Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Kid Icarus]

13 minutes ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

This challenge has absolutely nothing to do with the 115 charges though, it relates to the recently brought in rules about Associated Party Transactions. Most of the 115 charges relate to claims of fraudulent accounting, so winning this case would have no impact on those charges.

 

The fraudulent accounting is linked with associated parties in some cases isn't it? Those emails saying 'this money needs to come from X company, not directly' or words to that affect?

 

I'd be very surprised if there isn't at least an element of lawfare to this as a counter to the 11t charges, especially with Man City's history of doing a similar sort of thing with UEFA. 

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

The fraudulent accounting is linked with associated parties in some cases isn't it? Those emails saying 'this money needs to come from X company, not directly' or words to that affect?

 

I'd be very surprised if there isn't at least an element of lawfare to this as a counter to the 11t charges, especially with Man City's history of doing a similar sort of thing with UEFA. 

 

Yes but the rules they’re challenging now, weren’t in effect when these alleged transactions took place. They’re not challenging the idea of monitoring related party value deals in totality, just in relation to the new more restrictive rules that came into place following our takeover and which were made even more restrictive in February this year.

[timnufc22]

24 minutes ago, captainhaircut said:

If they do get relegated, fair market value will stop them being able to justify big deals and they could have a number of years where they don’t have the money to make it all work. 
 

relegation means little to them if fair market value is gone. Massive etihad deal, smash the championship, win the league following year. 

 

Exactly. People compare that scenario with what we have now, with the gap between the 'big 6' and others... but we're talking about a scenario of owners with billions upon billions putting in whatever they like, with zero concern over any financial 'loss'.

 

It may be difficult to breach the top 4 (what did we do last season again?) as things currently stand and growing the finances may be a long and arduous road ahead (and yes adjustments need to be made to ffp), but its not impossible as some may think. Whereas it absolutely is impossible for the vast majority to compete with owners who have billions upon billions to spend with effectively no limit. I don't see how any club could compete with Man City & us if we were given carte blanche to spend whatever we want. At some point, the likes of Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool would have to reign in spending if it went tits up. We'd just keep spending until we get it right and keep spending to solidify. The whole thing then becomes worthless, may as well get out the old championship manager game, change the stats and play that instead.

 

 

Edited June 5 by timnufc22

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

Will people research what they are actually challenging before thinking of hypothetical scenarios. They are contesting the legality of having to have the sponsor prove fair market value to the Premier League amongst other more restrictive practices around related parties (including how broad this term now is), not bringing down the whole idea of financial rules around participating in the PL

[duo]

1 hour ago, The Butcher said:

I want to see us win a trophy before I die. "Winning the right way". Fuck that. If Man City win and it allows us to spend more to be successful on our own I'm all for it.

what is the right way? the rules are there to protect the elite and the only way to challenge is to find a way to navigate said rules.  And sponsorship is the only way round.

[SUPERTOON]

 

[Ben]

So could we get a £1 billion sponsor deal if Man City win ?

[timnufc22]

6 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

 

 

ffs  I really hope fans draw a line in the sand and have the gumption to say they disagree with our owners and while ffp should be modified, we don't want to play a 'virtual reality' game of championship manager where everything basically becomes hollow, where winning because we happen to be owned by PIF as opposed to winning because we've grown the academy, made astute signs & judgement, showed loyalty to the right manager(s), garnered the right atmosphere at SJP etc.

[Ben]

1 minute ago, timnufc22 said:

 

ffs  I really hope fans draw a line in the sand and have the gumption to say they disagree with our owners and while ffp should be modified, we don't want to play a 'virtual reality' game of championship manager where everything basically becomes hollow, where winning because we happen to be owned by PIF as opposed to winning because we've grown the academy, made astute signs & judgement, showed loyalty to the right manager(s), garnered the right atmosphere at SJP etc.

Can we do that after we've won something ? 

[nufc4eva]

Would the right way not be to say investors can invest X amount each season or each club can spend X amount a season say 200 million but only if the owners are making up he losses or revenue stream supports it. That way teams like us can compete on even level. I'm all for financial controls and retaining competition but only if it gives all teams a fair chance to compete whereas current rules are geared to that traditional top 6 due to them building under less restrictions previously.

 

 

 

[gjohnson]

This is all getting far too complicated for anyone beyond advanced accountants and lawyers now. Sport of the people? About as much as UK is really a democracy.

 

Keep it simple. Put a maximum spend of say 200m per season including agents fees and wages. If you can afford it fine if you can't, you can find it any way you can. If you go bust doing it, it's your problem

[Kid Icarus]

1 hour ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

 

Yes but the rules they’re challenging now, weren’t in effect when these alleged transactions took place. They’re not challenging the idea of monitoring related party value deals in totality, just in relation to the new more restrictive rules that came into place following our takeover and which were made even more restrictive in February this year.

 

Fair enough. I knew they were only challenging the new rules, but I thought the repurcussions would go beyond that. 

[El Prontonise]

4 minutes ago, timnufc22 said:

 

ffs  I really hope fans draw a line in the sand and have the gumption to say they disagree with our owners and while ffp should be modified, we don't want to play a 'virtual reality' game of championship manager where everything basically becomes hollow, where winning because we happen to be owned by PIF as opposed to winning because we've grown the academy, made astute signs & judgement, showed loyalty to the right manager(s), garnered the right atmosphere at SJP etc.

 

Something needs doing to reign in spending in football because it's farcical the losses in the PL despite the revenues it generates.

 

Their needs to be scope to allow clubs to buy their way to trying to become bigger as long it's sustainable or backed up though.

[TomYam]

I hope the whole PL explodes and a new administrative body is formed which is more equitable and not in the pocket of or kowtowing to 3 or 4 'elite' clubs. Mind you, that's surely not what Man City or Chelsea wish to pursue...

[duo]

1 hour ago, timnufc22 said:

 

ffs  I really hope fans draw a line in the sand and have the gumption to say they disagree with our owners and while ffp should be modified, we don't want to play a 'virtual reality' game of championship manager where everything basically becomes hollow, where winning because we happen to be owned by PIF as opposed to winning because we've grown the academy, made astute signs & judgement, showed loyalty to the right manager(s), garnered the right atmosphere at SJP etc.

we are already there - that horse has well a truly bolted just those clubs that have benefit have pulled up the draw bridge to stop other clubs joining. 

[Maggies]

The problem for the Premier League is just how rich our owners are.

 

Even Reubens as our minority owner are still richer than majority if not all of the other clubs.

 

Our main owner is rich enough to buy every football club in England, many times over.

 

Current rules are too restrictive for ambitious clubs. Even promoted clubs with no parachute payments will struggle.

 

Equally, having no rules will make mean only ourselves and Man City can compete, with rest of the clubs winning the odd trophy.

 

Where do you draw the line? It needs to be a lot more relaxed then where it is currently drawn.

 

 

Edited June 5 by Maggies

[duo]

16 minutes ago, Maggies said:

The problem for the Premier League is just how rich our owners are.

 

Even Reubens as our minority owner are still richer than majority if not all of the other clubs.

 

Our main owner is rich enough to buy every football club in England, many times over.

 

Current rules are too restrictive for ambitious clubs. Even promoted clubs with no parachute payments will struggle.

 

Equally, having no rules will make mean only ourselves and Man City can compete, with rest of the clubs winning the odd trophy.

 

Where do you draw the line? It needs to be a lot more relaxed then where it is currently drawn.

 

 

 

Plenty of PL clubs have Billionaire owners the trouble is they can't spend.  A lot of clubs could potentially benefit from this ruling it's not just Newcastle.

 

 

Edited June 5 by duo

[El Prontonise]

2 minutes ago, duo said:

Plenty of PL clubs have Billionaire owners the trouble is they can't spend.  A lot of clubs could potentially benefit from this ruling it's not just Newcastle.

 

 

 

 

They shouldn't have to spend though. 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, El Prontonise said:

 

They shouldn't have to spend though. 

 

There's probably 10-12 clubs in this league who could all spend pretty big, but the rules only allow about half of that number. It's plain wrong. 

[timnufc22]

52 minutes ago, duo said:

we are already there - that horse has well a truly bolted just those clubs that have benefit have pulled up the draw bridge to stop other clubs joining. 

We literally finished top 4 in 2023. I know it’s a bloody tough task but, without going into detail, it is possible, I actually find the challenge an appealing one along with growing the club in clever ways. 
 

But if PIF had free reign to spend with no consequence, I think their wealth would blow others out the water. As much as they spend ridiculous amounts, I don’t think Man Utd, Arsenal & Liverpool owners would be happy to write off the losses PIF would, or Man City.
 

The last point is, it’s 100% soulless. Football has been impure for a long, long time I know, but I’d try and carry on with at least some redeeming factors attached and die on that hill come what may, than to hand over all sense of achievement. 

 

 

Edited June 5 by timnufc22

[Terrymac1966]

Ok but I have waited patiently since 1969 and this challenge is exciting and relevant to our progress...go City

[Pata]

Agree that there has to be some limits. Us being unable to buy anyone in January was a joke but I'm a bit surprised about the amount of people who want us to go full Man City on spending while saying what a soulless club they are and nobody cares when they win.

 

Current FFP is obviously a joke that exists only to protect the big ones and keep the shop closed. There has to be some kind of balance between limiting and allowing spending but it seems impossible to implement, too many clubs only thinking about themselves and you can't just reset history even if it made the most sense. Wish everything was as simple as American sports where any well run team can become champions in few years but obviously that system, even the wage cap is almost impossible to have in a sport where there are more than one big league.

[Skeletor]

57 minutes ago, Pata said:

Agree that there has to be some limits. Us being unable to buy anyone in January was a joke but I'm a bit surprised about the amount of people who want us to go full Man City on spending while saying what a soulless club they are and nobody cares when they win.

 

Current FFP is obviously a joke that exists only to protect the big ones and keep the shop closed. There has to be some kind of balance between limiting and allowing spending but it seems impossible to implement, too many clubs only thinking about themselves and you can't just reset history even if it made the most sense. Wish everything was as simple as American sports where any well run team can become champions in few years but obviously that system, even the wage cap is almost impossible to have in a sport where there are more than one big league.

 

I don't want a soulless spending spree, but I also don't want a summer window where despite being the richest club in the world we're having to scrimp around free transfers and bland signings due to extremely oppressive financial regulations.

[et tu brute]

1 hour ago, Pata said:

Agree that there has to be some limits. Us being unable to buy anyone in January was a joke but I'm a bit surprised about the amount of people who want us to go full Man City on spending while saying what a soulless club they are and nobody cares when they win.

 

Current FFP is obviously a joke that exists only to protect the big ones and keep the shop closed. There has to be some kind of balance between limiting and allowing spending but it seems impossible to implement, too many clubs only thinking about themselves and you can't just reset history even if it made the most sense. Wish everything was as simple as American sports where any well run team can become champions in few years but obviously that system, even the wage cap is almost impossible to have in a sport where there are more than one big league.

I'm the exact opposite, I'm surprised with anyone not supporting City's case amongst our support. We have seen obstacles and rules introduced purposely to prevent our progress. The way the system is, that will never change without a legal challenge. Fuck everyone else, come on City stick it up them.

[et tu brute]

1 hour ago, Skeletor said:

 

I don't want a soulless spending spree, but I also don't want a summer window where despite being the richest club in the world we're having to scrimp around free transfers and bland signings due to extremely oppressive financial regulations.

And have the threat in time of losing our best players.