Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Still think Luton are down and Forest and Everton will fine unfortunately, Luton's games left are a lot more difficult and I wouldn't bet on them getting many points anyway based on their recent form

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jack27 said:

can I add social media content to this too pls, look at Man City’s YouTube. It’s incredible for fans and getting (nice plushy PR) insights into the club. I want it

Are you 14? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FA and PL are making a complete and utter bollocks of this. Hitting the likes of Everton and Forest with points deductions, but refusing to sort out what Chelsea and Man City have done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, TRC said:

I agree with there defence tbh.

 

Its about profit and sustainablity, are they a more sustainable club because they get 10m less 2 months earlier for their star player?

 

 

Their defence makes perfect sense. 

FFP is counterintuitive. It forces decisions that make no commercial sense. It is a tail that wags the dog. 

 

Clubs are incentivised to sell young homegrown stars to rivals, They are incentivised to leverage the balance sheet and redevelop a stadium. They are incentivised to sell on the cheap so that the 'profit on disposal' falls into a particular three-year accounting window. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

They undoubtedly broke the rules, but the idea this has anything to do with sustainability is laughable.

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

What they did with Johnson was better for their clubs health. But FFP isn't about that.

 

It needs scrapping.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jack27 said:

I’m absolutely sure this current government will get that appointment right 

Winter reckons it’ll be a ‘strong KC’ to stand up to owners, lets hope it’s NDM, he’ll take no shit from them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Boey_Jarton said:

Their defence makes perfect sense. 

FFP is counterintuitive. It forces decisions that make no commercial sense. It is a tail that wags the dog. 

 

Clubs are incentivised to sell young homegrown stars to rivals, They are incentivised to leverage the balance sheet and redevelop a stadium. They are incentivised to sell on the cheap so that the 'profit on disposal' falls into a particular three-year accounting window. 

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

Their defence is legitimate from a real-life standpoint. A small fine for missing the arbitrary deadline would suffice and they need to make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

Docking points is ludicrous.

 

Like UEFA points docking should be for serial and gross offenders who are not trending towards sustainability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, The College Dropout said:

Agreed.

 

Their defence is legitimate from a real-life standpoint. A small fine for missing the arbitrary deadline would suffice and they need to make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

Docking points is ludicrous.

 

Like UEFA points docking should be for serial and gross offenders who are not trending towards sustainability.

And any punishments should be laid out in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

They undoubtedly broke the rules, but the idea this has anything to do with sustainability is laughable.

 

 

 


It's worse, they blatantly lied about sponsorship deals to bolster their coffers. Absolute corruption.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have full sympathy for Forest. 

 

If PSR is about safeguarding clubs, then how exactly does potentially relegating them and killing their revenue stream help that cause?

 

Similar to us really, just a club looking to invest and grow. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forest caused a lot of the problems themselves, completely killed off their promotion squad and replaced them with like 20+ players, gave stupid salaries to the likes of Lingard, signing Dennis for 20m, Richards with a broken foot, sacking Cooper, just ridiculous leadership from the top.

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Big Geordie said:

The FA and PL are making a complete and utter bollocks of this. Hitting the likes of Everton and Forest with points deductions, but refusing to sort out what Chelsea and Man City have done.

 

FA have nothing to do with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mighty__mag said:

Forest caused a lot of the problems themselves, completely killed off their promotion squad and replaced them with like 20+ players, gave stupid salaries to the likes of Lingard, signing Dennis for 20m, Richards with a broken foot, sacking Cooper, just ridiculous leadership from the top.

75% of their promotion squad was on loan/out of contract, they had little choice with bringing in players

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

Have full sympathy for Forest. 

 

If PSR is about safeguarding clubs, then how exactly does potentially relegating them and killing their revenue stream help that cause?

 

Similar to us really, just a club looking to invest and grow. 

 

Think it's more that the theory is that whatever punishment is dished out to Forest deters other clubs from doing the same. 

 

For the most part that probably works, even if the rules themselves clearly aren't fit for purpose and are there to protect the status quo. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Everton all over again.

 

There's no doubt they broke the rules through poor financial management.

 

Ultimately though, I have sympathy because all they were doing was spending capital available to them to become a more competitive club. PSR needs binning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean it's kinda for the Nottingham Forests of the world where the owner could be splurging more than he can afford and who would know, and what would happen if he ran at a £200m loss and then bailed leaving the club in financial ruin. The issue is how the rules are a) favoring clubs with outrageous incomes massively so rather than at all limiting spending of the rich clubs to bring others closer to them are restricting everyone else, and b) incentivising the fire-sale of homegrown players by clubs which feels mad to me...

 

I think it does mean clubs are less likely to implode but it's bad for the league in it's current form. It either needs to be changed to mean clubs that have the cash can spend it (even if it meant extensive proof of funds required) while still incentivising growing clubs revenue etc as should happen, or somehow scaling back the completely bonkers inflated prices and wages of players to allow clubs to be more competitive. I have no idea how to do that though.

 

I also think something to make it more difficult for clubs to hoard players somehow could help? None of this will happen tho

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Would an independent regulator help or hinder us does anyone know ?

Once politicised it will be a case of who can lobby enough to get what they want. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Once politicised it will be a case of who can lobby enough to get what they want. :lol:

So in theory, we may have more or a chance with them considering we seemingly have no chance currently ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Would an independent regulator help or hinder us does anyone know ?

 

It really depends on truly how independent and how well resourced it'll be. The noises are good, based on the white paper.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...