Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[PauloGeordio]

2 minutes ago, Nucasol said:

Unsure where to put this/ whether it’s been posted - another gift from Mike Ashley:

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/30277292/newcastle-news-hmrc-mike-ashley-public-investment-fund/amp/

 

Don’t know whether it’ll have a PSR impact.

Still cleanining the stink out of the place!

[Ben]

10 minutes ago, Nucasol said:

Unsure where to put this/ whether it’s been posted - another gift from Mike Ashley:

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/30277292/newcastle-news-hmrc-mike-ashley-public-investment-fund/amp/

 

Don’t know whether it’ll have a PSR impact.

 

Would the HMRC not go after Ashley for that money, or could PIF not take him to court to recover these costs ?

[Keegans Export]

15 minutes ago, Ben said:

 

Would the HMRC not go after Ashley for that money, or could PIF not take him to court to recover these costs ?

The first part - no, it's the Company that owes the money, not any one individual. 

 

The second part kind of depends. Usually there'll be clauses as part of the sale/purchase agreement relating to stuff like this,who ultimately takes responsibility etc. I imagine Ashley won't be on the hook as it was heavily publicised that the club was under investigation so PIF etc can't claim they were taken by surprise. 

[TheBrownBottle]

33 minutes ago, Nucasol said:

Unsure where to put this/ whether it’s been posted - another gift from Mike Ashley:

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/30277292/newcastle-news-hmrc-mike-ashley-public-investment-fund/amp/

 

Don’t know whether it’ll have a PSR impact.

This is the one where the mackems were convinced we'll get relegated and have to fold

 

I'm sure that others forlorn hopes will be found, though - fear not

[The College Dropout]

8 hours ago, midds said:

Why £80m though? Where's that come from? Who's decided that? 

 

I'm not being arsey, I'm just playing devil's advocate. Why not £70m? Is it £100m? No cash has been exchanged, only players. Why, and how, is it monetised? 

Just plucked  random figure. 
 

It’s more advantageous FFP wise to move cash around.  At least on the books for FFP accountancy. 

[Cf]

Here's how I'd fix it:

 

Yearly spending cap. The amount you can spend on player transfers/sign on fees/agent fees/whatever else they do these days.

 

Set it quite high - high enough the bottom teams probably can't reach it, but lower than the very top teams might want to spend. 

 

Player sales do not offset this. 

 

Doesn't roll over if you don't reach the cap. 

 

Wage cap. Total amount of wages including bonuses etc across the whole squad.

 

Require some sort of proof of funds that you can afford all of the above but otherwise leave teams to get on with it. 

 

Rules stop you buying the league and provide some sort of level playing field. 

 

Obviously that's not what PSR was ever designed for but given how it's eating itself we can dream. 

[Dr.Spaceman]

That's literally all it needs

 

Just imagine the first day of the first window after the floodgates have been opened!

 

 

Edited September 6 by Dr.Spaceman

[gbandit]

14 minutes ago, Cf said:

Here's how I'd fix it:

 

Yearly spending cap. The amount you can spend on player transfers/sign on fees/agent fees/whatever else they do these days.

 

Set it quite high - high enough the bottom teams probably can't reach it, but lower than the very top teams might want to spend. 

 

Player sales do not offset this. 

 

Doesn't roll over if you don't reach the cap. 

 

Wage cap. Total amount of wages including bonuses etc across the whole squad.

 

Require some sort of proof of funds that you can afford all of the above but otherwise leave teams to get on with it. 

 

Rules stop you buying the league and provide some sort of level playing field. 

 

Obviously that's not what PSR was ever designed for but given how it's eating itself we can dream. 

So simple, and equitable. No chance sadly as the politics in the game (control the big six have had) means there’s no chance any rules come in that aren’t gamed. The PL has absolutely zero interest in trying to create a fair product 

[r0cafella]

Also not legal

 

a hard cap on wages is a no no and PFA would be launching legal action (rightfully so). 

[Dr.Spaceman]

2 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Also not legal

 

a hard cap on wages is a no no and PFA would be launching legal action (rightfully so). 

 

You're not capping the individual's wages though, you're capping the total cost across the squad. Not sure how that's illegal. You could pay one player 99% of the capacity if you really wanted to.

[Cf]

Hell you could simplify it even more by having them being a combined cap of both purchases and wages. 

 

If you want to offer silly wages you can do but it would limit your ability to spend. 

[Keegans Export]

10 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Also not legal

 

a hard cap on wages is a no no and PFA would be launching legal action (rightfully so). 

The salary cap in Rugby Union was challenged unsuccessfully if I remember correctly.

 

The PFA definitely would launch legal action but whether they'd be successful or not is absolutely not certain either way.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

There's already a defacto wage cap with PSR as wages are the highest operating cost line for each club.

[Pablo]

Wouldn’t want any of this nonsense, a club should be able to spend whatever its owner wishes.

I understand and appreciate we don’t want clubs to go out of business, so it should be direct owner investment if the spend is in excess of what the club makes, just like it was in the 90s. Owners should put total funding for purchases and full contracts in escrow if it would otherwise be unaffordable so the club will not suffer if the owner flips the club. Associated party transaction rules should also be abolished, they remain anticompetitive.

Anything else will ultimately just safeguard the status quo, and stop the likes of Villa from remaining competitive.

[andyc35i]

I want these PSR rules to change like everyone, but you can’t allow state owned teams like ourselves and Man City to be free from any restraint. All that would do is end up with both teams at the top and nobody else able to get close 

[TRon]

5 hours ago, r0cafella said:

I totally understand why yourself and many others hold this view but when I think of the power dynamics at play I just don’t see that outcome. I only see it being brought down by some form of legal challenge. 
 

The PL is a gravy train and most clubs do not wish to rock to boat and upset the likes of Man United and Liverpool as these clubs are cash cows. 

 

If you think about it, maybe it's a gravy train for PL officials as well. Just imagine the amount of pen pushers needed at their headquarters gainfully employed to sift through all that shit. It's the gift that keeps on giving ( to themselves).

[The College Dropout]

Hard wage caps would be too messy legally. 
 

Football is much bigger business than rugby. Them going on strike or whatever isn’t palatable and the PFA taking legal action will be much better funded then rugby. 
 

The new UEFA rules based on ‘squad spend’ against revenue is a soft salary cap. As-is FFP/PSR.  

[Pablo]

1 hour ago, andyc35i said:

I want these PSR rules to change like everyone, but you can’t allow state owned teams like ourselves and Man City to be free from any restraint. All that would do is end up with both teams at the top and nobody else able to get close 

No way meant to cause an argument, just responding to the sentiment of your post, which I appreciate is reasonable.

 

Why, when an ‘insignificant team’ owned by ‘Littlewoods Pools’ did it in the 60s and are now arguably in the top 5 teams in the world. There is little chance of Newcastle United or Man City, or PSG ever overtaking them in terms of reverence and prestige.

I doubt any (current) state owned team will ever be truly bigger than Real Madrid, Manchester United, Barcelona, Bayern Munich or Juventus either. There could be periods where different teams are temporarily on top, and that is fantastic for the continuing evolution, interest and development of the game.

If we stick as we are, no one will ever compete with the top teams in the premier league, it is folly to say we can slowly grow and get there, when the existing teams are also still growing. If a shop worker and the shop boss both increase their pay by 5% the total pay gap gets bigger, that’s the reality we face, and as we grow the elites are also growing. Look at a relatively insignificant club like Leicester City and a historically great club like Everton, they are nowhere a few years after trying to compete. Wolves are also falling away, with Leeds and Sunderland nowhere. Can’t you see we can never catch up without some form of pump priming, and that makes the football league unsatisfying for 95% of the clubs making it up.

 

It’s bad enough those rules are in place, without our own fan base supporting it and effectively agreeing for us to be cucks.

 

[andyc35i]

10 minutes ago, Pablo said:

No way meant to cause an argument, just responding to the sentiment of your post, which I appreciate is reasonable.

 

Why, when an ‘insignificant team’ owned by ‘Littlewoods Pools’ did it in the 60s and are now arguably in the top 5 teams in the world. There is little chance of Newcastle United or Man City, or PSG ever overtaking them in terms of reverence and prestige.

I doubt any (current) state owned team will ever be truly bigger than Real Madrid, Manchester United, Barcelona, Bayern Munich or Juventus either. There could be periods where different teams are temporarily on top, and that is fantastic for the continuing evolution, interest and development of the game.

If we stick as we are, no one will ever compete with the top teams in the premier league, it is folly to say we can slowly grow and get there, when the existing teams are also still growing. If a shop worker and the shop boss both increase their pay by 5% the total pay gap gets bigger, that’s the reality we face, and as we grow the elites are also growing. Look at a relatively insignificant club like Leicester City and a historically great club like Everton, they are nowhere a few years after trying to compete. Wolves are also falling away, with Leeds and Sunderland nowhere. Can’t you see we can never catch up without some form of pump priming, and that makes the football league unsatisfying for 95% of the clubs making it up.

 

It’s bad enough those rules are in place, without our own fan base supporting it and effectively agreeing for us to be cucks.

 

And I agree with what you’re saying in principle - I just think when country wealth starts to get involved then you lose the legitimacy with the success that follows.
 

I’m with you that you can’t upset the status quo without a significant outlay so that’s why we should still be allowed to spend a significant amount of money, but there needs to be some form of cap that stops spending getting completely out of control. Other stakeholders have raised good alternatives to allow investment and it’s just a sad situation that these can’t be taken into consideration and PSR moved forward 

[80]

32 minutes ago, Pablo said:

No way meant to cause an argument, just responding to the sentiment of your post, which I appreciate is reasonable.

 

Why, when an ‘insignificant team’ owned by ‘Littlewoods Pools’ did it in the 60s and are now arguably in the top 5 teams in the world. There is little chance of Newcastle United or Man City, or PSG ever overtaking them in terms of reverence and prestige.

I doubt any (current) state owned team will ever be truly bigger than Real Madrid, Manchester United, Barcelona, Bayern Munich or Juventus either. There could be periods where different teams are temporarily on top, and that is fantastic for the continuing evolution, interest and development of the game.

If we stick as we are, no one will ever compete with the top teams in the premier league, it is folly to say we can slowly grow and get there, when the existing teams are also still growing. If a shop worker and the shop boss both increase their pay by 5% the total pay gap gets bigger, that’s the reality we face, and as we grow the elites are also growing. Look at a relatively insignificant club like Leicester City and a historically great club like Everton, they are nowhere a few years after trying to compete. Wolves are also falling away, with Leeds and Sunderland nowhere. Can’t you see we can never catch up without some form of pump priming, and that makes the football league unsatisfying for 95% of the clubs making it up.

 

It’s bad enough those rules are in place, without our own fan base supporting it and effectively agreeing for us to be cucks.

 

Spot on.

[80]

14 minutes ago, andyc35i said:

And I agree with what you’re saying in principle - I just think when country wealth starts to get involved then you lose the legitimacy with the success that follows.
 

I’m with you that you can’t upset the status quo without a significant outlay so that’s why we should still be allowed to spend a significant amount of money, but there needs to be some form of cap that stops spending getting completely out of control. Other stakeholders have raised good alternatives to allow investment and it’s just a sad situation that these can’t be taken into consideration and PSR moved forward 

If there are guarantees about clubs not going under e.g. all funding provided up front by owners, I couldn't give a shit if transfer fees went into the billions. If billionaires and trillionaires want to pump their money into our economy, let them.

[Stifler]

If PSR stays, then we’ll likely get to a point where clubs like top 6 will have casts amounts of trophies, near or above 50 for some of them.

The rest of us will end up with small amounts.

 

I know some of us don’t want a new stadium, but one of the arguments is that we have to join these clubs or be pushed out. These clubs have already tried to break away and steal control of football in recent years. Even for completions that they have no respect for like the League Cup, they are making it more difficult for the rest of us to win by allowing themselves to come in a round later, and now be seeded.

If PSR is to stay, then we need to make sure we are on the right side of the divide before it gets too big.

[Kid Icarus]

Was fine until the wage cap. There shouldn't be a wage cap whatsoever. 

 

I think I've said this before, but professional sport is one of the only areas where the people who actually create the value are often the ones being compensated for it to anywhere near the same level. If you put a wage cap in, that money is still in circulation, it just goes to more of the people who have done almost nothing to create it. 

 

 

Edited September 6 by Kid Icarus

[RobsonsWonderland]

I keep saying it but allowing us to villa to spend would have benefitted clubs all the way down the pyramid.

 

And I don't even mean the mega buys but players in this league

 

We could have helped Everton out of their money issues.

 

We could have bought Toney and allowed Brentford to spend on replacements.

 

Crystal Palace would have got what they want earlier in the summer and moved on.

 

Or dare I say Chelsea and their Bomb squad.

 

By stifling new money, there is only a limited cash pool within the game.

 

 

Edited September 6 by RobsonsWonderland

[The College Dropout]

Our ability to improve infrastructure and academy can't be compared to Leicester or Everton though. All of those things sit outside of FFP.

 

If we can produce an academy close-ish to Chelsea and City in the next decade - that will go a long way to catching the elite. We can throw unlimited money at 15-year-old prospects.

 

New Stadiums sometimes slow down on-pitch investment. We shouldn't have that problem.