on player purchasing power.

 

Hand in hand with the limits on club sponsorship, it's pretty obvious what they're trying to achieve.

[gbandit]

Just now, The Prophet said:

 

It hasn't prevented clubs racking up massive debts though. It just puts a limit on player purchasing power.

 

Hand in hand with the limits on club sponsorship, it's pretty obvious what they're trying to achieve.

I agree, the current situation is massively flawed and it has done the opposite of what was intended. However, I don’t think letting clubs spend whatever they want is a perfect solution either if the owners don’t have to deal with the risk by offloading it onto the club and siphoning cash off 

[r0cafella]

2 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

It hasn't prevented clubs racking up massive debts though. It just puts a limit on player purchasing power.

 

Hand in hand with the limits on club sponsorship, it's pretty obvious what they're trying to achieve.

Oh, if it’s ever challenged then it’s the end of FFP. But let’s be honest here the other clubs owners (Villa being the exception)aren’t ambitious and are just happy to ride on the gravy train. 

[The Prophet]

Aye, it's essentially:

 

"Don't spend too much on players, it's for your own good."

 

"Oh you want to increase your revenue so that you can afford those players, we need to watch that for the integrity of the league." 

 

"Ah, that lesser known club is subject to a leveraged buyout that threatens their future aa a club, that's fine."

[Keegans Export]

Even worse - it's not even called "Financial Fair Play" any more. At least not in the PL. It's "Profit and Sustainability".

 

Now, what's sustainable about Burnley being bought using money owed to the creditors...from Burnley FC? And a huge chunk of that payable when they get relegated and are at their most vulnerable position financially? What's profitable about Spurs' £700m debt on <£400m revenue? Or Manchester United making a £90m loss and owing over half a billion pounds to its own creditors?

 

It's a flawed system because there's no way that controls spending that doesn't create a closed shop consisting of the teams who got in there before the rules changed (Chelsea and Man City most recently) and there's no way to stop clubs spending beyond their means that doesn't limit/control what the clubs can and can't spend. The problem is, the current rules clearly don't work because clubs are still laden with debt and still incredibly vulnerable to any drop in income eg. via relegation. 

[r0cafella]

3 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

Even worse - it's not even called "Financial Fair Play" any more. At least not in the PL. It's "Profit and Sustainability".

 

Now, what's sustainable about Burnley being bought using money owed to the creditors...from Burnley FC? And a huge chunk of that payable when they get relegated and are at their most vulnerable position financially? What's profitable about Spurs' £700m debt on <£400m revenue? Or Manchester United making a £90m loss and owing over half a billion pounds to its own creditors?

 

It's a flawed system because there's no way that controls spending that doesn't create a closed shop consisting of the teams who got in there before the rules changed (Chelsea and Man City most recently) and there's no way to stop clubs spending beyond their means that doesn't limit/control what the clubs can and can't spend. The problem is, the current rules clearly don't work because clubs are still laden with debt and still incredibly vulnerable to any drop in income eg. via relegation. 

The rules are working as intended. The goal was to reduce future potential competition and that’s exactly what is being achieved. 
 

After all, the League as actually a Cartel. 

[Gaztoon]

Just now, r0cafella said:

The rules are working as intended. The goal was to reduce future potential competition and that’s exactly what is being achieved. 
 

After all, the League as actually a Cartel. 

 

Then I hope likes of us, villa and others with ambition just ignore it with a threat of legal action..

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, Gaztoon said:

 

Then I hope likes of us, villa and others with ambition just ignore it with a threat of legal action..

That takes time and requires true commitment. After all, it’s likely any punishment would be long since handed out before any legal action could take place. 
 

I mean, Everton are the ones who are currently taking a piss on it, let’s see how that plays out. 

[Gaztoon]

7 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

That takes time and requires true commitment. After all, it’s likely any punishment would be long since handed out before any legal action could take place. 
 

I mean, Everton are the ones who are currently taking a piss on it, let’s see how that plays out. 

 

Supposedly no points deduction..but need to pass all future signings with the prem.

[geordiekris]

Financial fair play should consist of all clubs across the European top leagues being allowed to spend a fixed amount on transfers and a fixed amount on wages each year.  It’s the only fair way in my eyes. 
 

Stronger checks to ensure clubs aren’t fucked over like Burnley with takeovers using the clubs own money. 

[TheBrownBottle]

2 hours ago, Optimistic Nut said:

FFP is shite like. If this had been around from the start of the PL era then Blackburn wouldn’t have happened, the Keegan era wouldn’t have happened, Chelsea & Man City wouldn’t have happened to the extent it did. The champions for the last 30 years would likely have just been Man U, Arsenal & Liverpool. Get to fuck. If an owner wants to pump their own cash in then they should be allowed. It’s the opposite they should be clamping down on, ie, owners taking money out of it.

It is shite, but the KK era would have happened - NUFC‘s relative success in the ‘90s was built around the club’s income, not investment (the Halls and Shepherds put very little in).  Unlike Blackburn, which was mostly down to Jack Walker’s money

 

 

Edited May 25, 2022 by TheBrownBottle

[Gazzaschicken]

9 hours ago, Wilson said:

Sounds like they've went in blind. 

Not really it's ecologists reports are a joke. You pay them £700 and they walk around the site for 10 minutes and give you bunch of generic jargon saying may be this may be that. Abit like a house survey report. You won't pay for bat survey also known as an amphibian survey straight off as if the ecologists report doesn't mention it then what's the point. Invasive species is standard as well. This shouldnt delay it just adds conditions onto the plan before construction starts they should be doing an environmental survey anyway prior to construction starting so that will all wrap into this. 

[Tiresias]

For the record I would happily trade in all our wealth for a league that was run properly under a FFP set that worked where no club has significant financial advantage over the others, noone is paying ridiculous wages and no club is burying itself in debt to sustain success. 

 

There is no question the FFP rules are completely hamstrung by the fact they need to be agreed between clubs who won't vote against their self interest, so we have one that is an obstacle for new clubs to spend a lot of money which isn't an obstacle to currently established clubs who have already massively boosted their own revenue. We are likely going to need to work on and improve our revenue to enable us to spend more, this was always the case. 

 

I don't think the legal action is a helpful route. It will only rebound on us when the other clubs vote more measures targeted at us if we piss everyone off. We need to get the club making more money, there is a lot of low hanging fruit to do so. We don't need to take any shortcuts to the top, we should do it sustainably and carefully anyway. In the long term there is always the possibility of say regime change in Saudi Arabia leading to them changing their investment priorities and suddenly we are for sale again. I would much rather us be in the position of a well run club making a lot of money rather than reliant purely on money being handed down from on high.

 

 

Edited May 25, 2022 by Tiresias

[Jackie Broon]

4 hours ago, Gazzaschicken said:

Not really it's ecologists reports are a joke. You pay them £700 and they walk around the site for 10 minutes and give you bunch of generic jargon saying may be this may be that. Abit like a house survey report. You won't pay for bat survey also known as an amphibian survey straight off as if the ecologists report doesn't mention it then what's the point. Invasive species is standard as well. This shouldnt delay it just adds conditions onto the plan before construction starts they should be doing an environmental survey anyway prior to construction starting so that will all wrap into this. 

 

That's not the case at all. Just about every ecology report I've read, and that's hundreds, includes a summary of reccomendatiins that is clear and easy for people who, like myself, are not ecology specialists to understand.

 

The report very clearly says that further bat surveys are needed.

 

The impression I get is that many developers/architects/agents, just pay for ecology reports etc. think they've ticked that box and either don't even bother to read them or do and submit them hoping the planners won't read them.

 

Any pre-commencement conditions are almost certain to delay the start of works because they require another application for discharge of conditions to be made, which often can take longer than a planning application.

 

 

Edited May 25, 2022 by Jackie Broon

[Awaymag]

4 hours ago, Tiresias said:

For the record I would happily trade in all our wealth for a league that was run properly under a FFP set that worked where no club has significant financial advantage over the others, noone is paying ridiculous wages and no club is burying itself in debt to sustain success. 

 

There is no question the FFP rules are completely hamstrung by the fact they need to be agreed between clubs who won't vote against their self interest, so we have one that is an obstacle for new clubs to spend a lot of money which isn't an obstacle to currently established clubs who have already massively boosted their own revenue. We are likely going to need to work on and improve our revenue to enable us to spend more, this was always the case. 

 

I don't think the legal action is a helpful route. It will only rebound on us when the other clubs vote more measures targeted at us if we piss everyone off. We need to get the club making more money, there is a lot of low hanging fruit to do so. We don't need to take any shortcuts to the top, we should do it sustainably and carefully anyway. In the long term there is always the possibility of say regime change in Saudi Arabia leading to them changing their investment priorities and suddenly we are for sale again. I would much rather us be in the position of a well run club making a lot of money rather than reliant purely on money being handed down from on high.

 

 

 

Can we not do that once we have a stadium expansion, new training ground and a City landscape like Dubai.    Then I will happily trade in!

[Kanji]

Fuck trading in anything man. I hope we study the rules and do whatever is needed to stay in compliance as creatively as possible, if there are certain credits for investing into academy, women's team, etc. go ahead and do that to the fullest. Take stock of the bull shit the other clubs do and every single chairman's meeting with the league, ask the hard questions. 

[The Prophet]

 

This is Mrs The Prophet's City/team. I approve.

[FloydianMag]

 

[Mikky]

1 minute ago, FloydianMag said:

 

not that I understand Arabic but I can make out the words Newcastle and Dan Ashworth 

[Manxst]

Just now, Mikky said:

not that I understand Arabic but I can make out the words Newcastle and Dan Ashworth 

Says Ashworth MIGHT be announced this week. 

[FloydianMag]

21 minutes ago, Mikky said:

not that I understand Arabic but I can make out the words Newcastle and Dan Ashworth 

You could click on translate when you view it on twitter

[Wolfcastle]

10 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It is shite, but the KK era would have happened - NUFC‘s relative success in the ‘90s was built around the club’s income, not investment (the Halls and Shepherds put very little in).  Unlike Blackburn, which was mostly down to Jack Walker’s money

 

 

 

Posted this before but we sold something like £7million of shirts in half a year in 1993. The record transfer in the UK at that time was 3.6m. £7m from the Bonds when the UK record transfer was £5m. A net transfer spend in 95 of about 1m that we were running away with the league on.

If anything, and  your'e right, FFP would have benefitted us over clubs that spent more than us without the same resources. Its more why the KK era happened the something that would have prevented it.

 

 

Edited May 25, 2022 by Wolfcastle

[manorpark]

1 hour ago, Manxst said:

Says Ashworth MIGHT be announced this week. 

 

I do hope so.

 

I fully appreciate, and support, our clear intention to show that we will never be taken advantage of financially, but it is not as if paying compensation would set a 'precedent' here, like it would if we paid over the odds for a player.

 

I mean, we are not going to be bringing another Director of Football in the near future are we (hopefully!)

[NE27]

Is it definitely to do with compensation? Or are they trying to keep people happy and attempt to do things the correct way? Or at least the perceived correct way.

 

I know staveley mentioned in her earlier interviews that they were trying to assure other clubs we aren't just going to bulldoze in.