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

[timeEd32]

4 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

I'm struggling to see the point of this "anchoring" thing.

 

1. Even if the cap is £500m, most clubs (including ourselves and Villa) still won't be able to spend anywhere near that because of the 70/85% rule

 

2. Looking at the figures posted on the Athletic, only Chelsea would have broken the cap this year (or perhaps last year, I can't remember)

 

So the top 6 can still spend as they are now, while the aspirational clubs are still forced to limit their spending due to their lower turnover? 

 

It puts a ceiling on what the very top clubs can do. If you're going to have all of the other rules then it makes sense from a sporting perspective, otherwise the gap between the top and bottom will grow forever. It being a 5x multiple is less helpful than if it were 4x or 4.5x, but that's just the power the top clubs have. 

[Thumbheed]

I'm pretty non plusses about FFP/PSR tbh. I feel like the club know exactly what they're up against and will found way round this as staying stagnant as the rules are intended to force just won't be an option. 

 

I'm also quite confident that we're arguably the only club outside the top 6 who have a real good opportunity to grow our revenue to a degree the other ambitious clubs like Villa can't based on the fact we have an entire country's market at our disposal. 

 

Guess time will tell butfor now, I've seen or read nothing that's got my heart racing.

[duo]

4 hours ago, JLC said:

https://liveapp.inews.co.uk/2024/04/25/the-new-ffp-rule-that-could-damage-the-big-six-but-boost-clubs-like-newcastle/content.html

 

Douglas take on it

Quote

with some Premier League clubs claiming these rules might fall foul of competition law. Whether that is tested in court is another matter.

makes no sense as the current PSR rules are far more uncompetitive 

[duo]

1 hour ago, Keegans Export said:

I'm struggling to see the point of this "anchoring" thing.

 

1. Even if the cap is £500m, most clubs (including ourselves and Villa) still won't be able to spend anywhere near that because of the 70/85% rule

 

2. Looking at the figures posted on the Athletic, only Chelsea would have broken the cap this year (or perhaps last year, I can't remember)

 

So the top 6 can still spend as they are now, while the aspirational clubs are still forced to limit their spending due to their lower turnover? 

Wouldn't it mean Clubs like Newcastle have more to spend. It's make no real difference to Man City, Man U

[FloydianMag]

6 minutes ago, duo said:

Wouldn't it mean Clubs like Newcastle have more to spend. It's make no real difference to Man City, Man U

It may make some difference to the cartel clubs as they are claiming it’s anti competitive imposing wage caps, and it is they’d likely win if they took action.

[nufcnick]

19 minutes ago, duo said:

Wouldn't it mean Clubs like Newcastle have more to spend. It's make no real difference to Man City, Man U

Nope as we would still be limited to the 70/85% wages/transfers to turnover 

[Keegans Export]

20 minutes ago, duo said:

Wouldn't it mean Clubs like Newcastle have more to spend. It's make no real difference to Man City, Man U

Not if its in addition to the 70% of turnover rule. Our turnover would have to be something like £650m for us to be able to spend £450m+

[duo]

22 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

It may make some difference to the cartel clubs as they are claiming it’s anti competitive imposing wage caps, and it is they’d likely win if they took action.

PSR rules in general are anti-competitive

[FloydianMag]

11 minutes ago, duo said:

PSR rules in general are anti-competitive

They are and need to be challenged.

[Hudson]

34 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

They are and need to be challenged.

Pointless now, it’s dead at the end of next season. 

[FloydianMag]

15 minutes ago, Hudson said:

Pointless now, it’s dead at the end of next season. 

They are…….but replaced with other anti competitive rules that should be challenged.

[Hudson]

Slightly off topic but seen something about the FA trying to stop our Australia tour. 
 

It’s just blatant now.

[FloydianMag]

13 minutes ago, Hudson said:

Slightly off topic but seen something about the FA trying to stop our Australia tour. 
 

It’s just blatant now.

That’s correct, they thought they’d bring in a rule to stop ‘meaningless’ end of season friendly games. Meaningless internationals are ok however!

 

Governing bodies constantly getting involved in clubs commercial activities is going to end up at a CAT

[Stifler]

1 minute ago, Hudson said:

Slightly off topic but seen something about the FA trying to stop our Australia tour. 
 

It’s just blatant now.

They are trying to stop post season friendlies when there are international games. It won’t have any bearing on our Australia games as it won’t come into effect in time, and it was organised before the rules changed.

 

It is very much more evidence that the Premier League and the FA are trying to block our every move. We should go for another CAT case.

 

‘Your honour, this court in 2021 was due to decide if the Premier League had attempted to block our takeover. Before going to trial the Premier League tried to prevent us from showing evidence which would have harmed their defence, this court rules that the evidence could be used. Within a week the Premier League agreed an out of court deal to enable the takeover.

 

Since then stricter rules on FFP/PSR have been introduced, with clubs like Everton, and Nottingham Forest being used as an example to us, whilst clubs like Chelsea, and Man City who are allegedly breaking the rules are having no sanctions so far unplaced upon them.

 

We have been told that we have to create revenue now, however all our commercial deals over £1m have to be approved via the Premier League, with proposals put in place that they cannot increase by more than 10% per year upon existing deals.

We got told that we must sell players to create revenue. We had to sell one of our players below his reported market value because they introduced new rules on related parties between clubs and transfer deals, despite teams like Watford, Man City, Chelsea, and in Europe the Red Bull teams all previously active in such deals without question. This is further supported by the same clubs buying our players at below market value, buying players from Liverpool, and Chelsea from well above their reported market value.

 

When a newspaper made a false claim of us loaning players from the Saudi clubs, the Premier League then voted on and introduced rules preventing the loaning of players from said clubs, this despite teams like Watford once again being able to do that routinely and freely without question previously.

 

As a way of trying to create more match day income, we have been looking into either expanding our stadium, or building a new one. The Premier League clubs have proposed that this should now be a part of the expenditure for FFP/PSR rules, despite numerous clubs previously being able to do so without such limitations of their finances.

In another attempt to increase our commercial income, we decided to go on a post season tour which would have brought us an increase in revenue, this was due to be played in our own free time, and outside our competitive commitments. They used the fact that we would allegedly use players who were due to go away for international duty a few weeks later as justification, without even knowing which players we planned on taking.’

[FloydianMag]

5 minutes ago, Stifler said:

They are trying to stop post season friendlies when there are international games. It won’t have any bearing on our Australia games as it won’t come into effect in time, and it was organised before the rules changed.

 

It is very much more evidence that the Premier League and the FA are trying to block our every move. We should go for another CAT case.

 

‘Your honour, this court in 2021 was due to decide if the Premier League had attempted to block our takeover. Before going to trial the Premier League tried to prevent us from showing evidence which would have harmed their defence, this court rules that the evidence could be used. Within a week the Premier League agreed an out of court deal to enable the takeover.

 

Since then stricter rules on FFP/PSR have been introduced, with clubs like Everton, and Nottingham Forest being used as an example to us, whilst clubs like Chelsea, and Man City who are allegedly breaking the rules are having no sanctions so far unplaced upon them.

 

We have been told that we have to create revenue now, however all our commercial deals over £1m have to be approved via the Premier League, with proposals put in place that they cannot increase by more than 10% per year upon existing deals.

We got told that we must sell players to create revenue. We had to sell one of our players below his reported market value because they introduced new rules on related parties between clubs and transfer deals, despite teams like Watford, Man City, Chelsea, and in Europe the Red Bull teams all previously active in such deals without question. This is further supported by the same clubs buying our players at below market value, buying players from Liverpool, and Chelsea from well above their reported market value.

 

When a newspaper made a false claim of us loaning players from the Saudi clubs, the Premier League then voted on and introduced rules preventing the loaning of players from said clubs, this despite teams like Watford once again being able to do that routinely and freely without question previously.

 

As a way of trying to create more match day income, we have been looking into either expanding our stadium, or building a new one. The Premier League clubs have proposed that this should now be a part of the expenditure for FFP/PSR rules, despite numerous clubs previously being able to do so without such limitations of their finances.

In another attempt to increase our commercial income, we decided to go on a post season tour which would have brought us an increase in revenue, this was due to be played in our own free time, and outside our competitive commitments. They used the fact that we would allegedly use players who were due to go away for international duty a few weeks later as justification, without even knowing which players we planned on taking.’

Don’t forget there’s also the new FIFA World Club championship also added to the calendar yet no attempt to prevent those ‘invited’ from playing in the competition.

[Stifler]

3 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Don’t forget there’s also the new FIFA World Club championship also added to the calendar yet no attempt to prevent those ‘invited’ from playing in the competition.

Yeah, I also missed out how Hoffman who was brought in by the Premier League to stop our takeover, was sacked not long after our takeover took place.

[Toonjam88]

That Kieran Maguire was on Talk Sport today and said anchoring would allow clubs like Villa and Newcastle to go for it. Also if you over spend in Europe you just get a fine now don’t you? 

[Stifler]

2 minutes ago, Toonjam88 said:

That Kieran Maguire was on Talk Sport today and said anchoring would allow clubs like Villa and Newcastle to go for it. Also if you over spend in Europe you just get a fine now don’t you? 

No one knows, there is conflicting reports, but PSG’s previous gives precedence of avoiding anything other than just financial penalties.

 

I don’t see how the anchoring would help us without scrapping the 70%/80% rules they voted for last week.

 

 

Edited April 25 by Stifler

[Abacus]

It is mildly hilarious that some clubs are against anchoring as it could make then uncompetitive in Europe, as they have the money to spend and it would harm their ability to compete if they weren't allowed to spend it.

 

But when it comes to their own league, and the same principle applies to clubs who could be competitive against them when those clubs could spend too, well suddenly that's perfectly fine and isn't hypocritical at all.

 

In a lot of ways, I hope they win the competition argument on anchoring on one metric, without realising what a giant target they've placed on their own back by anchoring using a different one.

[Pata]

I would be totally fine banning meaningless friendlies in Australia after the season. Players are playing way too many games as it is, banning these would make a lot of sense and doubt it has anything to do with the fact it’s NUFC doing it and not someone else.

[andyc35i]

40 minutes ago, Stifler said:

No one knows, there is conflicting reports, but PSG’s previous gives precedence of avoiding anything other than just financial penalties.

 

I don’t see how the anchoring would help us without scrapping the 70%/80% rules they voted for last week.

 

 

 

Seems confusing to me. So we can only spend 70/80% of the anchoring calculation for all team expenses (wages, transfer fees and agent fees) or is it something different?

[Stifler]

Just now, andyc35i said:

Seems confusing to me. So we can only spend 70/80% of the anchoring calculation for all team expenses (wages, transfer fees and agent fees) or is it something different?

We can only spend 70% of our revenue in anyway, so allowing us to spend 5 times more than say Sheffield United’s revenue, which would be about £525m is pointless, because our revenue is only about £250m, and we can only spend 70% of that in anyway.

The anchoring proposals are not scrapping the 70% rules brought in place last week.

[The Prophet]

 

[TRC]

17 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

Am I being thick, but why is there mass secrecy around the date?

[The Prophet]

24 minutes ago, TRC said:

Am I being thick, but why is there mass secrecy around the date?

 

I'm sure I read he's under a gag order.