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

[The Prophet]

 

[Dr.Spaceman]

Not entirely sure why any team outside the top 6/7 would vote for that one.

[Turnbull2000]

Yeah that doesn't make sense. Allowance in real terms has shrunk substantially.

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

2 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

 

I didn't see that one going through.  It felt dodgy during a reporting period to change it.  For the teams that have budgeted within the rules to change it would be daft.  If these rules were continuing for the next few years I could see an argument for setting the limit ahead of time saying in 2025 limit is x etc.  But the rules are being replaced so that can't happen either.  2 in favour are heopefully Villa and Chelsea.  Not us.

 

[SUPERTOON]

It seems to be getting messier each passing day. Surely needs a resolution soon.

[Matt1892]

If you are a club with ambition you are going to want to get as close as possible to the limit without going over, if we have gone over then I wouldn’t expect it to be by a huge amount and will hopefully be able to shift someone like Fraser to cover it.

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

I wonder if abstaining on these votes gives some sort of legal benefit in the future.  Basically saying that the whole process and rules are not fit so no longer taking part in them.  There always used to be every vote was 100% approved as nothing would get to a vote until it was agreed.  I think these split votes and teams abstaining says a lot about the current state on the premier league and the "civil war" going on.

 

 

Edited June 6 by KetsbaiaIsBald

[The Prophet]

Lyall in the mud.

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

Also it's mental that the FFP end date is not the day after the transfer window closes.  

[Fezzle]

Just now, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

Also it's mental that the FFP end date is not the day after the transfer window closes.  

Not really, makes far more sense to line up with every single clubs accounting periods as opposed getting everyone to do extra work on top of it

[Bally21]

Regarding us being one of the six who have to sell - even if we do have to sell to avoid a breach - it MAY only be a matter of 10m for example that we need to find, so maybe the sale of a Miggy or the like would cover us.

 

Even if the sky story is true - it doesn't follow that we have to sell a Bruno/Isak.

 

 

 

Edited June 6 by Bally21

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

1 minute ago, Fezzle said:

Not really, makes far more sense to line up with every single clubs accounting periods as opposed getting everyone to do extra work on top of it

 

So being forced to sell a player 15 million under what you'd get on deadline day to meet FFP rules is ok?  

[NE27]

Just now, Bally21 said:

Regarding us being one of the six who have to sell, even if we do have to sell to avoid a breach - it MAY only be a matter of 10m for example that we need to find, so maybe the sale of a Miggy or the like would cover us.

 

Even if the sky story is true - it doesn't follow that we have to sell a Bruno/Isak.

 

 

Selling almiron for a reasonable fee to cover a small loss doesn't sell though mate.

 

Newcastle is in chaos and needs to fire sale it's top players STRICTLY!1!1!1.

 

Bunch of c*nts know what they're doing and are desperate to sell these players for us.

[Terraloon]

On 05/06/2024 at 12:30, FloydianMag said:

There’s always a higher body and a judicial body, that any business can turn to and in the case of competition law it’s CAT

Not in PL arbitration there isn’t. 
 

There is what in effect is a contractural agreement between the league and all member clubs  that save on a point of law where there is a route to the HC all clubs have agreed to abide by the decisions/ conclusions reached under the PL Rule Book and in particular section X which deals specifically with the arbitration procedure. 
 

The very last subsection excludes the route that you suggest is open to clubs.

 

 

[The Prophet]

Wonderfully vague.

[Groundhog63]

 

[Bally21]

13 minutes ago, NE27 said:

 

Selling almiron for a reasonable fee to cover a small loss doesn't sell though mate.

 

Newcastle is in chaos and needs to fire sale it's top players STRICTLY!1!1!1.

 

Bunch of c*nts know what they're doing and are desperate to sell these players for us.

Yeah, the c*nts at Sky are so far up the big 6's back passages its shameful.

 

You never once hear them give the alternate viewpoint of FFP, etc hindering clubs with ambition and the money in the bank to achieve it.

 

Surely clubs being 100s of millions in debt (Manure for example) should be more of a concern to the authorities than the turnover of cash rich clubs.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 6 by Bally21

[SUPERTOON]

1 minute ago, The Prophet said:

Wonderfully vague.

In English?

[Nobody]

12 minutes ago, NE27 said:

 

Selling almiron for a reasonable fee to cover a small loss doesn't sell though mate.

 

Newcastle is in chaos and needs to fire sale it's top players STRICTLY!1!1!1.

 

Bunch of c*nts know what they're doing and are desperate to sell these players for us.

Aye, very telling the article talks about Bruno and Isak. Then later it says we might be closer than the other 5 in that group. If you're doing your job properly instead of trying to cause chaos, you start with that and mention some of our fringe players that we could shift to make up the small difference. 

[Jackie Broon]

22 minutes ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

Also it's mental that the FFP end date is not the day after the transfer window closes.  

 

As far as I can tell there is no 'FFP date' set by the PL, clubs' accounts can run from any date between 31 May and 31 July.

 

A.1.1. “Accounting Reference Period” means the period in respect of which Annual Accounts are prepared;

 

A.1.14. “Annual Accounts” means:

 

(a) the accounts which each Club’s directors are required to prepare pursuant to section 394 of the Act; or

(b) if the Club considers it appropriate or the Board so requests, the Group Accounts of the Group of which the Club is a member and which it is required to prepare pursuant to section 399 of the Act, or which it is required to deliver to the Registrar of Companies pursuant to section 400(2)(e) or section 401(2)(f) of the Act, provided that in either case the accounts are prepared to an accounting reference date (as defined in section 391 of the Act) which falls between 31 May and 31 July inclusive. If the accounting reference date falls at any other time, separate accounts for the Club or the Group (as appropriate) must be prepared for a period of 12 months ending on a date between 31 May and 31 July inclusive, and in such a case “Annual Accounts” means those accounts.

 

A.1.236. “T” means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period ending in the year in which assessment pursuant to Rules E.49 to E.54 takes place, and:

(a) “T-1” means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period immediately preceding T;

(b) “T-2” means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period immediately preceding T-1;

(c) “T+1” means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period immediately following T; and

(d) “T+2” means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period immediately following T+1;

 

Annual Accounts must be prepared and audited in accordance with all legal and regulatory requirements applicable to accounts prepared pursuant to section 394 of the Act;

 

 

 

Edited June 6 by Jackie Broon

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

1 minute ago, Terraloon said:

Not in PL arbitration there isn’t. 
 

There is what in effect is a contractural agreement between the league and all member clubs  that save on a point of law where there is a route to the HC all clubs have agreed to abide by the decisions/ conclusions reached under the PL Rule Book and in particular section X which deals specifically with the arbitration procedure. 
 

The very last subsection excludes the route that you suggest is open to clubs.

 

 

 

I believe a third party could take the premier league to a CAT tribunal.  Let's say a random Saudi firm was not allowed to sponsor Newcastle as they deemed the amount they offered above fair market value.  They are not held by the premier league rules so could open a case.  This would also not be hidden behind the privacy rules.  I forget the specifics of how we got the premier league in front of CAT but it can be done.

 

 

[Abacus]

You do wonder where this rumour / information came from about which clubs apparently need to sell.

 

Let's say you could sell a player now for £20m - everyone you deal with now would lowball, in the hope you'd accept e.g. half that, if that's the magical amount that you'd need to make up.

 

So surely this stuff should be commercially confidential till after the deadline, or these rules distort the market downwards for the specific named clubs.

[Fezzle]

17 minutes ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

 

So being forced to sell a player 15 million under what you'd get on deadline day to meet FFP rules is ok?  

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

4 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

As far as I can tell there is no 'FFP date' set by the PL, clubs' acounts can run from any date between 31 May and 31 July.

 

A.1.1. “Accounting Reference Period” means the period in respect of which Annual Accounts are prepared;

 

A.1.14. “Annual Accounts” means:

 

(a) the accounts which each Club’s directors are required to prepare pursuant to section 394 of the Act; or

(b) if the Club considers it appropriate or the Board so requests, the Group Accounts of the Group of which the Club is a member and which it is required to prepare pursuant to section 399 of the Act, or which it is required to deliver to the Registrar of Companies pursuant to section 400(2)(e) or section 401(2)(f) of the Act, provided that in either case the accounts are prepared to an accounting reference date (as defined in section 391 of the Act) which falls between 31 May and 31 July inclusive. If the accounting reference date falls at any other time, separate accounts for the Club or the Group (as appropriate) must be prepared for a period of 12 months ending on a date between 31 May and 31 July inclusive, and in such a case “Annual Accounts” means those accounts.

 

A.1.236. “T” means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period ending in the year in which assessment pursuant to Rules E.49 to E.54 takes place, and:

(a) “T-1” means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period immediately preceding T;

(b) “T-2” means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period immediately preceding T-1;

(c) “T+1” means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period immediately following T; and

(d) “T+2” means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period immediately following T+1;

 

Annual Accounts must be prepared and audited in accordance with all legal and regulatory requirements applicable to accounts prepared pursuant to section 394 of the Act;

 

 

 

 

 

Fair enough.  So extend that period to be 31 May and deadline day + 1 day.  Given all the clubs are focusing on 31 July I guess they've tried to get their accounting period as close as possible to dead line day to avoid selling players under market value.

 

 

Edited June 6 by KetsbaiaIsBald

[Fezzle]

1 minute ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

 

Fair enough.  So extend that period to be 31 May and deadline day + 1 day.  Given all the clubs ate focusing on 31 July I guess they've tried to get their accounting period as close as possible to dead line day to avoid selling players under market value.

As far as i know all the clubs are 30 June year end as they have always been save for some dodgy covid accounting. By all means google which are run til 31 July but theres absolutely ZERO relevance to accounting years end/deadline day whatsoever. Thats entirely in your head