Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[lovejoy]

So may conflicting views, man 😂

 

 

 

[Fak]

1 minute ago, mighty__mag said:

We just need to be creative.

 

Everton vs. Newcastle. 

[et tu brute]

6 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It is significant.  It just isn’t for us.

Let's see then

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

 

I'd have thought a true FMV comparison would be to look at the sponsorships City/Chelsea etc got when they were at a similar stage of development and then adjust for inflation. Sponsors will pay a premium for a 6th place team who are obviously going to challenge top 3 in the near future and have massive exposure so you have to take potential into acocunt

Which wouldn’t leave us any better off, as football escalation doesn’t follow the wider economy.  You’d need to produce football-related indices to do that I suspect - not sure how feasible that would be

[midds]

Can't pretend I know what I'm talking about here, I'll let more qualified people do that. But I'm honestly struggling to see how the rules brought in to specifically prevent us from investing being deemed 'unlawful' can be anything other than very, very significant? 

 

I could very well be missing something very obvious though. I'm 100% a layman here and relying on others

[lovejoy]

3 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Which wouldn’t leave us any better off, as football escalation doesn’t follow the wider economy.  You’d need to produce football-related indices to do that I suspect - not sure how feasible that would be

 

 

Man City's shirt sponsor in their first champs league season was £20m per season.

 

Thats about £32m ish in today's money.

 

We got £25m off Sela,

 

 

 

 

[lovejoy]

4 minutes ago, midds said:

Can't pretend I know what I'm talking about here, I'll let more qualified people do that. But I'm honestly struggling to see how the rules brought in to specifically prevent us from investing being deemed 'unlawful' can be anything other than very, very significant? 

 

I could very well be missing something very obvious though. I'm 100% a layman here and relying on others

 

This sums up where I am.

 

[FloydianMag]

39 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Agreed, but the UEFA rules snooker that  

UEFA rules are also open to challenge in the CJEU. Let’s face it UEFA haven’t had to good a time in the CJEU as of late and I would add that EU Competition Law almost mirrors UK Competition Law.

[timeEd32]

9 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It is significant.  It just isn’t for us.

 

I know why you're skeptical and I agree it's not opening any floodgates. I also agree we're getting close to no more excuses territory in terms of announcing some more sponsorships.

 

But anything of significance that impacts PL clubs is relevant to us, even if indirectly. And while the shareholder loan stuff isn't directly relevant now we don't know what the knock on effects could be. Maybe there are none other than some billionaires no longer have loans due to them, but it could go a number of different ways.

 

I also think you're downplaying the roll back of the newest rules. The onus being on the clubs was awful with basically no recourse once a ruling was made was awful. We have a little more freedom today than we did a couple weeks ago and that is a win. And I'm very glad we're arguing about the size and scope of the win because an outright PL win on this case would have been incredibly depressing.

[Wolfcastle]

The only reason for the APT FMV stuff at all is because they wanted to restrict certain clubs spending whilst crucially not hurting other clubs - so no actually fair blanket rule.

Whether its Unlawful, or agreed with in principal, its surely all based on complete bullshit as a foundation anyway and that shouldn't be lost in all this.

[TheBrownBottle]

5 minutes ago, lovejoy said:

So may conflicting views, man 😂

 

 

 

Tbf, that tweet is saying the same thing as being reported everywhere else - APT ruled as legal, PL rules around burden of proof and shareholder loans not legal.  

[TheBrownBottle]

3 minutes ago, lovejoy said:

 

 

Man City's shirt sponsor in their first champs league season was £20m per season.

 

Thats about £32m ish in today's money.

 

We got £25m off Sela,

 

 

 

 

In all honesty, it would likely need to be a much higher ceiling - you’d need to go back and look at club’s incomes and Man City’s deal in relation to others

 

Though of course the fact that this is one of the sponsorship deals that could see Man City receive serious punishment could prove an issue  

[lovejoy]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Tbf, that tweet is saying the same thing as being reported everywhere else - APT ruled as legal, PL rules around burden of proof and shareholder loans not legal.  

 

Yep, it goes against a lot of opinions on Twitter and elsewhere.

Time will tell, but I struggle to see how the Premier League’s unlawful implementation of the rules won’t impact us in some way.

Let’s see what happens.

 

[TheBrownBottle]

4 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

I know why you're skeptical and I agree it's not opening any floodgates. I also agree we're getting close to no more excuses territory in terms of announcing some more sponsorships.

 

But anything of significance that impacts PL clubs is relevant to us, even if indirectly. And while the shareholder loan stuff isn't directly relevant now we don't know what the knock on effects could be. Maybe there are none other than some billionaires no longer have loans due to them, but it could go a number of different ways.

 

I also think you're downplaying the roll back of the newest rules. The onus being on the clubs was awful with basically no recourse once a ruling was made was awful. We have a little more freedom today than we did a couple weeks ago and that is a win. And I'm very glad we're arguing about the size and scope of the win because an outright PL win on this case would have been incredibly depressing.

I agree with everything you’ve written, though I would say that the only impact on us this summer just gone re the rules which have been ruled on would likely have been Brighton not being able to buy Minteh and us copping a big points deduction (or selling a star player).  

[TheBrownBottle]

12 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

UEFA rules are also open to challenge in the CJEU. Let’s face it UEFA haven’t had to good a time in the CJEU as of late and I would add that EU Competition Law almost mirrors UK Competition Law.

As ever, they would need a club to challenge them - and if all these rules were truly fundamental breaches of commercial law then I’d have expected Man City to have smashed the PL to pieces.  Instead we’ve got adjudication ruling that APT is in line with commercial law

 

 

Edited 20 hours ago by TheBrownBottle

[lovejoy]

4 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

In all honesty, it would likely need to be a much higher ceiling - you’d need to go back and look at club’s incomes and Man City’s deal in relation to others

 

Though of course the fact that this is one of the sponsorship deals that could see Man City receive serious punishment could prove an issue  

 

Again, my understanding is limited, but the Man City charges don’t relate to Etihad sponsorships, do they? i thought they were linked to much wider issues as opposed to being as cut and dried as that,

 

I’ll bow out at this point though—I’ve spent way too much time debating points that are mostly conjecture, especially on my side!

 

We’ll see what happens soon; you’d imagine the emergency meeting will take place quickly.

 

 

Edited 20 hours ago by lovejoy

[timeEd32]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I agree with everything you’ve written, though I would say that the only impact on us this summer just gone re the rules which have been ruled on would likely have been Brighton not being able to buy Minteh and us copping a big points deduction (or selling a star player).  

 

Maybe - or maybe if interest was always part of the calculation than some other rules would have been different.

 

In any case I'm not going to worry about what it might have meant for us in that scenario because, regardless of the rules, if we ever end up in that position again we've failed tremendously.

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, lovejoy said:

 

Again, my understanding is limited, but the Man City charges don’t relate to Etihad sponsorships, do they?

 

I’ll bow out at this point though—I’ve spent way too much time debating points that are mostly conjecture, especially on my side!

 

We’ll see what happens soon; you’d imagine the emergency meeting will take place quickly.

Yeah, some of those charges do go back to Etihad sponsorship as it relates to how much actually came from the airline and how much came directly from the ownership - and the emails involved in the case suggests that Man City were deliberately pretending that it was a sponsorship deal (which it looks like it was direct investment), which would of course mean that the actual sponsor amount was significantly less than that reported. 
 

Don’t worry mate; this is all conjecture from me too - I’m not a lawyer nor a legal expert (I realise we’re layman debating this!), I do find it oddly fun.  But I’m no more right than you are  

[lovejoy]

Just now, TheBrownBottle said:

Yeah, some of those charges do go back to Etihad sponsorship as it relates to how much actually came from the airline and how much came directly from the ownership - and the emails involved in the case suggests that Man City were deliberately pretending that it was a sponsorship deal (which it looks like it was direct investment), which would of course mean that the actual sponsor amount was significantly less than that reported. 
 

Don’t worry mate; this is all conjecture from me too - I’m not a lawyer nor a legal expert (I realise we’re layman debating this!), I do find it oddly fun.  But I’m no more right than you are  

 

I'm sure we're both hoping that there’s a benefit for NUFC in all of this, so we definitely have that in common!

Fingers crossed mate !

[TheBrownBottle]

5 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

Maybe - or maybe if interest was always part of the calculation than some other rules would have been different.

 

In any case I'm not going to worry about what it might have meant for us in that scenario because, regardless of the rules, if we ever end up in that position again we've failed tremendously.

Yep, true enough - some of the pieces on the board have been thrown into the air with this.  I can’t see it not having significant impacts on the PL generally - but it’s NUFC specifically where I’m struggling to see a significant impact.  

[TheBrownBottle]

2 minutes ago, lovejoy said:

 

I'm sure we're both hoping that there’s a benefit for NUFC in all of this, so we definitely have that in common!

Fingers crossed mate !

100% - I’m just a curmudgeon on this stuff; I never have much positivity when it’s out of our own hands  

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

The mechanics are back to how they were after the takeover and before Feb this year, along with the shareholder loan issue thrown in (which would make it potentially harder for us to sell players).  I don’t remember the rules particularly benefitting us as they previously existed. 

That wasn’t a loan from the owners to the club though. That was a loan between owners to maintain shareholdings. They aren’t the same thing being discussed here. As highlighted elsewhere NUFC as an entity currently have no interest free loans from owners

[Unbelievable]

5 hours ago, timeEd32 said:

 

I have no idea if this opens any legal doors for us, but...

 

 

 

Absolutely preposterous. If that were the case they would have stopped Man U and the likes years ago. It was all fine with American owners

[High Five o]

18 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Why don't we wait and see what the actual rule changes are. Man City's statement and Nick de Marco are indicating it's significant and in Man City's case they are stating that the APT rules were found unlawful and these were the original rules not only the one's in February. Only way to find out for sure is when the new rule or amendment is published. You don't cancel a meeting and then arrange an emergency meeting for minor changes

Yes, let’s see. 
The verdict is public and APT is not unlawful as a whole, but parts are.

 

[Hudson]