Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Dokko]

Always thought the club should sue Sports Direct & Mike Ashley for 14 years of under sponsorship for at least £10m a season. I think we'd win as well.

[Stifler]

7 minutes ago, duo said:

Not the best example as I think SD paid Newcastle about 50p for the many many years of advertising the brand

The club at the time said that SD was now paying a sponsorship fee, that was 4 years before Ashley sold us. In reality they only signed a deal for the final 2 years at £1m per year, and they failed to pay in the final year. This lead to Staveley mentioning something along the lines of that, and that is what lead to Ashley taking legal action against her.

 

 

Edited June 4 by Stifler

[duo]

3 minutes ago, Mase said:

It’s the perfect example of a deal that needs to be looked into then, surely?

 

if a deal benefits the owner rather than the club, shouldn’t those deals be the ones that ARE looked into? Otherwise we’ll end up with plenty more teams going under like Bury. 

Fair point - he certainly robbed the club of revenue

[Dr Jinx]

From the remnants of the 90’s and early 00’s, Manchester United and Arsenal forged ahead commercially, gains which still give them a platform even today.

 

In Arsenal’s case, Wenger kept them in the Champions League places the whole time while spending next to nothing. That’s the only reason they are able to compete right now.

 

Man United should be competing, the platform financially is there for them to succeed even now.

 

But those trying to make a case for why sovereign nations should be allowed to spend whatever are pissing in the wind. The reality is that the minute Abramovich took over at Chelsea, the stakes were upped. City just built on that. It’s here and here to stay.

 

We don’t need to justify ourselves as the table had already been set by others.

[Hudson]

32 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

State of those self entitled cunts, everyone would be happier if they fucked off and joined the Irish league.

Yeah it quickly turned into hate for us very quickly. 
 

The thing is they all forget, Without the Moors/Littlewoods money that was pumped into them for decades they would be nothing and Everton would have been the best team in Merseyside.

[Gawalls]

19 minutes ago, Dokko said:

Always thought the club should sue Sports Direct & Mike Ashley for 14 years of under sponsorship for at least £10m a season. I think we'd win as well.

Agreed - I’ve always said a true fair play system would ensure fair play at both end of the scales, like a spirit level keeps the bubble in the middle. What we have is a financial cap system.

[madras]

1 hour ago, madras said:

Or Chelsea shirt deal with a 1 month old company linked to its owners paying 40mill a year on estimated turnover if 12mill.

 

That's before the hotels !!!!

To amend that a little, the company was 1 month old after a merger of two companies. The rest stands.

[Matt1892]

Does this also refer to player sales between clubs with the same owner? I remember City were planning on signing a midfielder on the cheap this summer and there was talk of it not being of fair market value, so I wondered if that is what is driving this.

[duo]

1 minute ago, Matt1892 said:

Does this also refer to player sales between clubs with the same owner? I remember City were planning on signing a midfielder on the cheap this summer and there was talk of it not being of fair market value, so I wondered if that is what is driving this.

as I understand it - yes

[Wolfcastle]

1 hour ago, Mase said:

Am I correct in thinking that Mike Ashley owned part of Sports Direct when they sponsored St James’? Weird how the deal wasn’t looked into by the PL, however now you’ve been taken over and can challenge, pushing the likes of MU further down, suddenly the PL are wanting to stop you doing deals and dissect everything you do. I wonder if that would be the case if you were US owned. 
 

Totally stinks. 

Yes chronic under investment in a major club directly causing it to be relegated twice and put needlessly at risk of that financial strife were it not immediately promoted was just fine.

The powers that be showed no interest in his 14year reign until he decided to sell to the PIF.  Should have helped us long before it came to that....for the sake of football and protecting clubs and everything were supposed to pretend this is all about... like we suggested and it wouldn't have come to where were at now.

 

 

Edited June 4 by Wolfcastle

[Nucasol]

They add that the rules were instigated by rival clubs following the Saudi takeover of Newcastle to ‘safeguard their own commercial advantages’ and used a quote from a senior executive which they say proves rivals wished to limit deals from outfits in the Gulf region.

 

Not even subtle are they?

[Superior Acuña]

Did the whole league support this rule change apart from us and Man City? It seems like pulling up the ladder, but that doesn't explain Palace etc.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I never understand why the PL would have voted to strangle their own product in the first place. Why not make it a global super league absolutely sloshing with money?

 

I guess the problem is that it's a member's club rather than a company with a single brain or strategy.

 

Maybe some clubs want to remain in the PL and be competitive without having to invest so much, so they want the overall ceiling to be kept down?

 

 

Edited June 4 by AyeDubbleYoo

[Skeletor]

1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I never understand why the PL would have voted to strangle their own product in the first place. Why not make it a global super league absolutely sloshing with money?

 

I guess the problem is that it's a member's club rather than a company with a single brain or strategy.

 

Because Richard Masters works for the red cartel.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

2 minutes ago, Skeletor said:

 

Because Richard Masters works for the red cartel.

 

But he can't get everyone else to vote how he wants, can he? 

 

Forgive me if I'm missing something, I don't follow it in detail. 

[madras]

12 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I never understand why the PL would have voted to strangle their own product in the first place. Why not make it a global super league absolutely sloshing with money?

 

I guess the problem is that it's a member's club rather than a company with a single brain or strategy.

 

Maybe some clubs want to remain in the PL and be competitive without having to invest so much, so they want the overall ceiling to be kept down?

 

 

 

Imagine you are Crystal Palace or Wolves or us under Ashley and you have a choice......vote to let the cartel have their way  and you get a decent share of the billions of TV money or they fuck off to an ESL and without them to draw the viewers you kind of drift down to a Netherlands or Portugal.

 

 

Edited June 4 by madras

[Ben]

33 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I never understand why the PL would have voted to strangle their own product in the first place. Why not make it a global super league absolutely sloshing with money?

 

I guess the problem is that it's a member's club rather than a company with a single brain or strategy.

 

Maybe some clubs want to remain in the PL and be competitive without having to invest so much, so they want the overall ceiling to be kept down?

 

 

 

 

Great point

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I honestly don't know, just speculating. Strikes me as odd that a league could have all the best players and crush the competition but they legislate so they can't. I guess it is because the members have such different interests. 

[Wolfcastle]

No there's a lot to that.

These rules would be absolute perfection to Ashley. Gives an excuse not to compete and just make up the numbers and makes it almost impossible for any ambitious club behind us to catch us removing the threat of losing PL money as it was only relative ambition (our having zero) that made us vulnerable not income.

If its ideal for the likes of Ashley it cant be good.

[gjohnson]

1 hour ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I never understand why the PL would have voted to strangle their own product in the first place. Why not make it a global super league absolutely sloshing with money?

 

I guess the problem is that it's a member's club rather than a company with a single brain or strategy.

 

Maybe some clubs want to remain in the PL and be competitive without having to invest so much, so they want the overall ceiling to be kept down?

 

 

 

Std business practice....guarantee as much income as possible for the foreseeable future and hope nothing changes. Trouble is the ones dictating the income for the predictable future don't want anyone else taking their current share. 

 

I'd happily bet my next wage that next season Villa get a tough CL draw...prob R. Madrid, Inter and Leverkusen, with domestic cup draws of City And or Arsenal away in both.

 

Everyone on here kind of predicted our cup draws thinking they were taking the piss with how difficult we could have got, but really weren't far off...especially with our domestic cup draws

[madras]

16 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

Std business practice....guarantee as much income as possible for the foreseeable future and hope nothing changes. Trouble is the ones dictating the income for the predictable future don't want anyone else taking their current share. 

 

I'd happily bet my next wage that next season Villa get a tough CL draw...prob R. Madrid, Inter and Leverkusen, with domestic cup draws of City And or Arsenal away in both.

 

Everyone on here kind of predicted our cup draws thinking they were taking the piss with how difficult we could have got, but really weren't far off...especially with our domestic cup draws

I dont think Villa will as they don't have "blow everyone out the water" style backers.

 

 

[gjohnson]

Just now, madras said:

I dont think Villa will as they don't have "blow everyone out the water" style backers.

 

 

The way they've been lauded this season compared to us last should suggest that the '6' should be more scared of them than they were/are of us

[Yorkie]

Fair market value rules are a good thing and I hope they prevail. 

 

I agree with the existence of a rule which fundamentally prevents clubs from artificially inflating their wealth to obscene levels, by virtue of something totally unrelated to that club. I look at Man City, Chelsea and PSG and see basically nothing in those case studies that I really love about football. They are soulless, manufactured superclubs - brands, commercial entities - defined by the wealth of their owners. I certainly could never, ever want that for us. 

 

I accept that some clubs will always be richer than others and those ones will probably be fighting for honours whenever May comes around. But I'd like to believe that there's a version of football where clubs can achieve great things by playing to their strengths; cultivating revenue opportunities by matching competency with ambition; and growing organically by investing relatively, effectively, with at least some risk attached.

 

'Winner = the richest owner' is a very, very boring game. 

 

PSR is the thing that truly needs revising. It's been said a thousand times but that's the drawbridge. "My sugar daddy isn't allowed to spend 1 zillion pounds on a left-back" is not a drawbridge.

[r0cafella]

1 hour ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I never understand why the PL would have voted to strangle their own product in the first place. Why not make it a global super league absolutely sloshing with money?

 

I guess the problem is that it's a member's club rather than a company with a single brain or strategy.

 

Maybe some clubs want to remain in the PL and be competitive without having to invest so much, so they want the overall ceiling to be kept down?

 

 

 

Your looking at it through the wrong lens, most of the clubs don’t benefit from related party deals so obviously they want to stop those that do. 
 

The members aren’t so bothered about with competitive (see us under Ashley) what they are bothered about is money and they will protect their piece of the pie no matter. 

[gjohnson]

3 hours ago, Dr Jinx said:

From the remnants of the 90’s and early 00’s, Manchester United and Arsenal forged ahead commercially, gains which still give them a platform even today.

 

In Arsenal’s case, Wenger kept them in the Champions League places the whole time while spending next to nothing. That’s the only reason they are able to compete right now.

 

Man United should be competing, the platform financially is there for them to succeed even now.

 

But those trying to make a case for why sovereign nations should be allowed to spend whatever are pissing in the wind. The reality is that the minute Abramovich took over at Chelsea, the stakes were upped. City just built on that. It’s here and here to stay.

 

We don’t need to justify ourselves as the table had already been set by others.

Got to remember in the mid 90s we weren't far behind Man U commercially. A couple of bad board decisions later then were 30 years later and 100s of millions behind