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

[gbandit]

And you sir, are you waiting to receive Jessie Lingard’s limp penis?

 

New page Limp penis 

 

 

Edited January 15 by gbandit

[1964]

18 minutes ago, Decky said:

How long has the £105m over 3 seasons thing been in place? From the beginning? Does it get adjusted for inflation or market changes, because players cost a lot more now than they did when FFP was first introduced? 

Been the same since 2013 I think, which is ridiculous 

[Decky]

So the limits were influenced by the market in 2013 and still apply to this day?  The whole thing needs changed from top to bottom but a good start would be increasing that figure to about £200m right now. 

[The Prophet]

This been posted?

[Boey_Jarton]

17 minutes ago, dcmk said:

I get why everyone is angry at FPP. It annoys me too.

 

But I am sure everyone would agree that there are clubs out there that literally need protecting from themselves.

 

For example look at what happened with Leeds being too ambitious, failing and then having sell everyone they could, and with Bury disappearing entirely.  Not sure what the answer is, but there needs to be something in place to not have other clubs totally going under.  

To 'prevent a leeds' you want enhanced controls that are focussed on cash reserves and the ability of clubs to meet obligations such as loan repayments, VAT, PAYE etc. For example, can all clubs meet 12 months worth of commitments in a scenario where they are relegated? 

 

FFP controls are nothing to do with cash or financial security. A club could put £1bn in a sealed escrow account to demonstrate financial security for the next decade, but it could still fail FFP. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DahnSahf]

32 minutes ago, dcmk said:

I get why everyone is angry at FPP. It annoys me too.

 

But I am sure everyone would agree that there are clubs out there that literally need protecting from themselves.

 

For example look at what happened with Leeds being too ambitious, failing and then having sell everyone they could, and with Bury disappearing entirely.  Not sure what the answer is, but there needs to be something in place to not have other clubs totally going under.  

 

Slightly OT, but I found it hilarious that Ridsdale was subsequently taken on by Cardiff City in a financial advisory role. I mean what advice could he give them apart from, 'For fuck's sake don't do what I did'?

[The College Dropout]

I think there should be a way to limit spending.  Just to stop leagues becoming like Germany or France. 

[BShearer]

it should have never been voted in these PL FFP rules. unfortunately Ashley voted for it t the time. big fuckin mistake.

 

I am almost certain too that the charges against City are mainly fake and heavily fabricated by the pressure from red top clubs. I think the huge delay comes from the PL is unable to prove their charges, if they had black and white proof it wouldnt take 4-5-6 years.

 

whole FFP is about a closed shop, same clubs fighting for the top places and making sure no other clubs can really break into it. short term yes, Villa might get a CL place as a one off, Newcastle might get a CL place as a one off but to actually have the ambition to become a PL force you need to spend serious money like the money spent by City, Chelsea, Man Utd, Arsenal, Pool in last 10-15 years.

Arsenal were not in CL since like 2017 until this season. look how much money they spent each summer since 2017. they spent very high amounts.

Boehly spent a billion just on transfer fees since his takeover.

these clubs want t spend these kind of sums going forward but also have FFP rules in place that any challenging teams not to be able to spend so they can offer better salaries to best players of WHU, Villa, Newcastle, Brighton like it happens.

Grealish, Rice, Caicedo, Mcallister, Cucurella, where did they end up?

 

imagine you cook up a new fizzy drink at home and decide you want it to compete with Pepsi and Cola Cola. thats a brutally competitive market so you would need to spend shit load on marketing, commercials etc. first few years could be lots of minuses on the accounts. but hey, as you only sold locally few hundred bottles all you can spend on commercial is actually 500 pounds per year. will take 7 million years to catch up then.

 

do you think the likes of Liverpool, Arsenal would want a fair system? with salary cap where Luton can spend as much on salaries and transfer as Arsenal and vica versa.

[Boey_Jarton]

3 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I think there should be a way to limit spending.  Just to stop leagues becoming like Germany or France. 

There is definitely an argument that there should be some mechanism to prevent the club's with the deepest pockets winning all the time. 

 

FFP is not the answer to this though, because FFP is based on profit, which in turn is based on revenue, and those with the deepest pockets pre FFP have the largest revenue. 

 

 

 

 

[Beth]

Got to love FFP like.

 

Chelsea bought the league in the 00's with zero consequences.

 

City bought the league in the 10's with zero consequences.

 

We are in a position to to that in the 20's but can't because of FFP.

 

Not to mention of course that City and Chelsea are now in a position to abide by FFP due to the momentum they've built up in the years when FFP didn't matter.

[Keegans Export]

4 minutes ago, Boey_Jarton said:

There is definitely an argument that there should be some mechanism to prevent the club's with the deepest pockets winning all the time. 

 

FFP is not the answer to this though, because FFP is based on profit, which in turn is based on revenue, and those with the deepest pockets pre FFP have the largest revenue. 

The uncomfortable truth is that there have always been haves and have nots, often based on who has the richest owners. Liverpool and Moores, Blackburn/Walker, us with SJH up to Abramovic and Sheikh Mansour. I'm sure those with better knowledge than me can go back even further. The only difference now is that the "haves" are the clubs who happened to be the most successful when the rules were implemented. 

 

If they were really concerned about clubs going bust there would be a considerably greater distribution of wealth from the Premier League down the pyramid and allow owners to inject money or increase debt as long as it is guaranteed by tangible assets of the owners (not the clubs themselves).

[Miggys First Goal]

From my very quick glance at Twitter, I think the tide is turning against the actual value of FFP. 

[Abacus]

So, due the appeals situation possibly going on after the end of the season, we could well end it with noone knowing who will actually finish where? Including who has been relegated?

 

Sounds brilliant.

[leffe186]

24 minutes ago, Dokko said:

 

More examples of negative impacts on clubs than positive. It's nothing other than rigged dice off the pitch and with VAR on it, the cartel has the game rigged without needing players and refs to throw it.

 

Both need to go in the next couple of years or I'm checking out completely. I've had enough of it, it's even more frustrating than being owned by Ashley.

Really? Differently frustrating, certainly. I thought the Ashley regime was completely disastrous and frustrating because we all knew the potential, and so many years were wasted.

 

Now imagine how frustrating it is to come up against this ceiling 15 years ago after seeing two teams get bought by oil money and having untold millions of it spunked on them, overnight creating a Big 4 and then a Big 5. Then you knuckle down and grind your way through that ceiling inexorably over 15-20 years. Then another team gets bought by oil money and you see their fans saying they’ve had enough of it after one-and-a-half seasons.

 

I get it. It’s annoying that you can’t just throw money at it, like Chelsea and Man City did. It’s annoying Man U and Arsenal right now that they can’t just throw money at their problems too. For argument’s sake, Arsenal would love to give you £100M for Isak. Man U would love to give you £100M for Bruno Guimaraes. They’re not allowed to.
 

I know this isn’t the place for this argument right now - feelings are high, and I’m going to get an unsympathetic response. P&S is obviously flawed, but I don’t think it’s completely without merit.

 

It’s just hard to see you say it “needs to go in the next couple of years or I’m checking out”, and I hope you understand why. I nearly walked away from football when Abramovich came in, not because we couldn’t spend anything we liked on players but because he was a Russian oligarch and he could and did, and it all felt wrong to me. I nearly threw my toys out of the pram because a rival team did that. You’re about to throw your toys out of the pram because you can’t. I hope you can see how that’s a little frustrating to hear.

[nufcnick]

1 hour ago, Maineblue said:

Different case to Forest and Everton, CAS said City had no case to answer on appeal and they received a fine for the time barred issues. Anyway this is the PL not UEFA and we’re all waiting for there (PL) next move.

So such thing was said at all, CAS dismissed the case because UEFAs own rules state that any punishments for FFP breaches must be done within a certain period of time, which UEFA didn’t follow, at no point did CAS say you had no case to answer 

[leffe186]

Btw I’m genuinely sorry that I’m intruding on this, and I’m sure I’m going to get pelters and fair enough. Just wanted to vent a bit

[Ikon]

I don’t think it needs to go entirely, and I wouldn’t want it either. I wouldn’t want us to throw billions on massively overpaid players. I want FFP changed however from how it is in its current version. 

[bobbydazzla]

21 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

Btw I’m genuinely sorry that I’m intruding on this, and I’m sure I’m going to get pelters and fair enough. Just wanted to vent a bit

Most NUFC fans aren’t on about spending billions on galacticos 

 

We just want to get rid of the dross players we were saddled with due to the Ashley era and build a squad that’s fit to challenge the upper end of the table

 

We’re being financially disadvantaged because the club was run by an absolute cunt for over a decade and all revenue streams were cut off so he could get free advertising for his chain of jumble sale tat emporiums 

 

Pre-Ashley we were on a similar footing to you and his ownership deliberately took us backwards and restricted any progress for 14 years.
 

Now we’ve got owners who want to invest and we’re still being restricted in our attempts to progress by shit rules that are designed to maintain the status quo for 6 teams over the other 14 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 15 by bobbydazzla

[Boey_Jarton]

2 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

Really? Differently frustrating, certainly. I thought the Ashley regime was completely disastrous and frustrating because we all knew the potential, and so many years were wasted.

 

Now imagine how frustrating it is to come up against this ceiling 15 years ago after seeing two teams get bought by oil money and having untold millions of it spunked on them, overnight creating a Big 4 and then a Big 5. Then you knuckle down and grind your way through that ceiling inexorably over 15-20 years. Then another team gets bought by oil money and you see their fans saying they’ve had enough of it after one-and-a-half seasons.

 

I get it. It’s annoying that you can’t just throw money at it, like Chelsea and Man City did. It’s annoying Man U and Arsenal right now that they can’t just throw money at their problems too. For argument’s sake, Arsenal would love to give you £100M for Isak. Man U would love to give you £100M for Bruno Guimaraes. They’re not allowed to.
 

I know this isn’t the place for this argument right now - feelings are high, and I’m going to get an unsympathetic response. P&S is obviously flawed, but I don’t think it’s completely without merit.

 

It’s just hard to see you say it “needs to go in the next couple of years or I’m checking out”, and I hope you understand why. I nearly walked away from football when Abramovich came in, not because we couldn’t spend anything we liked on players but because he was a Russian oligarch and he could and did, and it all felt wrong to me. I nearly threw my toys out of the pram because a rival team did that. You’re about to throw your toys out of the pram because you can’t. I hope you can see how that’s a little frustrating to hear.

We are much more likely to sell Bruno or Isak because of FFP (and not the other way around). 

 

[Kid Icarus]

If Everton go down either this season or next that'll be 2 teams who've gone down as a direct result of financial rules that we're supposed to believe are there to stop teams 'doing a Leeds'

 

Bring on the article that's title is formatted like this by some self aggrandising The Athletic gimp folding their arms to the right of it.

 

Fit

For

Purpose?

[The College Dropout]

Just now, Kid Icarus said:

If Everton go down either this season or next that'll be 2 teams who've gone down as a direct result of financial rules that we're supposed to believe are there to stop teams 'doing a Leeds'

 

Bring on the article that's title is formatted like this by some self aggrandising The Athletic gimp folding their arms to the right of it.

 

Fit

For

Purpose?

Who is the other team?

[Kid Icarus]

2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Who is the other team?

Leicester 

[duo]

52 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

This been posted?

Good read - thanks for posting

[The Prophet]

23 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

Really? Differently frustrating, certainly. I thought the Ashley regime was completely disastrous and frustrating because we all knew the potential, and so many years were wasted.

 

Now imagine how frustrating it is to come up against this ceiling 15 years ago after seeing two teams get bought by oil money and having untold millions of it spunked on them, overnight creating a Big 4 and then a Big 5. Then you knuckle down and grind your way through that ceiling inexorably over 15-20 years. Then another team gets bought by oil money and you see their fans saying they’ve had enough of it after one-and-a-half seasons.

 

I get it. It’s annoying that you can’t just throw money at it, like Chelsea and Man City did. It’s annoying Man U and Arsenal right now that they can’t just throw money at their problems too. For argument’s sake, Arsenal would love to give you £100M for Isak. Man U would love to give you £100M for Bruno Guimaraes. They’re not allowed to.
 

I know this isn’t the place for this argument right now - feelings are high, and I’m going to get an unsympathetic response. P&S is obviously flawed, but I don’t think it’s completely without merit.

 

It’s just hard to see you say it “needs to go in the next couple of years or I’m checking out”, and I hope you understand why. I nearly walked away from football when Abramovich came in, not because we couldn’t spend anything we liked on players but because he was a Russian oligarch and he could and did, and it all felt wrong to me. I nearly threw my toys out of the pram because a rival team did that. You’re about to throw your toys out of the pram because you can’t. I hope you can see how that’s a little frustrating to hear.

 

More Newcastle fans then you think will agree with your position.

 

I don't think anyone is asking for us to be given carte blanche to do as we please, but a more equitable system that doesn't continue to pull the ladder up needs to be found. Whether that looks like a wage or spending cap, who knows.

[leffe186]

10 minutes ago, Boey_Jarton said:

We are much more likely to sell Bruno or Isak because of FFP (and not the other way around). 

 

Yeah, just used those to illustrate my point that FFP is at least having some impact on the cartel clubs.