Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Myleftboot]

1 hour ago, FloydianMag said:

I don’t think FFP is going to be around much longer.

Better fuckin not be. 

[madras]

12 hours ago, FloydianMag said:

I don’t think FFP is going to be around much longer.

Some form of it will be but nowhere near as restrictive as it currently is. Maybe just no loading of a club with debt type thing.

[r0cafella]

On the contrary I don’t think it’s going anywhere. 

[FloydianMag]

Just now, r0cafella said:

On the contrary I don’t think it’s going anywhere. 

I think you’re wrong…….too much noise against it now and at the PL meeting a threat of legal action was made, I don’t believe that threat was empty.

[Stifler]

12 hours ago, timeEd32 said:

 

This is a great quote:

 

“I’ve got to somehow find a way to put Crystal Palace against Erling Haaland, and if you have an injury at Palace, you don’t get to pull a £15 million player off the bench, you’ve got to take someone from your academy, because you can’t afford to have that (£15 million) player on your bench. That is not sport. Is anyone really having fun with this? It’s broken.”

 

Also helps dispute the quite frankly odd narrative that American owners are only interested in financial restrictions.

Him and his mate Parish all kept voting for it though, they were happy to have a glass ceiling above them, so long as they had that floor below them.

It’s only because they are talking about making stadium improvements count towards FFP, just when they have bought land off Sainsbury’s for their new £100m stand which they won’t be able to afford if those rules are brought in.

Complaining now is like the Cow taking the Sheep to the slaughter house, and trying to argue for its own life when it realises that they kill Cows as well.

 

 

Edited March 1 by Stifler

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, FloydianMag said:

I think you’re wrong…….too much noise against it now and at the PL meeting a threat of legal action was made, I don’t believe that threat was empty.

Noise from those who dont get a say? It’s totally irrelevant. 
 

and despite your wishes, absolutely nothing to suggest anyone will challenge it legally. They might challenge the punishment but the rules? I’m yet to see anyone mentioning that. 

[FloydianMag]

4 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Noise from those who dont get a say? It’s totally irrelevant. 
 

and despite your wishes, absolutely nothing to suggest anyone will challenge it legally. They might challenge the punishment but the rules? I’m yet to see anyone mentioning that. 

https://x.com/markkleinmansky/status/1755903700093005929?s=61&t=Yt8DTJJ-7Jh_ndgpdGSFKQ

[rutland]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/feb/28/premier-league-clubs-set-to-back-uefa-style-framework-of-financial-rules

[madras]

6 minutes ago, rutland said:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/feb/28/premier-league-clubs-set-to-back-uefa-style-framework-of-financial-rules

Where does UEFA stand on FMV ?

 

Edit... https://www.bavarianfootballworks.com/2022/5/18/23074099/uefa-passes-new-financial-regulation-plan-to-replace-ffp

 

 

Edited March 1 by madras

[Paully]

https://twitter.com/londonblue_2/status/1763270840223764637?s=46&t=FsEm6VC2ijNnTjHjyXU7DA

[TheBrownBottle]

55 minutes ago, madras said:

Where does UEFA stand on FMV ?

 

Edit... https://www.bavarianfootballworks.com/2022/5/18/23074099/uefa-passes-new-financial-regulation-plan-to-replace-ffp

 

 

 

It’s tougher on FMV than the old rules.  

[TheBrownBottle]

1 hour ago, FloydianMag said:

https://x.com/markkleinmansky/status/1755903700093005929?s=61&t=Yt8DTJJ-7Jh_ndgpdGSFKQ

19 of the 20 PL clubs backing the changes to mirror UEFA’s doesn’t exactly suggest that a rebellion is in the offing to me.  

[TheBrownBottle]

1 hour ago, r0cafella said:

Noise from those who dont get a say? It’s totally irrelevant. 
 

and despite your wishes, absolutely nothing to suggest anyone will challenge it legally. They might challenge the punishment but the rules? I’m yet to see anyone mentioning that. 

Let alone NUFC, who have consistently messaged that they will remain within FFP rules.  At some point the message will become clear.

 

I also don’t think that everyone has quite sussed what PIF is - this isn’t a Man City / PSG style takeover being blocked by perfidious forces in UEFA or the PL.  There isn’t an unlimited funding bucket,  and KSA isn’t a tiny city state - it’s a decent sized country, and this is a sovereign wealth fund.  They’re unlikely to be looking to spunk billions on NUFC.  It’s an investment, not a vanity project.  

[Dr.Spaceman]

30 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Let alone NUFC, who have consistently messaged that they will remain within FFP rules.  At some point the message will become clear.

 

I also don’t think that everyone has quite sussed what PIF is - this isn’t a Man City / PSG style takeover being blocked by perfidious forces in UEFA or the PL.  There isn’t an unlimited funding bucket,  and KSA isn’t a tiny city state - it’s a decent sized country, and this is a sovereign wealth fund.  They’re unlikely to be looking to spunk billions on NUFC.  It’s an investment, not a vanity project.  

 

Whatever it is currently or whatever it turns out to be they want to compete with the very best. That's a damn sight more appealing than it was 5 years ago. I couldn't care less if we don't "do a Man City", as long as we're looking to better ourselves year on year, that'll do.

[Dr Jinx]

19 clubs backing it.. I think the key thing to look at is that they will ease the rules in.. so the first 2-4 windows for transfers will be line the Wild West for those with the cash.

[TheBrownBottle]

19 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

Whatever it is currently or whatever it turns out to be they want to compete with the very best. That's a damn sight more appealing than it was 5 years ago. I couldn't care less if we don't "do a Man City", as long as we're looking to better ourselves year on year, that'll do.

Yep, fair enough.  

[Dokko]

Think nufc have been ruffling feathers in the background for some time on ffp. Front end were staying within the limits, but behind the scenes were getting in people's ears, making statements on being unable to spend to keep the pressure on. 

 

Eventually ffp sees its day in court, and it'll lose massively. 

[huss9]

the man city case needs sorting asap - feel that may trigger something whatever the outcome.

 

 

Edited March 1 by huss9

[timeEd32]

It will all come down to the details, but this seems potentially encouraging.

[timeEd32]

4 hours ago, Stifler said:

Him and his mate Parish all kept voting for it though, they were happy to have a glass ceiling above them, so long as they had that floor below them.

It’s only because they are talking about making stadium improvements count towards FFP, just when they have bought land off Sainsbury’s for their new £100m stand which they won’t be able to afford if those rules are brought in.

Complaining now is like the Cow taking the Sheep to the slaughter house, and trying to argue for its own life when it realises that they kill Cows as well.

 

 

 

Their ownership group came together over time. They weren’t all there before these rules started to get voted in.

[Keegans Export]

4 hours ago, rutland said:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/feb/28/premier-league-clubs-set-to-back-uefa-style-framework-of-financial-rules

So the new rules are (potentially) 85% of turnover rather than £105m "losses" over three years?

 

85% of our most recent turnover is around £210m which sounds like a lot but there's an article from last summer quoting our wages then at £150m(ish) although there are probably more up-to-date figures out there. And then would it be the whole transfer fee included in the calculations or the current amortisation?

[timeEd32]

19 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

So the new rules are (potentially) 85% of turnover rather than £105m "losses" over three years?

 

85% of our most recent turnover is around £210m which sounds like a lot but there's an article from last summer quoting our wages then at £150m(ish) although there are probably more up-to-date figures out there. And then would it be the whole transfer fee included in the calculations or the current amortisation?

 

Our wages in the 2022/23 accounts were £187m. This includes CL bonuses, etc. but we also added Tonali, Barnes, Tino, and Bruno raise since then so let's just call that the current number. Player amortisation in the last accounts was £87m. 

 

Revenue was £250m which does not include Sela, CL, or Adidas. 2023/24 will have CL and the loss of that will be roughly offset by Adidas in 2024/25 and beyond. Our new baseline should hover around £300m, not counting other new deals or player sales.

 

Really rough, napkin style math would say we're around 90% right now when you factor in the Maxi sale. UEFA's regulations to be under 90% kicked in for this season so presumably we're under.

 

One weird quirk is UEFA's is based on a calendar year calculation and, presumably, the PL will continue on the 12 month period that lines up with the accounts. 

 

Also, here's UEFA's punishments which is why that's the main thing I'm curious about for the new PL rules:

 

 

 

Edited March 1 by timeEd32

[Keegans Export]

4 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

Our wages in the 2022/23 accounts were £187m. This includes CL bonuses, etc. but we also added Tonali, Barnes, Tino, and Bruno raise since then so let's just call that the current number. Player amortisation in the last accounts was £87m. 

 

Revenue was £250m which does not include Sela, CL, or Adidas. 2023/24 will have CL and the loss of that will be roughly offset by Adidas in 2024/25 and beyond. Our new baseline should hover around £300m, not counting other new deals or player sales.

 

Really rough, napkin style math would say we're around 90% right now when you factor in the Maxi sale. UEFA's regulations to be under 90% kicked in for this season so presumably we're under.

 

One weird quirk is UEFA's is based on a calendar year calculation and, presumably, the PL will continue on the 12 month period that lines up with the accounts. 

 

Also, here's UEFA's punishments which is why that's the main thing I'm curious about for the new PL rules:

 

 

 

 

I knew someone would have the numbers!

 

I'm still not sure how transfer fees will come into it though. If we had t/o £300m and £200m on wages, is that £100m net spend available for transfer fees or is it still going to be based on amortisation? 

[nufcnick]

29 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

So the new rules are (potentially) 85% of turnover rather than £105m "losses" over three years?

 

85% of our most recent turnover is around £210m which sounds like a lot but there's an article from last summer quoting our wages then at £150m(ish) although there are probably more up-to-date figures out there. And then would it be the whole transfer fee included in the calculations or the current amortisation?

The PLs suggestion was 85% of turnover for clubs outside of Europe but 70% for those competing in Europe, matching UEFA. It’s a total crock of shit because any team that qualified for Europe unexpectedly would immediately have to cut their wage and amortisation from 85% to 70%, leaving them weaker with more games to play throughout the season, the only benefit to the new system is to the sly6 as no team would risk trying to match them as they would be in trouble of breaching the rules the next season 

 

 

Edited March 1 by nufcnick

[timeEd32]

3 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

I knew someone would have the numbers!

 

I'm still not sure how transfer fees will come into it though. If we had t/o £300m and £200m on wages, is that £100m net spend available for transfer fees or is it still going to be based on amortisation? 

 

No, it's all based on amortisation. Tonali adds £11m to this season's player amortisation, not £55m (or whatever the actual numbers are). Then you also add his wages of ~£7m. So, roughly speaking, he added £18m in total on the cost side for this season and the next four afterwards.