Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[The Prophet]

1 hour ago, Dokko said:

 

They'll scrap it. Give everton and forest their points back as long as they show sustainablity. Clubs will be freer to spend as long as owners don't loan but gift. Remove all the shady deals, UK gets bigger tax from football. 

 

Forest and Everton's appeal will be over well before a regulator comes in.

 

Agreed they'll scrap PSR in it's current form though.

[The Prophet]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/mar/19/football-governance-bill-reveals-extent-of-english-regulators-proposed-powers?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[madras]

1 minute ago, The Prophet said:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/mar/19/football-governance-bill-reveals-extent-of-english-regulators-proposed-powers?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

See the powers the utilities regulators etc have that don't get used.

[Infatuation Junkie]

Does anyone at all think clubs will end up being allowed to spend what they want ever again?

 

Im quite interested in what people think might happen once Masters collapses 

[gbandit]

Once regulation comes in there’s always going to be some, more often than not, it just leads to other regulations

[The Prophet]

44 minutes ago, madras said:

See the powers the utilities regulators etc have that don't get used.

 

True, but Ofwat, Ofgem, etc aren't independent.

[gbandit]

OfCom just handed out a slap on the wrist that was more like a lover’s embrace to GB News

[Pixelphish]

42 minutes ago, Infatuation Junkie said:

Does anyone at all think clubs will end up being allowed to spend what they want ever again?

 

Im quite interested in what people think might happen once Masters collapses 

Certainly hope not. Id hate to see NUFC just blow a billion+ up the wall. Soulless and detached very quickly. But we shouldn't be at the whim of the traditional 'big' clubs either. Nothing new there I know but it makes me feel better repeating it. 

 

The idea of being allowed to spend the same as the highest revenue club seems good.

[Jackie Broon]

59 minutes ago, Infatuation Junkie said:

Does anyone at all think clubs will end up being allowed to spend what they want ever again?

 

Im quite interested in what people think might happen once Masters collapses 

 

Not as a result of the football regulator, even if they got rid the the PL's FFP rules clubs in europe would still be subject to UEFA's.

 

The only way would be is if there's a successful challenge of the FFP rules which affects both the PL and UEFA rules. Even then, it would probably result in them changing the rules so they allow more scope to allow clubs to catch-up than it being a free-for-all.

 

 

Edited March 19 by Jackie Broon

[Stifler]

A regulator means fuck all.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Stifler said:

A regulator means fuck all.

Last act of desperation for Rishi and the gang

 

edit: I support the idea of a regulator, hard to be seen how it will go with current shambles in government though

 

 

Edited March 19 by Jack27

[FloydianMag]

Just now, Jack27 said:

Last act of desperation for Rishi and the gang 

Probably……but then Labour would probably go down the same route, when the votes come in the HoC they’ll vote with the government.

[SAK]

1 hour ago, Infatuation Junkie said:

Does anyone at all think clubs will end up being allowed to spend what they want ever again?

 

Im quite interested in what people think might happen once Masters collapses 

Think there will be a cap set at the same level that all clubs can spend in theory but there will be income/expenditure rules in relation to this figure with any shortfall being allowed to be made up by owners as long as it is not via loans against the club.

 

 

Edited March 19 by SAK

[FloydianMag]

5 minutes ago, SAK said:

Think there will be a cap set at the same level that all clubs can spend in theory but there will be income/expenditure rules in relation to this figure with any shortfall being allowed to be made up by owners as long as it is not via loans against the club.

 

 

 

And also that any money invested by an owner is legit.

[timeEd32]

6 minutes ago, SAK said:

Think there will be a cap set at the same level that all clubs can spend in theory but there will be income/expenditure rules in relation to this figure with any shortfall being allowed to be made up by owners as long as it is not via loans against the club.

 

 

 

 

Something like this would be my favorite version if it wasn't for the UEFA complexity.

[FloydianMag]

2 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

Something like this would be my favorite version if it wasn't for the UEFA complexity.

A ruling here in the UK over the capping of agents fees forced FIFA and UEFA to backtrack and halt implementation of rules, could go the same way with FFP, who knows.

[The Prophet]

47 minutes ago, Jack27 said:

Last act of desperation for Rishi and the gang

 

edit: I support the idea of a regulator, hard to be seen how it will go with current shambles in government though

 

 

 

 

Once its gone through Parliament, it's independent of Government.

[The Prophet]

59 minutes ago, Stifler said:

A regulator means fuck all.

 

Why not?

[Keegans Export]

I'll put this in a spoiler because it's wordy but there are some interesting bits in the white paper about clubs spending.

 

Spoiler

5.19. Owner funding and the financial resilience of clubs is interrelated. Where clubs are heavily owner funded, funding comes from a more risky source, or is not diversified, clubs are more susceptible and less resilient to shocks. This is true even if the owner has always previously met their financial obligations. A key factor which can lead to financial distress is this heavy reliance on owner funding, where some owners can overspend unconstrained, build up large debt, and then ‘walk away’. This leaves fans with a financially distressed club at risk of being unable to attract new ownership, or worse, with no club at all. Historically, it is in these scenarios that we see the worst harm to fans and their local communities - this is why intervention is needed.

 

5.20. Owner funding can allow clubs to chase ambition, and has been a key factor in growing English football into the exciting, and valuable, product it is. Where requirements like salary caps would limit this dynamic competition, it is the government’s view that the Regulator should not unduly limit or deter sustainable owner investment. Clubs should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of investment and spending, but enjoy them while being disciplined.

 

5.21. However, high owner subsidisation can contribute to overspend on player wages, in turn encouraging other clubs to overspend to compete and further driving up costs. Funding into the game is and will continue to be welcomed. There may be extreme circumstances when it would be sensible for the Regulator to have a role in considering where the overall level of owner injections into the game might be destabilising - given its primary objective on the overall stability of the regime. If the Regulator anticipated that - subject to a shock or change - the stability of the league could be severely threatened, it could use discretion to determine specific licence conditions taking account of the stability of the specific club, and also that of the leagues. A regulator taking a view on the stability of a market is a standard approach to regulation.

 

5.22. The government recognises the need for a balance between ensuring that clubs have sufficient financial resources, and minimising any deterrence of investment. Having risk-based and proportionate regulation would empower the Regulator to intervene as little as possible where possible, but require clubs to improve their finances where necessary for long-term sustainability.

 I've highlighted some bits I think are relevant. To me what this is saying is essentially;

 

We don't have a problem with owners spending money as long as;

 

1. They can afford it

2. They don't laden the club with crippling debt to do so

3. The spending isn't so extreme that it risks destabilising the league through inflationary pressure 

[gbandit]

In fairness, the government are desperate for investment nationally from KSA. Whether we have a Labour government in six months’ time or nine months, they will share the same feelings as the Tories. They’ll be the ones who shape how the regulator functions so it feels like an independent regulator is more likely to aid those who want to spend big 

[timeEd32]

16 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

I'll put this in a spoiler because it's wordy but there are some interesting bits in the white paper about clubs spending.

 

  Hide contents

5.19. Owner funding and the financial resilience of clubs is interrelated. Where clubs are heavily owner funded, funding comes from a more risky source, or is not diversified, clubs are more susceptible and less resilient to shocks. This is true even if the owner has always previously met their financial obligations. A key factor which can lead to financial distress is this heavy reliance on owner funding, where some owners can overspend unconstrained, build up large debt, and then ‘walk away’. This leaves fans with a financially distressed club at risk of being unable to attract new ownership, or worse, with no club at all. Historically, it is in these scenarios that we see the worst harm to fans and their local communities - this is why intervention is needed.

 

5.20. Owner funding can allow clubs to chase ambition, and has been a key factor in growing English football into the exciting, and valuable, product it is. Where requirements like salary caps would limit this dynamic competition, it is the government’s view that the Regulator should not unduly limit or deter sustainable owner investment. Clubs should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of investment and spending, but enjoy them while being disciplined.

 

5.21. However, high owner subsidisation can contribute to overspend on player wages, in turn encouraging other clubs to overspend to compete and further driving up costs. Funding into the game is and will continue to be welcomed. There may be extreme circumstances when it would be sensible for the Regulator to have a role in considering where the overall level of owner injections into the game might be destabilising - given its primary objective on the overall stability of the regime. If the Regulator anticipated that - subject to a shock or change - the stability of the league could be severely threatened, it could use discretion to determine specific licence conditions taking account of the stability of the specific club, and also that of the leagues. A regulator taking a view on the stability of a market is a standard approach to regulation.

 

5.22. The government recognises the need for a balance between ensuring that clubs have sufficient financial resources, and minimising any deterrence of investment. Having risk-based and proportionate regulation would empower the Regulator to intervene as little as possible where possible, but require clubs to improve their finances where necessary for long-term sustainability.

 I've highlighted some bits I think are relevant. To me what this is saying is essentially;

 

We don't have a problem with owners spending money as long as;

 

1. They can afford it

2. They don't laden the club with crippling debt to do so

3. The spending isn't so extreme that it risks destabilising the league through inflationary pressure 

 

This all sounds so perfect that it reads like total fantasy to me.

[duo]

2 hours ago, The Prophet said:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/mar/19/football-governance-bill-reveals-extent-of-english-regulators-proposed-powers?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Governments have no place in football

[gbandit]

Just now, duo said:

Governments have no place in football

Slightly ironic given who we’re owned by 

[duo]

Just now, gbandit said:

Slightly ironic given who we’re owned by 

ha true

[Colos Short and Curlies]

1 hour ago, SAK said:

Think there will be a cap set at the same level that all clubs can spend in theory but there will be income/expenditure rules in relation to this figure with any shortfall being allowed to be made up by owners as long as it is not via loans against the club.

 

 

 

 

That's probably the answer, have a wages/spend cap based on 80% of the top earner or something but the spend has to be underwritten by cash in escrow or through injected capital