Stifler Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 (edited) 58 minutes ago, r0cafella said: Still is now, it’s not so much about what they can spend, it’s about preventing others from spending. no a chance a tight cunt like Jim would be keeping up with us and villas spending if the shackles were off. He wouldn’t use his money though. He’s a master of that with INEOS, and the whole ‘Government should build us a Wembley of the North’ spiel should have made anyone aware of that. He’ll borrow money to Man Utd, some of which will go on massive transfer fees, the rest will end up going to him either in ‘wages’ or via contracts with INEOS and anyone else he has links too. People like him don’t spend their own money. Edited August 31 by Stifler Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 11 minutes ago, Stifler said: Him wouldn’t use his money though. He’s a master of that with INEOS, and the whole ‘Government should build us a Wembley of the North’ spiel should have made anyone aware of that. He’ll borrow money to Man Utd, some of which will go on massive transfer fees, the rest will end up going to him either in ‘wages’ or via contracts with INEOS and anyone else he has links too. People like him don’t spend their own money. Government aren’t going to fund his transfer spending no matter how much of a master he maybe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 2 minutes ago, r0cafella said: Government aren’t going to fund his transfer spending no matter how much of a master he maybe. I’m not saying they, but they will likely end up funding part of OT’s rebuild, either directly on the stadium, or others things around it that enables it to happen. He’ll borrow money on Man Utd’s books, and be spending above what PSR currently allows. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 So at best he will be levering them up and fucking them to compete with people who have endless amounts of money. it doesnt end well for them without these silly restrictions Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decky Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 We've had to sell a talented young player to a rival to balance the books, a player who is having a great start to his PL career and who plays in a position where we are desperate for a new player. That's the reality of these rules. They were brought in to prevent clubs going bankrupt but they're so stringent that they're forcing teams to sell their youngsters to their own detriment. All these rules do is harm clubs and hold them back. They need to be scraped and rewritten in line with reality in the modern game. The fact that fans are having to act like accountants every summer to have some idea of what is going on at their club is proves that the whole thing is ridiculous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 10 minutes ago, Decky said: We've had to sell a talented young player to a rival to balance the books, a player who is having a great start to his PL career and who plays in a position where we are desperate for a new player. That's the reality of these rules. They were brought in to prevent clubs going bankrupt but they're so stringent that they're forcing teams to sell their youngsters to their own detriment. All these rules do is harm clubs and hold them back. They need to be scraped and rewritten in line with reality in the modern game. The fact that fans are having to act like accountants every summer to have some idea of what is going on at their club is proves that the whole thing is ridiculous. Decoy my friend, these rules were not brought in to prevent clubs going bankrupt, that’s how they were sold but that isn’t the purpose and these rules certainly aren’t fit for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decky Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 Just now, r0cafella said: Decoy my friend, these rules were not brought in to prevent clubs going bankrupt, that’s how they were sold but that isn’t the purpose and these rules certainly aren’t fit for it. Oh I know that, but that's what they're telling us. With Man Utd, Chelsea and City maybe leaning towards change, perhaps Arsenal as well, maybe it's time to call a vote on removing or drastically changing these rules? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 1 minute ago, Decky said: Oh I know that, but that's what they're telling us. With Man Utd, Chelsea and City maybe leaning towards change, perhaps Arsenal as well, maybe it's time to call a vote on removing or drastically changing these rules? I hate to be that guy, truly but none of these clubs want to change the rules in a manner which makes things easier for us or clubs like us. Never the less it looks likely we will follow Uefa and adopt squad cost we don’t have the details yet though. by my rough estimation this will be even more difficult for us as long as the related party rules remain. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 16 minutes ago, r0cafella said: So at best he will be levering them up and fucking them to compete with people who have endless amounts of money. it doesnt end well for them without these silly restrictions But they have the ability to use the leverage because they are allowed to sign inflated sponsorships with anyone they like. We by comparison have to sell players at reduced rates (ASM), and beg them to let us have a new sponsorship. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 45 minutes ago, r0cafella said: Government aren’t going to fund his transfer spending no matter how much of a master he maybe. Aye, not a good look for the government, take pensioners winter fuel payments then fund Brexit Jim’s Wembley of the North. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hudson Posted August 31 Share Posted August 31 6 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: Aye, not a good look for the government, take pensioners winter fuel payments then fund Brexit Jim’s Wembley of the North. Don't worry it's going to be local council money used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted September 1 Share Posted September 1 https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakgarnerpurkis/2024/08/31/the-rigged-system-stopping-newcastle-united-mounting-a-challenge/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted September 1 Share Posted September 1 26 minutes ago, The Prophet said: https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakgarnerpurkis/2024/08/31/the-rigged-system-stopping-newcastle-united-mounting-a-challenge/ Hopefully the case Man City have ongoing will address some of this but sometimes I do wonder why as a club we don't challenge it. Yes I understand every competition has rules, but when they are being changed/amended just to continue to benefit the established elite surely that cannot be legal? Football is a business at the end of the day and provided you have the money, there should be no limit to what an owner should be able to spend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted September 1 Share Posted September 1 36 minutes ago, The Prophet said: https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakgarnerpurkis/2024/08/31/the-rigged-system-stopping-newcastle-united-mounting-a-challenge/ Quote Meanwhile, Chelsea built on a distinctly average campaign last year by spending as lavishly as ever and Manchester United celebrated one of its worst seasons in the past three decades with another $150 million net spend. Had these clubs earned the right to have a better crack at Champions League qualification than Newcastle United and Aston Villa? No, they benefited from being part of an existing hierarchy that has brought in rules that limit the investment of challengers. We are now seeing the full impact of these ‘financial fair play’ regulations: The established order is allowed to underperform and invest heavily while newcomers that dare to outperform them cannot build on their achievements. There’s a way to describe this situation it’s called a rigged system. Sums it up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted September 1 Share Posted September 1 The article posted is nothing which we haven’t been saying on here for years tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted September 1 Share Posted September 1 (edited) 1 hour ago, duo said: Hopefully the case Man City have ongoing will address some of this but sometimes I do wonder why as a club we don't challenge it. Yes I understand every competition has rules, but when they are being changed/amended just to continue to benefit the established elite surely that cannot be legal? Football is a business at the end of the day and provided you have the money, there should be no limit to what an owner should be able to spend. Think it’s hard to challenge where signed up members of the PL so we can’t take it to a CAT and if we put forward a motion we’ll just get out voted. Edited September 1 by Whitley mag Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted September 1 Share Posted September 1 Just now, Whitley mag said: Think it’s hard to challenge where signed up members of the PL so we can’t take it to CAT and if we put forward a motion we’ll just get out voted. Is that not the previous regime who signed up though? i.e. MA Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted September 1 Share Posted September 1 1 minute ago, duo said: Is that not the previous regime who signed up though? i.e. MA The club is signed up and bound by PL rules unfortunately. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted September 1 Share Posted September 1 On 30/08/2024 at 10:01, Jackie Broon said: We don't have any property we could sell at anywhere near enought to make a difference to PSR. We don't own the land St. James' is on and the training ground land wouldn't be worth more than a mediocre PL player. We could buy some (the cost is excluded from PSR and would be amortised anyway) then immediately sell it. But PIF don’t seem willing to do this type of acrobatics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted September 1 Share Posted September 1 3 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: We could buy some (the cost is excluded from PSR and would be amortised anyway) then immediately sell it. But PIF don’t seem willing to do this type of acrobatics. The value is still subject to VFM rules - we couldn't do it. Chelsea could do that with the hotel because hotels in west London are worth those sort of numbers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-421 Posted September 1 Share Posted September 1 (edited) Lass on this American stream just said Chel$ea have extended Nicholas Jacksons contract to 2033, so just the 9 years left. More PSR accounting shenanigans? Edited September 1 by TK-421 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted September 1 Share Posted September 1 Just now, TK-421 said: Lass on this American stream just said Chel$ea have extended Nicholas Jacksons contract to 2033, so just the 9 years left. More PSR accounting shenanigans? No, there is a five-year cap on amortisation Just Boehly being a daft cunt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamPS Posted September 1 Share Posted September 1 Issue with FFP reform is it doesn’t just protect the clubs at the very top. It also protects clubs who are quite happy to sit in the bottom half of the PL as it prevents well funded challengers from the championship. Look at Forest, an ambitious owner willing to spend and its points deductions for them. The fairytale has been cancelled What Newcastle did in the 90s, Fulham in the 2000s, Brighton, Leicester etc etc all now banned. The benefactor owner is outlawed. There are a few clubs who will appreciated the promoted clubs having one hand tied behind their backs and continue to support it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted September 1 Share Posted September 1 (edited) 26 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: The value is still subject to VFM rules - we couldn't do it. Chelsea could do that with the hotel because hotels in west London are worth those sort of numbers. NUFC can buy a hotel in West London and sell it. It’s not a FFP cost and until the rule changed it counts as revenue when sold. If PIF were determined and savvy to make NUFC #1 world wide asap, they would find and exploit loopholes. They have the power to do it if the will and nous is there. Edited September 1 by The College Dropout Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixelphish Posted September 1 Share Posted September 1 27 minutes ago, TK-421 said: Lass on this American stream just said Chel$ea have extended Nicholas Jacksons contract to 2033, so just the 9 years left. More PSR accounting shenanigans? I think it's designed to keep the wage bill 'low' so instead of paying 200k + they pay 100k over a longer period. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now