Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[SUPERTOON]

5 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

You'd think at some point the tribalism will stop. Football is being ruined 

Why would it ever stop ?

[Kid Icarus]

5 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Why would it ever stop ?

Because football is being ruined. We can be all 'lol Everton' but it's happened to us and loads of others now.

[SUPERTOON]

Just now, Kid Icarus said:

Because football is being ruined. We can be all 'lol Everton' but it's happened to us and loads of others now.

Find it difficult to sympathise with them or any other set of fans after the way the lot of them went on regarding our takeover tbh. Football is already ruined as well.

[Kid Icarus]

4 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Find it difficult to sympathise with them or any other set of fans after the way the lot of them went on regarding our takeover tbh. Football is already ruined as well.

Can't imagine why 

[madras]

55 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Why would it ever stop ?

Because eventually you realise it'll fuck you as well 

[Scotty66]

Why on Earth did they build a new stadium when they needed to keep every penny they could?

 

FFP stopping Newcastle spending 27p even though they have 25k in the bank but letting Everton get into this mess is really quite something. Fine job you're doing Mr.Masters. Carry you on son.

[Ashley17]

2 minutes ago, Scotty66 said:

Why on Earth did they build a new stadium when they needed to keep every penny they could?

 

FFP stopping Newcastle spending 27p even though they have 25k in the bank but letting Everton get into this mess is really quite something. Fine job you're doing Mr.Masters. Carry you on son.

Isn't that the point though? Nobody stopped us spending, we chose not to so as not to breach the rules. Everton thought they could get around it with some window dressing.

[Scotty66]

Not really. The point is that we could comfortably spend well beyond our means with our current owners and never be at risk. Regular checks from the PL would see that we are not at risk.

 

Regular checks at Everton would see that they are heading for impending doom but the PL doesn't give a fuck until it's too late.

They only care about keeping the big clubs big,and everyone else can stay the fuck away or go into administration or get points deductions if they even attempt to show some kind of ambition.

 

 

Edited March 31 by Scotty66

[Wolfcastle]

Can see an 'accounts release day' at some point where we all release them at the same time and we get to see who is getting deducted points, how many and how much of the previous 8month of football was pointless.

May as well make it the last Thursday in March, replacing the old transfer deadline day and recalibrate the run-in, add a bit of zest to the various battles if need be.

The media would love it.

Problem would be the challenges would rumble on beyond that.  But then we could have 'results of challenges to points deductions day' in the middle of summer.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 31 by Wolfcastle

[Novocastrian]

2 hours ago, Jack27 said:

couldn't be happening to a nicer club

It’s tempting to laugh at them but this will be used by the ESL crew to strengthen PSR/FFP and make it even harder for the other 14 to show ambition.

[brummie]

1 hour ago, KDT said:

Do them selling Branthwaite for £60m + this summer not just sort them out? With FFP anyway, I’m aware of the other issues.

 

 

 

 

I think, with the deflationary impact of PSR on the transfer market, there's zero chance they're getting that much for him this summer.

[brummie]

22 minutes ago, Scotty66 said:

Not really. The point is that we could comfortably spend well beyond our means with our current owners and never be at risk. Regular checks from the PL would see that we are not at risk.

 

Yeah, but the idea is to encourage responsible management of finances to avoid the situation whereby, if say you'd been taken over by a minted benevolent body, they might fund you big style, then pull the rug financially and leave you in the shit as they walk away (this is exactly what Randy Lerner - as an individual investor - did to us).

 

For example, without getting too much into the Saudi thing, there's no doubt there is a risk of volatility around state owners of clubs - even just the possibility of some sort of legislation, for example. Just as there is, to be fair, with any organisation that pours money into a club and then, for whichever reason, gets taken out of the picture.

 

This is why the general theory behind FFP is absolutely sound. The problem is that the theory is great, but the practice is really showing that the current rules don't work, in fact, they just entrench the power in the English game, which is the last thing it needs.

 

At the same time, Forest and Everton knew the rules, and they took the piss. What, for example, did Forest think would happen when they were spending christ knows how much on 300 players in a transfer window? 

 

The 'law' is an ass sometimes, but it is still the law.

 

As an aside, you can kind of understand Forest and what they've done, as they had a particularly troubling set of circumstances around staying up (not that that excuses it). There is at least a visible logic to it all with them, even if it's iffy.

 

Then there are clubs - like you and us - that have to push the limits to the absolute max, but can at least point at the league table and say it's investment, yes, and it's big numbers, yes, but it is at least building something.

 

Then you look at Everton, spending way more money, and on what? A selection of horrendously overpriced shite players, slogging it out under a relic of a manager at the arse end of the table.

 

 

Edited March 31 by brummie

[Jonas]

I liked it better when you got points deductions and kicked out of Europe for match fixing or crowd violence not for trying to compete with finance you have access to.

 

 

 

Edited March 31 by Jonas

[madras]

30 minutes ago, brummie said:

 

Yeah, but the idea is to encourage responsible management of finances to avoid the situation whereby, if say you'd been taken over by a minted benevolent body, they might fund you big style, then pull the rug financially and leave you in the shit as they walk away (this is exactly what Randy Lerner - as an individual investor - did to us).

 

For example, without getting too much into the Saudi thing, there's no doubt there is a risk of volatility around state owners of clubs - even just the possibility of some sort of legislation, for example. Just as there is, to be fair, with any organisation that pours money into a club and then, for whichever reason, gets taken out of the picture.

 

This is why the general theory behind FFP is absolutely sound. The problem is that the theory is great, but the practice is really showing that the current rules don't work, in fact, they just entrench the power in the English game, which is the last thing it needs.

 

At the same time, Forest and Everton knew the rules, and they took the piss. What, for example, did Forest think would happen when they were spending christ knows how much on 300 players in a transfer window? 

 

The 'law' is an ass sometimes, but it is still the law.

 

As an aside, you can kind of understand Forest and what they've done, as they had a particularly troubling set of circumstances around staying up (not that that excuses it). There is at least a visible logic to it all with them, even if it's iffy.

 

Then there are clubs - like you and us - that have to push the limits to the absolute max, but can at least point at the league table and say it's investment, yes, and it's big numbers, yes, but it is at least building something.

 

Then you look at Everton, spending way more money, and on what? A selection of horrendously overpriced shite players, slogging it out under a relic of a manager at the arse end of the table.

 

 

 

If only there were a way for owners to invest without loading clubs with debt.

 

As it is you'd almost think the plan was to make it look like a benevolent measure to stop clubs doing a Portsmouth where as really its been warped to really entrench a certain few clubs.

[McDog]

2 minutes ago, madras said:

If only there were a way for owners to invest without loading clubs with debt.

 

As it is you'd almost think the plan was to make it look like a benevolent measure to stop clubs doing a Portsmouth where as really its been warped to really entrench a certain few clubs.

 

 

Actually the entire name "Profit and Sustainability Rules" is a joke. Why would you restrict income if that is your goal? Because it isn't.

[astraguy]

two point deductions, yet they still stay up

[McDog]

@brummie does make a really good point. The sustainability aspect. Just thinking off the cuff and out of the box, if that is the REAL goal then maybe require a club to put a certain amount in escrow on a sliding scale depending on wages and debt? Just a thought.

[kingxlnc]

The joke of all this is that Man U can spend with impunity, even they’re loaded with over 1bn of debt 

 

 

[Nucasol]

9 hours ago, KDT said:

Do them selling Branthwaite for £60m + this summer not just sort them out? With FFP anyway, I’m aware of the other issues.

 

 

 

Onana, Branthwaite, Pickford and Doucoure I reckon. Leeds-esque firesale.

[Ben]

1 hour ago, Nucasol said:

Onana, Branthwaite, Pickford and Doucoure I reckon. Leeds-esque firesale.

By 30th June 

[Ben]

Would we be seriously sanctioned for inflating our commercial deals ? Surely the main issue is debt.

[Keegans Export]

8 minutes ago, Ben said:

Would we be seriously sanctioned for inflating our commercial deals ? Surely the main issue is debt.

The problem at the moment is that (as I understand it) we can't inflate them even if we wanted to because the PL need to pre-approve any sponsorship deals.

[brummie]

It's the little things about the 'big six' entrenchment that piss me off these days.

After tha Man City - Arsenal boreathon, Neville and Richards were saying they've never seen a team limit City as much as Arsenal did.

 

We had 22 shots against them at our place, they had 2, and both of those were in the same 'action', and we actually beat them.

 

Now, I don't really care about this massively, it's not exactly going to change anyone's life, but it does show that these people are just so entrenched in thinking it's all about 'big six'.

[Lush Vlad]

6 minutes ago, brummie said:

It's the little things about the 'big six' entrenchment that piss me off these days.

After tha Man City - Arsenal boreathon, Neville and Richards were saying they've never seen a team limit City as much as Arsenal did.

 

We had 22 shots against them at our place, they had 2, and both of those were in the same 'action', and we actually beat them.

 

Now, I don't really care about this massively, it's not exactly going to change anyone's life, but it does show that these people are just so entrenched in thinking it's all about 'big six'.

It was the same after the Liverpool

game. All the pundits saying they’ve never seen a team dominate City like that in recent years. 

 

I know Rodri was missing. But it’s like none of them watched the Villa game just this season. Just the end of last year, even  

[Abacus]

Out of all of it, and there's a lot that does, it's the coefficients that bother me most. Get into the champions league against the odds and try to break into the big time?

 

Well hard cheese, you'll get put into the toughest group and get less money as well for no sporting merit reasons but just BECAUSE.