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

[Ben]

Masters needs to go here, the EPL is eating itself and he is to weak to stop it, when he was appointed it was rumoured he was a yes man and it looks like that is the case, the Sky6 (maybe not Man City) have backed themselves into a corner with PSR, the whole thing needs scrapping.

[Zero]

I do wonder what will happen next if Man City win the case, or EPL could no longer bear the legal cost and decide to scrap the FFP/PSR. 
 

The clubs still need to comply with UEFA rules right? Would Man City start the war against UEFA?

 

 

Edited September 5 by Zero

[timeEd32]

15 minutes ago, Zero said:

I do wonder what will happen next if Man City win the case, or EPL could no longer bear the legal cost and decide to scrap the FFP/PSR. 
 

The clubs still need to comply with UEFA rules right? Would Man City start the war against UEFA?

 

 

 

 

They don't really need to once they are in the clear on past issues. They are now one of the five biggest clubs in the world in terms of revenue (#2 in the last published accounts with CL winning revenue), so the current rules suit them just fine.

[Zero]

12 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

They don't really need to once they are in the clear on past issues. They are now one of the five biggest clubs in the world in terms of revenue (#2 in the last published accounts with CL winning revenue), so the current rules suit them just fine.

 

But then if their past issue is cleared then can Newcastle follow their past act to increase revenue as well?

 

I just want to have a fair playground

 

 

Edited September 5 by Zero

[Ben]

I'm still confused why owners can't invest in their clubs, when we were fucked with PSR in the summer, why couldn't our owners just inject capital ? 

 

If Man Utd can't make their interest payments do the owners not just inject funds to top up the shortfall ? 

[r0cafella]

19 minutes ago, Ben said:

I'm still confused why owners can't invest in their clubs, when we were fucked with PSR in the summer, why couldn't our owners just inject capital ? 

 

If Man Utd can't make their interest payments do the owners not just inject funds to top up the shortfall ? 

We don’t have a “cash issue” our owners can inject funds no issues however FFP is a separate matter and owners capital injections are restricted. 
 

FFP is after all totally artificial in nature we could have 10billion in our bank account but because the club has generated it we would be sanctioned for using it. 

[Stifler]

Considering the Sky 6 keep saying they should get a greater proportion of the revenue, it stands to reason that they should pay a greater portion of the bill, minus Man City of course.

[Ben]

12 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

We don’t have a “cash issue” our owners can inject funds no issues however FFP is a separate matter and owners capital injections are restricted. 
 

FFP is after all totally artificial in nature we could have 10billion in our bank account but because the club has generated it we would be sanctioned for using it. 

 

Man Utd are £1 billion in debt, how is that sustainable ? I think everyone knows the rules were brought in to keep the elite the elite, its now costing millions to try and enforce these rules, imagine the difference it could make if that money was put into the lower leagues.

[Keegans Export]

34 minutes ago, Ben said:

I'm still confused why owners can't invest in their clubs, when we were fucked with PSR in the summer, why couldn't our owners just inject capital ? 

 

If Man Utd can't make their interest payments do the owners not just inject funds to top up the shortfall ? 

The problem is that PSR is based on income and (from an accounting perspective) owners injecting their own cash doesn't qualify as income.

 

For example, if my business broke even one year and I dropped £20k of my own money into it, I wouldn't then have made £20k profit.

[Ben]

Just now, Keegans Export said:

The problem is that PSR is based on income and (from an accounting perspective) owners injecting their own cash doesn't qualify as income.

 

For example, if my business broke even one year and I dropped £20k of my own money into it, I wouldn't then have made £20k profit.

 

That's fair however ambitious clubs can't even get a start, loads of businesses lose money starting off but are given time to build and some times owners pump capitol in.

 

 

[r0cafella]

Just now, Ben said:

 

That's fair however ambitious clubs can't even get a start, loads of businesses lose money starting off but are given time to build and some times owners pump capitol in.

 

 

This is the point of the rule; nobody in the league wants fair competition because that’s bad for business. 
 

In case you had any doubts the league is a business to these people, it’s only a sport to us fans. 

[Sibierski]

4 minutes ago, Ben said:

 

Man Utd are £1 billion in debt, how is that sustainable ? I think everyone knows the rules were brought in to keep the elite the elite, its now costing millions to try and enforce these rules, imagine the difference it could make if that money was put into the lower leagues.

By being at the top end of the table, where prize money is high, success maintained, TV revenue and exposure. Similar to quit a few business will have big debts (good debt) to help them grow etc. if TV deal collapsed etc. they would be fucked, as they would need to cover the debt repayments on top of everything else.

 

FFP doesn’t really protect clubs. One can come up, spend £120m each season, then go down and be near going bust. Stayed within rules, but didn’t help protect them. They’re basically a halfway house in my view. Don’t really go far enough either end, and clubs like us and Villa who have ambition, are stuck in the middle, kept arms length from the established sides.

[Stifler]

8 minutes ago, Sibierski said:

By being at the top end of the table, where prize money is high, success maintained, TV revenue and exposure. Similar to quit a few business will have big debts (good debt) to help them grow etc. if TV deal collapsed etc. they would be fucked, as they would need to cover the debt repayments on top of everything else.

 

FFP doesn’t really protect clubs. One can come up, spend £120m each season, then go down and be near going bust. Stayed within rules, but didn’t help protect them. They’re basically a halfway house in my view. Don’t really go far enough either end, and clubs like us and Villa who have ambition, are stuck in the middle, kept arms length from the established sides.

Not to mention that debt is allowed. Man Utd and Spurs both at between £600m - £1bn each.

It’s external debt that is the issue. Very few clubs get into problems because the owner has pulled the plug, it’s almost always external debt that is a problem. Chelsea is the only real example of the owner walking away causing problems, and that was because the government pulled the plug on his behalf.

[Terrymac1966]

You cant pump money into your own business to get it up and running ie competitive is lunacy and has no peer in other realms. FFP is simply a shackling device aimed at us and we ought to have this thing in court because it is a nonsense without precedent. Oh and with massive bias

Clubs a billion in debt can outspend us PAH!!!!

[r0cafella]

15 minutes ago, Terrymac1966 said:

You cant pump money into your own business to get it up and running ie competitive is lunacy and has no peer in other realms. FFP is simply a shackling device aimed at us and we ought to have this thing in court because it is a nonsense without precedent. Oh and with massive bias

Clubs a billion in debt can outspend us PAH!!!!

What? 

[SAK]

3 hours ago, Zero said:

 

But then if their past issue is cleared then can Newcastle follow their past act to increase revenue as well?

 

I just want to have a fair playground

 

 

 

If FMV is loosened/scrapped which I think what they are challenging then we can use related parties to sponsor us to higher values.

[Dokko]

PL could bankrupt itself here. It's not a cash rich organisation, sure it only makes a few million a year, which it now has to spend on legal costs. Surely they won't be allowed to borrow against next year's TV income or take money from clubs, that would be totally agaisnt the psr message! 😂 

 

I'm here to watch the whole thing burn down. Down care what it means to us or the sport, I just want to roll around in the dying embers of football in its current state.

[Terraloon]

3 minutes ago, Dokko said:

PL could bankrupt itself here. It's not a cash rich organisation, sure it only makes a few million a year, which it now has to spend on legal costs. Surely they won't be allowed to borrow against next year's TV income or take money from clubs, that would be totally agaisnt the psr message! 😂 

 

I'm here to watch the whole thing burn down. Down care what it means to us or the sport, I just want to roll around in the dying embers of football in its current state.

I think you will find that the PL clubs ( collectively) will have to pay for the costs. The PL is in effect a company and each of the clubs a shareholder. If say for instance the City case costs £20 million each club ( and I guess that would mean city as well ) would have to pay £1 million or shall I say the clubs will receive £1 million less from their central fund distribution 

 

 

[FloydianMag]

6 minutes ago, Dokko said:

PL could bankrupt itself here. It's not a cash rich organisation, sure it only makes a few million a year, which it now has to spend on legal costs. Surely they won't be allowed to borrow against next year's TV income or take money from clubs, that would be totally agaisnt the psr message! 😂 

 

I'm here to watch the whole thing burn down. Down care what it means to us or the sport, I just want to roll around in the dying embers of football in its current state.

The clubs are the PL……..clubs will likely have to contribute towards the legal costs.

[r0cafella]

6 minutes ago, Dokko said:

PL could bankrupt itself here. It's not a cash rich organisation, sure it only makes a few million a year, which it now has to spend on legal costs. Surely they won't be allowed to borrow against next year's TV income or take money from clubs, that would be totally agaisnt the psr message! 😂 

 

I'm here to watch the whole thing burn down. Down care what it means to us or the sport, I just want to roll around in the dying embers of football in its current state.

Of course they will take from members, again the PL is owners by the clubs and they are following through on rules which the majority of clubs have enacted. 

[Terrymac1966]

6 hours ago, r0cafella said:

What? 

Thought it was pretty clear..

[timeEd32]

5 hours ago, Terraloon said:

I think you will find that the PL clubs ( collectively) will have to pay for the costs. The PL is in effect a company and each of the clubs a shareholder. If say for instance the City case costs £20 million each club ( and I guess that would mean city as well ) would have to pay £1 million or shall I say the clubs will receive £1 million less from their central fund distribution 

 

 

 

Clubs in breach of PSR because of the league's rising legal costs would be the ultimate irony.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

23 hours ago, Scoot said:

 

That's fine, but what's pissing me off more is we're not doing shit like this. We seem to be goody 2 shoeing along. 

All I’d say is there a reason for this. To speculate I suspect it has a lot to do with the tribunal not being bound by its own decisions (citation needed). Secondly, the rules being brought in specifically to assuage fears of the top six about NUFC specifically. Finally the fact we don’t really have anything much to sell. 

[TheBrownBottle]

53 minutes ago, Shays Given Tim Flowers said:

All I’d say is there a reason for this. To speculate I suspect it has a lot to do with the tribunal not being bound by its own decisions (citation needed). Secondly, the rules being brought in specifically to assuage fears of the top six about NUFC specifically. Finally the fact we don’t really have anything much to sell. 

I would add that I suspect that part of the agreement with the PL in the takeover is that we don’t rock the boat re any of the rules

[The College Dropout]

Is there any evidence of this? Even circumstantial?

 

Feels like people are creating a narrative to suit their view. Rather than looking at what we do know and thinking about what makes sense logically behind those facts.