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

[Teslact]

11 hours ago, NG32 said:

Chelsea selling plots of land off on the moon and no one bats an eye lid.  

We could buy some Star Registry and then sell stars to PIF as energy futures.

[Wolfcastle]

4 hours ago, FloydianMag said:

Martin Samuels……not behind a paywall.

 

https://www.thetimes.com/article/3a6ccd55-8e87-4bf9-b3c9-ac088b7870bb?shareToken=415fc791a8d1be513442df9495e35aa6

Good stuff.

The people describing it as ruinous to the 'fabric of football' were City to win this appeal are either losing sight of or deliberately obscuring the fact that the solution is at least as ruinous, probably more.

There's always been dominant teams. Man United, Liverpool, most European leagues are dominated by 1, 2 or 3 clubs but that dominance was never enshrined from being usurped by others before. PSR/FFP trades periods of dominance for permanent dominance. 

 

 

Edited June 12 by Wolfcastle

[Keegans Export]

He raises a lot of good points.

 

The "owner gift" point is a little bit flawed because of the whole amortisation thing - that hypothetical £300m-gift-worth of spending one year is still going to be costing you multiple years down the line in the form of either amortisation on the accounts or payment installations due to other clubs. Plus player contracts obviously. But yeah it's definitely better than what we have now in terms of competitive balance.

[Terrymac1966]

The article nails it though...every twist and turn is aimed at specific clubs but when the likes of Forest Leicester and Everton get charged and convicted and clubs like us and Villa unable to sign reinforcements in our case last January the clubs it is protecting come into clear focus. The silence from the others around the top six tells you that there is an underground at work who have influences above their station within the Premier set up.

Boils ones p***

[Jonas]

Completely forgot that this was originally geared around debt.  Although far more sensible because, as Samuels points out, that doesn't work for Manchester United we have this unfair mudshow extravaganza instead which does work for them and co.

[FloydianMag]

 

[Terrymac1966]

Hope against hope City smash it all up with their lawyers...no other industry in the world where you cant invest money.

[Ikon]

Entitled cunts at the very top “ we want it all!!!” Not even giving others a chance to compete. I have never wanted us to become like City or Chelsea but I want us to be able to keep our best players while also allowed to kick on without our hands tied behind our backs. 
 

Give EVERYONE the same amount to spend if there’s proof of funds, No risk that any club will have to fold. 

 

 

Edited June 12 by Ikon

[PauloGeordio]

2 minutes ago, Ikon said:

Entitled cunts at the very top “ we want it all!!!” Not even giving others a chance to compete. I have never wanted us to become like City or Chelsea but I want us to be able to keep our best players while also allowed to kick on without our hands tied behind our backs. 

 

 

 

👍🏻 We won’t become like them even with more room to manoeuvre. The players brought in will still have to fit in with our profile and philosophy. Good eggs that complement the whole. 

[janpawel]

1 hour ago, FloydianMag said:

 

Can't believe Souness has that angle on this, fair play 

[PauloGeordio]

4 minutes ago, janpawel said:

Can't believe Souness has that angle on this, fair play 

Sure I read a recent interview with him where he turned tail and said we can’t allow the gulf states to dominate if the FFP comes crashing down. OK for the red tops mind!

 

 

Edited June 12 by PauloGeordio

[Stifler]

2 hours ago, Jonas said:

Completely forgot that this was originally geared around debt.  Although far more sensible because, as Samuels points out, that doesn't work for Manchester United we have this unfair mudshow extravaganza instead which does work for them and co.

Exactly. If it was meant to protect clubs from going bust, then debt would be either outlawed, or severely restricted. Instead you have Man Utd in at over £1bn worth of debt, and Spurs at about £800m worth of debt.

[duo]

2 hours ago, FloydianMag said:

 

Brian Kerr is spot on - the big clubs used the threat of a Super League to get the rules in play to protect their interests.

[Likelylad]

The Yanks are the biggest danger to the future of our game. Far more than Saudi, Abu Dhabi, Qatar etc. 

 

[Mikky]

1 minute ago, duo said:

Brian Kerr is spot on - the big clubs used the threat of a Super League to get the rules in play to protect their interests.

Have always said the Super League was a smokescreen to hide what was being cooked up for the Champions League all along 

[Nucasol]

4 minutes ago, Likelylad said:

The Yanks are the biggest danger to the future of our game. Far more than Saudi, Abu Dhabi, Qatar etc. 

 

Undoubtedly as all they care about is making more of that sweet, sweet money. ROI baby.

 

I’d argue they’re just bad for society in general, the massive pack of dickheads they are.

[Stifler]

12 minutes ago, duo said:

Brian Kerr is spot on - the big clubs used the threat of a Super League to get the rules in play to protect their interests.

This along with project big picture is what pisses me off more, more so with project big picture.

All the red tops banging on about Man City’s 115 charges, charges that only came in because they tried to circumvent rules that the red tops brought in to stop them.

 

Meanwhile you have the red tops, along with their red top friends Spurs, and Chelsea trying to gain a power grab on professional football in England. They wanted the power to veto takeovers, not only in the EPL, but the EFL as well. They wanted to scrap both the League Cup, Community Shield, and FA Cup replays (nearly there lads) and have the power to propose and vote through any rules they liked, and veto proposals they didn’t like.

All this to temporarily give the EFL some of the money the FA should have been giving them in the first place, and for them to have ever reaching and lasting power.

 

The FA and the football leagues should have told them to fuck off then, and when a few months later they came back with the ESL, if they hadn’t have been kicked out, they should have been then. They should have been playing 10 years worth of friendlies with each other in the USA, Oceanic, Asia, and Antarctica, anywhere but England. Instead they got to choose their punishment, which was fucking suspended in anyway.

They tried to do far more damage to football in England than Everton trying to build a stadium, Forest trying to stay up and not sell them one of their players on the cheap, and Man City, Villa, and us trying to compete ever fucking have.

 

 

Edited June 12 by Stifler

[Nucasol]

1 minute ago, Stifler said:

This along with project big picture is what pisses me off more, more so with project big picture.

All the red tops banging on about Man City’s 115 charges, charges that only came in because they tried to circumvent rules that the red tops brought in to stop them.

 

Meanwhile you have the red tops, along with their red top friends Spurs, and Chelsea trying to gain a power grab on professional football in England. They wanted the power to veto takeovers, not only in the EPL, but the EFL as well. They wanted to scrap both the League Cup, Community Shield, and FA Cup replays (nearly there lads) and have the power to propose and vote through any rules they liked, and veto proposals they didn’t like.

All this to temporarily give the EFL some of the money the FA should have been giving them in the first place, and for them to have ever reaching and lasting power.

 

The FA and the football leagues should have told them to fuck off then, and when a few months later they came back with the ESL, if they hadn’t have been kicked out, they should have been then. They should have been playing 10 years worth of friendlies with each other in the USA, Oceanic, Asia, Antarctica, anywhere but England. Instead they got to choose their punishment, which was fucking suspended in anyway.

They tried to do far more damage to football in England than Everton trying to build a stadium, Forest trying to stay up and not sell them one of their players on the cheap, and Man City, Villa, and us trying to compete ever fucking have.

👏

[The College Dropout]

PSR is shit. Villa have had to flog one of their key players on the cheap to avoid a points fine next season.

[STM]

I genuinely think this may be the biggest crisis that the PL is having to face.

 

Right now, it doesn't have the support of a few clubs but as soon as a West Ham or a Brighton reach that glass ceiling or an Everton in the future... they will sharp turn.

 

Imagine reaching within touching distance of breaking into the top 4 say and that summer not only could you NOT spend but also you have to SELL your players in order not to get charged.... oh and guess who wants to buy your best players?

 

It's dead simple, a club should be allow to lay down capital, in order to protect from future sanctions.

 

If we want to spend beyond on our "means" (what a joke), fine, allow us to PAY for the right to do that.

 

Allow us to pay a 10% football tax or whatever you want to call it, for every extra million that we want to spend over our FFP/PSR restriction.

 

That money can get given to clubs further down the pyramid.

[PauloGeordio]

24 minutes ago, Stifler said:

This along with project big picture is what pisses me off more, more so with project big picture.

All the red tops banging on about Man City’s 115 charges, charges that only came in because they tried to circumvent rules that the red tops brought in to stop them.

 

Meanwhile you have the red tops, along with their red top friends Spurs, and Chelsea trying to gain a power grab on professional football in England. They wanted the power to veto takeovers, not only in the EPL, but the EFL as well. They wanted to scrap both the League Cup, Community Shield, and FA Cup replays (nearly there lads) and have the power to propose and vote through any rules they liked, and veto proposals they didn’t like.

All this to temporarily give the EFL some of the money the FA should have been giving them in the first place, and for them to have ever reaching and lasting power.

 

The FA and the football leagues should have told them to fuck off then, and when a few months later they came back with the ESL, if they hadn’t have been kicked out, they should have been then. They should have been playing 10 years worth of friendlies with each other in the USA, Oceanic, Asia, and Antarctica, anywhere but England. Instead they got to choose their punishment, which was fucking suspended in anyway.

They tried to do far more damage to football in England than Everton trying to build a stadium, Forest trying to stay up and not sell them one of their players on the cheap, and Man City, Villa, and us trying to compete ever fucking have.

 

 

 

Bang on!

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

Honestly given the PL is funded by the twenty clubs in it, how long are those clubs going to be happy to have millions of their cash being used in legal battles with themselves?
 

But of course they don’t need independent regulation 🤦🏻

[beardsleymagic]

I know it'll never happen but I would love Newcastle to send an open letter to the premier league asking them to answer various questions, such as how can a rule that was brought primarily to stop debt be used to stop investment from the owners of clubs with enough money to cover that investment hundreds of times over.

Also as it's been mentioned, how can they then allow certain clubs to take up debts of close to or over a billion pounds? And if they were to say that future revenues of said clubs would cover the debt, how is that any different to an owner putting money aside to cover any expenditure for their club?

I would then love them to put it to them that the only reason this rule has been brought in is for the benefit of the richer clubs.

 

Never going to happen unfortunately.

 

[duo]

31 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

PSR is shit. Villa have had to flog one of their key players on the cheap to avoid a points fine next season.

..could argue we have had to already with ASM - £35mil I think was cheap

[The College Dropout]

19 minutes ago, STM said:

I genuinely think this may be the biggest crisis that the PL is having to face.

 

Right now, it doesn't have the support of a few clubs but as soon as a West Ham or a Brighton reach that glass ceiling or an Everton in the future... they will sharp turn.

 

Imagine reaching within touching distance of breaking into the top 4 say and that summer not only could you NOT spend but also you have to SELL your players in order not to get charged.... oh and guess who wants to buy your best players?

 

It's dead simple, a club should be allow to lay down capital, in order to protect from future sanctions.

 

If we want to spend beyond on our "means" (what a joke), fine, allow us to PAY for the right to do that.

 

Allow us to pay a 10% football tax or whatever you want to call it, for every extra million that we want to spend over our FFP/PSR restriction.

 

That money can get given to clubs further down the pyramid.

They won't ever.

 

A lot of club owners like this setup. 6+14 like Ashley did. He was on the gravy train. Brighton have basically hacked the transfer market. Brighton qualified for Europe and sold £150m worth of player. They didn't bother reinvesting it all. No desire to kick-on.