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

[Stifler]

20 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Oof, that looks a wee bit high to me - he definitely coined it, but I don’t think he made those sort of numbers - due to his own incompetence mind

The vast majority of 12 years of Premier League income is over £1bn alone, and we all know that not much of it went on the club. He sold land that is worth about £50m, to himself for £6m, then sold that immediately on for a higher price.

It all mounts up.

[Maineblue]

40 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

You won’t be getting one, the evidence is clear. You only got off previously due to a time bar. 
 

You either don’t know, or you refuse to engage in good faith. 

Don’t want an apology pal, btw we have to agree to disagree, try reading the outcome of CAS again you might learn something, have a nice day.

[The College Dropout]

9 hours ago, Kid Icarus said:

Leicester 

I thought their issue was less FFP and more actual money issues for the owners?

[nufcnick]

7 hours ago, Mag3.14 said:

Were Everton not fined 6pts then 1pt for every £6m they were over the £105m limit, so anyone wanting to take the hit and overspend by more than £200m would get hit harder?

Thats correct

[MrRaspberryJam]

7 hours ago, Maineblue said:

Hello u ok, just asking a question mate is that ok ?

Aye mate sorry I snapped I had a bad tummy when I posted that 

[nufcnick]

7 hours ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

Erm they didn’t play for Spurs

 

Did they win the appeal? I thought they just held things up in the courts for long enough that the majority of the provable stuff fell outside of the allowable time for charges to be brought

That’s exactly what happened, the PL have no such rule so they will be found guilty, so they should as well as they cheated for 7 years. I wouldn’t demoted them though, I would deduct them 40 points a year for 7 years, that way they end up like the mid table club they are. 

[TheBrownBottle]

1 hour ago, Stifler said:

The vast majority of 12 years of Premier League income is over £1bn alone, and we all know that not much of it went on the club. He sold land that is worth about £50m, to himself for £6m, then sold that immediately on for a higher price.

It all mounts up.

We’ve got the accounts - they did go to the club in the main tbf.  The commercials shrank but there is a paper trail for costs.

 

Not sure where the land valuation comes from either tbh

[Isaksbigrightfoot]

8 hours ago, huss9 said:

the premier league also needs to get a grip on the loan system.

ridiculous hoarding of the brightest young talent by a couple of clubs.

 

This is one of my main concerns and it shouldn’t be allowed. You should only be allowed to loan out a certain amount of players.

 

I call it doping. Its not of course but it stops smaller teams getting the chance to develop and sell players legitimately.

[Isaksbigrightfoot]

1 hour ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

There should be some sort of scope for us to go the the PL saying, "here's the commercial revenue in 2007 before Mike Ashley, here's where it is in 2021, you did nothing to stop him using the club for free advertisement, not spending on the club infrastructure...we feel £x is a fair amount to bridge that gap to return us to a level we feel is where we were".

 

 

 

Although I love what you’re saying there is no guarantee another owner would do any better or worse in that period. Just look at some of the disasters that has happened. Reading is a perfect example.

 

Ashley was however a tight ass and made the club a complete mess. Our revenue streams stagnated. This is where we will strive in the next couple of years. We can literally double our revenue since the takeover in 4 years.

 

Hence the 5 year plan. We are a club supported well enough to be a top 6 club. It’s the restraints the PL have imposed which will undermine it. If allowed.

 

[leffe186]

5 hours ago, r0cafella said:

Have spurs ever operated under FFP constraints? I don’t think so right? They aren’t the type of club who are looking to spend the sums needed to push them close? Kinda like Liverpool. 

You’re “begging the question”.
 

You’re saying that we haven’t ever been constrained by FFP because we haven’t tried to spend more than we take in as revenue. Levy decided around 2004 that we would choose not to spend more than we take in as revenue, partly as financial prudence, maybe partly because he anticipated regulation. We constrained ourselves, and then when FFP came in we operated under its constraints. Contrast that with all the clubs who were run at a loss at the time, and Abramovich who couldn’t give the slightest shit about loss and just spent whatever he could to make Chelsea the best.

 

We’ve always been looking to spend the kind of sums needed to push us close, just within the scope of our revenue - which meant looking long-term (tight wage control, looking to redevelop the stadium, buying young cheap players to develop). Again, if people want the Abramovich style to be the norm then OK, it’s just not what I want.

[leffe186]

55 minutes ago, Isaksbigrightfoot said:

This is one of my main concerns and it shouldn’t be allowed. You should only be allowed to loan out a certain amount of players.

 

I call it doping. Its not of course but it stops smaller teams getting the chance to develop and sell players legitimately.

Massively this. Also the practice of teams buying other teams and using them as farms, although that’s more complex.

[r0cafella]

4 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

You’re “begging the question”.
 

You’re saying that we haven’t ever been constrained by FFP because we haven’t tried to spend more than we take in as revenue. Levy decided around 2004 that we would choose not to spend more than we take in as revenue, partly as financial prudence, maybe partly because he anticipated regulation. We constrained ourselves, and then when FFP came in we operated under its constraints. Contrast that with all the clubs who were run at a loss at the time, and Abramovich who couldn’t give the slightest shit about loss and just spent whatever he could to make Chelsea the best.

 

We’ve always been looking to spend the kind of sums needed to push us close, just within the scope of our revenue - which meant looking long-term (tight wage control, looking to redevelop the stadium, buying young cheap players to develop). Again, if people want the Abramovich style to be the norm then OK, it’s just not what I want.

First off, my posts aren’t Intended to be disrespectful, apologies if they come across that way. 
 

I’ve written before about the issues with FFP are multiple as the rules are very much blurred. 
 

Is FFP Meant to level the playing field? Or is FFP meant to protect clubs from going bust?

 

if it’s meant to be level the playing then why can Man United spent more than us and how can that be deemed fair?

 

if it’s to protect clubs from going bust then why are clubs still allowed to be bought with leverage? Or amass debt?

 

At the time of our takeover we had numerous leaks stating the opposition from within the league were driven by both spurs and Liverpool for the obvious reason, they didnt want another competitor  

 

and this brings me back your final point, personally I don’t want more Ra situations where Chelsea can be juiced up but given this has happened it’s unfair to shackle others by draconian restrictions. Let’s be sensible and calculate football inflation, work out who has spent the most and adjust and that’s the budget for all. Isn’t that fair?

 

In short I want a system which is fair and ambitious clubs can compete in line with what’s happened already. 

[Tiresias]

51 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

First off, my posts aren’t Intended to be disrespectful, apologies if they come across that way. 
 

I’ve written before about the issues with FFP are multiple as the rules are very much blurred. 
 

Is FFP Meant to level the playing field? Or is FFP meant to protect clubs from going bust?

 

if it’s meant to be level the playing then why can Man United spent more than us and how can that be deemed fair?

 

if it’s to protect clubs from going bust then why are clubs still allowed to be bought with leverage? Or amass debt?

 

At the time of our takeover we had numerous leaks stating the opposition from within the league were driven by both spurs and Liverpool for the obvious reason, they didnt want another competitor  

 

and this brings me back your final point, personally I don’t want more Ra situations where Chelsea can be juiced up but given this has happened it’s unfair to shackle others by draconian restrictions. Let’s be sensible and calculate football inflation, work out who has spent the most and adjust and that’s the budget for all. Isn’t that fair?

 

In short I want a system which is fair and ambitious clubs can compete in line with what’s happened already. 

 

To answer the question, it is basically best possible interpretation about preventing clubs spending themselves into going bust in a bid to compete. By accident or design (whatever) it absolutely does not level the playing field and I don't think it was ever serious attempt to be as such but they named it financial fair play to make it sound as much and trumpet they were making some effort. 

 

IIRC they have now banned leveraged buyouts, way too late but that at least is a thing of the past. 

 

I stand by earlier argument that ditching FFP would help us but also unleash even man city to go ballistic with spending plans sending player values skyrocketing further, I don't think that is desirable, even if we are able to keep up with our owners. Having said that, it seems beyond possible that FFP spending limits are one of the reasons they were convinced to buy the club, they may have the money in the bank that doesnt mean they want to be spending £100m every transfer window out their own pocket, it is an investment not necessarily a money sink. 

 

I would want the league to look at 

- if they can realistically do anything that would cap and limit wages at big clubs, something like only allowed so many 'high earners', so clubs can't stockpile so many top players, force some to be sold

- if anything can bring down the huge costs for players that makes it so difficult for clubs to keep to FFP. 

- do either without lawsuits on constraint of trade etc. 

 

Nothing will happen though. The 'top 6' are too motivated to protect their position and the clubs below won't want to do anything to benefit clubs like us putting any daylight between us and them. In the end while it is still making money the league is not much motivated to make grand changes in the name of 'fairness'.

[leffe186]

1 hour ago, r0cafella said:

First off, my posts aren’t Intended to be disrespectful, apologies if they come across that way. 
 

I’ve written before about the issues with FFP are multiple as the rules are very much blurred. 
 

Is FFP Meant to level the playing field? Or is FFP meant to protect clubs from going bust?

 

if it’s meant to be level the playing then why can Man United spent more than us and how can that be deemed fair?

 

if it’s to protect clubs from going bust then why are clubs still allowed to be bought with leverage? Or amass debt?

 

At the time of our takeover we had numerous leaks stating the opposition from within the league were driven by both spurs and Liverpool for the obvious reason, they didnt want another competitor  

 

and this brings me back your final point, personally I don’t want more Ra situations where Chelsea can be juiced up but given this has happened it’s unfair to shackle others by draconian restrictions. Let’s be sensible and calculate football inflation, work out who has spent the most and adjust and that’s the budget for all. Isn’t that fair?

 

In short I want a system which is fair and ambitious clubs can compete in line with what’s happened already. 

Oh don’t worry, I didn’t think you were being disrespectful. Just that when you said we weren’t operating under FFP constraints the opposite was true, we’d been operating under effectively those constraints for far longer. It just meant that we didn’t have to change how we operated when they actually came in, unlike many other clubs. 
 

Thus you end up with these wages to turnover figures (first thing on Google):

 

 

 

[Mahoneys Tache]

4 hours ago, Maineblue said:

When we get cleared I want an apology ?

Not guilty via the courts, expensive lawyers and legal chicanery is not the same thing as innocence. 

[leffe186]

Yours is artificially high because as he says you are in “investment mode”. Your revenue will increase drastically and the ratio will come down. Everton’s hints that they’ve been operating beyond their means for a while, and their chickens have been coming home to roost for some time. PSG are cunts.

[brummie]

3 minutes ago, Mahoneys Tache said:

Not guilty via the courts, expensive lawyers and legal chicanery is not the same thing as innocence. 

 

Well, it kind of is, like it or not. 

 

That's the legal system for you, it throws up things you don't like.

[SteV]

9 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

Yours is artificially high because as he says you are in “investment mode”. Your revenue will increase drastically and the ratio will come down. Everton’s hints that they’ve been operating beyond their means for a while, and their chickens have been coming home to roost for some time. PSG are cunts.

We’re already down to 74% on the accounts just released.

 

Assume PSG have also got it down considerably getting rid of Messi and Neymar? 111% was absolutely ludicrous like.

[Mahoneys Tache]

37 minutes ago, brummie said:

 

Well, it kind of is, like it or not. 

 

That's the legal system for you, it throws up things you don't like.

Line OJ Simpson playing golf and Trump inevitably skating on his misconduct. 

[Erikse]

5 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

I thought their issue was less FFP and more actual money issues for the owners?

 

They did run into FFP problems in 2021 after taking a gamble on some signings, and the signings didn't turn out well. After that the owners didn't want to spend for a while. It seemed like the trouble with FFP was a big reason for them to pull the handbrakes.

 

 

Edited January 16 by Erikse

[The Prophet]

 

[Hudson]

31 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

Cannot tell us, because its 2025 and that would piss people off considering what's happening with other teams.

 

 

Made that date up by the way, but probably not far from the truth.

 

 

Edited January 16 by Hudson

[LFEE]

 

?

[Nobody]

What a joke

[duo]

It's ridiculous- law to themselves