Jump to content

Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

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


It's not with any other industry though, just football. Owners should be allowed to invest in their own business as they seem fit (as long as it's legal)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the new UEFA regulations will supersede anything the premier league or the government come up with, unless our clubs are not planning on playing in UEFA competitions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Away Toon said:

Surely the new UEFA regulations will supersede anything the premier league or the government come up with, unless our clubs are not planning on playing in UEFA competitions?

Yep.  The PL can have its own rules re owner investment, but UEFA can still punish clubs within the federation for stepping over UEFA regs

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Away Toon said:

Surely the new UEFA regulations will supersede anything the premier league or the government come up with, unless our clubs are not planning on playing in UEFA competitions?

Not so sure about that, FIFA had to backtrack on capping agents fees after a ruling here in the UK and in a Court in Dortmund. All it would require is legal challenges against UEFA should they impose sanctions.

 

https://x.com/nickdemarco_/status/1741102055014433221?s=61&t=Yt8DTJJ-7Jh_ndgpdGSFKQ

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Yep.  The PL can have its own rules re owner investment, but UEFA can still punish clubs within the federation for stepping over UEFA regs


And as other have said legal challenges here can force quick about turns from UEFA. See the recent case on agent fees being capped for a recent example

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting bits:

 

To begin with, it's levy will raise a budget of only £10 million, meaning at least to begin with, it'll be a pretty small regulator.

 

It'll be able to impose fines of up to 10% of a club's annual revenue for breaching their licence and can force a sale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading this morning that 5th place in the league will now likely mean CL football. Can’t have Man U missing out on the CL money can we..

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mase said:

Reading this morning that 5th place in the league will now likely mean CL football. Can’t have Man U missing out on the CL money can we..

That has nothing to do with it :lol:

 

it was always likely the premier league would get an extra spot this season. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

That has nothing to do with it :lol:

 

it was always likely the premier league would get an extra spot this season. 


Yet, we’ll see Spurs get some awful decisions over the next few weeks :mike:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really a surprise, but there's a lot of talk about Chelsea being in loads of trouble to comply (which there has been talk of for a long time, but hasn't happened yet). I just really really hope that the Saudis doesn't bail them out of trouble once again... They might have to rely on the Saudis.

 

 

Edited by Erikse

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Erikse said:

Not really a surprise, but there's a lot of talk about Chelsea being in loads of trouble to comply (which there has been talk of for a long time, but hasn't happened yet). I just really really hope that the Saudis doesn't bail them out of trouble once again... They might have to rely on the Saudis.

 

 

 

They have plenty of players to sell off who others will willingly take off their hands. They'll be able to comply due to a firesale but could well leave them weaker on the pitch.

 

 

Edited by madras

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, madras said:

They have plenty of players to sell off who others will willingly take off their hands. They'll be able to comply due to a firesale but could well leave them weaker on the pitch.

 

 

 

True….other clubs know they’ll be desperate, might be a bargain or two to be had!

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, madras said:

They have plenty of players to sell off who others will willingly take off their hands. They'll be able to comply due to a firesale but could well leave them weaker on the pitch.

 

 

 

Don’t count on that, most of the players they can sell would be sold at a loss so would have an even greater impact to FFP and P&S rules, if it’s true that they have to raise over £100m to comply with P&S they don’t have that many homegrown players left to make that sum, apparently spurs pulled out of the £60m Connor Gallagher deal in January because they think they will get him for under £50m in June when Chelsea are desperate, that only leaves sicknote Reese James with any true value. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, nufcnick said:

Don’t count on that, most of the players they can sell would be sold at a loss so would have an even greater impact to FFP and P&S rules, if it’s true that they have to raise over £100m to comply with P&S they don’t have that many homegrown players left to make that sum, apparently spurs pulled out of the £60m Connor Gallagher deal in January because they think they will get him for under £50m in June when Chelsea are desperate, that only leaves sicknote Reese James with any true value. 

 

Hall, Maatsen and Lukaku's release clause could get them there. Then there's James, Chalobah, and Broja. There's definitely a possibility they can do this while holding Gallagher.

Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

Hall, Maatsen and Lukaku's release clause could get them there. Then there's James, Chalobah, and Broja. There's definitely a possibility they can do this while holding Gallagher.

Hall was against last years P&S for Chelsea

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nufcnick said:

Hall was against last years P&S for Chelsea

 

He's not, that's why it's a loan to buy. Though it's actually fair to question whether it helps them in June since in theory that should be a July 1 purchase. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

He's not, that's why it's a loan to buy. Though it's actually fair to question whether it helps them in June since in theory that should be a July 1 purchase. 

They wrote it against this years books, go back and have a look and they will lose massively on Lukaku

 

 

Edited by nufcnick

Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

Hall, Maatsen and Lukaku's release clause could get them there. Then there's James, Chalobah, and Broja. There's definitely a possibility they can do this while holding Gallagher.

Colwill as well ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, nufcnick said:

They wrote it against this years books, go back and have a look and they will lose massively on Lukaku

 

 

 

 

I'm not following your timeline. If they wrote it against this season's books (i.e. 23/24) then that's the same as the sales they reportedly need to make in June.

 

On Lukaku it won't help in terms of pure profit, but if the fee mentioned with Roma happens then it would offset almost £40m of their remaining amortisation charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...