Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

Mattoon

by Mattoon
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

timeEd32

timeEd32

Posted
Posted

What he says there is basically the exact scenario Swiss Ramble outlined as the only way they could have complied.

 

Quote

It should be stressed that these are only estimates, as the figures for these deductions are not divulged in the accounts (except depreciation and goodwill amortisation), so super confident pronouncements on United’s PSR position by numerous football finance experts (and plagiarists) should be treated with a degree of caution.

 

So far, so good, but now it gets a little trickier, as United have also claimed £40m for COVID losses in 2021/22, which would have comfortably been the largest deduction in the Premier League that season.

 

After UEFA fined the club €300k for a “minor break-even deficit” for the monitoring period up to 2021/22, United explained, “This reflected a change in the way that UEFA adjusted for COVID-19 losses during the 2022 reporting period”, implying that the Premier League had in contrast allowed the £40m COVID loss.

 

I’ve also taken a bit of a punt on United being allowed to excluded the £34m exceptional charges linked to the share sale (but not the £6m for loss of office).

 

It is also possible that United have been able to exclude the FX impact on interest payable, though I have not considered that in my model.

 

Putting all those assumptions together, I reckon that United complied with PSR in 2023/24 by the skin of their teeth, as their £103m adjusted loss ended up being only £2m within the target.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr.Spaceman

Dr.Spaceman

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

I’m also why Chelsea’s self reported breaches haven’t been dealt with yet, what possible reason could the league have for not doing anything?

 

Too damaging to the PL's brand? Nobody outside of Nottingham cares about Forest and their plight. There'll be disgruntled blues from Kensington to Kenya if Chelsea are punished.

Link to post
Share on other sites
r0cafella

r0cafella

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

Too damaging to the PL's brand? Nobody outside of Nottingham cares about Forest and their plight. There'll be disgruntled blues from Kensington to Kenya if Chelsea are punished.

It doesn’t damage the brand imo, although I do understand the sentiment. 
 

Ultimately that also isn’t a reason for not punishing them, but as we learnt during our takeover the league has a massive issue with transparency and ultimately the members toe the line. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unbelievable

Unbelievable

Posted
Posted

One thing I don't quite understand is this covid allowance was apparently for 2022. We just closed the 2023/24 PSR period. I therefore would have expected this alleged PSR breach to already have affected the previous reporting period 2022/23, unless I am missing something. I have checked the Man U 2022 and 2023 annual reports and can't find anything about to a PL COVID related allowance of 40 odd million. Presumably the source for this alleged breach is in the non-public PSR statement clubs do to the PL directly. I wonder about the level of transparency towards other clubs (PL members) of these statements.

 

In the 2023 annual report Man U have the following section on PSR, with the bolded bit an absolute pisstake if indeed the PL has granted them special allowances to stay within PSR while at the same time deducting "smaller clubs" points for their breaches:

 

Quote

Premier League Profitability and Sustainability Rules

The Premier League Profitability and Sustainability Rules were introduced during the 2015/16 season, implementing a break-even rule similar to the break-even test of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations and aimed at encouraging Premier League clubs to operate within their means. Potential sanctions for non-compliance with the profitability and sustainability regulations include significant fines, player transfer restrictions and Premier League points deduction.

 

Our most recent break-even assessment under the Premier League Profitability and Sustainability Rules was submitted in March 2023, based on our fiscal year 2022 and the average of fiscal year 2021 and 2020 audited financial statements. The break-even test is based on a club’s audited pre-tax earnings. If the break-even test results are positive, no further action is required until the next break-even test. If the initial test is negative, a club is re-tested, using the UEFA definition of “adjusted earnings before tax,” which allows credit for depreciation of tangible fixed assets and expenditure on youth development and community programs. If these second test results are negative by £15 million or less, the Premier League board will determine whether the club will be able to pay its liabilities due to other football clubs and in respect of employees. If a club’s losses exceed £15 million but are not more than £105 million, the club’s ownership must provide evidence of sufficient funding to meet its liabilities as they fall due. If these results are negative by more than £105 million, regardless of secured funding, Premier League sanctions will apply.

 

Our break-even test result submitted in March 2023 was positive. We support and operate within the Premier League Profitability and Sustainability Rules, and do not believe it will adversely impact our ability to continue to attract some of the best players in the coming years.

 

I hope other clubs give the PL hell for this, the Chelsea shenanigans and the obscure treatment of City's past breaches. It really does seem there is a set of rules for the big six and a set of rules for the others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
80

80

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

It doesn’t damage the brand imo, although I do understand the sentiment. 
 

Ultimately that also isn’t a reason for not punishing them, but as we learnt during our takeover the league has a massive issue with transparency and ultimately the members toe the line. 

I agree it could actually strengthen the brand, and the kind of things that are going on are rotting its foundations.

 

But I don't think the functionaries at the PL etc. will actually see it that way themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anderson

Anderson

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

There has to be more to it than a simple "Here's an allowance 39 million more generous than every other club"

 

Surely [emoji38]

 

It won't be a case of the PL 'handing out allowances' as it's been presented by some. There'll be guidelines on what can and can't be claimed, and it'll then be up to the clubs to calculate and claim for those allowances with support. So it won't have been the PL 'giving' them £40m. I guess the question then becomes have the PL been overly lenient when assessing their claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whitley mag

Whitley mag

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Anderson said:

 

It won't be a case of the PL 'handing out allowances' as it's been presented by some. There'll be guidelines on what can and can't be claimed, and it'll then be up to the clubs to calculate and claim for those allowances with support. So it won't have been the PL 'giving' them £40m. I guess the question then becomes have the PL been overly lenient when assessing their claim.

It’s sort of the same thing really they’re claiming 40 million in allowances and the PL appear to have ratified it. Didn’t Everton claim huge covid costs but they were deemed to be excessive, the claim here is that nobody has ever been allowed to claim over 1 million which is some gap by any stretch.

 

 

Edited by Whitley mag

Link to post
Share on other sites
500bhp

500bhp

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, gdm said:

 

They are taking the piss with the second point. That's just a normal operational risk that every club is exposed to. It's like us saying we need an allowance because MA didn't grow our commercial income for 14 years in line with other clubs. Or that last season we had the worst injury crisis in PL history, which means we lost revenue from being knocked out the CL and finishing 7th instead of 4th. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unbelievable

Unbelievable

Posted
Posted

The reason for their covid related lack of revenue is hardly relevant to the matter, which is why the PL ratified their covid related massive (relative to others) PSR deductions it needed to be compliant, while at the same time deeming those of others (Everton) excessive and docking them points. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Paully

Paully

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, 500bhp said:

They are taking the piss with the second point. That's just a normal operational risk that every club is exposed to. It's like us saying we need an allowance because MA didn't grow our commercial income for 14 years in line with other clubs. Or that last season we had the worst injury crisis in PL history, which means we lost revenue from being knocked out the CL and finishing 7th instead of 4th. 

 

Spot on mate - Everton and Forest need to get on the blower to Mr di Marco and tear the corrupt wankers arseholes out over this!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...