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

[ikri]

1 hour ago, SteV said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13037341/Man-City-Chelsea-fail-FFP-Everton.html

 

Wasn't there a load of thought that Chelsea had spent a load on younger players knowing that they were likely to breach FFP rules?  The assumption was that they'd get hit with a transfer ban for a couple of seasons but they wouldn't care because they'd have these young superstars available to pick from.

 

With the players not performing yet and with points deductions for FFP rather than transfer bans it makes it look like Chelsea were incredibly reckless where they could be looking at 20 or 30 point deductions over multiple seasons.  That could absolutely kill the club.

[Armchair Pundit]

I'm less concerned with the City's and Chelsea's and more bothered by the Liverpools, Man Utds and Arsenals. In essence the formers just tried to level their own playing fields with the latter, they just got in there and used a method to level that the majority didn't have access to in accelerating their improvement. Even though they're now all as bad as each other, it's the Liverpools, Man Utds and Arsenals who want to kill competition in my eyes, especially the American owned ones who want to make the Prem more like their naff NFL.

[Nucasol]

5 minutes ago, Armchair Pundit said:

I'm less concerned with the City's and Chelsea's and more bothered by the Liverpools, Man Utds and Arsenals. In essence the formers just tried to level their own playing fields with the latter, they just got in there and used a method to level that the majority didn't have access to in accelerating their improvement. Even though they're now all as bad as each other, it's the Liverpools, Man Utds and Arsenals who want to kill competition in my eyes, especially the American owned ones who want to make the Prem more like their naff NFL.

It’s the Americans. Shithouse capitalist vampire squids trying to take investment income out of the clubs via closed shops and protected assets. I see them as far more of a cancer in our game than the others.

[Cronky]

It's clear from the sudden drop in transfer activity this window that clubs are now taking FFP seriously. They do believe that the Premiership will act and that any punishment will stick. It may still crumple under challenge but the important thing is that clubs are acting as if it won't. 

 

I think that Everton were operating under the assumption that if they only went a little bit over the limit, or could plead that some of their decisions were justified by other criteria, that they would get away with it. The message is no, because otherwise it would be unfair on the clubs who made the sacrifices entailed by sticking to the letter of the laws.

 

Notts Forest seem to be trying to do a similar thing by saying that they delayed selling someone so they could get more money. Well tough. Why should they gain an advantage over a club that felt they had to sell at an inopportune time in order to stick to the regs?

[mighty__mag]

Would it be fair to say in the future, many clubs would do their normal transfer business but also be looking to make an ffp player purchase, a player they know will be looking to profit and sell on, a balance the books player.

 

 

Edited February 3 by mighty__mag

[timeEd32]

Of the ‘Big 6’ Chelsea is the one I think the PL would be most open to taking down.

 

Honestly unless Poch can work some miracles they are probably screwed whether they get sanctioned or not. 

[janpawel]

25 minutes ago, mighty__mag said:

Would it be fair to say in the future, many clubs would do their normal transfer business but also be looking to make an ffp player purchase, a player they know will be looking to profit and sell on, a balance the books player.

 

 

 

Think this is part of the upside of us signing Kuol and Minteh, and the investment to the academy etc 

[andy_w_1986]

On a recent Price of Football podcast (last Thursday I think), they covered Man Utd’s approach to owners giving an overdraft rather than loan or equity. He says it’s an interpretation of the rules no other clubs have picked up on and that he thinks it seems legit. 
Anyone more clued up about this? Maybe a backdoor to more transfer funds? 
If it is indeed legit then I assume all clubs will follow…?

[Erikse]

On 03/02/2024 at 08:45, SteV said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13037341/Man-City-Chelsea-fail-FFP-Everton.html

 

Saudi league to the rescue.

[Erikse]

On 03/02/2024 at 10:33, ikri said:

 

Wasn't there a load of thought that Chelsea had spent a load on younger players knowing that they were likely to breach FFP rules?  The assumption was that they'd get hit with a transfer ban for a couple of seasons but they wouldn't care because they'd have these young superstars available to pick from.

 

With the players not performing yet and with points deductions for FFP rather than transfer bans it makes it look like Chelsea were incredibly reckless where they could be looking at 20 or 30 point deductions over multiple seasons.  That could absolutely kill the club.

 

Hilarious how Pochettino said that Chelsea need to go on another spending spree in january, because he doesn't have good enough players.. That didn't really work out well.

[brummie]

On 02/02/2024 at 18:35, janpawel said:

I have thought, could a team sell someone at market value, then immediately buy him back at the same price, thus receiving the FPP boost of the full price but spreading the cost over the contract term 

 

Obviously you would need 2 teams in on this and it it would absolutely be dodgy as fuck ?

 

But I guess what you said with villa is similar, albeit a much more ethical way 

 

The only thing with that (Cameron Archer) is we don't know what price we are obliged to buy him back at.

 

If we do end up buying him back, we'll almost certainly sell him immediately anyway. 

 

Bad career choice going to Sheffield United, though, he's barely getting a kick there under Wilder.

[Guest]

https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/new-ffp-rules-newcastle-transfers-2891009?ito=copy-link_share_article-top
 

Quote

Although there is still plenty about the new regulations to be ironed out – with uncertainty over how spending on academies and infrastructure will come into the PSR equation, for example – iunderstands it is possible they will be introduced in time for the summer transfer window.

 

would royally fuck us over

[Whitley mag]

Stopping infrastructure spending gets into the realms of denying investment into communities and creating jobs despicable.

 

 

Edited February 6 by Whitley mag

[NE27]

Wtf 

 

So the club can not grow at any pace AT ALL?

 

We must just muddle around being plucky and flogging off our talents to grow?

 

Honestly like having a pornstar wife but having your dick taken away.

[Shearergol]

We almost need them to bring that in tbh. Would help our legal battle no end.

[Guest]

Further down in the piece it says UEFA is including investment in women’s football, academy and infrastructure into new regulations 

[Nucasol]

16 minutes ago, Jack27 said:

https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/new-ffp-rules-newcastle-transfers-2891009?ito=copy-link_share_article-top
 

would royally fuck us over

That’s protectionism of the highest order and would need challenging in court. It would take decades to be able to put aside the profits needed for a major construction project of a stadium, literally to the point SJP would be crumbling. I don’t think that would help Man Utd and Chelsea either.

[TheBrownBottle]

13 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

We almost need them to bring that in tbh. Would help our legal battle no end.

Which legal battle though?  The club has shown zero inclination to get involved with it.  It isn’t happening and isn’t going to happen.

 

Another club might challenge the rules, they might be successful.  That’s as far as it goes.  UEFA seem to be ploughing ahead quite happily - and why not?  99% of its member clubs won’t be arsed in the slightest. 

[Shearergol]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Which legal battle though?  The club has shown zero inclination to get involved with it.  It isn’t happening and isn’t going to happen.

 

Another club might challenge the rules, they might be successful.  That’s as far as it goes.  UEFA seem to be ploughing ahead quite happily - and why not?  99% of its member clubs won’t be arsed in the slightest. 

 

Yeah, I know, I'm just living in hope

 

 

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, Shearergol said:

 

Yeah, I know, I'm just living in hope

 

 

Honestly mate, I would try to put it to the back of your mind.  There’s zero chance NUFC challenges this legally.  The KSA govt challenging the FAs/UEFAs rules in court for the purposes of their own sportswashing isn’t likely to be a PR victory for them.

 

Another club might well step up to the plate - I’m still not convinced it’s a ‘open and shut’ that the rules are overturned in court. 

[Guest]

It stinks for any ambitious club mind

 

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, Jack27 said:

It stinks for any ambitious club mind

 

Agreed - if by ambitious we mean challenging the big boys.  Most clubs’ ambitions aren’t that lofty.  How many clubs in Europe does it genuinely apply to?  Two or three at most?  There’s over a thousand pro clubs in Europe.  Those who aren’t already part of the elite have no great claim in trying to join them. 
 

UEFA’s - and the PL‘s - rules are not being thrust upon unwilling victims.  This is what they pretty much all want. 

[FloydianMag]

3 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Agreed - if by ambitious we mean challenging the big boys.  Most clubs’ ambitions aren’t that lofty.  How many clubs in Europe does it genuinely apply to?  Two or three at most?  There’s over a thousand pro clubs in Europe.  Those who aren’t already part of the elite have no great claim in trying to join them. 
 

UEFA’s - and the PL‘s - rules are not being thrust upon unwilling victims.  This is what they pretty much all want. 

All that’s fine however, ambitious clubs still need to be allowed to grow through increased revenue streams but even that is being strangled by imposing FMV especially on sponsorship. It’s protectionism by the elite and should be challenged, governing bodies should organise competitions, they should not be allowed to involve themselves in any clubs commercial activities. 

[TheBrownBottle]

2 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

All that’s fine however, ambitious clubs still need to be allowed to grow through increased revenue streams but even that is being strangled by imposing FMV especially on sponsorship. It’s protectionism by the elite and should be challenged, governing bodies should organise competitions, they should not be allowed to involve themselves in any clubs commercial activities. 

It protects other clubs from inflationary pressures re wages and transfer fees.  FFP helps both the elite and those that aren’t.  The clubs who want to join the elite - which could be counted on one hand with fingers to spare - are the only ones who are hamstrung.  Not saying that’s fair like - but the vast, vast majority will be perfectly happy 

[et tu brute]

2 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

All that’s fine however, ambitious clubs still need to be allowed to grow through increased revenue streams but even that is being strangled by imposing FMV especially on sponsorship. It’s protectionism by the elite and should be challenged, governing bodies should organise competitions, they should not be allowed to involve themselves in any clubs commercial activities. 

If it went to an anti-competition court, it would be torn to shreds and blow FFP apart. It's only a matter of time before the legal challenge comes in. The fact that owners can't invest within their own business is totally against UK business law never mind competition law.