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

[SUPERTOON]

10 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

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

Aye, been thinking this for a while. Wouldn’t be surprised if we have signed some sort of agreement regarding this tbh.

[1964]

14 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

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

Sounds a bit tin foil hat mate , that would be a legal nuke for us and one they could not defend

[Jamie87]

2 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Aye, been thinking this for a while. Wouldn’t be surprised if we have signed some sort of agreement regarding this tbh.

 

Signed an agreement to not break already established rules which as a member club we are obliged to adhere to anyway? There's no way we've entered into any agreement to not challenge the status quo, how would that suit us in anyway, and would amount to a side-agreement not sanctioned by all member clubs. Think it's tinfoil hat territory. I think our owners are most likely watching what happens with the Man City charges. Why would we get embroiled in a lengthy legal dispute when there's a good chance that another PL member will destroy the rules in court. In the meantime we build slowly, maximising PSR allowed losses (which is still a net investment, especially compared with our previous regime), and when its open season we get to invest more aggressively but at least with a sound foundation. 

 

I wish they'd announce the stadium plans.

[pinkeye]

In order to comply with PSR next year I think the club should sell the Stack to Jamie Rueben for whatever sum of money is needed to balance our books.

 

The premier league had no issue to ratify the Chelsea hotel sales from one Todd Boehly company to another. 

[gjohnson]

6 minutes ago, 1964 said:

Sounds a bit tin foil hat mate , that would be a legal nuke for us and one they could not defend

It just shows how much power the slimy 6 have over the PL as a company. It would be in the PLs best interest to have more teams competing as it would be a more interesting league globally. Which would ultimately bring them more money.

 

As it is at the moment the most interesting thing about this league is all the legal shenanigans, given that it's almost a given that City will win the league, but might be ran close by Arsenal or Liverpool. Man Utd and Chelsea are now obviously basket cases in a footballing sense, but have enough influence power and money to stop anyone getting past them in the medium term

[gjohnson]

8 minutes ago, pinkeye said:

In order to comply with PSR next year I think the club should sell the Stack to Jamie Rueben for whatever sum of money is needed to balance our books.

 

The premier league had no issue to ratify the Chelsea hotel sales from one Todd Boehly company to another. 

A few shipping containers...reckon about 300m is the going rate by Chelsea standards

[midds]

Genuine question: 

 

If Chelsea wanted Osimhen and couldn't afford him 'financially', due to PSR or whatever, but Napoli accepted Chalobah, Broja, Madueke (insert whatever names you like - you get the picture) in exchange then how would that be accounted for? Literally 1 player in exchange for 3 they don't need and no actual money has been passed form one to the other. Napoli keep one, loan one out and sell the other in the following window. How would that pass through the books?  

[The College Dropout]

35 minutes ago, midds said:

Genuine question: 

 

If Chelsea wanted Osimhen and couldn't afford him 'financially', due to PSR or whatever, but Napoli accepted Chalobah, Broja, Madueke (insert whatever names you like - you get the picture) in exchange then how would that be accounted for? Literally 1 player in exchange for 3 they don't need and no actual money has been passed form one to the other. Napoli keep one, loan one out and sell the other in the following window. How would that pass through the books?  

That would be fine. 
 

But they would prefer to do a cash deals I guess. So call it £80m in and £80m out. Maybe more out actually which would scupper the deal. Madueke book value is still like £15m, so letting him go for free is a big accounting loss.  
 

There’s rules about how many clubs you can be registered too in one season.   
 

Wages might be the bigger issue in terms of cost.  Lad would want at least £10m per year. Maybe £12.5m.  More than those lads combined. 

 

 

Edited September 5 by The College Dropout

[midds]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

That would be fine. 
 

But they would prefer to do a cash deals I guess. So call it £80m in and £80m out. 
 

There’s rules about how many clubs you can be registered too in one season.   
 

Wages might be the bigger issue in terms of cost.  Lad would want at least £10m per year. Maybe £12.5m.  More than those lads combined. 

Why £80m though? Where's that come from? Who's decided that? 

 

I'm not being arsey, I'm just playing devil's advocate. Why not £70m? Is it £100m? No cash has been exchanged, only players. Why, and how, is it monetised? 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

37 minutes ago, midds said:

Genuine question: 

 

If Chelsea wanted Osimhen and couldn't afford him 'financially', due to PSR or whatever, but Napoli accepted Chalobah, Broja, Madueke (insert whatever names you like - you get the picture) in exchange then how would that be accounted for? Literally 1 player in exchange for 3 they don't need and no actual money has been passed form one to the other. Napoli keep one, loan one out and sell the other in the following window. How would that pass through the books?  

The clubs would agree a notional value for the players which would magically equal each other out.

 

So for the sale you would show this value as the sales proceeds of your players as if it were cash.

 

for the purchase you’d just use this agreed value.

 

So in effect it would work no differently to if you sold all 3 for £100m and bought one for £100m.

 

How you agree on the value is another matter.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

5 minutes ago, midds said:

Why £80m though? Where's that come from? Who's decided that? 

 

I'm not being arsey, I'm just playing devil's advocate. Why not £70m? Is it £100m? No cash has been exchanged, only players. Why, and how, is it monetised? 

the magic PSR fairies decide that.

 

Transfer fees are odd things, not only in value but the transaction is for the license to play in a league, not actually the player itself. There must be a way of standardising fees but of course the big clubs wouldn’t like it 

[80]

7 minutes ago, midds said:

Why £80m though? Where's that come from? Who's decided that? 

 

I'm not being arsey, I'm just playing devil's advocate. Why not £70m? Is it £100m? No cash has been exchanged, only players. Why, and how, is it monetised? 

It's basically what you can get away with, as things stand. Internally to the Premier League, there are guidelines about transfers being conducted in good faith, but who determines that is anyone's business.

[midds]

1 minute ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

The clubs would agree a notional value for the players which would magically equal each other out.

 

So for the sale you would show this value as the sales proceeds of your players as if it were cash.

 

for the purchase you’d just use this agreed value.

 

So in effect it would work no differently to if you sold all 3 for £100m and bought one for £100m.

 

How you agree on the value is another matter.

This is kind of what I'm getting at tbh. What if Osimhen was 'valued' at £100m, Player 1 - £5m, Player 2 - £5m and Player 3 - £90m. Where does fmv come into this? These values are all interchangeable. One is kept on the books for a year and flipped, the other is kept for 2 years then flipped and the other is loaned out for a loan fee greater than their 'value'? Who decides all of this shit and works it all out IN ADVANCE of the exchange taking place? 

 

Bet Chelsea's quants are all over this shit and that's why they're stockpiling players. They're going to be chips they're going to exchange. Tinfoil hat alert obviously

[80]

1 minute ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

the magic PSR fairies decide that.

 

Transfer fees are odd things, not only in value but the transaction is for the license to play in a league, not actually the player itself. There must be a way of standardising fees but of course the big clubs wouldn’t like it 

Unless they find a way to rig it so they do e.g. heavily modifying the price and salary caps of players downwards if their club has not qualified for CL at least twice in the past 5 years.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

5 minutes ago, midds said:

This is kind of what I'm getting at tbh. What if Osimhen was 'valued' at £100m, Player 1 - £5m, Player 2 - £5m and Player 3 - £90m. Where does fmv come into this? These values are all interchangeable. One is kept on the books for a year and flipped, the other is kept for 2 years then flipped and the other is loaned out for a loan fee greater than their 'value'? Who decides all of this shit and works it all out IN ADVANCE of the exchange taking place? 

 

Bet Chelsea's quants are all over this shit and that's why they're stockpiling players. They're going to be chips they're going to exchange. Tinfoil hat alert obviously

I guess the more players involved the less relevant FMV would be as it is so subjective.

 

related clubs might have more scrutiny. Let’s say PIF also owned Napoli and we swapped Longstaff, Targett and Miggy for Omishen and declared the ‘sale’ value at £100m. That would raise some eyebrows. If Chelsea offered 3 random players, less so

[midds]

2 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

I guess the more players involved the less relevant FMV would be as it is so subjective.

 

related clubs might have more scrutiny. Let’s say PIF also owned Napoli and we swapped Longstaff, Targett and Miggy for Omishen and declared the ‘sale’ value at £100m. That would raise some eyebrows. If Chelsea offered 3 random players, less so

I know I'm pushing it - deliberately tbh, but I'm just throwing scenarios out there where clubs like Chelsea or anyone else tbh, could just start exchanging players, agreeing bullshit amounts based on nothing without any actual cash changing hands an just arguing about it later in courts. The rules are that badly written that any challenge to them would probably win out and clubs could just game the system. I'm taking the piss a bit but not loads. Exploiting player exchange deals will be the next loophole is my prediction, Chelsea already in pole position unsurprisingly

[Skjaere9]

I mean isn’t this exactly what we did with Forest to arrive at Anderson 35M and Vlachademusandpliers 20M in the other direction?

[PauloGeordio]

Aston Villa hit out at 'perverse' PSR rules as Newcastle's rivals with 'huge debts' profit

 

Newcastle United and Aston Villa have been unable to maximise the backing of their owners

 

Aston Villa have hit out at the Premier League's 'perverse' financial rules that are locking clubs like Newcastle United into the 'same cycle'.

 

Premier League clubs have agreed to trial squad cost rules and top to bottom anchoring in shadow, but they are still limited to losses of £105m over a rolling three-year period. Aston Villa failed with a proposal to increase this figure to £135m at the top-flight's annual general meeting earlier this summer despite permitted losses not rising in line with inflation or changing since the rules were first introduced more than a decade ago. 
 

This has left upwardly mobile clubs like Newcastle and Aston Villa at a disadvantage. Although Newcastle and Aston Villa have managed to disrupt the established order, and qualify for the Champions League in 2023 and 2024 respectively, they have been unable to fully maximise the backing of their wealthy owners because their revenues still pale in comparison to those sides around them. Damian Vidagany, Aston Villa's director of football operations, certainly does not need reminding about that. 

 

“We have no debt," he told reporters. "We are a club that is balanced with committed owners. We don’t owe money to anyone, but clubs with more revenue but huge debts can spend much more than us. 

 

"Where is the sense in that? Let me know. Many clubs borrow money. We don’t have this problem, but we still can’t spend. 

“The system is perverse because it doesn’t matter how committed your owners are, how wealthy they are or how good your accounts are. You are not allowed to grow because you don’t have more revenues. 

"To get revenue, what do you need? To win. What do you need to win? To spend. But you cannot spend. So if you don’t spend, you don’t win, you don’t get revenue and you stay in the same cycle always.”

 

[r0cafella]

45 minutes ago, PauloGeordio said:

Aston Villa hit out at 'perverse' PSR rules as Newcastle's rivals with 'huge debts' profit

 

Newcastle United and Aston Villa have been unable to maximise the backing of their owners

 

Aston Villa have hit out at the Premier League's 'perverse' financial rules that are locking clubs like Newcastle United into the 'same cycle'.

 

Premier League clubs have agreed to trial squad cost rules and top to bottom anchoring in shadow, but they are still limited to losses of £105m over a rolling three-year period. Aston Villa failed with a proposal to increase this figure to £135m at the top-flight's annual general meeting earlier this summer despite permitted losses not rising in line with inflation or changing since the rules were first introduced more than a decade ago. 
 

This has left upwardly mobile clubs like Newcastle and Aston Villa at a disadvantage. Although Newcastle and Aston Villa have managed to disrupt the established order, and qualify for the Champions League in 2023 and 2024 respectively, they have been unable to fully maximise the backing of their wealthy owners because their revenues still pale in comparison to those sides around them. Damian Vidagany, Aston Villa's director of football operations, certainly does not need reminding about that. 

 

“We have no debt," he told reporters. "We are a club that is balanced with committed owners. We don’t owe money to anyone, but clubs with more revenue but huge debts can spend much more than us. 

 

"Where is the sense in that? Let me know. Many clubs borrow money. We don’t have this problem, but we still can’t spend. 

“The system is perverse because it doesn’t matter how committed your owners are, how wealthy they are or how good your accounts are. You are not allowed to grow because you don’t have more revenues. 

"To get revenue, what do you need? To win. What do you need to win? To spend. But you cannot spend. So if you don’t spend, you don’t win, you don’t get revenue and you stay in the same cycle always.”

 

Lots of respect to Villa for banging this drum. The fact what he’s saying is all true makes it even more mind bending that these rules exist in the first place. 
 

 

[PauloGeordio]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

Lots of respect to Villa for banging this drum. The fact what he’s saying is all true makes it even more mind bending that these rules exist in the first place. 
 

 

I don’t know how but drawing attention to this as much as possible will bring it down eventually. The system cannot keep promoting debt is good & affluence and good book keeping is bad (hopefully) 

[r0cafella]

13 minutes ago, PauloGeordio said:

I don’t know how but drawing attention to this as much as possible will bring it down eventually. The system cannot keep promoting debt is good & affluence and good book keeping is bad (hopefully) 

I totally understand why yourself and many others hold this view but when I think of the power dynamics at play I just don’t see that outcome. I only see it being brought down by some form of legal challenge. 
 

The PL is a gravy train and most clubs do not wish to rock to boat and upset the likes of Man United and Liverpool as these clubs are cash cows. 

[Paully]

1 hour ago, PauloGeordio said:

Aston Villa hit out at 'perverse' PSR rules as Newcastle's rivals with 'huge debts' profit

 

Newcastle United and Aston Villa have been unable to maximise the backing of their owners

 

Aston Villa have hit out at the Premier League's 'perverse' financial rules that are locking clubs like Newcastle United into the 'same cycle'.

 

Premier League clubs have agreed to trial squad cost rules and top to bottom anchoring in shadow, but they are still limited to losses of £105m over a rolling three-year period. Aston Villa failed with a proposal to increase this figure to £135m at the top-flight's annual general meeting earlier this summer despite permitted losses not rising in line with inflation or changing since the rules were first introduced more than a decade ago. 
 

This has left upwardly mobile clubs like Newcastle and Aston Villa at a disadvantage. Although Newcastle and Aston Villa have managed to disrupt the established order, and qualify for the Champions League in 2023 and 2024 respectively, they have been unable to fully maximise the backing of their wealthy owners because their revenues still pale in comparison to those sides around them. Damian Vidagany, Aston Villa's director of football operations, certainly does not need reminding about that. 

 

“We have no debt," he told reporters. "We are a club that is balanced with committed owners. We don’t owe money to anyone, but clubs with more revenue but huge debts can spend much more than us. 

 

"Where is the sense in that? Let me know. Many clubs borrow money. We don’t have this problem, but we still can’t spend. 

“The system is perverse because it doesn’t matter how committed your owners are, how wealthy they are or how good your accounts are. You are not allowed to grow because you don’t have more revenues. 

"To get revenue, what do you need? To win. What do you need to win? To spend. But you cannot spend. So if you don’t spend, you don’t win, you don’t get revenue and you stay in the same cycle always.”

 

Spot on that! 

I’m sick of us being the so called ‘nice guys’ - it’s about time started we calling the utter shit show out that it is! We could start by using our £20m 4th choice keeper as an example! 

 

 

Edited September 6 by Paully

[PauloGeordio]

7 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

I totally understand why yourself and many others hold this view but when I think of the power dynamics at play I just don’t see that outcome. I only see it being brought down by some form of legal challenge. 
 

The PL is a gravy train and most clubs do not wish to rock to boat and upset the likes of Man United and Liverpool as these clubs are cash cows. 

It most probably will take that. It may even be some background  political influenced nudge that let’s our overlords pour more gravy into the premier league coffers than it can only dream of  

I just believe that like our takeover that “they” desperately tried to block and couldn’t, our rise to football dominance will come in time also, as long as our owners stay and are committed. 

[PauloGeordio]

16 minutes ago, Paully said:

Spot on that! 

I’m sick of us being the so called ‘nice guys’ - it’s about time started calling the utter shit show that it is! We could start by using our £20m 4th choice keeper as an example! 

The less said about that the better  but yeah! 

[Nucasol]

Unsure where to put this/ whether it’s been posted - another gift from Mike Ashley:

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/30277292/newcastle-news-hmrc-mike-ashley-public-investment-fund/amp/

 

Don’t know whether it’ll have a PSR impact.