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

[Bondedcrown]

1 minute ago, geordiesteve710 said:

This!!

 

And a coherent longterm strategy.

 

Otherwise there's a trap of spending big each July the panicking into sales the next June, rinse and repeat.

Bet they haven’t thought of that before!

 

[Jackie Broon]

5 minutes ago, geordiesteve710 said:

From an accountancy perspective definitely, but I thought there were different rules on amortisation for the purposes of PSR.

 

They definitely did *something* after Chelsea handed out those 8 year contracts.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.skysports.com/amp/football/news/11661/13028764/premier-league-clubs-vote-for-five-year-maximum-player-contracts

 

Found this on a quick google. Doesn't give any detail on whether contract extensions impact the psr calculation. Would seem a little counter-intuitive to me that if the fee has been paid it's still impacting on the psr but a lot of psr seems daft to me.

 

In the PL Handbook:

 

A.1.38. “Cash Losses” means aggregate Adjusted Earnings Before Tax after:

(a) write back of:

(i) amortisation and/or impairment of Players’ registrations up to a maximum of five years; and

(ii) profit or loss on the transfer of Players’ registrations; and (b) inclusion of net cash flow in respect of transfers of Players’ registrations;

[loki679]

Remember me granda telling me about the time we managed to control our amortisation and kept our costs to earnings ratio below the required 70%.

 

Halcyon days.

[gbandit]

Just now, loki679 said:

Remember me granda telling me about the time we managed to control our amortisation and kept our costs to earnings ratio below the required 70%.

 

Halcyon days.

Aye, me granda shared some of his favourite spreadsheets with me as a kid. Among my most cherished memories 

[madras]

Just now, gbandit said:

Aye, me granda shared some of his favourite spreadsheets with me as a kid. Among my most cherished memories 

Been linked with a wonderkid from PWC.

[STM]

I haven't been looking through this thread much but my theory:

 

Ashworth was going to sell Joelinton to make up our PSR deficit. That would explain a whole raft of things IMO.

[gbandit]

Makes sense actually, happy to believe it and hate on Ashworth even more 

[oldtype]

I watch mostly US pro sports now, where "salary cap management" is considered normal and part and parcel of being a good organization. So I have no inherent dislike of complex financial accounting rules and clubs having to make creative but facially absurd deals to circumvent them. 

 

The issue is that there, the salary cap rules exist to promote parity, and are generally successful. PSR exists for precisely the opposite purpose. 

 

If the rules are going to be this draconian, where up-and-coming clubs that are spending far below what they are capable of sustainably spending are repeatedly punished for the fact that they happened to be outside the big-money cartel when the rules were made, then you need a second set of rules to ensure that the revenue gap between clubs is being gradually equalized as well. For example, a luxury tax imposed on the highest-spending clubs that is then re-distributed as solidarity payments to the rest of the league.

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, geordiesteve710 said:

From an accountancy perspective definitely, but I thought there were different rules on amortisation for the purposes of PSR.

 

They definitely did *something* after Chelsea handed out those 8 year contracts.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.skysports.com/amp/football/news/11661/13028764/premier-league-clubs-vote-for-five-year-maximum-player-contracts

 

Found this on a quick google. Doesn't give any detail on whether contract extensions impact the psr calculation. Would seem a little counter-intuitive to me that if the fee has been paid it's still impacting on the psr but a lot of psr seems daft to me.

Yeh contract extension has always impacted amortisation. 
 

What Chelsea were doing was signing players for 80m on 8 year contracts. Thats 10m per year amortisation ‘cost’. The rules now are that they can still sign a player for 80m on a 8 year contract but the max they can amortise is 5 years. So 16m a year.  
 

this explains Amortisation and contract renewals well And simply 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ben]

Questions starting to be asked about fair market value.

 

Fuck .....right.......off

[High Five o]

Just now, Ben said:

Questions starting to be asked about fair market value.

 

Fuck .....right.......off

FMV is not relevant here right? No related parties involved.

[TK-421]

4 minutes ago, High Five o said:

FMV is not relevant here right? No related parties involved.

Not previously, but now us, and other clubs seem to be using these deals to get around/fix FFP/PSR issues, it has now seemingly become somethign that will be checked by the PL, presumably on transfers between PL clubs, except where its too/from a 'Big Six' club, otherwise, crack on.

But you know, sell yourself a hotel or two... nothing to see there.

 

 

Edited June 30 by TK-421

[McDog]

Just now, High Five o said:

FMV is not relevant here right? No related parties involved.

 

I thought they expanded it to include anything Newcastle might do to better themselves.

[High Five o]

Just now, TK-421 said:

Not previously, but now us, and other clubs seem to be using these deals to get around/fix FFP/PSR issues, it has now seemingly become somethign that will be checked by the PL, presumably on transfers between clubs, except where its too/from a 'Big Six' club, otherwise, crack on.

Haha, got it.

They can check all they want, as long as the rules are not in place how to enforce it? FMV is quite specific in its wording right?

[Bunk Moreland]

6 minutes ago, Ben said:

Questions starting to be asked about fair market value.

 

Fuck .....right.......off

 

We'll have absolutely no bother getting these through. Apparently Lyon offered more for Minteh and Archie Gray who has never kicked a ball in the PL is about to go for more than Anderson. They'll be absolutely gutted in the PL head office tomorrow morning with how we've played this. Bet they were salivating at the prospect of spending the week putting together a case against us.

[TheBrownBottle]

4 hours ago, loki679 said:

Remember me granda telling me about the time we managed to control our amortisation and kept our costs to earnings ratio below the required 70%.

 

Halcyon days.

 

4 hours ago, gbandit said:

Aye, me granda shared some of his favourite spreadsheets with me as a kid. Among my most cherished memories 

My granddad used to read Newcastle’s spreadsheets one week, then read Sunderland’s the week after

 

You used to be able to do that in them days 

[PauloGeordio]

14 minutes ago, Ben said:

Questions starting to be asked about fair market value.

 

Fuck .....right.......off

We have previous good trade relations with both Brighton and Forest. Nothing to see here 😉

[Keegans Export]

9 minutes ago, TK-421 said:

Not previously, but now us, and other clubs seem to be using these deals to get around/fix FFP/PSR issues, it has now seemingly become somethign that will be checked by the PL, presumably on transfers between PL clubs, except where its too/from a 'Big Six' club, otherwise, crack on.

But you know, sell yourself a hotel or two... nothing to see there.

When they closed that loophole with Chelsea's 8-year contracts, presumably they didn't recalculate their PSR calculations? So Mudryk etc are still amortised over 8 years. 

 

This should be the same. If the PL decide it's a loophole and attempt to close it then deals that have already gone through should still be honoured. Unless there's a clear existing rule that has been broken of course.

[PauloGeordio]

2 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

When they closed that loophole with Chelsea's 8-year contracts, presumably they didn't recalculate their PSR calculations? So Mudryk etc are still amortised over 8 years. 

 

This should be the same. If the PL decide it's a loophole and attempt to close it then deals that have already gone through should still be honoured. Unless there's a clear existing rule that has been broken of course.

I concur 👍🏻

[Ben]

Do we have sponsorship deals at the EPL currently waiting to be signed off ? Did this delay force us to sell players ? 

[Terrymac1966]

Me grandad once got kicked in at the Leazes End coz he stood at the wrong bit when the Scotswood Road Aggro Boys started fighting with the Longbenton Mad Mob just behind him. 😱

For those too young it usually happened during really boring matches for entertainment purposes between rival skinhead gangs. Usually followed by several choruses of the Harry Roberts song 😄

 

 

Edited June 30 by Terrymac1966

[Heron]

The more they turn the screw on us the more it should work in our favour. Backs to the wall, come out swinging.

[manorpark]

Just now, Heron said:

Backs to the wall, come out swinging.

 

Which we definitely will, when the time is right !!!

[Slim]

20 minutes ago, Ben said:

Do we have sponsorship deals at the EPL currently waiting to be signed off ? Did this delay force us to sell players ? 

If you can't trust nufcnews24 who can you trust?

[TheBrownBottle]

36 minutes ago, Ben said:

Do we have sponsorship deals at the EPL currently waiting to be signed off ? Did this delay force us to sell players ? 

So we were expecting to double our commercial revenue in June but the PL blocked it?

 

Yeah, not buying that at all tbh.  Our shirt sponsorship (the biggest sponsor we could have) is 25m, the kit deal is worth up to 40m, and Minteh and Anderson brought in about those numbers combined.  What exactly were we sponsoring to bring in that kind of money?