Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Stifler]

In regards to the Chelsea hotel. No one batted a fucking eye when Ashley sold off the Strawberry land to his parent in law at a reduced rate. Fuck the other clubs whinging, couldn’t give a fuck.

[FloydianMag]

14 hours ago, The Prophet said:

 

He’ll have been instructed to by the red cartel, I doubt it’s a decision that he alone could make.

[Paully]

https://theathletic.com/5419150/2024/04/17/psr-premier-league-transfers/

[Groundhog63]

Been said before but I'm a bit of a cynic when it comes to "Regulators" 

Especially when the Gvt of the day hides behind their so called "independence"

 

I'm old enough to remember PM Johnson being fully behind the ESL until public opinion took hold. 

These are money men, they'll go where the money goes. 

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Paully said:

https://theathletic.com/5419150/2024/04/17/psr-premier-league-transfers/

Quote

“It’s going to make a glass ceiling, potentially more than there already is,” says Chris Weatherspoon, accountant and policy advisor to the campaign group Fair Game.

“I’m not sure the changes will impact hugely. I suppose the ones it impacts the most are the ones you call aspirational clubs. Certain clubs like West Ham, Newcastle, and Aston Villa, the clubs just outside that top six. You’re almost saying that’s where the aspirational clubs are stuck.

“It could only be a truly good thing if everyone started from the same point. You could argue that it’s better than what we’ve got, but I don’t see it as a fix.”

that is fun for us

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Jack27 said:

that is fun for us

Quote

“If you look at Newcastle last season, the ratio they worked to would’ve been 85 per cent but this year drops by 15 per cent, to 70 per cent, while you’re competing in more games, while you’re playing harder teams in the Champions League,” explains Weatherspoon.

“Based on last season’s numbers, Newcastle would have been able to spend around £215million on a revenue of about £250m. Let’s say the Champions League adds £50m once you factor everything in, which takes revenue from £250m to £300m. You’re back to £210m if you’re working to 70 per cent.”

somebody make it make sense 

[r0cafella]

Just now, Jack27 said:

somebody make it make sense 

Basically we can’t spend anything under the new rules we would have to sell unless we can increase our revenue. 

[Nucasol]

2 minutes ago, Jack27 said:

somebody make it make sense 

Bent American bastards and European old money clubs want to create a glass ceiling to protect profits and their seat at the top table from potential usurpers. They are close to implementing their master plan.

 

 

Edited April 17 by Nucasol

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Nucasol said:

Bent American bastards and European old money clubs want to create a glass ceiling to protect profits and their seat at the top table from potential usurpers. They are close to implementing their master plan.

 

 

 

It’s more a concrete ceiling than a glass one

[Keegans Export]

Domestically our only hope is an independent regulator who implements some version of FFP that still allows us to invest enough to catch up. No idea how that'll work with the UEFA rules.

[Ben]

1 hour ago, Groundhog63 said:

Been said before but I'm a bit of a cynic when it comes to "Regulators" 

Especially when the Gvt of the day hides behind their so called "independence"

 

I'm old enough to remember PM Johnson being fully behind the ESL until public opinion took hold. 

These are money men, they'll go where the money goes. 

Ofwat are doing a cracking job .........for dividends 

[The Prophet]

12 minutes ago, Ben said:

Ofwat are doing a cracking job .........for dividends 

 

Ofwat isn't an independent regulator.

[mighty__mag]

Not sure if posted already 

[Terraloon]

16 hours ago, Abacus said:

 

I don't actually have a problem with the hotel sale thing, more a problem with the rules and how they are being applied in the first place. So, as long as it's a fair market value, because that's the dance we all have to dance for now at least, there's nothing really wrong with it. It was the club's, it was sold, so what.

 

In your examples, I didn't fully follow the issue with Arsenal building their stadium (they did suffer a bit for that with spending for a few years), or that they then refinanced their loans at better rates, so apologies if I'm being thick there.

 

In your shoes, from the outside the thing I'd be slightly more worried about would be selling off long term infrastructure designed to make income for the club to pay for shorter term player trading, if indeed that's what it was for.

 

But my first thought was to wonder about what that means for the "sustainability" part of the argument for those rules to exist in the first place if you're selling long term stuff to buy short term stuff like players.

 

Maybe it's worth it and will prove to be so. Don't know myself, genuinely, just asking your opinion.

 

NB, maybe that's all moot if the stadium redevelopment promised at the takeover goes ahead and the hotel was just surplus to what the club needs (not a trick, asking as without looking into it you'll know better than me on all this).

My point about Arsenal was that they in effect borrowed money and were able to capitalise all the costs when it came to building the stadium but didn’t reduce the sums when they redeveloped Highbury. It’s not a great analogy but when you have a house and you buy a new one only one you use the proceeds from sale to reduce your indebtedness.Arsenal didn’t they claimed allowances on a greater sum than was needed and used property sales to fund running costs. 

My point about Arsenal is that they couldn’t get the type of loans that KSE could simply because they , KSE, borrowed money from lenders in the US . The owners then in turn lent money to Arsenal at far lower rates than were commercially available indeed in Arsenals accounts they recognise this as being a capital contribution. In effect a groups heiracy was used to reduce running costs

 

These two hotels were never actually shown in CFC accounts( Remember Chelsea Village)  they were always in CFC Holdings who in turn owed, via Fordstam, RA the £1+ billion.

Fordstam is now being wound up and I would imagine that a lot of what is going on is unpicking matters that were needed to organised in such a way as to facilitate the sale.

 

It seems  that the stadium rebuild is going to be undertaken by BlueCo22 as opposed to CFC Ltd. Nothing wrong with any of that but BlueCo will almost certainly want and need all land assets that previously were owned by Fordstam to be put into BlueCo ownership.

 

It’s worth noting that most clubs have a complicated ownership model whereby things such as stadia are owned by separate entities. Look at Spurs for instance then at Arsenals.

 

[The College Dropout]

The Arsenal stadium stuff was pre-FFP & PSR. 

The Chelsea thing was obviously done with FFP & PSR In mind. It's totally different.

 

No issue with infrastructure costs not being included. They improve the game more widely and add long-term value to a club and stimulate the economies of the city/towns the clubs are in.

[Ben]

2 hours ago, The Prophet said:

 

Ofwat isn't an independent regulator.

What is it then and how is it different to the football regulator ?

[The Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Ben said:

What is it then and how is it different to the football regulator ?

 

It's a non-ministerial government department. So it behaves as an arm of the government, chocked with civil servants.

 

While an indipedant regulator is answerable to Parliament, its fully autonomous.

[Shak]

1 hour ago, mighty__mag said:

Not sure if posted already 

 

Masters the puppet, they're pulling his strings

Twisting the rules to suit Sky 6 teams.

[TRon]

16 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

The Arsenal stadium stuff was pre-FFP & PSR. 

The Chelsea thing was obviously done with FFP & PSR In mind. It's totally different.

 

No issue with infrastructure costs not being included. They improve the game more widely and add long-term value to a club and stimulate the economies of the city/towns the clubs are in.

 

Well that's the whole issue. Not so much Arsenal or Man U, but clubs like Chelsea and Man City have been able to fast track their way to the elite by owner investment.  Since FFP and PSR have been brought in, the drawbridge has been pulled up, effectively creating a cartel of premier clubs who have locked in their advantage which just compounds year on year. It's now almost impossible to break into that top tier without outside investment.

 

 

Edited April 17 by TRon

[The College Dropout]

4 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

Well that's the whole issue. Not so much Arsenal or Man U, but clubs like Chelsea and Man City have been able to fast track their way to the elite by owner investment.  Since FFP and PSR have been brought in, the drawbridge has been pulled up, effectively creating a cartel of premier clubs who have locked in their advantage which just compounds year on year. It's now almost impossible to break into that top tier without outside investment.

 

 

 

City built during FFP largely still. They didn't have to deal with FMV which is really killing us.

 

The bolded has largely always been the case.

 

One thing about UEFA FFP/PSR that I don't understand. Why were Milan banned from Europe for that 1 season but PSG have never been banned?

[The College Dropout]

Looks like possibly 6-year FFP violations or 2 back to back 3-year rolling periods.

[Abacus]

9 minutes ago, Shak said:

 

Masters the puppet, they're pulling his strings

Twisting the rules to suit Sky 6 teams.

It's quite a funny response though.

 

She's basically responded (correctly) that he's gone back on what he'd previously agreed and just come out with a load of waffle, so to be specific as to what he's actually talking about, in detail. I think Masters is playing politics at quite a junior level here.

 

It would also be interesting to see what level of consensus he has from all clubs for whatever he comes up with, and therefore what his mandate is for any response.

[macphisto]

9 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

City built during FFP largely still. They didn't have to deal with FMV which is really killing us.

How is it killing us, have any deals been contested? What would be different if it wasn't there? 

[Fatwax]

Just now, macphisto said:

How is it killing us, have any deals been contested? What would be different if it wasn't there? 

 

We would have gotten more money from sponsorships that had to go through FMV.

[Fatwax]

And we also would have probably gotten more for ASM, who was massively underpriced to avoid scrutiny.