PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media

[madras]

Would the Stadium if Light site be big enough for the training complex ? I know it's on Wearside but it would stop those annoying kids hanging about who kick off when they don't get a selfie with someone and we practically own it anyway.

 

 

Edited January 4 by madras

[Unbelievable]

2 minutes ago, madras said:

Yeah but I think you said (haven't read the post myself) it would he a victory against the Big 6, implying there's a big 6 with Man City outside of it.

I didn’t say that. I said if City were to challenge FFP legally to fight getting titles docked and being relegated a few divisions that would go against the interests of the PL and the big six (including City if they won, but to threaten to nuke the lot costs them nothing and probably allows them to get away scott free with their multiple breaches). 

[leffe186]

12 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

Let’s approach this in another manner: in whose interest would it be to allow City to challenge FFP if they were so inclined? The PL? The big six minus City? The big six including City..?

 

Answer: none of the above.

Yeah but that’s the opposite of what you said, unless I’ve completely misread your initial post. You said that Man Cuty would win the case and that would go against the Big Six cartel.

 

Edit: oh I sort of see what you mean. You would still have to consider Man City as separate from the Big six though.

 

 

Edited January 4 by leffe186

[Mountain]

6 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

The current rules and regs need to be taken down for this to occur.  At the moment, we’re boxed in.  It’s hard to see how we grow much from next season. 

 

Agreed I'm just hoping we'll find some mega commercial deal or some solution.

[Charlies]

10 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

The park in Byker?  I’d be surprised if they got permission there.  It’s not exactly filled with green field sites round that neck of the woods

Yeah that where I mean, I’m joking though  can you imagine the players socialising in the Raby after training

[Unbelievable]

2 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

Yeah but that’s the opposite of what you said, unless I’ve completely misread your initial post. You said that Man Cuty would win the case and that would go against the Big Six cartel.

Maybe I phrased the original post badly. I meant there could be a deadlock where the PL want to strip City of titles and relegate them, but if they do City threaten to legally challenge FFP and blow the whole thing up. Such a Mexican standoff would explain why other clubs are getting penalised while the City investigation seems to take forever.

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, Mountain said:

 

Agreed I'm just hoping we'll find some mega commercial deal or some solution.

Only thing I can think of at the moment is loads of little deals (which would no doubt quickly be ‘de-loopholed’ by the usual clubs).   Stadium naming rights etc would add a few quid - but the ‘FMV’ shite would nail us as existing grounds wouldn’t likely attract the same commercial revenues as a new build.

 

A new ground with vastly increased corporate would be an obvious money-spinner, but that wouldn’t be a quick solution. 

[aussiemag]

3 minutes ago, Mountain said:

 

Agreed I'm just hoping we'll find some mega commercial deal or some solution.

 

A new stadium, paid for by the Saudi's would be the best way to boost commercial income. An extra 20,000 seats and corporate/hospitality boxes. This could earn an extra 100 million pounds a year in profits. 

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, Charlies said:

Yeah that where I mean, I’m joking though  can you imagine the players socialising in the Raby after training

I’d force them to.  ‘Come and meet the locals’.  Perfect for new signings  

[leffe186]

…and on reflection that seems a bit like special pleading. You obviously have more in common with Man City than the rest of the “Big Six” because of your ownership. 
 

It’s absolutely true that FFP as it currently functions helps preserve teams in their current strata. It’s also absolutely true that without some form of FFP you are saying anyone can buy anyone and spend what they like. I didn’t like that when Abramovich came in, and when UAE came in, and I still don’t like it. If you do, then fair enough.

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, leffe186 said:

…and on reflection that seems a bit like special pleading. You obviously have more in common with Man City than the rest of the “Big Six” because of your ownership. 
 

It’s absolutely true that FFP as it currently functions helps preserve teams in their current strata. It’s also absolutely true that without some form of FFP you are saying anyone can buy anyone and spend what they like. I didn’t like that when Abramovich came in, and when UAE came in, and I still don’t like it. If you do, then fair enough.

We had a much bigger income than Spurs and Man City when Ashley came in, despite a couple of years in mid-table.  Perhaps we should have locked FFP in place then?

[leffe186]

4 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

We had a much bigger income than Spurs and Man City when Ashley came in, despite a couple of years in mid-table.  Perhaps we should have locked FFP in place then?

Our turnover was 103M and our operating profit was 32M the year he came in. I thought yours was  comparable? We’d been working on it for a bit. Had just finished 5th three years in a row.
 

I’d have been happy with it being in place before Abramovich if it would have prevented his splurge. Def happy with bringing it in when Ashley came in as that was the year before the UAE bought City.

[Unbelievable]

10 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

…and on reflection that seems a bit like special pleading. You obviously have more in common with Man City than the rest of the “Big Six” because of your ownership. 
 

It’s absolutely true that FFP as it currently functions helps preserve teams in their current strata. It’s also absolutely true that without some form of FFP you are saying anyone can buy anyone and spend what they like. I didn’t like that when Abramovich came in, and when UAE came in, and I still don’t like it. If you do, then fair enough.

I think “fair” would be the same limits apply for all clubs, not this odd version with “fair market value” is higher for clubs that already have better deals in place. At least allow all clubs to spend the same as long as their owners can afford it or they can commercially loan it from banks against normal market conditions (and afford the interest and repayments).

[SAK]

22 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Only thing I can think of at the moment is loads of little deals (which would no doubt quickly be ‘de-loopholed’ by the usual clubs).   Stadium naming rights etc would add a few quid - but the ‘FMV’ shite would nail us as existing grounds wouldn’t likely attract the same commercial revenues as a new build.

 

A new ground with vastly increased corporate would be an obvious money-spinner, but that wouldn’t be a quick solution. 

Sponsor SJP now to get the money in and bump it up if/when a new stadium happens would be the solution. No point in waiting.

 

Also I’d argue SJP is an iconic stadium and brands would want to be associated with it so deserves a premium.

[r0cafella]

36 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

 

Ach, was just suggesting that Man City being stripped of their titles and/or demoted a few divisions couldn’t possibly be good for Man City.

Football stinks in general. FFP in principle doesn’t stink, because it was introduced to try to address some real problems, but it has obviously been corrupted and exploited.

It’s especially frustrating for us because we saw Chelsea win the lottery, and then Man City win the lottery, while we worked like crazy for several years to build it up from the ground. We’re obviously part of the “Big Six” now.

Leffe your a class act, and I mean this respectfully but the way FFP has been implemented is absolutely rotten and only acts to serve as a glass ceiling. 
 

if we want to protect clubs from going insolvent the current rules are wholly inadequate and don’t serve that purpose. 

[leffe186]

5 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

I think “fair” would be the same limits apply for all clubs, not this odd version with “fair market value” is higher for clubs that already have better deals in place. At least allow all clubs to spend the same as long as their owners can afford it or they can commercially loan it from banks against normal market conditions (and afford the interest and repayments).

Absolutely. Despite all the attendant issues with exploitation of the NCAA players etc the parity in the NFL was so refreshing.

[leffe186]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

Leffe your a class act, and I mean this respectfully but the way FFP has been implemented is absolutely rotten and only acts to serve as a glass ceiling. 
 

if we want to protect clubs from going insolvent the current rules are wholly inadequate and don’t serve that purpose. 

I mean, maybe they’re not wholly inadequate because we’ve not seen a Leeds or a Portsmouth for a while…and there are still issues further down the pyramid.

 

But don’t get me wrong. I see the bullshit. It’s broken. I just have a simplistic wish/dream for parity

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, leffe186 said:

I mean, maybe they’re not wholly inadequate because we’ve not seen a Leeds or a Portsmouth for a while…and there are still issues further down the pyramid.

 

But don’t get me wrong. I see the bullshit. It’s broken. I just have a simplistic wish/dream for parity

I think, the amount of football clubs which have actually ended up liquidated is fairly small, it’s just the cases of Leeds and Portsmouth were great marketing which allowed people to believe the regulations were needed. 
 

If you actually wanted to stop clubs going bust you would make sure owners had to underwrite all liabilities, if they didn’t the takeover would be blocked. You would ban leveraged buy outs. 
 

It’s actually a very clever sleight of hand; because what are we talking about when we discuss it? Regulation of business or sporting regulations? If you notice the two are often blurred when in actuality they are two very different matters and should be handled totally separately. 

[TheBrownBottle]

1 hour ago, leffe186 said:

Our turnover was 103M and our operating profit was 32M the year he came in. I thought yours was  comparable? We’d been working on it for a bit. Had just finished 5th three years in a row.
 

I’d have been happy with it being in place before Abramovich if it would have prevented his splurge. Def happy with bringing it in when Ashley came in as that was the year before the UAE bought City.

£129m t/o for NUFC.

 

I‘m not serious, of course - but the ‘big four / five / six’ stuff has always been in flux since I was a kid (AFC, LFC, MUFC the exceptions).  What has been put in place via current regs calcifies a snapshot in time - Chelsea, Spurs, Man City at various points were either not in there or were miles away from it. 

[McDog]

1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Only thing I can think of at the moment is loads of little deals (which would no doubt quickly be ‘de-loopholed’ by the usual clubs).   Stadium naming rights etc would add a few quid - but the ‘FMV’ shite would nail us as existing grounds wouldn’t likely attract the same commercial revenues as a new build.

 

A new ground with vastly increased corporate would be an obvious money-spinner, but that wouldn’t be a quick solution. 

 

 

If a mega deal came that rivaled the big money clubs and the PL shot it down, THAT would be the opening to challenge that particular rule, not FFP in general. Of course it would have to be an actual market deal comparable to the huge deals other clubs get. I say not FFP in general because I agree with you, KSA doing that would be a political landmine they wouldn't want to step on.

[TheBrownBottle]

3 minutes ago, McDog said:

 

 

If a mega deal came that rivaled the big money clubs and the PL shot it down, THAT would be the opening to challenge that particular rule, not FFP in general. Of course it would have to be an actual market deal comparable to the huge deals other clubs get. I say not FFP in general because I agree with you, KSA doing that would be a political landmine they wouldn't want to step on.

Yeah, I think you’re right.  I don’t think challenging ‘FMV’ has the same political implications of challenging FFP.  I also think it wouldn’t be beyond PIF’s capacity to get multiple external bidders … 

[McDog]

18 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Yeah, I think you’re right.  I don’t think challenging ‘FMV’ has the same political implications of challenging FFP.  I also think it wouldn’t be beyond PIF’s capacity to get multiple external bidders … 

 

 

A very good point.

[RUHRLYASLEEVESUP]

11 hours ago, LordJake said:

Parklands will be I’d imagine. Racecourse will be floated by RacingUK money. The only meetings they will make money otherwise would be the plate, fighting fifth and ladies day and they have all diminished in stature once it went all weather 

Then make £105k per meeting for selling pics around the world & its owned by ARC (Reuben's) & shown on ATR, RUK have nothing to do with the track.

 

 

Edited January 5 by RUHRLYASLEEVESUP

[Boey_Jarton]

9 hours ago, leffe186 said:

I mean, maybe they’re not wholly inadequate because we’ve not seen a Leeds or a Portsmouth for a while…and there are still issues further down the pyramid.

 

But don’t get me wrong. I see the bullshit. It’s broken. I just have a simplistic wish/dream for parity

FFP has nothing to do with preventing a Portsmouth/Leeds.

 

If it wanted to do that it would apply 'going concern' style controls where the club needs to demonstrate security through an ability to continue to meet its commitments over a set period.

 

These controls could be enhanced so they set a higher bar than normal going concern tests applied to every company through an annual audit and so that they consider some of the unique challenges that face football clubs. 

 

In those tests, the source of security, whether it be ongoing profit or capital commitments from owner should be irrelevant. Debt should be fine too as long as the club can demonstrate it can meet its repayments under sensitised scenarios (e.g. missing out on champions league, relegation etc.). Equally, similar tests could be applied to check the club can meet its other commitments (wages, HMRC etc) in sensitised scenarios. All clubs could be required to get these tests independently signed off by an auditor. 

All the above would never happen of course because the real reason we have FFP, is not to demonstrate long term financial security, but to lock in the status quo as much as it is possible. 

 

 

 

[FloydianMag]

14 minutes ago, Boey_Jarton said:

FFP has nothing to do with preventing a Portsmouth/Leeds.

 

If it wanted to do that it would apply 'going concern' style controls where the club needs to demonstrate security through an ability to continue to meet its commitments over a set period.

 

These controls could be enhanced so they set a higher bar than normal going concern tests applied to every company through an annual audit and so that they consider some of the unique challenges that face football clubs. 

 

In those tests, the source of security, whether it be ongoing profit or capital commitments from owner should be irrelevant. Debt should be fine too as long as the club can demonstrate it can meet its repayments under sensitised scenarios (e.g. missing out on champions league, relegation etc.). Equally, similar tests could be applied to check the club can meet its other commitments (wages, HMRC etc) in sensitised scenarios. All clubs could be required to get these tests independently signed off by an auditor. 

 

All the above would never happen of course because the real reason we have FFP, is not to demonstrate long term financial security, but to lock in the status quo as much as it is possible. 

 

 

 

FMV is the most blatant attempt at restricting our revenue streams and is nothing more than cartel like behaviour. The cartel clubs especially collectively shat themselves when we were taken over being fully aware of PiF’s portfolio of businesses they could call on to sponsor us. This should be the first restriction that is legally challenged and removed.

 

 

Edited January 5 by FloydianMag