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

[The College Dropout]

2 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

I think it’s because tying to revenue results to a basically unlimited cap, where as having an anchor which would come in to effect at x amount creates a cap on salaries. 
 

TLDR. Anchoring creates a hard cap. FFP or PSR creates a soft cap as revenue can always increase which results in in higher wages. 

Anchoring is also based on revenue - just that of another club.

 

Our UEFA wage cap is 75% of revenue. In anchoring, we would be able to spend more than 75% of revenue typically. And you could agree whatever multiple that is deemed reasonable and vote to change it.

 

UEGA have imposed a hard cap of 75% of revenue. And revenue is arbitrated by the PL by FMV.

[The College Dropout]

The most likely team to support is Chelsea. 

[r0cafella]

Just now, The College Dropout said:

Anchoring is also based on revenue - just that of another club.

 

Our UEFA wage cap is 75% of revenue. In anchoring, we would be able to spend more than 75% of revenue typically. And you could agree whatever multiple that is deemed reasonable and vote to change it.

 

UEGA have imposed a hard cap of 75% of revenue. And revenue is arbitrated by the PL by FMV.

Anchoring is a hard cap as I mentioned, which is why the PFA took issue and shot it down. 
 

FMV is obviously being challenged now by city so we will see how that pans out, at this point it’s a central pillar of FFP so it being struck down would be an absolute game changer. 

[Terraloon]

3 hours ago, FloydianMag said:

Arbitration may be the first step, if it can be resolved at that level great. I doubt City would agree that arbitration being legally binding and ultimately it may be a CAT that has to rule legally.

City have already argued  that in the HC and had their  backsides well and truly kicked. I very much doubt that they will pursue past Arbitration 

 

Part of the contract if you like all clubs and the league have is that they will take such disputes to a PL Arbitration Panel. 

 

 

Edited June 5 by Terraloon

[FloydianMag]

1 minute ago, Terraloon said:

City have already argued  that in the HC and had their  backsides well and truly kicked. I very much doubt that they will pursue past Arbitration 

 

Part of the contract if you like all clubs and the league have is that they will take such disputes to a PL Arbitration Panel. 

 

 

 

There’s always a higher body and a judicial body, that any business can turn to and in the case of competition law it’s CAT

[jack j]

3 hours ago, OCK said:

Based on Man City's ticket prices? Unless the rules change and money can just be pumped on then I'd hope it would offset the need to raise ticket prices.

Man city's ticket prices aren't too bad are they. Sure they knock champions league group games out at 20 quid

[Boey_Jarton]

1 hour ago, r0cafella said:

I think it’s because tying to revenue results to a basically unlimited cap, where as having an anchor which would come in to effect at x amount creates a cap on salaries. 
 

TLDR. Anchoring creates a hard cap. FFP or PSR creates a soft cap as revenue can always increase which results in in higher wages. 

Last point is a catch 22 for an aspiring club. 

 

Revenue can increase to allow higher wages but to increase revenue you need either:

 

(1) better players with higher wages, or

 

(2) Improved commercial deals that cannot pass FMV test because you are not yet a top team with the best players on high wages.

 

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, Boey_Jarton said:

Last point is a catch 22 for an aspiring club. 

 

Revenue can increase to allow higher wages but to increase revenue you need either:

 

(1) better players with higher wages, or

 

(2) Improved commercial deals that cannot pass FMV test because you are not yet a top team with the best players on high wages.

 

Absolutely, it’s why it was such a genius move for the big clubs to lobby for FFP when they did. If you cast your like back FFP was all about protecting clubs from doing a Leeds, or dare I say an Everton.   

 

On your point too it isn’t strictly true, remember FMV only relates to related party transaction but in reality it makes no sense to sponsor a club with a smaller profile over one of the established elites. 
 

It’s these sleight of hands which has made these rules such a strong piece of armour for the Arsenal, spurs and Liverpools. 

[bobbydazzla]

6 minutes ago, Boey_Jarton said:

Last point is a catch 22 for an aspiring club. 

 

Revenue can increase to allow higher wages but to increase revenue you need either:

 

(1) better players with higher wages, or

 

(2) Improved commercial deals that cannot pass FMV test because you are not yet a top team with the best players on high wages.

 

 

 

Everything about FFP is designed to be a Catch 22 for anyone outside of the Top 6

 

To compete against the established Top 6 you need to have wealthy owners who can invest, for wealthy owners to be allowed to invest you need to increase your commercial revenue, but to increase your commercial revenue you need to be able to compete against the established Top 6, which you can't do unless your wealthy owners are allowed to invest

 

 

 

 

Edited June 5 by bobbydazzla

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

It doesn’t have to be financial regulation. If you can only have 22 players in a squad other than u20’s the gaps between teams would be smaller.

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, bobbydazzla said:

 

 

Everything about FFP is designed to be a Catch 22

 

To compete against the established Top 6 you need to have wealthy owners who can invest, for wealthy owners to be allowed to invest you need to increase your commercial revenue, but to increase your commercial revenue you need to be able to compete against the established Top 6, which you can't do unless your wealthy owners are allowed to invest

 

 

 

 

And to add on, under the current rules the wealthy owner is allowed to underwrite a small amount of losses (I can’t remember the exact figure) under the Squad cost rules that goes away. 
 

If squad cost and FMV rules are implemented at the same time we will never win the premier league or the champions league. 

[et tu brute]

It's so hypocritical of the media and other supporters (especially from the usual suspects) crying about anti-competition. Not one peep when blatant votes and 'new rules' weee brought in to specifically target our club. Fuck them I hope City take them to the cleaners.

[Jonas]

6 hours ago, Dr Jinx said:

Ah we were way behind, even by mid 90’s they had a global fan base buying shirts and other merch.

 

We werent. In the mid 90s Manchester United struggled to compete with Blackburn, who signed Shearer and Sutton over Manchester United and Blackburn couldn't sustain that for long with their fanbase where we were second only to Manchester United commercially (and I think Rangers too UK wide) even sold more shirts than them. They had to sell players (Ince, Kanchelskis) in the mid90s too.

The global thing didn't really come into it until the late 90s and the commercialisation was rampant. They've always had global fanbase and Liverpool and Arsenal to a less extent but it didn't reflect in their gates or anything at that time either.  I don't think we could have sustained that position but we weren't way behind.

 

 

Edited June 5 by Jonas

[Boey_Jarton]

39 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Absolutely, it’s why it was such a genius move for the big clubs to lobby for FFP when they did. If you cast your like back FFP was all about protecting clubs from doing a Leeds, or dare I say an Everton.   

 

On your point too it isn’t strictly true, remember FMV only relates to related party transaction but in reality it makes no sense to sponsor a club with a smaller profile over one of the established elites. 
 

It’s these sleight of hands which has made these rules such a strong piece of armour for the Arsenal, spurs and Liverpools. 

Yep

 

On related party transactions - I was assuming that, under the current conditions, the only party willing to provide a commercial deal on a parity with the existing big six would be one that is part of the same corporate group and can therefore share a long term vision which is as bold as catching up with the 'elite' 

 

Of course, the very presence of FFP means that ambitious owners cannot invest their own capital into the club freely, which in turn would make ambitious clubs more attractive to Non related third party commercial deals because such entities would be more willing to pay higher commercial rates if they are also leveraging the benefits of the owners investment. 

[Stal]

Hypothetically, could Company X (associated with PL football club X United) sponsor football club Y City, and Company Y (associated with PL football club Y City) sponsor football club X United?

 

If the terms and the sponsorship were exactly the same so neither team was sponsored more than the other. 

 

Could this be a thing? 

 

I mean, I hate the thought of such corruptness but the PL is forcing clubs to look for loopholes.

[Skeletor]

Two club power trip. Sela sponsoring Man City and Etihad sponsoring us.

[Jonas]

They're using every potential rule change to further carve out more for themselves. A spending  cap would still theoretically allow anybody to spend as much as them and though it solves what they claim to be the problem and keeps the top spenders at least within their reach it doesn't limit competition which is most likely what they really desire.

The arguement is to build something like Liverpool did, but that was in the 60s/70s when is was possible without especial money to do that not in the commercial environment that the likes of Liverpool were more than happy to create (probably pulling up drawbridges even then).

Its never happened without money since and wont happen in an ffp world.

 

 

Edited June 5 by Jonas

[Stal]

2 minutes ago, Skeletor said:

Two club power trip. Sela sponsoring Man City and Etihad sponsoring us.

 

That turns into a heel turn culminating in both facing each other at WrestleMa...the FA Cup Final?

[TheBrownBottle]

6 hours ago, Dr Jinx said:

Ah we were way behind, even by mid 90’s they had a global fan base buying shirts and other merch.

 

Now a case can be made that we were ahead of or at least on parity with some of who are considered the big 6 now. Certainly Spurs, definitely Chelsea.. Liverpool are hard to gauge because they have or should have a global reach like Man Utd but they didn’t for whatever reason in the 90’s so yeah we could probably match them financially at that time.

 

Arsenal seemed to connect with African market, whether that was lucrative or not is another thing but massive shirt sales.

 

Our woes had probably started the summer after we signed Shearer.. just a series of bad decisions. Selling Ferdinand was just mental but we probably had to lose someone to keep running costs of the club viable. Never bought into that gentleman’s agreement shite.. Shearer did his ACL and we had time to pull the plug on that Ferdinand deal to Spurs. We’d have at least saved the season in terms of challenging up near the top. But the board/shareholders decided we needed the money more than a sporting chance.

 

Keegan never would have let that happen which again is why he upped and left. He could see the writing on the wall with going public.

We were ahead of Arsenal and Liverpool

[Guest]

Anchoring appears to be dead

 

The last few paragraphs are a laugh too

 

Quote

While there will be no vote on anchoring at the AGM in Yorkshire on Thursday, there are two other financial proposals from the clubs on the agenda.

The first, from Aston Villa, is to raise the upper threshold for permitted losses over a three-year period from £105m to £135m.

 

The rationale is that the limit was set a decade ago and no allowances have been made for inflation. However, any move to stretch the limit, presumably to a point that would alleviate certain clubs’ PSR concerns, is likely to be strongly opposed by clubs without any worries of breaching the current limit and clubs that have already been punished for doing so, such as Everton and Nottingham Forest.

 

The second proposal, from Crystal Palace, is an alternative to Villa’s idea of simply raising the permitted loss limit, by taking a more bespoke approach to teams in the West Midlands club’s position.

 

UEFA distributes a percentage of the prize money clubs earn in its competitions based on their performances in Europe over the last decade.

 

These “coefficient” payments favour clubs that play in Europe year in, year out, over new participants, like Brighton and Newcastle United last season, or Villa next season.
 

For example, Newcastle earned just under £4m in coefficient payments from their involvement in the Champions League last season, while Manchester City received almost £30m.

 

Palace’s idea is that a club in Newcastle or Villa’s position should be able to add the difference between their coefficient payment and the top clubs’ payment to their PSR calculation, effectively giving Villa the extra amount they are asking for without having to raise the threshold for everyone.

 

 

[TRon]

1 hour ago, et tu brute said:

It's so hypocritical of the media and other supporters (especially from the usual suspects) crying about anti-competition. Not one peep when blatant votes and 'new rules' weee brought in to specifically target our club. Fuck them I hope City take them to the cleaners.

 

Tbh, I'm quite surprised we've left it to City, if they weren't going to take on the authorities then we would need to do it at some point if the talk about our ambitions were true. Maybe given City's legal situation we thought we could bide our time, which is fair enough, but it's set us back a couple of years.

[Chris_R]

15 minutes ago, Jack27 said:

giving Villa the extra amount they are asking for without having to raise the threshold for everyone.

 

Well that sounds perfectly fair and fine.

[manorpark]

7 hours ago, Dr Jinx said:

Ah we were way behind, even by mid 90’s they had a global fan base buying shirts and other merch.

 

Now a case can be made that we were ahead of or at least on parity with some of who are considered the big 6 now. Certainly Spurs, definitely Chelsea.. Liverpool are hard to gauge because they have or should have a global reach like Man Utd but they didn’t for whatever reason in the 90’s so yeah we could probably match them financially at that time.

 

Arsenal seemed to connect with African market, whether that was lucrative or not is another thing but massive shirt sales.

 

Our woes had probably started the summer after we signed Shearer.. just a series of bad decisions. Selling Ferdinand was just mental but we probably had to lose someone to keep running costs of the club viable. Never bought into that gentleman’s agreement shite.. Shearer did his ACL and we had time to pull the plug on that Ferdinand deal to Spurs. We’d have at least saved the season in terms of challenging up near the top. But the board/shareholders decided we needed the money more than a sporting chance.

 

Keegan never would have let that happen which again is why he upped and left. He could see the writing on the wall with going public.

 

1998 . . . 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 5 by manorpark

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

33 minutes ago, manorpark said:

 

1998 . . . 

 

 

 

 

 

Mike fucking Ashley.   

[TRon]

39 minutes ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

Mike fucking Ashley.   

 

I know he's a cunt, but that was the period when the international super rich moved into English football and blew the locals out of the water. Not that Ashley was ever interested in spending his way to success, but he couldn't compete with the Mansours or the Abramoviches even if he wanted to.