Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[The College Dropout]

Fundamentally if you have owners that are willing to sustain losses and continue to invest what’s the problem? Uber, Facebook, Amazon etc. did that for years. 
 

Leicester can only be a competitive team in the PL sustainably if they are in the CL more often than not. Thats not fair.  If their owners want to bankroll them (pegged to a European or division limit) what’s wrong with that? If I was a gazillionaire and wanted to open a supermarket chain. I could invest as long as it took to catch Tesco and co.  

[Erikse]

21 minutes ago, DebuchyAndTheBeast said:

 

I read somewhere that it's combination of factors. Their finances being hit by Covid19, their high wage to revenue ratio and profits being mainly driven by player sales which failed to materialise in the past 2-3 seasons. While FFP is definitely a thorn in our side, I can't say that I'm sorry for teams like Everton, Forest and now Leicester who are being penalised because they haven't managed their finances properly.

 

Yes, they can thanks themselves, absolutely. But it's just a very good example of what restrictions there are in place to prevent clubs from messing with the big boys. It just gets really obvious in Leicesters case when you compare their spending/wages to those that they were competing against for the top 4.

[Erikse]

As I have said before - Man United has their yearly £80 mill flop on £200-300k per week, who gets sold for half the price. No problem, just try again next window. If teams like Leicester does 1 risky failed window, they are in massive trouble. Better stay on the safe side and not take the risks required to get up to the next level.

 

 

Edited March 24 by Erikse

[Abacus]

30 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Fundamentally if you have owners that are willing to sustain losses and continue to invest what’s the problem? Uber, Facebook, Amazon etc. did that for years. 
 

Leicester can only be a competitive team in the PL sustainably if they are in the CL more often than not. Thats not fair.  If their owners want to bankroll them (pegged to a European or division limit) what’s wrong with that? If I was a gazillionaire and wanted to open a supermarket chain. I could invest as long as it took to catch Tesco and co.  

I suppose the problem is that Uber, Facebook, Amazon etc all wrecked the markets they were in and upset the established order, wrecked things along the way, became effective monopolies themselves and are hardly paragons of virtue either.

 

I'm not personally disagreeing with you at all, by the way, the reverse in fact. Just pointing out the devil's advocate position that no form of control can be good in the long run.

 

Although in counter to my own devils advocate position I'd say every market needs a disruptor, or the ability to have one, or we're stuck forever in a situation of permanent market dominance as we have now with ridiculous coefficients as rewards for success etc.

[Pablo]

Leicester are a funny one, they were the blue print and aspiration that you could break in and challenge for / win trophies. In the dark days they gave me hope. However, they mugged us off royally with James Maddison, and so I have absolutely no sympathy. They knew the rules and chose to ignore them, throw the book at them.

[The College Dropout]

15 hours ago, Abacus said:

I suppose the problem is that Uber, Facebook, Amazon etc all wrecked the markets they were in and upset the established order, wrecked things along the way, became effective monopolies themselves and are hardly paragons of virtue either.

 

I'm not personally disagreeing with you at all, by the way, the reverse in fact. Just pointing out the devil's advocate position that no form of control can be good in the long run.

 

Although in counter to my own devils advocate position I'd say every market needs a disruptor, or the ability to have one, or we're stuck forever in a situation of permanent market dominance as we have now with ridiculous coefficients as rewards for success etc.

Agreed. No football club should be allowed to monopolise a division through limiting the competitiveness of other clubs through Insane spendig. 

[kingxlnc]

On 23/03/2024 at 10:57, huss9 said:

https://www.themag.co.uk/2024/03/gareth-southgate-asked-about-newcastle-united-brings-up-financial-fair-play-as-key-factor-tottenham/

 

"Why? Financial fair play means clubs need to generate their own money, so we’re in a bizarre world where there’s more money in the game than ever before, and yet everyone is scrambling across federations and clubs to generate more."

 

 

 

Good point. First intelligent thing you’ve said today. 

[Arknor]

I noticed outside the club shop against the wall now has an InPost collection/drop off box, with full NUFC branding on it.

I bet thats about another tenner a year for FFP, every little helps

 

 

I see after a quick google it was announced in December
https://www.nufc.co.uk/news/latest-news/newcastle-united-delivers-out-of-the-box-partnership-with-leading-locker-and-e-commerce-delivery-provider-inpost/


It is new there though right? I walk past most days and never noticed it.

it even has the stupid GOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL slogan on it from the adverts

 

 

Edited March 25 by Arknor

[LordJake]

2 hours ago, Arknor said:

I noticed outside the club shop against the wall now has an InPost collection/drop off box, with full NUFC branding on it.

I bet thats about another tenner a year for FFP, every little helps

 

 

I see after a quick google it was announced in December
https://www.nufc.co.uk/news/latest-news/newcastle-united-delivers-out-of-the-box-partnership-with-leading-locker-and-e-commerce-delivery-provider-inpost/


It is new there though right? I walk past most days and never noticed it.

it even has the stupid GOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL slogan on it from the adverts

 

 

 

The guy next to Eales is Michael Rouse, one of InPosts board members, my mates nephew. The sponsorship only came about as he wanted to honour his late father who was originally from here but had been in Ireland for years. The family are NUFC daft, he basically rang the Polish owner and said we’re going to sponsor Newcastle 

[pubteam]

3 hours ago, Arknor said:

I noticed outside the club shop against the wall now has an InPost collection/drop off box, with full NUFC branding on it.

I bet thats about another tenner a year for FFP, every little helps

 

 

I see after a quick google it was announced in December
https://www.nufc.co.uk/news/latest-news/newcastle-united-delivers-out-of-the-box-partnership-with-leading-locker-and-e-commerce-delivery-provider-inpost/


It is new there though right? I walk past most days and never noticed it.

it even has the stupid GOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL slogan on it from the adverts

 

 

 

Man city have 46 separate sponsorship deals and it's accounts for 70% of their income. 

[Charlies]

Forrest appealing the decision unsurprisingly.

[FloydianMag]

Chelsea’s problems growing.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/mar/25/marina-granovskaia-role-chelsea-alleged-financial-breaches-under-investigation-premier-league

[gbandit]

Devastated for them. Fingers crossed they don’t collapse as a club 

[huss9]

5 hours ago, Charlies said:

Forrest appealing the decision unsurprisingly.

craig?

[Slim]

14 hours ago, FloydianMag said:

Chelsea’s problems growing.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/mar/25/marina-granovskaia-role-chelsea-alleged-financial-breaches-under-investigation-premier-league

Would they not just let them off because it was not the new owners and they reported it to the premier?

[Jack27]

17 minutes ago, Slim said:

Would they not just let them off because it was not the new owners and they reported it to the premier?

Because fuck ‘em

[gjohnson]

18 minutes ago, Slim said:

Would they not just let them off because it was not the new owners and they reported it to the premier?

It seems a stupid move from them tbh. "We've found our previous owners were dodgy so are reporting them now knowing we can be punished for their transgressions". Looks like they know they're going to get a punishment and are hoping for leniency because they actually reported it. 

If this Grankowsla (however its spelt) was so in with Abromovich as it sounds, why bring Chelsea into it at all...me smells some shenanigans that people wanted to make look legit

 

[FloydianMag]

2 hours ago, Slim said:

Would they not just let them off because it was not the new owners and they reported it to the premier?

Any wrongdoing is on the club, doesn’t matter if owners change.

[Keegans Export]

They could be using it to encourage leniency if (when?) they fall foul of FFP/PSR themselves? In most cases cooperation is viewed favourably when handing down a punishment. 

[Abacus]

If there's a points deduction for Chelsea, I wonder when this would take effect?

 

You'd imagine if it's this season, it would scupper them big style for their league placing and therefore put them in a spot for FFP in the summer. Another club that might start to challenge it?

[gjohnson]

2 hours ago, Abacus said:

If there's a points deduction for Chelsea, I wonder when this would take effect?

 

You'd imagine if it's this season, it would scupper them big style for their league placing and therefore put them in a spot for FFP in the summer. Another club that might start to challenge it?

2032, suspended for 10 years as they co-operated

 

 

Edited March 26 by gjohnson

[Pokerprince2004]

3 hours ago, Abacus said:

If there's a points deduction for Chelsea, I wonder when this would take effect?

 

You'd imagine if it's this season, it would scupper them big style for their league placing and therefore put them in a spot for FFP in the summer. Another club that might start to challenge it?

 

I think Chelsea will only be in trouble if they don't balance the books by June 30th  - They've made 211m in loses in the 2 years since new owners came in and can only lose a maximum of 105m over 3 years so will need to bring in 106m before July 1st otherwise they'll fail PSR.

 

Lots of sales or a heavy points deduction next season I'd imagine 

[geordie_b]

Probably invite them to play in the Premier League Asia Trophy and deduct them points in that

[Terraloon]

On 26/03/2024 at 15:54, Pokerprince2004 said:

 

I think Chelsea will only be in trouble if they don't balance the books by June 30th  - They've made 211m in loses in the 2 years since new owners came in and can only lose a maximum of 105m over 3 years so will need to bring in 106m before July 1st otherwise they'll fail PSR.

 

Lots of sales or a heavy points deduction next season I'd imagine 

The accounting losses in 21/22 were £114.6 million and although we haven’t seen the 22/23 numbers we are told they are circa £90 million. So yep very much in the ball park you are suggesting but without a lot more knowledge we have absolutely no clue what the  numbers for 23/24 are or indeed what sales  have to take place before 30/6/24. 

 

I read a report on Monday from a journalist called Ben Johnson that we, Chelsea are well within the PSR up to 22/23. On the face of it hard to believe but possibly he is right add to it the fact that the heiracy at Chelsea have rubbished claims that sales have to take place then who knows? 

 

If you look at the 21/22 numbers there are factors that may have impacted . I am not saying they did but someone far more up of FFP than me has suggested that they will in full or in part  be accepted as exceptional allowances 

 

1) In the 21/22 loss was a sum of £94.67 million  in respect of player impairment ( £76.7 million ) and (£17.9 million) in respect of a historical legal matter.

Impairment features regularly but the £76.7 was the most ever claimed by a PL club and in all likelihood the bulk of that sum came about because of COVId and or the takeover. Similarly the on going legal matter if truly is historic it is likely to be claimed . 
2) Healthy expenditure including youth and ladies football along with depreciation has been quantified by others as being around £40 million pa

3) The sanctions resulted in no sales for three months  of any description such as tickets, merchandise, food etc and whilst unknown thought to be around £40 million. Also the suspension of sponsorship was thought to have cost £10 million. Will the PL Board already have agreed to make adjustments? The suggestion in the Everton written reasons were that they would accept claims if there were sums either income or expenditure that could have been directly attributed to the war in Ukraine 
4) It is  clear that part of the strategy was to shift out players who had / have large amortisation which will feature in the accounts but will be deducted from PSR /FFP purposes. Lukaku £20 million for instance of course it’s highly likely that his fee will have been impaired 

The PSR submissions would be really helpful and yes we can only guess for the majority of clubs but there are some like Ipswich that do publish a copy of their submissions 


 

 

[Sima]

Chelsea will get away with it as they are one of the top 6 darlings.