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

[wiseman]

What i dont get is why would the newly promoted clubs want to vote in something like this. The gulf in finances between the championship and the EPL is so massive these days, that you really need to dump massive cash in to rebuild as a  premier league squad instead to have a chance of staying up. 

 

The whole thing is just rotten, and I feel one day a post mortem on the league will reveal just how corrupt it all is

[TRon]

10 hours ago, Heron said:

Sorry...not sure how you mean?

 

It was just a reflection on how we had dreams of conquering the world following the takeover, then were brought back down to earth by the allied forces of the PL and cartel clubs to stop us dead in our tracks. The suicide emoji was probably a bit OTT.

[r0cafella]

2 minutes ago, wiseman said:

What i dont get is why would the newly promoted clubs want to vote in something like this. The gulf in finances between the championship and the EPL is so massive these days, that you really need to dump massive cash in to rebuild as a  premier league squad instead to have a chance of staying up. 

 

The whole thing is just rotten, and I feel one day a post mortem on the league will reveal just how corrupt it all is

Because they are backwards looking. They know they can't ever win the league so protecting their position makes sense to them. If the shackles come off in the premier league a dominee affect might be created. 

 

Most clubs are owned by investors who are looking to make money for as little investment as possible. 

[et tu brute]

Obviously the clubs who were supposed to be in favour of voting have had their minds changed (Leicester, Chelsea and Everton). Man City will be straight in the courts again and we await the tribunal clarification. If the tribunal clarify the rules are unlawful (likely), then the Premier League are in a difficult position. Let's see what Man City say as they usually release a statement. 

 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by et tu brute

[CallumG6]

7 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

The proposed super league was to break away from Uefa. They would have continued to boss the premier league with the rules super league or not. 

 

And it doesn't beggar belief if your one of those other clubs and can't/unwilling to compete. It actually makes sense for them to take this position. 

Fair point, I'm wilfully ignorant to all the SL stuff and thought it was separate to the PL.

[wiseman]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

Because they are backwards looking. They know they can't ever win the league so protecting their position makes sense to them. If the shackles come off in the premier league a dominee affect might be created. 

 

Most clubs are owned by investors who are looking to make money for as little investment as possible. 

But for newly promoted clubs it makes no sense unless they just see the EPL as a single seasons cash bonus, they aren't going to establish their position in the league otherwise 

[r0cafella]

Just now, et tu brute said:

Obviously the clubs who were supposed to be in favour of voting have had their minds changed (Leicester, Chelsea and Everton). Man City will be straight in the courts again and we await the tribunal clarification 

Why would those clubs be in favour. 

 

Correct me I'm wrong but Leicester won't be investing at the same level as us or city. Chelsea are very much a cartel club we shouldnt confuse the current ownership structure of Chelsea to Abramovich. And Everton are in the process of being taken over by Americans. 

[TRon]

Feels like ultimately the only way to break the cartel hold will be anti-competitive laws being cited. Not sure if that is even an option, but as long as the PL rules are sacrosanct there's no way round it, it's a closed shop.

[r0cafella]

Just now, wiseman said:

But for newly promoted clubs it makes no sense unless they just see the EPL as a single seasons cash bonus, they aren't going to establish their position in the league otherwise 

The path to establishment is yoyoing for a couple of seasons PL TV money plus parachute payments combined with the EFL strict ffp rules are great moats. If it becomes a free for all the person with the biggest wallet wins. 

[Jackie Broon]

34 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Possibly but of course if the PL and it's new rules are legally compliant then nothing is to be done. 

 

I just can't see how it can be lawful, not applying FMV to shareholder loans has been determined to be unlawful and the accounts for the past three years PSR is assed on won't have FMV applied to shareholder loans.

 

I'm sure the PL will have legal arguments to say it is but it is hard to see what they would be other than just saying it would be unfair to apply it retrospectively.

[et tu brute]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

Why would those clubs be in favour. 

 

Correct me I'm wrong but Leicester won't be investing at the same level as us or city. Chelsea are very much a cartel club we shouldnt confuse the current ownership structure of Chelsea to Abramovich. And Everton are in the process of being taken over by Americans. 

This was according to reports, whether those reports were correct is another thing

[RodneyCisse]

So everyone remains hamstrung and unable to spend at will?

[r0cafella]

Just now, Jackie Broon said:

 

I just can't see how it can be lawful, not applying FMV to shareholder loans has been determined to be unlawful and the accounts for the past three years PSR is assed on won't have FMV applied to shareholder loans.

 

I'm sure the PL will have legal arguments to say it is but it is hard to see what they would be other than just saying it would be unfair to apply it retrospectively.

This is probably the big question mark which might get challenged again but the devil will be in the detail. 

[r0cafella]

Just now, et tu brute said:

This was according to reports, whether those reports were correct is another thing

Probably incorrect reports based upon poorly understood assumptions. 

[TRon]

2 minutes ago, RodneyCisse said:

So everyone remains hamstrung and unable to spend at will?

 

It looks like just kicking the can down the road is probably seen as the next best scenario to defeating City through the courts. The PL acts on behalf of the clubs that make up the division, and seems like they would happily fund legal fees ongoing if it means no change in the status quo.

[Jackie Broon]

3 minutes ago, RodneyCisse said:

So everyone remains hamstrung and unable to spend at will?

 

The rules basically just go back to what they were before the amendments in February, we're still hamstrung by them but not as hamstrung as we were in our ability of inflate our sponsorship income over time.

[wormy]

4 minutes ago, wiseman said:

But for newly promoted clubs it makes no sense unless they just see the EPL as a single seasons cash bonus, they aren't going to establish their position in the league otherwise 

 

But right now they've got a year of PL money as a buffer from the rest of the Championship to help them bounce back. Look at Ipswich for example, this year of PL money is probably massive to them and could help to solidify their spot as a consistent promotion challenger if they use it wisely.

 

Now they've got this year's money, they can vote in favour of pulling the ladder up. Obviously there's other yoyo clubs that they'll always be competing with. But if restrictions start to get lifted in the PL, the lower leagues will probably follow suit. Then they're battling with a potentially longer list of clubs that are willing to pile money in to progress, rather than the established teams already around them at the bottom of the Prem/top of the Champ.

 

Basically they've decided to 'know their place', however shit that may be for the fans of those clubs. 

[Sima]

Imagine voting to be humped 3/4-0 most times against the cartel clubs just so you can play them every season.

 

Freaks.

[Jackie Broon]

40 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Only 4 clubs voted against it, City and Villa two of the four.

 

Not surprising, clubs that would otherwise be anti-PSR Chelsea, Everton, Forest and Leicester have huge shareholder loans on the books and so were never going to vote against it.

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, Sima said:

Imagine voting to be humped 3/4-0 most times against the cartel clubs just so you can play them every season.

 

Freaks.

It's all about the money. 

[mosstef]

1 minute ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Not surprising, clubs that would otherwise be anti-PSR Chelsea, Everton, Forest and Leicester have huge shareholder loans on the books and so were never going to vote against it.

 

Forest voted against it though. I guess they have some kind of ambition too.

[r0cafella]

Just now, mosstef said:

 

Forest voted against it though. I guess they have some kind of ambition too.

They do aye poached Arsenals sporting director, the absolute nerve of them. 

[Nucasol]

Bournemouth:

 

 

Brighton:

 

 

Palace (Steve Parrish & his Cartel friends):

 

 

Brentford:

 

 

Fulham, Wolves and Everton:

 

[TRon]

3 minutes ago, Nucasol said:

Bournemouth:

 

 

Brighton:

 

 

Palace (Steve Parrish & his Cartel friends):

 

 

Brentford:

 

 

Fulham, Wolves and Everton:

 

 

Were Wolves ever a big club or is that just my imagination? Shameful Everton have voted for the cartel, the rest are genuine smaller clubs though so not that surprising they are happy just to be in the Premier.

[DahnSahf]

I can't see anything but European football continuing to be rigged as long as fans worldwide keep pouring money into it.

I renewed my Virgin contract a few months ago and I'm already wishing I hadn't. When it expires I'm going to dump TV altogether, fuck off the BBC, and just stream the NFL on delay plus movies and stuff. I've got a zillion blu rays / DVDs and PC games to catch up on anyway.

I'll just have a commentary game on the radio once a week when I have fish & chips.