FloydianMag Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 4 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: So it’s either a US-style system of caps or unfettered, unrestrained capitalism? Neither sounds like a positive outcome for football to me. But NDM is thinking of the money that will come his way, not the game. Football clubs are businesses after all and are not above Competition Law, as for lawyers they all make excellent fees, well other than those that work in the criminal justice system. What needs to go is co-efficients, history and heritage that they use to justify higher levels of sponsorship etc then it would be a fairer competition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 1 minute ago, FloydianMag said: Football clubs are businesses after all and are not above Competition Law, as for lawyers they all make excellent fees, well other than those that work in the criminal justice system. What needs to go is co-efficients, history and heritage that they use to justify higher levels of sponsorship etc then it would be a fairer competition. Football clubs being considered businesses these days is part of the problem. Independent regulation is what would be needed - not potentially destroying the game. What NDM would bring about isn’t tweaks to the ‘market value’ rules, but a free-for-all which would wreck the sport. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 59 minutes ago, Fezzle said: There's leaked documents stating they were asking for dodgy funds transferred to cover stuff man. You can't have 115 cases of the exact same offense If they did what is alleged it would have been to inflate their income to allow them to spend more under FFP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 16 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said: If they did what is alleged it would have been to inflate their income to allow them to spend more under FFP. How does hidden payments off the books inflate income? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 1 minute ago, Fezzle said: How does hidden payments off the books inflate income? There was both. Hidden payments going out AND inflated sponsorships (and vagueness over where some of the money for trem originated) coming in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 8 minutes ago, Fezzle said: How does hidden payments off the books inflate income? I think at least one of the charges is relating to Etihad's shirt and/or stadium sponsorship - the accusation is that Etihad themselves only put up a small percentage of the sponsorship money, the rest was put in by the owners but disguised as coming from Etihad. So instead of the owners putting in the money themselves, they put it in via Etihad, artificially increasing the club's income therefore allowing more flexibility to spend within FFP regulations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 5 minutes ago, Keegans Export said: I think at least one of the charges is relating to Etihad's shirt and/or stadium sponsorship - the accusation is that Etihad themselves only put up a small percentage of the sponsorship money, the rest was put in by the owners but disguised as coming from Etihad. So instead of the owners putting in the money themselves, they put it in via Etihad, artificially increasing the club's income therefore allowing more flexibility to spend within FFP regulations. Which brings us back to why should owners be prevented from investing in the club they own by artificial constructs like FFP? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 38 minutes ago, Keegans Export said: I think at least one of the charges is relating to Etihad's shirt and/or stadium sponsorship - the accusation is that Etihad themselves only put up a small percentage of the sponsorship money, the rest was put in by the owners but disguised as coming from Etihad. So instead of the owners putting in the money themselves, they put it in via Etihad, artificially increasing the club's income therefore allowing more flexibility to spend within FFP regulations. Oh yeah never argued that, like I originally said its all sorts of dodgy shit they have done. I mean their related party shot is hilarious Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 49 minutes ago, madras said: There was both. Hidden payments going out AND inflated sponsorships (and vagueness over where some of the money for trem originated) coming in. That was my point. 115 man, was all parts of the club Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
McDog Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 55 minutes ago, Fezzle said: How does hidden payments off the books inflate income? Because it doesn't count as a negative on the books in regard to profit. The books is what FFP looks at. You hide payments to show you were more profitable than you really were. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 38 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: Which brings us back to why should owners be prevented from investing in the club they own by artificial constructs like FFP? They're prevented as it upsets the other owners of businesses they're directly competing with. Which is absolute fucking bollocks and anti-competitive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
McDog Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 38 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: Which brings us back to why should owners be prevented from investing in the club they own by artificial constructs like FFP? I think we know what the thought was behind it. Not sure it's working worth shite but I understand what they were trying to do. Honestly, with nothing putting a drag on spending City and Newcastle could bury the league every year if they wanted to. Would PIF spend the money? If they wanted to, they could buy anyone in the world. I'm not defending FFP but I do kinda see where it might go which maybe isn't that far off where it is now considering the head start some clubs had. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Fezzle said: That was my point. 115 man, was all parts of the club It might be 115 instances of payments being hidden, as in the Etihad situation, there may also be multiple charges relating the same breach, for example both for hiding the payments and the breach of FFP if income hadn't been inflated. Ultimately ut wss likely to be all about getting around FFP. These aren't criminal charges, it's not alleged that they broke the law, it would all have about being able to spend more within FFP, there would have been no other reasob for them to do it. Edited December 30, 2023 by Jackie Broon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 15 minutes ago, McDog said: I think we know what the thought was behind it. Not sure it's working worth shite but I understand what they were trying to do. Honestly, with nothing putting a drag on spending City and Newcastle could bury the league every year if they wanted to. Would PIF spend the money? If they wanted to, they could buy anyone in the world. I'm not defending FFP but I do kinda see where it might go which maybe isn't that far off where it is now considering the head start some clubs had. It was always thus when Arsenal, Man U and Liverpool were winning titles over the last 40 years interspersed by the odd club picking up a title every now and again. Someone richer turned up at Chelsea and Man City, then us and the self entitled bastards plotted and schemed to protect what they thought was their right to regularly win trophies, and now we have FFP and FMV. Fuck them, time for them to move aside for another 3-4 wealthier clubs to have their day in the sun. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
McDog Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 (edited) 13 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: It was always thus when Arsenal, Man U and Liverpool were winning titles over the last 40 years interspersed by the odd club picking up a title every now and again. Someone richer turned up at Chelsea and Man City, then us and the self entitled bastards plotted and schemed to protect what they thought was their right to regularly win trophies, and now we have FFP and FMV. Fuck them, time for them to move aside for another 3-4 wealthier clubs to have their day in the sun. THAT I agree with, when Newcastle were taken over suddenly rules had to change. It was directed right at them too. You would have thought they would be more subtle but it was pretty brazen. Edited December 30, 2023 by McDog Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 44 minutes ago, McDog said: Because it doesn't count as a negative on the books in regard to profit. The books is what FFP looks at. You hide payments to show you were more profitable than you really were. So income remains the same? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
McDog Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Fezzle said: So income remains the same? Yes it does, but the outgoing payments are not correct.. Therefore the bottom line is altered. It's about profitability, right? That expense is hidden making them look more profitable that they really are and allowing them to spend more. Edited December 30, 2023 by McDog Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 2 minutes ago, McDog said: Yes it does, but the outgoing payments are not correct.. Therefore the bottom line is altered. It's about profitability, right? That expense is hidden making them look more profitable that they really are and allowing them to spend more. Now to do with my point but aye. Madras is correct Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
McDog Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Fezzle said: Now to do with my point but aye. Madras is correct I guess look at it this way. If Eithad was happy to pay 100M a season, just making up numbers, why would the owners subsidize that? Just let them pay it. If they said "We will pay 50M" and the owners chucked in another 50M behind the scenes and it was concealed as coming from their sponsor then it is 150% getting them income they would not have had and did not honestly report. Edited December 30, 2023 by McDog Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 On 28/12/2023 at 07:40, El Prontonise said: PIF's investments in sport etc are purely for geopoltiical purposes. Saudi Arabia has one profitable business and that's Aramco, other than that it's the more unproductive economy in the world. Domestic purposes also a significant factor. Lots of young Saudis to keep content. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 3 minutes ago, McDog said: I guess look at it this way. If Eithad was happy to pay 100M a season, just making up numbers, why would the owners subsidize that? Just let them pay it. If they said "We will pay 50M" and the owners chucked in another 50M behind the scenes and it was concealed as coming from their sponsor then it is 150% getting them income they would not have had and did not honestly report. They are they owners in all but name Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
McDog Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 1 hour ago, madras said: There was both. Hidden payments going out AND inflated sponsorships (and vagueness over where some of the money for trem originated) coming in. Exactly, hidden payments going out affect profitability and adding money to sponsor deals without reporting it as such is also manipulating the books. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
McDog Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 Just now, Fezzle said: They are they owners in all but name I know, similar to our owners. Difference is they pulled this shit and either we didn't or haven't been caught yet. I believe the former. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 4 minutes ago, McDog said: I know, similar to our owners. Difference is they pulled this shit and either we didn't or haven't been caught yet. I believe the former. Doesn't change anything about my original point regarding unregistered payments Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
McDog Posted December 30, 2023 Share Posted December 30, 2023 4 minutes ago, Fezzle said: Doesn't change anything about my original point regarding unregistered payments Discussion has run it's course although your point about dodgy sources of payments, it 100% affects FFP calculations. 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