Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Pixelphish]

On 18/02/2024 at 10:44, TheBrownBottle said:

Richard Masters referring to Everton as a ‘small club’ was a fucking disgrace, mind.  

 

As much as I dislike them, it hard to argue they're not one of the biggest clubs in the country outside the normal tosspots. Masters and his gaggle of cronies are caricatures at this point.

[TheBrownBottle]

4 minutes ago, Pixelphish said:

 

As much as I dislike them, it hard to argue they're not one of the biggest clubs in the country outside the normal tosspots. Masters and his gaggle of cronies are caricatures at this point.

Yep.  No one with the scantiest knowledge of football would ever call Everton a ‘small club’; for a man in Masters’ position to do it is unbelievable 

[TRon]

On 18/02/2024 at 10:44, TheBrownBottle said:

Richard Masters referring to Everton as a ‘small club’ was a fucking disgrace, mind.  

 

He shouldn't be any part of the FA if he's that clueless about football.

[FloydianMag]

57 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

He shouldn't be any part of the FA if he's that clueless about football.

Is he employed by the FA or the PL?

[Nucasol]

2 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Yep.  No one with the scantiest knowledge of football would ever call Everton a ‘small club’; for a man in Masters’ position to do it is unbelievable 

I do wonder whether we’ll see an attempt at a “no confidence” vote on Masters once the Forest and Everton penalties land next month. He’s seen as the Red Shirts and Spurs’ man and I’d wager the six that voted against the FMV rules could be seen to take a position. Even if it doesn’t pass it’s a damning position if 1/3 of your members want rid publicly.

[Shearergol]

On 18/02/2024 at 10:42, Mase said:

Our 115 charges aren’t just related to FFP - some of them are from just before FFP came into play. There’s charges relating to the length of the grass being too long! 

 

You obviously know much more about your own club that I could possibly know, but which of your 115 charges aren't related to FFP? I count 115 below, none of them relating to long grass.

• Failure to provide accurate and up-to-date financial information from 2009/10 to and including 2017/18 - 54 alleged breaches
• Failure to co-operate with Premier League investigations from December 2018 - present [February 2023] - 35 alleged breaches
• Failure to provide accurate financial reports for player and manager compensation from 2009/10 to and including 2017/18 - 14 alleged breaches
• Breaches of Premier League profitability and sustainability regulations from 2015/16 to and including 2017/18 - 7 alleged breaches
• Failure to comply with UEFA's regulations, including UEFA's Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations - 5 alleged breaches

[FloydianMag]

16 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

 

You obviously know much more about your own club that I could possibly know, but which of your 115 charges aren't related to FFP? I count 115 below, none of them relating to long grass.

• Failure to provide accurate and up-to-date financial information from 2009/10 to and including 2017/18 - 54 alleged breaches
• Failure to co-operate with Premier League investigations from December 2018 - present [February 2023] - 35 alleged breaches
• Failure to provide accurate financial reports for player and manager compensation from 2009/10 to and including 2017/18 - 14 alleged breaches
• Breaches of Premier League profitability and sustainability regulations from 2015/16 to and including 2017/18 - 7 alleged breaches
• Failure to comply with UEFA's regulations, including UEFA's Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations - 5 alleged breaches

City’s lawyers will tie the PL in knots, I doubt any of the allegations will stick. If they do I could see City employing the nuclear option…….challenge FFP and now FMV and bring the lot crashing down.

[Mag3.14]

6 hours ago, duo said:

The point still stands though in that Man U are hundreds of millions in debt and we're not. Yet its Man U who are allowed to spend.

As I understand it, P&S/FFP rules works on losses within a three year period not the actual debt - Man Utd have loans to cover this debt and have revenues to service the debt/interest payments (they've paid around £900m interest from the original ~£800m purchase in 18 years!) -  Say it costs them £50m/year to service the debt they have revenues to cover it. 

Makes a bit of a mockery of the "sustainability" bit of P&S (as it is with all leveraged buyouts) as if the banks/lenders ever called in that debt they'd likely be well and truely fecked 

[Stifler]

Yeah, in theory we could loan money out and then pay that off over the course of 100 years, however I’m assuming it wouldn’t be classed as revenue, thus making it impossible, yet it’s ok for Man Utd to be in 10 years worth or Premier League payments debt levels.

[Mase]

On 20/02/2024 at 13:44, Shearergol said:

 

You obviously know much more about your own club that I could possibly know, but which of your 115 charges aren't related to FFP? I count 115 below, none of them relating to long grass.

• Failure to provide accurate and up-to-date financial information from 2009/10 to and including 2017/18 - 54 alleged breaches
• Failure to co-operate with Premier League investigations from December 2018 - present [February 2023] - 35 alleged breaches
• Failure to provide accurate financial reports for player and manager compensation from 2009/10 to and including 2017/18 - 14 alleged breaches
• Breaches of Premier League profitability and sustainability regulations from 2015/16 to and including 2017/18 - 7 alleged breaches
• Failure to comply with UEFA's regulations, including UEFA's Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations - 5 alleged breaches

 

Apologies mate, when the original charges were issued and released, in the premier league statement they only quoted the rule numbers we had broken not the descriptions, and they were quoting from an old version of the rule book so the rule numbers we were being accused of weren't aligned. Hence one of the rule numbers aligning with grass length. 
 

They had to update the charge numbers.

[The College Dropout]

Debt doesn't have anything to do with anything.

 

Anyone with a £5m house and a mortgage would probably have more debt than me. But they have the income to service it comfortably which is the important thing.

[Optimistic Nut]

Last night showed what a good job this is doing for the Red Three, didn't it? Until this goes, we're going to be no more than a top 8 club who have the odd season pushing a few places higher.

 

It'll eventually hit Villa as well when they want to go to the next level but they're unable to.

 

It's fucking grim. 

 

 

Edited February 25 by Optimistic Nut

[Infatuation Junkie]

49 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

Last night showed what a good job this is doing for the Red Three, didn't it? Until this goes, we're going to be no more than a top 8 club who have the odd season pushing a few places higher.

 

It'll eventually hit Villa as well when they want to go to the next level but they're unable to.

 

It's fucking grim. 

 

 

 

We are a Prius in a drag race with 6 Bugatti veyrons 

[Gawalls]

23 minutes ago, Infatuation Junkie said:

We are a Prius in a drag race with 6 Bugatti veyrons 

None of that means anything to me 😊

[healthyaddiction]

1 hour ago, Optimistic Nut said:

Last night showed what a good job this is doing for the Red Three, didn't it? Until this goes, we're going to be no more than a top 8 club who have the odd season pushing a few places higher.

 

It'll eventually hit Villa as well when they want to go to the next level but they're unable to.

 

It's fucking grim. 

 

 

 

We're 2.5 seasons into the new ownership. We'll get there but it'll take time. It'll be two steps forward one step back, but we'll still overtime get there.

[SAK]

We’ve been pretty passive in the face of all the obstacles put up by others (looking outside in). Think that may have emboldened them more. 
 

Not sure why we don’t have a stadium and training ground sponsor, a training kit sponsor, and lots of below the threshold deals with can’t be scrutinised by other clubs. 
 

On top of that PIF are massive, I don’t believe they can’t use their leverage to get sponsors outside of their own companies.

 

So to me it looks we could do more to help our finances and haven’t taken the opportunities.

 

 

Edited February 25 by SAK

[Stifler]

On 23/02/2024 at 12:51, The College Dropout said:

Debt doesn't have anything to do with anything.

 

Anyone with a £5m house and a mortgage would probably have more debt than me. But they have the income to service it comfortably which is the important thing.

It does in my view.

If we were in the NFL or anything like that, you could say fair enough. However you have Man Utd who are at the equivalent of over 10 years worth of Premier League income in debt.

It’s not like they are always getting Champions League income to say ‘Aye ok, they can afford to have such high debt levels’. It’s unlikely to happen, but imagine one of these rebuilds goes massively wrong and they go down?

Or what happens when they are going 5 years or so without Champions League income and the sponsorship levels are not coming in at the same amount as before?

 

If we and the likes of Aston Villa are not allowed to get market value deals at the same level as the Champions League clubs despite getting into the Champions League spaces because we might not stay there, then those same clubs, especially the likes of Man Utd who go through spells are qualifying for and not qualifying for the Champions League, shouldn’t be allowed the same sponsorship levels and debt tied to those levels incase they no longer keep finishing in those places.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

8 hours ago, Optimistic Nut said:

Last night showed what a good job this is doing for the Red Three, didn't it? Until this goes, we're going to be no more than a top 8 club who have the odd season pushing a few places higher.

 

It'll eventually hit Villa as well when they want to go to the next level but they're unable to.

 

It's fucking grim. 

 

 

 

So what did the 0-0 show us last year exactly? I get people's frustration at last nights result, but let’s not pretend there aren’t any other mitigating factors outside of FFP that influenced that.

[Jonas]

There is no circumstance that ffp doesn't negatively effect. 

injury's, fatigue, personnel, morale, momentum.

The 0-0 showed what we can do with everyone fit. We all knew that scratch the surface and and were talking Murphy, Miggy, Dubs/Karius, Lascelles, Longstaff hang overs from the Ashley era which wouldn't be the case without ffp

 

 

 

Edited February 25 by Jonas

[Boey_Jarton]

10 minutes ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

So what did the 0-0 show us last year exactly? I get people's frustration at last nights result, but let’s not pretend there aren’t any other mitigating factors outside of FFP that influenced that.

Agree.

 

FFP is completely flawed. It imposes rules that stifle competition. It does little to protect sustainability. It creates illogical incentives that lack economic sense. It is not, however, the primary reason why this Newcastle team lost away at Arsenal.

[FloydianMag]

5 minutes ago, Boey_Jarton said:

Agree.

 

FFP is completely flawed. It imposes rules that stifle competition. It does little to protect sustainability. It creates illogical incentives that lack economic sense. It is not, however, the primary reason why this Newcastle team lost away at Arsenal.

The argument that it prevents reckless spending by other clubs is pure bullshit. The cartel clubs couldn’t give a fuck.

 

There is no altruism in football, only self interest.

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

9 minutes ago, Jonas said:

There is no circumstance that ffp doesn't negatively effect. 

injury's, fatigue, personnel, morale, momentum.

The 0-0 showed what we can do with everyone fit. We all knew that scratch the surface and and were talking Murphy, Miggy, Dubs/Karius, Lascelles, Longstaff hang overs from the Ashley era which wouldn't be the case without ffp

 

 

 

 

Even without FFP we'd still have had a number of them on the bench. You can’t just change an entire squad that quickly, without it severely affecting player morale and cohesion. For what it’s worth I think there was an opportunity to be more ruthless last summer and I think in hindsight they maybe would’ve sold Miggy and Wilson when their respective values had peaked if they had that chance again. But even without FFP we wouldn’t have made wholesale changes, building genuine squad depth will take time.

 

 

[1964]

9 hours ago, Optimistic Nut said:

Last night showed what a good job this is doing for the Red Three, didn't it? Until this goes, we're going to be no more than a top 8 club who have the odd season pushing a few places higher.

 

It'll eventually hit Villa as well when they want to go to the next level but they're unable to.

 

It's fucking grim. 

 

 

 

You might want to consider a change of username 

[JonBez comesock]

1 hour ago, FloydianMag said:

The argument that it prevents reckless spending by other clubs is pure bullshit. The cartel clubs couldn’t give a fuck.

 

There is no altruism in football, only self interest.

Agreed 

 

in fact the (cartel) would love nothing more than a team going out of business ! 
 

There could be lots of ways to ensure clubs with money , sign something or do something to protect the club and make sure if they leave / sell the club , the debt is covered (or paid off) 

 

 

[maze]

This rule will ultimately end my interest in foreign football all together. Purely because it’s rigged to ensure that no one can ever compete with the biggest Clubs. The occasional fluke will happen during a freak season, but that’s it.