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

[Thumbheed]

7 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

No, the point that City fan made was about whether City deserves to always have their success caveated by the asterisk that they did it spening a lot of money. They are brilliantly managed and deserve praise for that. You know full well that if we ever get to be in their position fans of Liverpool, Arsenal and Man United will not stop pointing out how it is due to the vast wealth of our owners (and therefore unfair), completely ignoring that a) this is exactly how they rose to the top in years gone by, b) we (so far) have not outspend any of them and neither have City over recent years and c) none of their clubs would still be considered "top six" if they had suffered Mike Ashley-esque ownership for a decade and a half, taking us from a regular CL qualifier to a yoyo club which revenue stagnated whilst theirs tripled or quadrupled.

 

The asterisks on that asterisks is that the volume of money spent was illegitimate in the first instance.

 

Barring Chelsea, every other club has built their success and revenue legitimately and within the scope of whatever the rules were. 

 

I accepted that any success we have will always have an asterisks against it the moment the takeover went through, which is exactly why I have the view that I'd rather success be got against the tide rather than riding with it. 

 

Being able to offer £20m more and £100k extra wages than Real Madrid because Man City won a case they seemingly deserve to lose on grounds of ethics rather than legalities does not appeal to me at all. 

[FloydianMag]

17 minutes ago, duo said:

Liverpool / Man U dominated within the rules at the time.  Man City potentially flaunted the PSR rules enabling them to amass a squad where no one has been able to touch them / winning leagues / CLs / allowing them to generate ludicrous amounts of cash / giving them ridiculous spending power.  I am not saying I agree with the PSR rules - I don't - but Man City have distorted the league and will continue to do so.

 

 

 

You honestly believe they did it within the rules? What rules there weren’t many, LFC were bankrolled by wealthy owners never had to contend with financial restrictions etc and if you dig deep enough into what went on in the 70/80/90’s I’m sure you’ll find all kinds of shite went on.

 

LFC did more damage to English football than City have ever done getting clubs banned from Europe. I hope City bring this whole bunch of corrupt bastards down and the self styled ‘football royalty’ clubs with them

[ExiledGeordie]

13 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

No, the point that City fan made was about whether City deserves to always have their success caveated by the asterisk that they did it spening a lot of money. They are brilliantly managed and deserve praise for that. You know full well that if we ever get to be in their position fans of Liverpool, Arsenal and Man United will not stop pointing out how it is due to the vast wealth of our owners (and therefore unfair), completely ignoring that a) this is exactly how they rose to the top in years gone by, b) we (so far) have not outspend any of them and neither have City over recent years and c) none of their clubs would still be considered "top six" if they had suffered Mike Ashley-esque ownership for a decade and a half, taking us from a regular CL qualifier to a yoyo club which revenue stagnated whilst theirs tripled or quadrupled.

isn’t the whole argument “bought the league” a bit outdated anyway?

[Thumbheed]

12 minutes ago, 80 said:

I don't think such things meaningfully exist. Outside of becoming more American/Socialist and letting Luton and Sheffield United draft Rodri and Haaland to have another crack this season.

 

I thought Villa's suggestion was perfect tbh, in fact I'd probably go higher than the £135m loss they wanted.

 

We've just about managed to build a fantastic squad with £105m loss, imagine the scope we'd have with growing income and say a £180m loss?

[80]

16 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

 

I thought Villa's suggestion was perfect tbh, in fact I'd probably go higher than the £135m loss they wanted.

 

We've just about managed to build a fantastic squad with £105m loss, imagine the scope we'd have with growing income and say a £180m loss?

So it's great for a couple of state owned clubs and a very small clutch of clubs with extraordinarily wealthy private investors whose business models may well involve getting rid of promotion and relegation to lock in their investment and quintuple it's value.

 

Villa's suggestion is nice enough and would work for us but I'm not really interested until a team like Derby or Norwich can plausibly win the league again. In the mean time, football should continue to be the meritocracy it always has been - invest well, be run well, or sink.

[Big Geordie]

People need to remember how much Citeh actually spent, when the club was first bought back in 2008. £30 million on Robinho which was an astronomical amount at the time, and that was just the very start.

 

Mind - it all changed when the Russian took over Chelsea  - he spent outrageous amounts too. They were only hours from going tits up when he bought them. NUFC at that time under SBR were strongly linked with a move for John Terry (the shithouse)

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

50 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

 

Barring Chelsea, every other club has built their success and revenue legitimately and within the scope of whatever the rules were. 

I hate sticking up for Man City here, but before they rocked up there were no fucking rules about how much an owner could spend. So this argument is a nonsense, Liverpool and Man Utd built their success by consistently spending more than other teams over decades. 
 

 

[janpawel]

Clubs should be able to spend the same amount as each other imo, would resolve so many issues 

[Sima]

18 minutes ago, Big Geordie said:

People need to remember how much Citeh actually spent, when the club was first bought back in 2008. £30 million on Robinho which was an astronomical amount at the time, and that was just the very start.

 

Mind - it all changed when the Russian took over Chelsea  - he spent outrageous amounts too. They were only hours from going tits up when he bought them. NUFC at that time under SBR were strongly linked with a move for John Terry (the shithouse)

It’s all Jesper Gronkjaer’s fault.

[Unbelievable]

29 minutes ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

I hate sticking up for Man City here, but before they rocked up there were no fucking rules about how much an owner could spend. So this argument is a nonsense, Liverpool and Man Utd built their success by consistently spending more than other teams over decades. 
 

 

Exactly, and the rules we have in place today that City are claimed to have breached have been put in place by these very clubs specifically to stop them (and other clubs like us) and guarantee their place at the table. As I said I have no problem with Man City getting punishment for breaking these rules, but I do have a problem with the existence of the rules in the first place, fans of other clubs downplaying their achievements by pointing at them and ignoring their own clubs' malicious behaviour and failure to compete with them even on what is factually now an even keel and has been for years.

[Hudson]

UEFA ain't happy, looks like they will block the UK Government from Setting up the regulatory body they have planned.

 

 

Edited September 15 by Hudson

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

11 minutes ago, Hudson said:

UEFA ain't happy, looks like they will block the UK Government from Setting up the regulatory body they have planned.

 

 

 

I think UEFA would be wise to keep out of such discussions, lest they find themselves the subject of proper scrutiny themselves

[Kimbo]

22 minutes ago, Hudson said:

UEFA ain't happy, looks like they will block the UK Government from Setting up the regulatory body they have planned.

 

 

 

Do it anyway and see what they do about it.

[Dr.Spaceman]

1 hour ago, Big Geordie said:

People need to remember how much Citeh actually spent, when the club was first bought back in 2008. £30 million on Robinho which was an astronomical amount at the time, and that was just the very start.

 

Mind - it all changed when the Russian took over Chelsea  - he spent outrageous amounts too. They were only hours from going tits up when he bought them. NUFC at that time under SBR were strongly linked with a move for John Terry (the shithouse)

 

JT was in the car ready to drive up the M1 according to John Gibson, then someone got injured and he was needed.

[LFEE]

1 hour ago, janpawel said:

Clubs should be able to spend the same amount as each other imo, would resolve so many issues 

This. Said it numerous times. Whatever the top club can spend every other team should be able to match it.

 

All PSR is doing is forcing ticket prices, strip costs and car parking up to watch clubs having to sell their best players to those they are trying to catch. Genius.

[madras]

3 hours ago, Unbelievable said:

 

I take it from this that you are in favour of these rules allowing and specifically brought in to allow some clubs to spend more than others? If so, I don't quite know what to say really.

 

Should Man City be punished for breaking FFP rules? Yes

Should Man City be derided for winning trophies by spending similar amounts to other clubs? No

Should these rules be scrapped for being anti-competitive? Absolutely

Should Newcastle United owners break the rules as long as they are not scrapped? Up to them, but I'm happy to accept they are not willing to and build the club within the current regulations whilst hopefully at the same time challenging the rules as they are internally

 

Just checked btw, Man City is 11th in transfer spend over the last five years, having spent less than a third of what NUFC spent, and less than a sixth of Chelsea, less than a fifth of Man U and about a quarter of what Arsenal and Spurs spent (source). They absolutely deserve a lot of credit for how they are run and should be a good model for us to follow, albeit without the initial investment (to the same extent).

No I'm not in favour of these rules (I am in favour if trying to find some formula to allow investment without having another Man City/Chelsea situation).

 

Should Man City be punished if found guilty ? Yes 

 

Should they be derided? Deride if you want, don't if you want.

 

Should the rules be scrapped? See my opening paragraph.

 

Should NUFC break the rules etc ? My personal feeling is we took advice and were told we wouldn't win.

 

Man City's spending means nowt without context. Without the massive, possibly against the rules uplift, would Haaland be there ? Could they even afford his wages ?

 

 

Edited September 15 by madras

[Thumbheed]

1 hour ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

I hate sticking up for Man City here, but before they rocked up there were no fucking rules about how much an owner could spend. So this argument is a nonsense, Liverpool and Man Utd built their success by consistently spending more than other teams over decades. 
 

 

 

Yeh that's a fair point but surely there's some recognition that there did need to be some rules implemented? Particularly with Abrhamovich turning the game upside down and with clubs like Leeds and even us overextended ourselves in pursuit of the same success. 

 

Tbf, the main point was that their income was gained in unethical ways rather than the amount they spent. 

[80]

Football was a booming industry, like the internet in the same period. The sums were always going to explode, with some gambling and failing. I think there might even be an argument Abramovich helped propel that boom, even if I don't like it.

 

The only real regulations that might have been good - which, surprise surprise, are still resisted - would've been around club owners having to take on the risk, rather than the clubs themselves. Money paid up front, no debt implied.

[loki679]

No problem with setting some limits but make it fair.  Pick a number and ALL clubs are allowed to spend that much on transfers and wages.

[WilliamPS]

1 hour ago, Kimbo said:

Do it anyway and see what they do about it.

The independent regulator is going to be a disaster. Last thing football needs is another bunch of suits interfering. They will expand their mandate bit by bit until they are fiddling with everything, PSR will look light touch by the time they are done 

[Jackie Broon]

39 minutes ago, madras said:

No I'm not in favour of these rules (I am in favour if trying to find some formula to allow investment without having another Man City/Chelsea situation).

 

Should Man City be punished if found guilty ? Yes 

 

Should they be derided? Deride if you want, don't if you want.

 

Should the rules be scrapped? See my opening paragraph.

 

Should NUFC break the rules etc ? My personal feeling is we took advice and were told we wouldn't win.

 

Man City's spending means nowt without context. Without the massive, possibly against the rules uplift, would Haaland be there ? Could they even afford his wages ?

 

 

 

 

In my experience, even in cases where they are confident in the case barristers are generally very cautious in terms of likelihood of winning. Even when they are very confident in the case they'll estimate the odds of winning at not more than 60/40.

 

Even if we've had advice that we would have a strong case, the odds would probably be something like 50/50, and that's a big risk to take.

[Kimbo]

6 minutes ago, WilliamPS said:

The independent regulator is going to be a disaster. Last thing football needs is another bunch of suits interfering. They will expand their mandate bit by bit until they are fiddling with everything, PSR will look light touch by the time they are done 

You might be right, but then it’s up to the clubs to get control of this thing before they kill the league. They have every opportunity to show they can regulate themselves, but what are they doing with it? They’re trying to kill off competition.

[madras]

12 minutes ago, loki679 said:

No problem with setting some limits but make it fair.  Pick a number and ALL clubs are allowed to spend that much on transfers and wages.

20 billion ? It's easy to pick an amount other clubs are allowed to spend but have no chance of actually ever having to be able to spend.

[TRon]

6 hours ago, madras said:

Again I disagree. Yes some clubs have spent more than others but within the rules, if they were found to break those rules, like Sunderland in the 50s, they get the punishment and Sunderland never really recovered. Yes they deserve credit for utilising their revenue better than others but they don't deserve to have their trophies if they only got that revenue by deliberately cheating and going beyond "gaming the system', "expoiting loopholes" etc but by, what seems to be naked all out ignoring and breaking the rules.

 

 

 

 

It would be great to spend within the rules if the rules didn't get changed in order to suit some favoured clubs above others. Take our club for example. We have owners who have been approved, and they have lots of money to spend in the manner of Chelsea, Man U, Liverpool etc. What is the logic behind stopping Newcastle spending their own money on players when other teams are still clearly spending a lot more? Where is the 'fair' part of FFP in this equation?

 

 

[madras]

19 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

It would be great to spend within the rules if the rules didn't get changed in order to suit some favoured clubs above others. Take our club for example. We have owners who have been approved, and they have lots of money to spend in the manner of Chelsea, Man U, Liverpool etc. What is the logic behind stopping Newcastle spending their own money on players when other teams are still clearly spending a lot more? Where is the 'fair' part of FFP in this equation?

 

 

Then change the rules, come up a with formula to allow investment without it being a closed shop for the richest. Owners being able to put in without it being debt on the club would be a start but it has to be limited somehow to stop it just being the "big 6" instead of "big 5" or whatever.

 

I wonder how many on here would have wanted Man City to win their case if we didn't have the owners we do ? If we did t have a pot to piss in and all it would mean for us was other clubs s with richer owners pushing us further down.

 

 

Edited September 15 by madras