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

[madras]

10 minutes ago, duo said:

When the likes of Man U sign record breaking shirt deals no one questions whether that is FMV.  

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2023/09/12/manchester-united-snapdragon-record-shirt-sponsor/#:~:text=Manchester United clinch world-record,a-year shirt sponsor deal&text=Manchester United have signed the,a-year agreement with Snapdragon.

Or Chelsea shirt deal with a 1 month old company linked to its owners paying 40mill a year on estimated turnover if 12mill.

 

That's before the hotels !!!!

[mighty__mag]

1 hour ago, manorpark said:

Manchester City are doing our heavy lifting for us.

 

Darren Eales started all this continual discussion about the FFP rules unfairness and discrimination earlier this year when he deliberately stated that the worlds richest club would have to sell players to buy players. That shocked people, and although the Media got it wrong in their interpretation of us "selling players" and morphing into us "selling our BIG players" it had the absolute effect on those that it was aimed at, as realisation has dawned in football about the unfair/illegal discriminatory restraint of trade rules.

 

City are doing our heavy lifting.

 

They're definitely doing it for themselves above and beyond pal 

 

And I think Eales was pacifying our fans in the wake we may well have been forced to sell to accommodate, perhaps over alerting clubs to how unfair the PL are to rich owners.

 

But yeah, it's all very interesting, especially City's timing.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 4 by mighty__mag

[Miercoles]

3 hours ago, Checko said:

I think the biggest problem with football at the moment is the enourmous disparity in income between a very few teams at the top and the rest.

 

I've seen people saying the Palaces, Bournemouths etc. can't compete because of FFP restrictions on their spending. Bullshit, they can't compete because they have half a billion pounds less income per year that the very top teams.

 

Take all regulations away and you still basically need to be a sovereign wealth funds to compete. Shouldn't be like that. It doesn't make it more fair for everybody.

 

I'm sure I'm in a vast minority here, but I think there need to be more rules to reduce inequality, not more unfettered free marketing, which basically always just leads to market dominance for a handful of entities, even if we hope to be one of those.

 

 

 

 

Parity is great, but the only real way to get there is a hard spending cap. The problem for football is that it's a worldwide sport, so for any sort of cap system to work all the top leagues would have to agree to implement coordinated caps at the same time. If the premier league implemented a cap on its own, it would just immediately relegate the league to second tier behind Italy, Spain, etc. 

 

Unfortunately, that level of coordination between leagues will probably never happen, so the idea of parity in football is basically dead in the water.

 

It works in American leagues because nobody else plays our sports at a serious level, but in football you just have so many competitive leagues and it would only take one backing out to scupper the whole thing.

[manorpark]

10 minutes ago, mighty__mag said:

 

They're definitely doing it for themselves above and beyond pal 

 

And I think Eales was pacifying our fans in the wake we may well have been forced to sell to accommodate, perhaps over alerting clubs to how unfair the PL are to rich owners.

 

But yeah, it's all very interesting, especially City's timing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't agree with most of that, but appreciate your point of view.

[BergenMagpie]

The thread on RAWK is worth a read 

[Abacus]

1 hour ago, Keegans Export said:

Do UEFA have their own version of APT/FMV? 

NB, to answer your actual question, I don't know.

 

So, was sadly just skimming the Uefa regs that I can find online on my phone in the pub. In short, I think they do.

 

Anything above FMV to a related party looked to me to have been treated as a capital contribution. Capital contributions could then be set against your FMV losses with the target of essentially hitting break even.

 

If it was just that then, in theory you could sponsor to whatever level you want as an related/associated party absorb any losses through capital contributions and carry on. 

 

Except if you did that, you'd then hit the hard spending/revenue cap of 70%, both of which are assessed at FMV in the first place.

 

So, you can't do that after all, because you couldn't artificially inflate the income, if you're already close to that spending threshold. More than happy to be corrected if being a dumb dumb, though.

[PauloGeordio]

 

[Mase]

Am I correct in thinking that Mike Ashley owned part of Sports Direct when they sponsored St James’? Weird how the deal wasn’t looked into by the PL, however now you’ve been taken over and can challenge, pushing the likes of MU further down, suddenly the PL are wanting to stop you doing deals and dissect everything you do. I wonder if that would be the case if you were US owned. 
 

Totally stinks. 

[gbandit]

I imagine it wasn’t looked at by the PL as it only harmed us rather than helped us

[manorpark]

27 minutes ago, PauloGeordio said:

 

 

Yes indeed, exactly what I think.

 

We are involved, Man City are leading on this at the moment.

[Turnbull2000]

20 minutes ago, madras said:

Or Chelsea shirt deal with a 1 month old company linked to its owners paying 40mill a year on estimated turnover if 12mill.

 

That's before the hotels !!!!

 

I had to look that up. Jesus christ. It's fucking scandalous what Chelsea are getting away with.

 

Honestly, wish we would just say fuck the rules at this point. We've played this way too nice.

 

 

Edited June 4 by Turnbull2000

[Mase]

1 minute ago, gbandit said:

I imagine it wasn’t looked at by the PL as it only harmed us rather than helped us

Very true haha. 
 

Surely these rules are brought in, like FFP, to stop the clubs being harmed?

 

I think it’s clear now why they’re being brought in. 

[Whitley mag]

9 minutes ago, BergenMagpie said:

The thread on RAWK is worth a read 

State of those self entitled cunts, everyone would be happier if they fucked off and joined the Irish league.

[mighty__mag]

6 minutes ago, Mase said:

Am I correct in thinking that Mike Ashley owned part of Sports Direct when they sponsored St James’? Weird how the deal wasn’t looked into by the PL, however now you’ve been taken over and can challenge, pushing the likes of MU further down, suddenly the PL are wanting to stop you doing deals and dissect everything you do. I wonder if that would be the case if you were US owned. 
 

Totally stinks. 

 

Would there be a difference if he was merely advertising his own brand, rather than funding his club, im sure he'll have paid fuck all into the club, but used it as his personal advertising board.

 

Therefore the PL would have nowt to investigate in terms of finance. 

[BigValley]

This will be fun 😎

[The Prophet]

Could work the opposite way too. If City lose, it could embolden clubs to suggest further restrictions.

[Superior Acuña]

Liverpool is a class city with loads of class people 

 

Honestly don't pay enough attention to all this shit to really know what's going on, but it's clear the horse long bolted on silly spending and current rules are meant to lock out competition and are bad for competitiveness in the top half of the league.

[SUPERTOON]

At least it will seemingly be sorted one way or another. Either we can compete or will be restricted from doing so.

[Stifler]

28 minutes ago, BergenMagpie said:

The thread on RAWK is worth a read 

It took 6 posts before someone said disbanding the Premier League.

[Gaztoon]

27 minutes ago, BergenMagpie said:

The thread on RAWK is worth a read 

 

Shitting themselves. 

 

League will will become pointless if more teams can challenge us for top 4 in other words.

[duo]

23 minutes ago, Mase said:

Am I correct in thinking that Mike Ashley owned part of Sports Direct when they sponsored St James’? Weird how the deal wasn’t looked into by the PL, however now you’ve been taken over and can challenge, pushing the likes of MU further down, suddenly the PL are wanting to stop you doing deals and dissect everything you do. I wonder if that would be the case if you were US owned. 
 

Totally stinks. 

Not the best example as I think SD paid Newcastle about 50p for the many many years of advertising the brand

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, BergenMagpie said:

The thread on RAWK is worth a read 

 

Head in the sand, these pricks. No grasp on which 3 teams finished second to City in their title wins and who'd have been champions if City weren't about. 

[et tu brute]

18 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

State of those self entitled cunts, everyone would be happier if they fucked off and joined the Irish league.

They're talking out of their arse anyway saying they only need 14 votes to defeat it. It's not a premier league decision or vote, it's at the courts where they will be applying UK law.

[Mase]

3 minutes ago, duo said:

Not the best example as I think SD paid Newcastle about 50p for the many many years of advertising the brand

It’s the perfect example of a deal that needs to be looked into then, surely?

 

if a deal benefits the owner rather than the club, shouldn’t those deals be the ones that ARE looked into? Otherwise we’ll end up with plenty more teams going under like Bury. 

[duo]

Now the walls are closing in they are hitting out. 

 

 

Edited June 5 by duo