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

[r0cafella]

13 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

City built during FFP largely still. They didn't have to deal with FMV which is really killing us.

 

The bolded has largely always been the case.

 

One thing about UEFA FFP/PSR that I don't understand. Why were Milan banned from Europe for that 1 season but PSG have never been banned?

To add on, PSGs losses (inclusive of related party inflated sponsors) total 600m euro over the last 3 years. 
 

Being in the club is fantastic. 

[The College Dropout]

2 minutes ago, macphisto said:

How is it killing us, have any deals been contested? What would be different if it wasn't there? 

Without FMV we could do a £50m per year stadium sponsorship, £50m per year Official Tractor Partner sponsorship and could sell Paul Dummett to a PIF Saudi club for £50m.

[Abacus]

12 minutes ago, macphisto said:

How is it killing us, have any deals been contested? What would be different if it wasn't there? 

I suppose the thing is that we don't know what has been contested (if anything) and what hasn't. Or on what basis.

 

They originally came up with some claptrap about building a database to show the FMV of everything.

 

Since that obviously has so many flaws in it's commercial application, they then backtracked on that and asked clubs to prove it themselves, thus showing that they don't know what they're doing.

 

Saying all that, I do think we're all a bit in the dark about whether or to what extent FMV is limiting us. We can suspect we'd have some shiny new sponsorships by now, I do personally, but we don't actually know.

 

 

Edited April 17 by Abacus

[The College Dropout]

We are operating a policy of full compliance and nothing that would raise serious suspicion.

 

Without FMV we could've sold ASM for double and there's nothing anyone could've said about it. That's an extra £25m

[Abacus]

Chelsea have said they had two independent quotes to show that the value of the hotel was fair. From what I read, that still needs to be approved (or at least did, when the accounts were submitted).

 

It does slightly beg the question as to why they didn't just do that and sold it to their own owner instead, but hey, I'm no cynic. 

 

What I do find interesting is that these are an "ESL 6" club, and instead of it just being waived through, it's more and more clear that either the PL are wary of being challenged on how fair they are, or that there are divisions between them.

[macphisto]

22 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Without FMV we could do a £50m per year stadium sponsorship, £50m per year Official Tractor Partner sponsorship and could sell Paul Dummett to a PIF Saudi club for £50m.

But we don't have a FMV stadium sponsor, tractor partner or training ground sponsor. 

 

It doesn't make sense to suggest that because we can't hyperinflate our deals under FMV that we decide to go the other extreme and not have any at all. 

 

You mention Dummett for £50 million. I'm sure we could sell Fraser, Hayden, Ritchie, etc for £5 million per player under FMV but we haven't. 

 

Why are we afraid scrutiny @Abacus? What do you think they are afraid of? Try to get double the money for ASM and if it's not allowed then kick-up a bit of a fuss and eventually end up at a figure that's accepted at FMV. 

[r0cafella]

Just now, Abacus said:

Chelsea have said they had two independent quotes to show that the value of the hotel was fair. From what I read, that still needs to be approved (or at least did, when the accounts were submitted).

 

It does slightly beg the question as to why they didn't just do that and sold it to their own owner instead, but hey, I'm no cynic. 

 

What I do find interesting is that these are an "ESL 6" club, and instead of it just being waived through, it's more and more clear that either the PL are wary of being challenged on how fair they are, or that there are divisions between them.

Because they’ve doubled dipped, they’ve sold the hotel for that sweet sweet FFP boost but kept the revenue stream by giving the club the management contract. 
 

It’s just another demonstration of the rules being utterly broken. 

[r0cafella]

Just now, macphisto said:

But we don't have a FMV stadium sponsor, tractor partner or training ground sponsor. 

 

It doesn't make sense to suggest that because we can't hyperinflate our deals under FMV that we decide to go the other extreme and not have any at all. 

 

You mention Dummett for £50 million. I'm sure we could sell Fraser, Hayden, Ritchie, etc for £5 million per player under FMV but we haven't. 

 

Why are we afraid scrutiny @Abacus? What do you think they are afraid of? Try to get double the money for ASM and if it's not allowed then kick-up a bit of a fuss and eventually end up at a figure that's accepted at FMV. 

Your missing the point, we could have though, the point tcd is making is inflated sponsors would occur via linked parties, nobody in the right mind would give us such valuations. 
 

If anything our owners have shown they are extremely happy to play ball, to me it appears we are a legit investment for them and not a PSG or a city. 

[macphisto]

15 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

We are operating a policy of full compliance and nothing that would raise serious suspicion.

 

Without FMV we could've sold ASM for double and there's nothing anyone could've said about it. That's an extra £25m

Yes, could have but there is no indication anyone was willing to pay that for him. There is plenty of other ways PIF could have put money into the club under FMV through sponsorship deals or player transfers but haven't done that. 

[macphisto]

Just now, r0cafella said:

Your missing the point, we could have though, the point tcd is making is inflated sponsors would occur via linked parties, nobody in the right mind would give us such valuations. 
 

If anything our owners have shown they are extremely happy to play ball, to me it appears we are a legit investment for them and not a PSG or a city. 

I'm not missing any point, my original post was replying to the idea that FMV is killing us when there is nothing to support that argument. There are plenty of other avenues available for money to be channelled into the club that haven't been exploited by related 3rd parties. 

[r0cafella]

Just now, macphisto said:

I'm not missing any point, my original post was replying to the idea that FMV is killing us when there is nothing to support that argument. There are plenty of other avenues available for money to be channelled into the club that haven't been exploited by related 3rd parties. 

Which other avenues? You think anyone was offering more than say Sela or Noon?

[macphisto]

Just now, r0cafella said:

Which other avenues? You think anyone was offering more than say Sela or Noon?

To name a few:

Stadium sponsor 

Training ground sponsor

Training ground kit sponsor 

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, macphisto said:

To name a few:

Stadium sponsor 

Training ground sponsor

Training ground kit sponsor 

All of which we will get the most from a related party deal. We simply don’t have the same pull as the big 6. When the premier league was booming we were relevant for one season. The rest we were scratching around almost getting relegated. 

[Keegans Export]

1 minute ago, macphisto said:

To name a few:

Stadium sponsor 

Training ground sponsor

Training ground kit sponsor 

Just because we haven't signed any of those deals doesn't mean we aren't looking at it.

 

Perhaps we have an amount in mind, maybe we're just being patient trying to find the right partner at the right price? 

[macphisto]

Just now, r0cafella said:

All of which we will get the most from a related party deal. We simply don’t have the same pull as the big 6. When the premier league was booming we were relevant for one season. The rest we were scratching around almost getting relegated. 

Not arguing against getting the most from a related party but we don't have any of those deals at all. If we had any of those deals in place then we could discuss how FMV is hurting us but at the moment FMV is a bit of red herring. 

[nufcjmc]

5 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

Just because we haven't signed any of those deals doesn't mean we aren't looking at it.

 

Perhaps we have an amount in mind, maybe we're just being patient trying to find the right partner at the right price? 

Agreed club already confirmed 2 of those were in pipeline. https://www.shieldsgazette.com/sport/football/newcastle-united/newcastle-united-ceo-reveals-what-st-james-park-might-be-called-as-sponsors-lined-up-after-ps25m-deal-4487951

[Abacus]

26 minutes ago, macphisto said:

Why are we afraid scrutiny @Abacus? What do you think they are afraid of? Try to get double the money for ASM and if it's not allowed then kick-up a bit of a fuss and eventually end up at a figure that's accepted at FMV. 

 

Essentially, yes. I don't think there is any objective way to establish a FMV for a player which isn't open to challenge. To take an example away from us, what is Declan Rice worth to Arsenal, compared to another team already well stocked, who could afford him, or didn't play that way?

 

If we'd had an inflated fee for ASM, how could that possibly be proved when the Saudi League had already cleared out expensive dead wood from Liverpool and Chelsea? So that market we sold to was already completely different. There are still debates on here about whether he was under or over valued, which suggests to me that we pitched it about right, in terms of scrutiny on us 

 

You could make the exact same point point about sponsorships - a different deal is worth different things to different sponsors, so how can you readily compare? You could say it's on objective metrics like global fanbases etc, but even THAT metric is open to challenge. E.g. when most of Man U's global online fanbase barely contribute monetarily, what's it actually worth, that you couldn't challenge in court?

 

I think that's why the PL shifted the burden of proof to clubs themselves, because they'd realised they'd dug a hole for themselves.

 

And before they did that, even in the sponsorship example, let's say you are negotiating between two sponsors, and one offers £10m more than the other because you've played it cleverly.

 

Are you then obliged to tell the PL all about these commercially confidential negotiations? Imagine if there was a leak. Imagine if it then set a precedent which stopped other clubs from negotiating their own deals better, because you've already set a precedent which all potential sponsors of other clubs would be well aware of. You've essentially killed competition there too.

 

Buildings and land DO have an objective commercial market value as there is an open market there. But Chelsea don't seem to have done that, or proved it yet.

 

 

Edited April 17 by Abacus
I think we may be talking at slightly cross purposes here, so apologies for the mega post if so

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, macphisto said:

To name a few:

Stadium sponsor 

Training ground sponsor

Training ground kit sponsor 

Why is our training ground wearing a kit

[macphisto]

4 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

Just because we haven't signed any of those deals doesn't mean we aren't looking at it.

 

Perhaps we have an amount in mind, maybe we're just being patient trying to find the right partner at the right price? 

What ever the amount is I can't imagine we'd get more from a company that is not related to PIF (I presume FMV would not apply) than a related 3rd party sponsorship subject to FMV. Obviously just my opinion and hope I'm wrong. 

 

All conjecture, but I find the idea that without FMV, PIF would be throwing money at the club through their many companies misleading as their actions so far don't support that. 

[TRon]

55 minutes ago, Fatwax said:

And we also would have probably gotten more for ASM, who was massively underpriced to avoid scrutiny.

 

I still don't understand that approach since Liverpool and Chelsea sold players for huge amounts which they could never have commanded from clubs outside of Saudi.

[Fatwax]

6 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

I still don't understand that approach since Liverpool and Chelsea sold players for huge amounts which they could never have commanded from clubs outside of Saudi.

 

Just looked at his stats for the season. Was expecting more than 4 goals and 8 assists, but also expecting less than 26 games so swings and roundabouts.

[Chris_R]

1 hour ago, Fatwax said:

And we also would have probably gotten more for ASM, who was massively underpriced to avoid scrutiny.

 

If ASM was "massively underpriced", why did nobody else in any other league in the world come in and offer more?

[Guest]

PIF to buy St. James' Park, NUFC to be appointed caretakers, £1bn. 

[Abacus]

3 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

If ASM was "massively underpriced", why did nobody else in any other league in the world come in and offer more?

Likewise though, with Chelsea and Liverpool's players.

 

Who else was prepared to offer them those salaries? Which is also part of the package and value to the selling club in removing their contracts from their books and helped fund their squad refreshes.

 

Not arguing, by the way. The Saudi League was and is a market distortion, and the only point of debate I can see is why we couldn't seem to take the same level of advantage of it that others did due to the FMV rules, but I'm a bit ambivalent to it personally. Maybe they wouldn't have bought him at all without our ownership, so I can definitely see the argument the other way.

[TRon]

17 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

If ASM was "massively underpriced", why did nobody else in any other league in the world come in and offer more?

 

Why didn't anyone else offer £40m for a 29 year old Fabinho to Liverpool?