Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, Kanji said:

The whole fucking FFP and PSR shit is fucking nonsense man. Restrictive rules made to keep the top teams happy as long as possible and every club below them who’s agreed with it are absolute idiot lemmings. 

The PL was built on this mate.  Short term thinking and smaller clubs fucking everyone else over.

 

When the PL breakaway occurred in 1992, the top flight was meant to reduce from 22 clubs to 18 - which would of course mean that four space would go and that wouldn’t be a risk to the ‘Big Five’ (or ‘ITV five’ - Liverpool, Man Utd, Everton, Arsenal, Spurs).  It was the smaller clubs who wanted the Sky money cash-grab that created this situation. 
 

Oldham, Notts County, QPR, Wimbledon, Coventry etc.  You’d think smaller clubs would look at them (they all voted for the Sky breakaway) and think ‘yeah, perhaps this short-term thinking doesn’t help’.  

[TheBrownBottle]

32 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Seka deal they reckon is over 20 million (possibly 25 million), the champions league money will be included in next years accounts. A 50 million increase is still quite significant for next year. The club will be adding other sponsorship within the next few years also. Again don't agree with what you're saying. 

CL money is in this year’s accounts, not next year’s. 
 

edit: to be clear, CL revenue is in 23/24 season. Adidas is 24/25.  Both are roughly the same value.  So the any increase from 23/24 to 24/25 isn’t likely to be dramatic. 

 

 

Edited January 14 by TheBrownBottle

[duo]

2 hours ago, MrRaspberryJam said:

https://x.com/David_Ornstein/status/1746626203203563686?t=ljZfkkwiCCJN359OlHG3iA&s=08

 

..and in the investigation room on City

 

[duo]

The whole of FFP needs changing and clubs like Newcastle and Villa really need to be challenge it.  FFP should be simple - if you can prove you have the funds, fill ya boot.  If you can't - tough.  End of.  The PL will be the better for it.

[et tu brute]

11 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

CL money is in this year’s accounts, not next year’s. 
 

edit: to be clear, CL revenue is in 23/24 season. Adidas is 24/25.  Both are roughly the same value.  So the any increase from 23/24 to 24/25 isn’t likely to be dramatic. 

 

 

 

This year's accounts which haven't been published. You're not counting future sponsorship also which I'm sure will be forthcoming or the new fan zone. Let's just wait for the accounts to be published for the next two years. 

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, et tu brute said:

This year's accounts which haven't been published. You're not counting future sponsorship also which I'm sure will be forthcoming or the new fan zone. Let's just wait for the accounts to be published for the next two years. 

Yeah, I know, and you’re right - though while the club only publishes in the following year, they’ll be across where they sit atm. 

[Pokerprince2004]

https://archive.ph/6aqzS

 

Article from 'The Times' on link above which I found whilst browsing another fans forum. It says ffp is going to change in August 2024 but as yet its unknown how it will change. 

 

 

 

 

[TheBrownBottle]

7 minutes ago, duo said:

The whole of FFP needs changing and clubs like Newcastle and Villa really need to be challenge it.  FFP should be simple - if you can prove you have the funds, fill ya boot.  If you can't - tough.  End of.  The PL will be the better for it.

The desire to reduce inflationary pressures in football is reasonable - Chelsea in particular caused problems, and so did Man City.

 

Personally, I’ve no issue with FFP as a concept - but not as it exists at present.  I wouldn’t want to see PIF come in and spend a billion quid on transfers in one season 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

49 minutes ago, andycap said:

Surely transfer bans would be the answer for a year or two. Especially for littler clubs. 

 

I don't know, if we are going to have FFP then points deductions for breaches are the only punishment you can give.

 

Fines - if a rich club is going to breach the regs then a fine is no problem to them

Transfer ban - running the risk of a club just buying knowing that this will happen and acting accordingly so a couple of years without buying doesn't matter.

[duo]

18 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

The desire to reduce inflationary pressures in football is reasonable - Chelsea in particular caused problems, and so did Man City.

 

Personally, I’ve no issue with FFP as a concept - but not as it exists at present.  I wouldn’t want to see PIF come in and spend a billion quid on transfers in one season 

I think it's the first time people have really taken notice how restrictive and anti-competitive the rules are.  Everyone was expecting us to spend a billion quid and I think it's shocked many that we can't even spend a fraction of that.  The concept is simple - spend what you can afford by providing proof of funds.

[Sima]

27 minutes ago, Pokerprince2004 said:

https://archive.ph/6aqzS

 

Article from 'The Times' on link above which I found whilst browsing another fans forum. It says ffp is going to change in August 2024 but as yet its unknown how it will change. 

 

 

 

 

3 year transfer embargo for any team that hasn’t won the Premier League.  Special dispensation given to Spurs.

[LFEE]

The problem with FFP in its current form is the bigger clubs have happily inflated transfer fee’s which kinda creates an eco system only they can operate in. If players were just costing £1-30m then everyone could work within it in its current form. It’s bonkers we are having to try and haggle a £7m loan fee to £3.5m with our financial muscle but it is what it is so until it’s challenged it will make the journey longer but will make it all the sweeter.

[TheBrownBottle]

54 minutes ago, duo said:

I think it's the first time people have really taken notice how restrictive and anti-competitive the rules are.  Everyone was expecting us to spend a billion quid and I think it's shocked many that we can't even spend a fraction of that.  The concept is simple - spend what you can afford by providing proof of funds.

Proof of funding wouldn’t be enough - negative externalities are caused by inflation all the way down the pyramid. 

[Erikse]

Leicester is a good example, they were competing for top 4 for some years but eventually they just couldn't keep up, and ran into issues with FFP despite spending half of what some of their competitors in the top 6 had done. Eventually they couldn't even spend enough to replace their goalkeeper and got relegated. Like how do you break into the elite in a system like that and actually manage to stay there? You gotta be 10 times smarter and run the club 10 times better than the top clubs, who can just correct their mistakes by spending even more money. Just look at how many flops Man United have bought in the last 5-10 years, and they can still spend a fortune every year.. Imagine if a mid table club fucked up several windows, eventually selling some expensive players for half of what they bought them for. It would be a death sentence.

 

 

Edited January 15 by Erikse

[Optimistic Nut]

18 minutes ago, Erikse said:

Leicester is a good example, they were competing for top 4 for some years but eventually they just couldn't keep up, and ran into issues with FFP despite spending half of what some of their competitors in the top 6 had done. Eventually they couldn't even spend enough to replace their goalkeeper and got relegated. Like how do you break into the elite in a system like that and actually manage to stay there? You gotta be 10 times smarter and run the club 10 times better than the top clubs, who can just correct their mistakes by spending even more money. Just look at how many massive flops Man United have bought in the last 5-10 years, and they can still spend a fortune every window.. Imagine if a mid table club fucked up several windows this badly, eventually selling these players for half of what they bought them for. It would be a death sentence.

 

 

 

 

Aye, and that was with them raking in big money on the likes of Kanye, Mahrez, Maguire and Chilwell off the top of my head. They had the audacity to challenge for top 4 for a bit, one shocker of a season, and they'll probably become a yo-yo club for a bit. 

[TheBrownBottle]

31 minutes ago, Erikse said:

Leicester is a good example, they were competing for top 4 for some years but eventually they just couldn't keep up, and ran into issues with FFP despite spending half of what some of their competitors in the top 6 had done. Eventually they couldn't even spend enough to replace their goalkeeper and got relegated. Like how do you break into the elite in a system like that and actually manage to stay there? You gotta be 10 times smarter and run the club 10 times better than the top clubs, who can just correct their mistakes by spending even more money. Just look at how many flops Man United have bought in the last 5-10 years, and they can still spend a fortune every window.. Imagine if a mid table club fucked up several windows, eventually selling some expensive players for half of what they bought them for. It would be a death sentence.

 

 

 

They are, and they aren’t at the same time

 

Leicester aren’t a big club, nor are they potentially a big club - even without FFP, it is unlikely that their position was sustainable.  In their case, return to the mean - ie being a yo-yo club - was always likely at some point.  Their achievements were spectacular in any context of course.

 

But you’re spot on re what FFP does - it limits transfer failures to clubs already at the top.  Chelsea, Man Utd, Man City etc could have absorbed a Tonali; it would have been irritating, but hardly catastrophic.  For us, it was catastrophic - we can’t afford that sort of misstep (I know many think he’ll come good, and I hope he does, but for now that transfer was a disaster in the present).  I suspect much greater circumspection will be paid to high-cost ‘bargains’ - particularly from overseas.  I don’t anticipate a general change to our policy - buy young to sell high - we’ve bought similar to Ashley’s requirements for a reason (preferring under-25s etc).  The plan will be to sell for big profits. 

[Erikse]

1 hour ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

Aye, and that was with them raking in big money on the likes of Kanye, Mahrez, Maguire and Chilwell off the top of my head. They had the audacity to challenge for top 4 for a bit, one shocker of a season, and they'll probably become a yo-yo club for a bit. 

 

Drinkwater and Fofana aswell.

 

1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

They are, and they aren’t at the same time

 

Leicester aren’t a big club, nor are they potentially a big club - even without FFP, it is unlikely that their position was sustainable.  In their case, return to the mean - ie being a yo-yo club - was always likely at some point.  Their achievements were spectacular in any context of course.

 

But you’re spot on re what FFP does - it limits transfer failures to clubs already at the top.  Chelsea, Man Utd, Man City etc could have absorbed a Tonali; it would have been irritating, but hardly catastrophic.  For us, it was catastrophic - we can’t afford that sort of misstep (I know many think he’ll come good, and I hope he does, but for now that transfer was a disaster in the present).  I suspect much greater circumspection will be paid to high-cost ‘bargains’ - particularly from overseas.  I don’t anticipate a general change to our policy - buy young to sell high - we’ve bought similar to Ashley’s requirements for a reason (preferring under-25s etc).  The plan will be to sell for big profits. 

 

Rodgers made some comments about FFP when the Man City case came to light again last year.

 

“I don’t think FFP has worked,” Rodgers said. “That’s my honest opinion.

"If you look at clubs like ourselves, where our owner could spend more money but he can’t because of the restrictions, the size of our ground, commercially... that holds teams and clubs like ourselves back, while other teams can financially exploit that. So I’m not sure that really works to be honest.”

 

They were in trouble with FFP after a failed window where they spent £55m on Daka, Soumare and Vestergaard, while having the 7th biggest wage bill in the league. Not really anything crazy. Being in trouble with FFP caused the owners to make a decision to pull the handbrake and stop spending for a good while. They probably wouldn't be a top 4 regular, but they could've potensially stayed as a top 6 contender. Kind of like Everton back in the day maybe?

 

 

Edited January 15 by Erikse

[TheBrownBottle]

11 minutes ago, Erikse said:

 

Drinkwater and Fofana aswell.

 

 

Rodgers made some comments about FFP when the Man City case came to light again last year.

 

“I don’t think FFP has worked,” Rodgers said. “That’s my honest opinion.

"If you look at clubs like ourselves, where our owner could spend more money but he can’t because of the restrictions, the size of our ground, commercially... that holds teams and clubs like ourselves back, while other teams can financially exploit that. So I’m not sure that really works to be honest.”

 

They were in trouble with FFP after a failed window where they spent £55m on Daka, Soumare and Vestergaard, while having the 7th biggest wage bill in the League. Not really anything crazy. Being in trouble with FFP caused the owners to make a decision to pull the handbrake and stop spending for a good while. They probably wouldn't be a top 4 regular, but they could've potensially stayed as a top 6 contender. Kind of like Everton back in the day maybe?

 

 

 

I still think Leicester would have fallen back to earth tbh - Brighton will do likewise in the near future.  Every so often a well-run club does so, but cannot survive transfer mistakes etc even without FFP

 

Just my take of course  

[WilliamPS]

I don’t have sympathy for Everton and Forrest as if they have broken the rules then it’s simply not fair on all who obeyed them - especially as both clubs were in relegation battles. If they stayed up ahead of Southampton and Leicester as those clubs obeyed the rules and they didn’t then there has to be a punishment 

 

I would not expect any change to FFP to help Newcastle, it will be designed to keep the brakes on. Aligning with UEFA will at least help the club navigate FFP

[Ben]

The rule that is totally unfair is how they can restrict what we can earn commercially,  this fair market value bullshit has to be illegal 

[Scoot]

Surely only a matter of time before FFP is challenged?

[Isaksbigrightfoot]

1 hour ago, Ben said:

The rule that is totally unfair is how they can restrict what we can earn commercially,  this fair market value bullshit has to be illegal 

Fair market value is quite easy to establish. You can just look at past deals and average them out. That’s the mean value. Then you can apply logic to it.

 

It’s the key to our progress. Commercial development. And it’s where we can improve things massively.

 

The issue is the PL have put in place a system where they have to approve the deals. That is illegal and against trading standards.

[Stifler]

I’m surprised Chelsea didn’t challenge it. They were on the verge of a very good kit deal with Paramount+, however the Premier League didn’t allow it because Paramount+ is a network that is in competition with the USA broadcaster of the Premier League.

Well if that’s the case, get NBC to sponsor Chelsea if they really have a problem with it.

 

To top it off, when Chelsea did find a replacement sponsor, the deal was much less and the Premier League took ages to sign it off, resulting in Chelsea not playing in a sponsored shirt for the first few games, likely resulting in yet more losses.

 

Now I’m not exactly a fan of Chelsea, but that doesn’t sit well with me. What next? Nike asking the Premier League to put the brakes on non-Nike shirt manufacturers in the Premier League because they are the kit, and ball sponsor to them?

[TheBrownBottle]

2 hours ago, Ben said:

The rule that is totally unfair is how they can restrict what we can earn commercially,  this fair market value bullshit has to be illegal 

The govt announced an independent regulator in the last King’s speech, so the intention is to legislate.  
 

It is worth bearing in mind that the govt can allow exemptions to the Competition Act (and has before for football). An independent regulator would likely have govt leverage to ensure that the regs are also lawful.  

[FloydianMag]

7 minutes ago, Stifler said:

I’m surprised Chelsea didn’t challenge it. They were on the verge of a very good kit deal with Paramount+, however the Premier League didn’t allow it because Paramount+ is a network that is in competition with the USA broadcaster of the Premier League.

Well if that’s the case, get NBC to sponsor Chelsea if they really have a problem with it.

 

To top it off, when Chelsea did find a replacement sponsor, the deal was much less and the Premier League took ages to sign it off, resulting in Chelsea not playing in a sponsored shirt for the first few games, likely resulting in yet more losses.

 

Now I’m not exactly a fan of Chelsea, but that doesn’t sit well with me. What next? Nike asking the Premier League to put the brakes on non-Nike shirt manufacturers in the Premier League because they are the kit, and ball sponsor to them?

There’s so much FIFA, UEFA and PL involvement in restricting clubs commercial activities that legal challenges will come sooner or later. Forest, who are to be asked to explain their spending today by the PL have already engaged NDM and their owner would be just the person who would challenge FFP under competition law..