Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[FloydianMag]

1 minute ago, midds said:

Just read that a couple of times

 

How fucking insane is that little process there? Would any other club be treated like this? 

It’s fucking disgraceful plain and simple.

[The Prophet]

 

[PauloGeordio]

1 minute ago, FloydianMag said:

It’s fucking disgraceful plain and simple.

And so blatantly obvious! 

[Mase]

I wonder if Man United’s Chevrolet deal will get brought up. Unprecedented amounts of money at the time - American owned business paying American owners..

Chevrolet were struggling at the time the deal was made and not long after the deal with MU was concluded, the guy that made the deal was let go from Chevrolet I believe..

[Checko]

I think the biggest problem with football at the moment is the enourmous disparity in income between a very few teams at the top and the rest.

 

I've seen people saying the Palaces, Bournemouths etc. can't compete because of FFP restrictions on their spending. Bullshit, they can't compete because they have half a billion pounds less income per year that the very top teams.

 

Take all regulations away and you still basically need to be a sovereign wealth funds to compete. Shouldn't be like that. It doesn't make it more fair for everybody.

 

I'm sure I'm in a vast minority here, but I think there need to be more rules to reduce inequality, not more unfettered free marketing, which basically always just leads to market dominance for a handful of entities, even if we hope to be one of those.

 

 

Edited June 4 by Checko

[Abacus]

Those rules were never going to go by a majority, the only way was a legal challenge.

 

In saying all that, having read the article, City really are throwing the kitchen sink at this one.

 

I've been trying to decide if I want FFP gone or APT gone first (or at all). But in either case, the effect is the same - if an owner can afford to invest, let them.

 

On balance, I'd rather FFP went. It's more transparent to say that owners have invested £xm and the club won't go bust than having a million and one elastic band sponsors, which everyone could see through anyway.

 

Does it create a new inequality? Yes. So, then, come up with a better FFP that doesn't force clubs to sell homegrown talent that fans want to keep, or farm young players for future home-grown sales, or stop anyone competing with the established clubs, as just a few examples.

[TK-421]

7 minutes ago, Abacus said:

Those rules were never going to go by a majority, the only way was a legal challenge.

 

In saying all that, having read the article, City really are throwing the kitchen sink at this one.

 

I've been trying to decide if I want FFP gone or APT gone first (or at all). But in either case, the effect is the same - if an owner can afford to invest, let them.

 

On balance, I'd rather FFP went. It's more transparent to say that owners have invested £xm and the club won't go bust than having a million and one elastic band sponsors, which everyone could see through anyway.

 

Does it create a new inequality? Yes. So, then, come up with a better FFP that doesn't force clubs to sell homegrown talent that fans want to keep, or farm young players for future home-grown sales, or stop anyone competing with the established clubs, as just a few examples.

I guess it would help if APT went, as it would probably help us with FFP quicker, as we could grow the revenues quicker, by (arguably) inflated sponsorships from SA, which APT was brought in almost immediately to prevent.

So FFP being linked to revenues, if we can grow our revenues quicker, it'll ease/help our FFP situation too?

The argument for keeping FFP by the premier league is protecting clubs from crazy spending and potentially going bust, but APT was brought in specifically to hold back certain clubs, well A certain club.

 

 

Edited June 4 by TK-421

[Keegans Export]

8 minutes ago, Checko said:

I think the biggest problem with football at the moment is the enourmous disparity in income between a very few teams at the top and the rest.

 

I've seen people saying the Palaces, Bournemouths etc. can't compete because of FFP restrictions on their spending. Bullshit, they can't compete because they have half a billion pounds less income per year that the very top teams.

 

Take all regulations away and you still basically need to be a sovereign wealth funds to compete. Shouldn't be like that. It doesn't make it more fair for everybody.

 

I'm sure I'm in a vast minority here, but I think there need to be more rules to reduce inequality, not more unfettered free marketing, which basically always just leads to market dominance for a handful of entities, even if we hope to be one of those.

 

For 100+ years football was a free market. There has always been the haves and the have nots, it's never been "fair" and the only difference is the amounts involved. 

 

 

Edited June 4 by Keegans Export

[r0cafella]

IF Apt rules are deemed unlawful and the rule is removed and IF our owners truly want us to be the best then our FFP worries will be a thing of the past. 
 

Two big assumptions at this stage mind. 

[TRC]

7 minutes ago, Abacus said:

Those rules were never going to go by a majority, the only way was a legal challenge.

 

In saying all that, having read the article, City really are throwing the kitchen sink at this one.

 

I've been trying to decide if I want FFP gone or APT gone first (or at all). But in either case, the effect is the same - if an owner can afford to invest, let them.

 

On balance, I'd rather FFP went. It's more transparent to say that owners have invested £xm and the club won't go bust than having a million and one elastic band sponsors, which everyone could see through anyway.

 

Does it create a new inequality? Yes. So, then, come up with a better FFP that doesn't force clubs to sell homegrown talent that fans want to keep, or farm young players for future home-grown sales, or stop anyone competing with the established clubs, as just a few examples.

Its safe to say City have played a blinder here, the PL could never handle this case, and have no chance with this added on top. They make valid points imo, I dont really see how football can every truly be a level playing field.

 

If City win this case the charges are dropped, the rich get richer, if they lose the rich get richer but one juggernaut is taken down.

[Cronky]

City's best hope was always to argue that the rules were illegal, rather than that they abided by the rules. At least this shows that they're not that confident.

 

I know we might benefit, but I see this as bad news. There needs to be some sort of regulation, even if the current rules need a bit of adjustment. City's action is horribly divisive, and in any case, I don't think I want to succeed through City's methods.

[r0cafella]

3 minutes ago, Cronky said:

City's best hope was always to argue that the rules were illegal, rather than that they abided by the rules. At least this shows that they're not that confident.

 

I know we might benefit, but I see this as bad news. There needs to be some sort of regulation, even if the current rules need a bit of adjustment. City's action is horribly divisive, and in any case, I don't think I want to succeed through City's methods.

Agree and instead of creating regulations to level the playing field, they created rules designed to protect the biggest clubs and make them impossible to challenge. 
 

Ultimately they had the chance and acted in self interest I hope city blow the corrupt show apart. 

[mighty__mag]

Is this Man City doing the work for us.

 

 

 

[bobbydazzla]

[Scoot]

9 minutes ago, Cronky said:

City's best hope was always to argue that the rules were illegal, rather than that they abided by the rules. At least this shows that they're not that confident.

 

I know we might benefit, but I see this as bad news. There needs to be some sort of regulation, even if the current rules need a bit of adjustment. City's action is horribly divisive, and in any case, I don't think I want to succeed through City's methods.

 

I'm all for succeeding through City's methods. I don't care anymore. We've been held back by a fat leach for 15 years and then once we got rid of him and got owners who want to make us great, the league changes all its rules to stop us.

 

Fuck this, go for it City and hopefully we fully benefit from it.

[gdm]

14 minutes ago, Cronky said:

I know we might benefit, but I see this as bad news. There needs to be some sort of regulation, even if the current rules need a bit of adjustment.

I agree. While this will be good for Newcastle I think it’s potentially really bad for the game. 

[Unbelievable]

1 minute ago, Scoot said:

 

I'm all for succeeding through City's methods. I don't care anymore. We've been held back by a fat leach for 15 years and then once we got rid of him and got owners who want to make us great, the league changes all its rules to stop us.

 

Fuck this, go for it City and hopefully we fully benefit from it.

 

I'd rather we became successful through natural progression, but the fact of the matter is we have indeed first held back by horrific ownership and are now being held back by a regulator intent on not allowing us (and others) to compete on an even keel with some of the established big clubs. Just give everybody an even playing field, i.e. the same limitations in terms of allowable expenses on squad, infrastructure etc. and let the best team win I say.

[christ]

It would be grimly amusing if rules that were introduced in haste to stifle our ability to grow were so flawed that they ultimately resulted in the PL having to settle with Man City. 

 

Ultimately the entire thing stinks to high heaven. FFP/PSR has been a grift since the moment the ESL lot realised they could use it to fuck the rest of the league. City broke the rules to gain a competitive advantage.
 

Fuck them all (but I would very much like an outcome that best suits us).

[TRon]

6 minutes ago, Scoot said:

 

I'm all for succeeding through City's methods. I don't care anymore. We've been held back by a fat leach for 15 years and then once we got rid of him and got owners who want to make us great, the league changes all its rules to stop us.

 

Fuck this, go for it City and hopefully we fully benefit from it.

 

I've never been a fan of City's methods, but I've maintained before and after our takeover, that it's too late to take the moral high ground now. It needed to be stopped when City and Chelsea were buying up every title in sight. There's absolutely no point in shutting the door now, all it's done is locked in the advantage which was gained by flouting these same FFP principles.

[christ]

2 minutes ago, gdm said:

I agree. While this will be good for Newcastle I think it’s potentially really bad for the game. 

The rules as they currently stand are just the flip side of the same coin. The only choice is whether there’s an artificial financial disparity created by PSR, or whether there’s a real one by having the richest owners be able to spend the most.

 

It is absolutely shit, don’t get me wrong. But there’s basically little difference.

[Whitley mag]

What is the make up of the private arbitration panel, this was a stitch up during our takeover and one we wouldn’t have won regardless, isn’t this similar and City will have only been able to pick one of the panel ?

 

 

Edited June 4 by Whitley mag

[Chris_R]

1 minute ago, TRon said:

It needed to be stopped when City and Chelsea were buying up every title in sight.

 

Blackburn started it, a little club buying itself a PL title. If it was OK then, it should be OK now. Nothing's changed except transfer fees and wages have gone up.

[mighty__mag]

29 minutes ago, Checko said:

I think the biggest problem with football at the moment is the enourmous disparity in income between a very few teams at the top and the rest.

 

I've seen people saying the Palaces, Bournemouths etc. can't compete because of FFP restrictions on their spending. Bullshit, they can't compete because they have half a billion pounds less income per year that the very top teams.

 

Take all regulations away and you still basically need to be a sovereign wealth funds to compete. Shouldn't be like that. It doesn't make it more fair for everybody.

 

I'm sure I'm in a vast minority here, but I think there need to be more rules to reduce inequality, not more unfettered free marketing, which basically always just leads to market dominance for a handful of entities, even if we hope to be one of those.

 

 

 

 

Bournemouth

 

Their capacity is like 11k

 

I'm always baffled how they maintain status, season ticket from 650 to 850, not astronomical, if they wanted to spend big, then surely they need to relocate and up capacity. 

 

 

[Unbelievable]

From that Times article:

 

Quote

The league’s other 19 clubs have been invited to participate in the legal action and The Times understands between 10 and 12 have stepped forward, providing either witness statements or a letter detailing evidence in support of the Premier League’s defence against the claim. Those who have provided witness statements may be called by the tribunal to give evidence at the hearing.

 

Isn't it odd the PL would ask other clubs for legal support? One thing is clear, the big six minus one are shitting themselves over this.

[gdm]

Just now, christ said:

The rules as they currently stand are just the flip side of the same coin. The only choice is whether there’s an artificial financial disparity created by PSR, or whether there’s a real one by having the richest owners be able to spend the most.

 

It is absolutely shit, don’t get me wrong. But there’s basically little difference.

I don’t disagree. It’s just a mess. If the Saudis had bought a different club not one single person on here would be celebrating this. It’s just going to make the gap all the way down the pyramid massive. I hate the way the premier league is starting to become a jump too far for most championship clubs