Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[timeEd32]

It's definitely not good news for the clubs with interest free shareholder loans (Everton, Brighton, Arsenal, Chelsea top of the list). The next question will be if those owners are willing to write off the loans.

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, Mikky said:

RE UEFA - didn’t Man U get twice more than us in the CL last season? Both failed to progress from the group 

Yes, they did. The entire structure of football is set up to protect the incumbents, it’s funny because we spend a lot of time thinking about it on a per match basis but the real game is being played by the rule markers who keep tipping the scales on behalf of the big clubs. 

[r0cafella]

Just now, timeEd32 said:

It's definitely not good news for the clubs with interest free shareholder loans (Everton, Brighton, Arsenal, Chelsea top of the list). The next question will be if those owners are willing to write off the loans.

I’m sure they will just write them off, it doesn’t cost them anything to do so. The clubs are worth the same regardless. 

[Memphis]

Premier League statement is just their way of attempting to spin the ruling. Ultimately it opens up doors for enormous lawsuits from teams badly affected by the unfair and improper rules, namely us and City. Additionally, it undercuts one of the key frameworks of the entire PSR/FFP idea, which will be manipulated by us and others in all likelihood. 

 

So yes, in spite of what the Premier League claims, this is a rather large deal.

[Upthemags]

From the PL:

 

'"The decision represents an important and detailed assessment of the APT Rules, which ensure clubs are not able to benefit from commercial deals or reductions in cost that are not at Fair Market Value (FMV) by virtue of relationships with Associated Parties,” a league statement added.'

 

This looks, largely, like a loss for us since the rules will stay in place. We can afford the best attorneys in the world and can do exactly what Man City are doing, however. It's time to fly close to the sun and sign deals with PIF's portfolio companies. We can litigate these issues with the PL on the back end, and draw it out for years as we build up revenues.

[Dokko]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

I’m sure they will just write them off, it doesn’t cost them anything to do so. The clubs are worth the same regardless. 

 

Quickly stick in a 5bn loan and have it written on by the weekend. 

[Adam]

4 minutes ago, Mikky said:

RE UEFA - didn’t Man U get twice more than us in the CL last season? Both failed to progress from the group 

 

Yes UEFA money rules are utterly broken. I can't remember the exact details but I did some calculations last year. If we won every single CL and won the comp, Man City only made it to the round of 16, they would still have made more money than us. 

[FCB]

Now is the time to start spunking on sponsorships until the PL have the new APT rules amended and enforced.

[Mag3.14]

1 minute ago, Dokko said:

 

Quickly stick in a 5bn loan and have it written on by the weekend. 

 

Wouldn't count as revenue - we need a PIF £5bn loan the club to then spend that on Hotels & infrastructure and sell it on bit by bit each year back to PIF 

[Memphis]

Just now, Upthemags said:

From the PL:

 

'"The decision represents an important and detailed assessment of the APT Rules, which ensure clubs are not able to benefit from commercial deals or reductions in cost that are not at Fair Market Value (FMV) by virtue of relationships with Associated Parties,” a league statement added.'

 

This looks, largely, like a loss for us since the rules will stay in place. We can afford the best attorneys in the world and can do exactly what Man City are doing, however. It's time to fly close to the sun and sign deals with PIF's portfolio companies. We can litigate these issues with the PL on the back end, and draw it out for years as we build up revenues.

 

I would very much disagree.

 

While the PL can claim the structure of the APT rules are intact, the changes in what is considered Fair Market Value are massive. When interest-free shareholder loans are marked at normal rates and added to the FMV database, and when we have access to all the deals associated with that database, we will have much more leeway to do deals with Saudi partners at higher values. 

 

That doesn't even take into consideration future rulings and inevitable lawsuits.

[Ben]

So what do we have left to sponsor and what is the highest price we can get ?

[mattypnufc]

 
the devil is in the detail as always. Essentially brings to the forefront that this was put in place for one reason only with little to no evidence to help mitigate the financial consequences on other clubs to ensure their not having their cake and eating it when they can’t afford it. 
 

thanks city. 

[Heron]

Does a lawsuit count as viable revenue if successful?

[Upthemags]

Just now, Memphis said:

 

I would very much disagree.

 

While the PL can claim the structure of the APT rules are intact, the changes in what is considered Fair Market Value are massive. When interest-free shareholder loans are marked at normal rates and added to the FMV database, and when we have access to all the deals associated with that database, we will have much more leeway to do deals with Saudi partners at higher values. 

 

That doesn't even take into consideration future rulings and inevitable lawsuits.

As nice as it is that teams with sweetheart loans from their owners will be reevaluated, that won't have any bearing on our ability to spend. The issue remains: are we allowed to transact with PIF portfolio companies in advertising deals? The answer to that question still seems hazy, and, I would imagine, will be re-litigated by the Premier League as those issues arise. Haven't read the opinion, however.

 

I think we would agree that it's time to act now, nonetheless. No more sitting on our hands looking to avoid legal conflict over anti-competitive rules.

[FCB]

2 minutes ago, Ben said:

So what do we have left to sponsor and what is the highest price we can get ?

Training socks, match socks, training boots, match boots...

[Stifler]

Just now, FCB said:

Training socks, match socks, training boots, match boots...

Should be sponsoring individual fans.

I’m willing to be sponsored for £200m if I get 10% of the fee.

[FCB]

Just now, Stifler said:

Should be sponsoring individual fans.

I’m willing to be sponsored for £200m if I get 10% of the fee.

Christ, if that was the case I'd be happy to be sponsored for 1% (plus a nice villa in Spain with all expenses paid - maybe Palma?).

 

[Holloway]

in moments like this I tend to disregard the grounded, cautious type posts and float through the thread with flowers in my hair

[SUPERTOON]

As usual when anything about FFP breaks, I have no idea if it’s good or bad for us.

[timeEd32]

The result is definitely a bit blurry. Both sides seem to be overstating their case in terms of the extent to which they won. 

 

FMV rules will still be in place, so that is definitely notable. But the shareholder stuff, where the burden of proof lies, and the ability to respond to the PLs ruling all seem significant.

[Beren]

Yay. Let's sign Unai Emery, Jhon Duran and Cole Palmer.

[Maggies]

1 minute ago, SUPERTOON said:

As usual when anything about FFP breaks, I have no idea if it’s good or bad for us.

I don’t think anyone does… 

[FCB]

2 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

As usual when anything about FFP breaks, I have no idea if it’s good or bad for us.

Both sides won and lost, as @timeEd32 said FMV rules remain but some stuff about fair market valuation for sponsorships as well as loans etc are changing

 

 

Edited 23 hours ago by FCB

[timeEd32]

We are mentioned 15 times in the full decision. 

 

The speed at which things went into motion following the takeover is pretty incredible. 

[Jack27]

Just now, timeEd32 said:

We are mentioned 15 times in the full decision. 

 

The speed at which things went into motion following the takeover is pretty incredible. 

do you have a link for the full decision?