Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[PauloGeordio]

4 hours ago, gjohnson said:

Not exactly...just saying that I could see the PL coming out with something very close after Masters had been locked in a bondage dungeon for a few hours with Fenway, Levy, Boehly, Mansour, Kroenke and Radcliffe( who's obviously in a gimp suit tied to Glazier string)

[Danh1]

The journo who reported the crack about Man City yesterday has just been on TalkSport. He said he knows who the other club backing City are but couldn’t say who. A few minutes later he’s name dropping how, if the rules around fair value sponsorship changes, then City and NUFC can get huge investment from our owners.
 

Then he started to discuss how when the rules were brought in, City voted against them and we abstained, no other clubs mentioned.

 

Pretty much confirms it’s us.

[FloydianMag]

I found this post on Bluemoon that might explain City’s reasons for instigating action.

 

“The newish rules introduced the concept of “associated” as opposed to “related”.
The definition of related is given by IAS24, but associated definition is the PL’s own. It might be that the PL’s definition is what has sparked this. When I read the PL’s definition, it struck me that it could mean as little as “someone who does business in AbuDhabi.” That would clearly be wrong in principle.
Important not to mix the two up, which The Times does.”

 

https://www.iasplus.com/en-gb/standards/ias/ias24

 

 

Edited June 5 by FloydianMag

[Whitley mag]

9 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

I found this post on Bluemoon that might explain City’s reasons for instigating action.

 

“The newish rules introduced the concept of “associated” as opposed to “related”.
The definition of related is given by IAS24, but associated definition is the PL’s own. It might be that the PL’s definition is what has sparked this. When I read the PL’s definition, it struck me that it could mean as little as “someone who does business in AbuDhabi.” That would clearly be wrong in principle.
Important not to mix the two up, which The Times does.”

 

https://www.iasplus.com/en-gb/standards/ias/ias24

 

 

 

The PL left it so vague that they could try and capture every scenario to stop deals happening, so blatant and hopefully illegal.

 

Problem still bugging me though is that this is a private arbitration and not a CAT tribunal, still wouldn’t get my hopes up to much that the Chair isn’t waited heavily on PL’s side.

 

 

Edited June 5 by Whitley mag

[FloydianMag]

1 minute ago, Whitley mag said:

The PL left it so vague that they could try and capture every scenario to stop deals happening, so blatant and hopefully illegal.

 

Problem still bugging me though is that this is a private arbitration and not a CAT tribunal, still wouldn’t get my hopes up to much that the Chair isn’t waited heavily on PL’s side.

 

 

 

Arbitration may be the first step, if it can be resolved at that level great. I doubt City would agree that arbitration being legally binding and ultimately it may be a CAT that has to rule legally.

[Dr Jinx]

8 hours ago, gjohnson said:

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

Ah we were way behind, even by mid 90’s they had a global fan base buying shirts and other merch.

 

Now a case can be made that we were ahead of or at least on parity with some of who are considered the big 6 now. Certainly Spurs, definitely Chelsea.. Liverpool are hard to gauge because they have or should have a global reach like Man Utd but they didn’t for whatever reason in the 90’s so yeah we could probably match them financially at that time.

 

Arsenal seemed to connect with African market, whether that was lucrative or not is another thing but massive shirt sales.

 

Our woes had probably started the summer after we signed Shearer.. just a series of bad decisions. Selling Ferdinand was just mental but we probably had to lose someone to keep running costs of the club viable. Never bought into that gentleman’s agreement shite.. Shearer did his ACL and we had time to pull the plug on that Ferdinand deal to Spurs. We’d have at least saved the season in terms of challenging up near the top. But the board/shareholders decided we needed the money more than a sporting chance.

 

Keegan never would have let that happen which again is why he upped and left. He could see the writing on the wall with going public.

[80]

I think we're firmly in bolted horse territory with football. FFP's only having a negative impact. The most popular showbusiness in the world should be sloshing with money. 

 

If we were trying to take it back to the 1950s - which I think would be great - you'd need to look at a system along the lines of capping club budgets at £25 per matchday ticket bought. That would give you that relatively attractive balance of well supported teams doing well, but with any club attracting 30k+ having a solid chance of glory.

[christ]

32 minutes ago, Danh1 said:

The journo who reported the crack about Man City yesterday has just been on TalkSport. He said he knows who the other club backing City are but couldn’t say who. A few minutes later he’s name dropping how, if the rules around fair value sponsorship changes, then City and NUFC can get huge investment from our owners.
 

Then he started to discuss how when the rules were brought in, City voted against them and we abstained, no other clubs mentioned.

 

Pretty much confirms it’s us.

It’s either us or Chelsea. 

[Guest]

I assume its us. I'm also ready to concede that ticket prices are going to become insanely expensive over the next decade to the point I'll probably not bother going.

[Slim]

Just now, OCK said:

I assume its us. I'm also ready to concede that ticket prices are going to become insanely expensive over the next decade to the point I'll probably not bother going.

Why would that be?

[Guest]

Based on Man City's ticket prices? Unless the rules change and money can just be pumped on then I'd hope it would offset the need to raise ticket prices.

[Geogaddi]

I don't really know what the solution is but the FFP rules certainly need improving , teams shouldn't be allowed to go out and spend unlimited money but at the same time teams like us and Villa shouldn't be restricted from challenging the top 6 and forced to sell our best players just to break even.
 

Forest and Everton shouldn't be punished for showing a bit of ambition and spending a couple of hundred million , whilst Chelsea can literally go out and spend a billion quid to try and get back into the top 4. Arsenal can finish 2nd and go out and spend millions more to try and win the league , whilst Villa or ourselves can finish 4th and not be allowed to do the same to try and improve , it's totally flawed . 

 

 

Edited June 5 by Geogaddi

[The College Dropout]

I want spending limited at the top. But with others able to spend at that limit.

 

I liked the idea of anchoring. Disparities between the top and bottom in leagues should be much smaller. 

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

I want spending limited at the top. But with others able to spend at that limit.

 

I liked the idea of anchoring. Disparities between the top and bottom in leagues should be much smaller. 

Anchoring is essentially a salary cap which is a big no no in the eyes of the PFA (rightfully so). 
 

I do wonder though, how come Anchoring is the line but FFP isn’t. 

[The College Dropout]

11 hours ago, madras said:

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.

 

 

 

IMO the biggest driver for the others (including us at the time) voting for these rules is that it reduces the likelihood of another club that cannot be relegated.

 

City were a club that could get relegated. We were a club that could get relegated. An open system would make a dozen proper super league teams + 8. These rules essentially caused Leicester's relegation - that kept one of them up. 

[The College Dropout]

9 hours ago, Yorkie said:

 

Of course, I think I acknowledged that. But I think it's been a factor, not the factor. There's wealthy businessmen who've injected their own personal capital into their favourite football team and then there's oligarchs and gulf states with literally unlimited resources. I don't think anyone felt there was much of a need for FMV when Jack Walker came along.

As far as I can remember it's been THE factor.

 

Man U generally won when they were the biggest spenders.

Blackburn won as biggest spenders.

We challenged by spending.

The first winning Arsenal team under Wenger was the most expensive squad in the league.

Chelsea & City you already know.

 

I read a stat some time ago. The only teams to win the PL and not be among the top 3 biggest spenders were Arsenal Invincibles & Leicester.

[The College Dropout]

9 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Anchoring is essentially a salary cap which is a big no no in the eyes of the PFA (rightfully so). 
 

I do wonder though, how come Anchoring is the line but FFP isn’t. 

It's not a hard cap. Transfer fees are included.

 

They can include a luxury tax if they want.

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

It's not a hard cap. Transfer fees are included.

 

They can include a luxury tax if they want.

The proposal tabled was, no luxury tax included. 
 

As discussed earlier Luxury taxes have their own issues BUT the owners are greedy as fuck so it’s probably the best mechanism to get an agreement.

[The College Dropout]

55 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

The proposal tabled was, no luxury tax included. 
 

As discussed earlier Luxury taxes have their own issues BUT the owners are greedy as fuck so it’s probably the best mechanism to get an agreement.

One thing i don't understand is - there's already a salary cap. We can't spend what we want on wages. So how is anchoring any different?

 

Anchoring will only limit the caps of a select few clubs at the top. Not the remaining clubs. The current rules are tighter a bunch of clubs.

 

Also the UEFA rules are more of a salary cap than anchoring.

 

 

FFS it's bs.

[Tiresias]

Ballooning prices and agent fees had meant that increased revenue by a lot of clubs has not led to greater spending power, and as soon as a player has a sniff of being quality they immediately are priced out of anywhere but the richest who will hoard as many players as possible almost as much to keep them away from rivals. 

 

It's good for clubs that can produce this talent but it's also generated a sporting ecology where a lot of clubs only ambition is to sell anyone who's any good. 

 

I know all rules gone we could spend our way to the top. But all this spending is toxic i believe. All those hundred million in agents fees could be spent reducing ticket prices

 

 

Edited June 5 by Tiresias

[Paully]

Come on Citeh! 
 

 

[Slim]

Apparently we are not the team supporting them.

[NG32]

All they need to do is a set a transfer cap for the "season" of say 300 million.  

[r0cafella]

1 hour ago, The College Dropout said:

One thing i don't understand is - there's already a salary cap. We can't spend what we want on wages. So how is anchoring any different?

 

Anchoring will only limit the caps of a select few clubs at the top. Not the remaining clubs. The current rules are tighter a bunch of clubs.

 

Also the UEFA rules are more of a salary cap than anchoring.

 

 

FFS it's bs.

I think it’s because tying to revenue results to a basically unlimited cap, where as having an anchor which would come in to effect at x amount creates a cap on salaries. 
 

TLDR. Anchoring creates a hard cap. FFP or PSR creates a soft cap as revenue can always increase which results in in higher wages. 

[r0cafella]

19 minutes ago, Slim said:

Apparently we are not the team supporting them.

Can share your source for that? That would be very interesting if true.