Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability - New APT Rules Approved by Premier League

[TRon]

5 minutes ago, Mahoneys Tache said:

What fucks me off is that if we want to compete with them we will have to become them.   I’d rather be shit. 

 

RTG comes to Newcastle.

[TheHoob]

I'd rather spunk billions of dodgily acquired but unable to prove oil money and win the league eleventy-five times. 

[Pablo123]

3 minutes ago, TheHoob said:

I'd rather spunk billions of dodgily acquired but unable to prove oil money and win the league eleventy-five times. 

Me, three

[duo]

7 hours ago, TRC said:

OK so nothing will happen then. Sound

...so what he seems to be saying is Man City will most likely get away with it due to it being difficult to prove. Shock. Surely the emails we have all seen is proof enough that the sponsors didn't pay all the money declared as being from sponsors?

 

 

Edited January 18 by duo

[Yorkie]

I thought The Athletic's Football Podcast with Adores Himself Ornstein, Matt Slater and Adam Crafton didn't discuss anywhere near enough the impact of FFP in terms of the drawbridge effect. It got a couple of mentions but not enough acknowledgement that it's the principal issue, separately to specific cases of possible inconsistency.

 

Newcastle cropped up amidst the arguments in favour of FFP. "Why should we let Newcastle buy success?" Sigh. That's not the issue. It's not that we're being inhibited from buying success; it's that we're being inhibited from buying to catch up.

 

We've hit our maximum allowed spend following a decade+ that was interspersed with damaging frugality. Despite going as far as we possibly can financially, we've accumulated only a lower-top-half squad that can't sustain multiple competitions, and a situation where sales are absolutely necessary for any hope of progress. 

 

I don't want us to be in a situation where we can buy titles as Chelsea and City did, but by the same token I had no time for Slater's "go and achieve it without the asterisks, then" suggestion. Mate, it isn't going to happen as long as these inhibitors (from our point of view) / enablers (from City et al's point of view) exist. Yes, it would be lovely, imagine that, but it's a pointless comment really that adds nothing meaningful to the discussion. 

 

Remember Klopp talking about ceilings?

[r0cafella]

11 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

I thought The Athletic's Football Podcast with Adores Himself Ornstein, Matt Slater and Adam Crafton didn't discuss anywhere near enough the impact of FFP in terms of the drawbridge effect. It got a couple of mentions but not enough acknowledgement that it's the principal issue, separately to specific cases of possible inconsistency.

 

Newcastle cropped up amidst the arguments in favour of FFP. "Why should we let Newcastle buy success?" Sigh. That's not the issue. It's not that we're being inhibited from buying success; it's that we're being inhibited from buying to catch up.

 

We've hit our maximum allowed spend following a decade+ that was interspersed with damaging frugality. Despite going as far as we possibly can financially, we've accumulated only a lower-top-half squad that can't sustain multiple competitions, and a situation where sales are absolutely necessary for any hope of progress. 

 

I don't want us to be in a situation where we can buy titles as Chelsea and City did, but by the same token I had no time for Slater's "go and achieve it without the asterisks, then" suggestion. Mate, it isn't going to happen as long as these inhibitors (from our point of view) / enablers (from City et al's point of view) exist. Yes, it would be lovely, imagine that, but it's a pointless comment really that adds nothing meaningful to the discussion. 

 

Remember Klopp talking about ceilings?

I haven’t listened to this yet but I know what you’ve described is exactly how it will go. Let’s be honest these journalist are self serving, they don’t want a club as far as Newcastle to be successful, imagine how much extra time they will have to spend driving up?

 

The league has always been bought, I’m not sure where this narrative that it hasn’t has come from. When was the last time someone won the spent fuck all? 

[leffe186]

33 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

I thought The Athletic's Football Podcast with Adores Himself Ornstein, Matt Slater and Adam Crafton didn't discuss anywhere near enough the impact of FFP in terms of the drawbridge effect. It got a couple of mentions but not enough acknowledgement that it's the principal issue, separately to specific cases of possible inconsistency.

 

Newcastle cropped up amidst the arguments in favour of FFP. "Why should we let Newcastle buy success?" Sigh. That's not the issue. It's not that we're being inhibited from buying success; it's that we're being inhibited from buying to catch up.

 

We've hit our maximum allowed spend following a decade+ that was interspersed with damaging frugality. Despite going as far as we possibly can financially, we've accumulated only a lower-top-half squad that can't sustain multiple competitions, and a situation where sales are absolutely necessary for any hope of progress. 

 

I don't want us to be in a situation where we can buy titles as Chelsea and City did, but by the same token I had no time for Slater's "go and achieve it without the asterisks, then" suggestion. Mate, it isn't going to happen as long as these inhibitors (from our point of view) / enablers (from City et al's point of view) exist. Yes, it would be lovely, imagine that, but it's a pointless comment really that adds nothing meaningful to the discussion. 

 

Remember Klopp talking about ceilings?

Yeah, I think one problem with the podcast is that there was just too much ground to cover. They say it at one point - basically they have to cut it short because they could talk about it for hours.

 

Once again though, the drawbridge stuff is true and yes it would be lovely to achieve it without the asterisks. But you don’t have to imagine it out of thin air. We fucking did it.

 

And it sucked at times, and it was up and down, and Levy got pelters from everyone. At the beginning the top 4 was essentially a closed shop (Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool) which meant they got pretty much all the CL money. Then just as we might have broken in Man City came along and fucked us all. Lest you forgot, we are the only Premier League team to ever go an entire summer window without buying a player, in 2018.

 

But timeEd32 has laid it out. It will be shitty this year then it will get better. You’re the only show in town with the potential to build a spanking new stadium on more than one site. Whereas we had a closed shop of four who had guaranteed CL income (and no FFP to worry about for a few years at the beginning) there are more teams now jostling for position and preventing the same four from hogging all the CL money. We’re already looking at three of those four having to sell to buy this January if they can even do that. Before this year Arsenal had been out of the CL for six years. Man U have only managed every other year for the past 10.

 

And it might suck at times, like now, and it will be up and down, and yeah it would help if you were in London. But I reckon it’s more doable now than it has been for a long time. Why do you think it’s impossible?

 

 

Edited January 19 by leffe186
Think it was only for the summer window (?)

[r0cafella]

4 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

Yeah, I think one problem with the podcast is that there was just too much ground to cover. They say it at one point - basically they have to cut it short because they could talk about it for hours.

 

Once again though, the drawbridge stuff is true and yes it would be lovely to achieve it without the asterisks. But you don’t have to imagine it out of thin air. We fucking did it.

 

And it sucked at times, and it was up and down, and Levy got pelters from everyone. At the beginning the top 4 was essentially a closed shop (Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool) which meant they got pretty much all the CL money. Then just as we might have broken in Man City came along and fucked us all. Lest you forgot, we are the only Premier League team to ever go an entire summer window without buying a player, in 2018.

 

But timeEd32 has laid it out. It will be shitty this year then it will get better. You’re the only show in town with the potential to build a spanking new stadium on more than one site. Whereas we had a closed shop of four who had guaranteed CL income (and no FFP to worry about for a few years at the beginning) there are more teams now jostling for position and preventing the same four from hogging all the CL money. We’re already looking at three of those four having to sell to buy this January if they can even do that. Before this year Arsenal had been out of the CL for six years. Man U have only managed every other year for the past 10.

 

And it might suck at times, like now, and it will be up and down, and yeah it would help if you were in London. But I reckon it’s more doable now than it has been for a long time. Why do you think it’s impossible?

 

 

 

Leffe, no disrespect again but you haven’t done much, in terms of being successful. You’ve managed to hang on to the coat tails of the them but not meaningfully challenged for honours. 
 

We are heavily disadvantaged by the current rules because of Ashley’s neglect over the years, whilst everyone else was growing we went backwards and we had to ensure 14 years of this. This makes it extremely difficult to bridge the gap especially given since our takeover more stringent rules have been put in place to curtail our growth. 
 

Our locality is both a gift and a curse, yes we are a one club city but if you compare average incomes between London and Newcastle you will obviously see a massive gap, we simply can’t raise our revenue in the same way London clubs can. 
 

Some of our constraints may ease in July but they will have to as our squad will need significant investment, we have a lot of old players and a lot of out of contract players. We are getting in the game after the market has been inflated by the Chelsea’s and cities and the rules haven’t even moved with inflation (which they obviously should have at a minimum). 

[mighty__mag]

Can anyone explain termination of player contracts and ffp, for example you have 4 players you will never use again still contracted, Hayden, Hendrick, Lewis, Fraser.

 

Does it help in anyway reducing the annual outlay to increase recruitment, or not at all and better to get what little you can by hoping clubs will sign the players with any kind of bids.

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, mighty__mag said:

Can anyone explain termination of player contracts and ffp, for example you have 4 players you will never use again still contracted, Hayden, Hendrick, Lewis, Fraser.

 

Does it help in anyway reducing the annual outlay to increase recruitment, or not at all and better to get what little you can by hoping clubs will sign the players with any kind of bids.

Termination is really bad in FFP terms as you have to pay everything out in one shot, as opposed to spreading the cost. 
 

that being said, we did write off wages for both Hayden and Hendrick already. (We’ve essentially accounted for the full contracts of those two in one period). 

[mighty__mag]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

Termination is really bad in FFP terms as you have to pay everything out in one shot, as opposed to spreading the cost. 
 

that being said, we did write off wages for both Hayden and Hendrick already. (We’ve essentially accounted for the full contracts of those two in one period). 

 

Elaborate please.

[r0cafella]

Just now, mighty__mag said:

 

Elaborate please.

Iirc, when our wages to turnover ratio was 90% that was inclusive of some contracts we essential wrote off. Basically we believed the players in question couldn’t be sold and thus we took the financial hit in the books of writing them down to zero. (In essence whatever duration they had left on the contract we accounted for it in that one financial year as opposed to spread over the course of the contract). 
 

I hope that makes sense, I’m not an accountant so it’s difficult to explain sorry.

[mighty__mag]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

Iirc, when our wages to turnover ratio was 90% that was inclusive of some contracts we essential wrote off. Basically we believed the players in question couldn’t be sold and thus we took the financial hit in the books of writing them down to zero. (In essence whatever duration they had left on the contract we accounted for it in that one financial year as opposed to spread over the course of the contract). 
 

I hope that makes sense, I’m not an accountant so it’s difficult to explain sorry.

 

Effectively are you saying they're both off the books as of now, but still attached to the club and being loaned out, in a similar way Matty Longstaff was hanging around, or I'm misunderstanding?

[leffe186]

5 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Leffe, no disrespect again but you haven’t done much, in terms of being successful. You’ve managed to hang on to the coat tails of the them but not meaningfully challenged for honours. 
 

We are heavily disadvantaged by the current rules because of Ashley’s neglect over the years, whilst everyone else was growing we went backwards and we had to ensure 14 years of this. This makes it extremely difficult to bridge the gap especially given since our takeover more stringent rules have been put in place to curtail our growth. 
 

Our locality is both a gift and a curse, yes we are a one club city but if you compare average incomes between London and Newcastle you will obviously see a massive gap, we simply can’t raise our revenue in the same way London clubs can. 
 

Some of our constraints may ease in July but they will have to as our squad will need significant investment, we have a lot of old players and a lot of out of contract players. We are getting in the game after the market has been inflated by the Chelsea’s and cities and the rules haven’t even moved with inflation (which they obviously should have at a minimum). 

 

I mean the coat tails were halfway up the stairs at the beginning. Was hard enough grabbing hold of them let alone hanging on. Most of the talk here has been about the top six cartel being out of reach, and as we are part of that I presumed you were wanting to catch us. I just think that we bridged the gap while spending less than our income, so why can’t you?

 

I think we’re well placed to kick on now. I mean, it’s only 2018 when we didn’t buy anyone (presumably because of the stadium costs/uncertainty) and then COVID came along.

 

I just think that you’ve already shown so much improvement in such a short time, and your past history suggests you can generate way more revenue on matchday and outside. I would presume you also have decent name recognition abroad thanks partly to the early successes in the Premier League. I do think that you will need to either move or rebuild St.James’s Park to make the step up at some point. 
 

The rules definitely need changing to account for inflation etc. 

[r0cafella]

Just now, mighty__mag said:

 

Effectively are you saying they're both off the books as of now, but still attached to the club and being loaned out, in a similar way Matty Longstaff was hanging around, or I'm misunderstanding?

No, they are still under contract but in the books the contracts have been paid in full (we brought forward the cost of the wages in the books) and this is only in the books, they are still being paid by us and we still hold the players registration. 
 

Matty Longstaff doesn’t have a contract with us at all, it expired last summer and he’s now a free agent. 
 

 

[r0cafella]

2 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

 

I mean the coat tails were halfway up the stairs at the beginning. Was hard enough grabbing hold of them let alone hanging on. Most of the talk here has been about the top six cartel being out of reach, and as we are part of that I presumed you were wanting to catch us. I just think that we bridged the gap while spending less than our income, so why can’t you?

 

I think we’re well placed to kick on now. I mean, it’s only 2018 when we didn’t buy anyone (presumably because of the stadium costs/uncertainty) and then COVID came along.

 

I just think that you’ve already shown so much improvement in such a short time, and your past history suggests you can generate way more revenue on matchday and outside. I would presume you also have decent name recognition abroad thanks partly to the early successes in the Premier League. I do think that you will need to either move or rebuild St.James’s Park to make the step up at some point. 
 

The rules definitely need changing to account for inflation etc. 

our goal is to win, not to become the seventh member, if that makes sense?

 

your absolutely right, we’ve made great progress but we are still half of your revenue and you guys are still growing. We are trying to hit an ever increasing target which is compounded by the fact in order to generate the revenue the way people think is right you have to be successful, in order to be successful you have to spend. It’s a chicken and egg situation. 
 

We have some recognition sure, but we are still way behind on all metrics, I don’t think growing is so easy and ultimately it’s the finances which drive the on the pitch growth. 
 

When you guys became apart of the cartel, the gap was smaller and also the competition was less, that’s why you could do it. It was the same for us during KK days. It’s much more difficult now everything is way more advanced even clubs like Brighton have a formidable scouting network and are seen as the model club (note the model club stagnates and sells its best players yearly) this isn’t a model to envy if your a fan. 

[et tu brute]

1 hour ago, Yorkie said:

 

Newcastle cropped up amidst the arguments in favour of FFP. "Why should we let Newcastle buy success?" Sigh.

Was that Crafton? He's the one constantly putting out negative reports. Shows how biased and shit scared they are.
 

It's about being allowed to have owners to be able to invest in their own business, which would only mirror every other industry and business. Problem for them, is that being allowed to do this basic and fundamental business practice, would then leave us in the position to blow every club out of the water, and they certainly don't want little old Newcastle doing that.

 

Roll on the legal challenge, I still maintain that it's only a matter of time, and the noise is starting to build. 

[Mattoon]

It's not just the FFP though, now they're saying " You can only spend how much you earn, but we'll also dictate how much we think you should earn.". Stinks to high heaven, it's so blatantly obvious it's just anti-competitive and the same voices of discontent that call all the shots to prevent any meaningful competition.

[Yorkie]

Tbf, while it's frustrating that there's a dam holding back our enormous reservoir of Saudi money, we're not in a good position to complain. FFP exists for everyone - it holds everyone back - but our owners give us the ability to artificially boost revenues by involving made-up shite like Sela and by having Silverstone hook us up with Adidas. They can spend unlimited amounts on infrastructure. If the rules are all about getting your revenues up then we're in a blessed position compared to the rest of the League's also-rans.

[McDog]

1 hour ago, duo said:

...so what he seems to be saying is Man City will most likely get away with it due to it being difficult to prove. Shock. Surely the emails we have all seen is proof enough that the sponsors didn't pay all the money declared as being from sponsors?

 

 

 

 

 

If they can't prove it why charge them in the first place?

 

When it was first reported wasn't it said they stopped cooperating with the league a year ago, perhaps that was falsely reported but in American sports if a team outright doesn't cooperate during an investigation they would get sanctioned immediately and continue to do so until the league shoved a baseball bat up their arse. In England they could substitute a cricket bat.

[Yorkie]

15 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Was that Crafton? He's the one constantly putting out negative reports. Shows how biased and shit scared they are.

 

Yeah. Man Utd fan too.

 

Tbf it wasn't necessarily a dig at us; repeating the Abramovich and Mansour stories with our Saudi overlords isn't something anyone should want, including us, imo. 

[r0cafella]

Just now, Yorkie said:

 

Yeah. Man Utd fan too.

 

Tbf it wasn't necessarily a dig at us; repeating the Abramovich and Mansour stories with our Saudi overlords isn't something anyone should want, including us, imo. 

What difference does it make? No matter how much we spend we are going to get those accusations anyway. 
 

Personally I want to see competitive balance and rules which encourage it, not rules which gate keep. 

[r0cafella]

Btw, is that correct? Everton are being punished for the same breach again? If so that clearly isn’t correct and the rules are deeply flawed. Surely any breaches which are punished should result in the year of the breach being zeroised. Although I guess that makes the rules game able as you park your losses to one year and enjoy the benefits the year after. 
 

Either way these rules have been poorly thought out. 

[r0cafella]

Listening to the podcast now, I really dislike crafting and his straw man argument. He mentioned we’ve done ok so far and we’ve been allowed to invest, that’s purely because Ashley didn’t. Moving forward we wouldn’t be able to do so because of the drawbridge created and lobbied for by the team he reports on. 
 

The agenda pushing on this podcast is hilarious, and the complete lack of discussion regarding alternatives to the flawed system is disappointing. 
 

We can protect clubs from going bust very easily by creating rules such as depositing money to escrow accounts or directors guarantees. This isn’t rocket science or difficult to comprehend. 
 

 

So the actual discussion is around fairness and balance, and it isn’t fair that Man city and Chelsea are who grew when it was the Wild West are allowed to maintain that position when others such as ourselves and Villa are competing against rules which are both ineffective and unfair. 

[Nobody]

3 hours ago, Yorkie said:

I thought The Athletic's Football Podcast with Adores Himself Ornstein, Matt Slater and Adam Crafton didn't discuss anywhere near enough the impact of FFP in terms of the drawbridge effect. It got a couple of mentions but not enough acknowledgement that it's the principal issue, separately to specific cases of possible inconsistency.

 

Newcastle cropped up amidst the arguments in favour of FFP. "Why should we let Newcastle buy success?" Sigh. That's not the issue. It's not that we're being inhibited from buying success; it's that we're being inhibited from buying to catch up.

 

We've hit our maximum allowed spend following a decade+ that was interspersed with damaging frugality. Despite going as far as we possibly can financially, we've accumulated only a lower-top-half squad that can't sustain multiple competitions, and a situation where sales are absolutely necessary for any hope of progress. 

 

I don't want us to be in a situation where we can buy titles as Chelsea and City did, but by the same token I had no time for Slater's "go and achieve it without the asterisks, then" suggestion. Mate, it isn't going to happen as long as these inhibitors (from our point of view) / enablers (from City et al's point of view) exist. Yes, it would be lovely, imagine that, but it's a pointless comment really that adds nothing meaningful to the discussion. 

 

Remember Klopp talking about ceilings?

It's literally impossible, even without FFP, to "buy the league", like Chelsea and Man City did. If it was even remotely possible, Chelsea would have already done it tbh, and look at where they are now. 

Even just imagining if PIF had free range when they came in to spend whatever they wanted, I still don't think we would be anywhere close to winning the league.