Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[LFEE]

8 hours ago, Abacus said:

For us, stadium naming rights and training ground sponsorships haven't happened yet. Weren't there rumours of sponsorship deals on the way? If that was the case, I'd wonder why they have stalled. 

There won’t be a decision on the stadium until January so not sure why anyone would expect sponsorships tied to it announced before then.

[madras]

12 minutes ago, LFEE said:

There won’t be a decision on the stadium until January so not sure why anyone would expect sponsorships tied to it announced before then.

Current stadium ?

[Paully]

 

[Mattoon]

I don't think any supporter of sound mind wants us to do a "City" or "PSG" or even a "Chelsea". But neither do they want to see us tangled up in egregious red tape preventing organic growth. Where's the soul in buying the league? Invest wisely, build a strong, competitive squad and allow us to compete fairly, it shouldn't be too much to ask.

 

We don't want to be selling off our promising youth to pay the piper or still have a vein of Ashley cast-offs running through the heart of the squad 3, 4 or 5 years down the line. Yes, there needs to be rules to stop hyper-capitalistic owners putting their clubs in danger, but the rules shouldn't create a divide between the haves and the have nots. No team should have more sway, more leeway, more margin for error than the others. You can't pull up the ladder on the other 14 and bury your head in the sand.

[Heron]

I get the impression that were City to not win the league they'd be desperate for us to nowadays like Like a EPL game of Risk.

[r0cafella]

Matt slater of the Athletic describing it as a draw fwiw. 
 

Also according to Matt Slater it he rules brought in when we were takeover are unlawful and we are back to the rules prior to that. 

[Whitley mag]

34 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Matt slater of the Athletic describing it as a draw fwiw. 
 

Also according to Matt Slater it he rules brought in when we were takeover are unlawful and we are back to the rules prior to that. 

Matt Slater who regularly quotes PL sources in these matters, would imagine this is the line the PL have fed him.

[Whitley mag]

23 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

How would they show loss of income?

I’d imagine there’s already highly paid Barristers working on standing for an external party to bring the PL to a CAT.

[r0cafella]

20 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

Matt Slater who regularly quotes PL sources in these matters, would imagine this is the line the PL have fed him.

Think he’s a really good journalist personally like. The case is obviously nuanced too. 

[Nucasol]

Good article here that’s genuinely balanced: https://archive.ph/DMm5B

[TheBrownBottle]

1 hour ago, Whitley mag said:

I’d imagine there’s already highly paid Barristers working on standing for an external party to bring the PL to a CAT.

They’d need proof of sponsorship deals they had lined up and rejected 

[r0cafella]

I think we get a clear answer as to who has won when new rules are agreed, I’m really intrigued to see which approach the league takes. 

[TheBrownBottle]

11 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

I think we get a clear answer as to who has won when new rules are agreed, I’m really intrigued to see which approach the league takes. 

Yep, the new APT rules will be interested - and how they’ll be enforced.  Can’t see them rushing this - they’ll want to make absolutely sure that they’re in line with any legal requirements.  It would be hugely damaging to be challenged - and lose - again. 

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

15 minutes ago, Nucasol said:

Good article here that’s genuinely balanced: https://archive.ph/DMm5B

 

Quote

There is also a subtle but pretty significant piece of legalese in the verdict, too. The panel found that, by overlooking shareholder loans, the Premier League were found to have breached competition law ‘by object’. This means that the league actually set out to do it, rather than did it by accident. It is similar when it comes to abuse of power by the league.

I wonder what the impact of this is. Maybe it makes it easier to now look for damages.  
 

It is interesting that some clubs, like us, put funds into the club by issuing new shares.  Our owners have put in additional funds several times by issuing say 1 share for 30 million (I’ve forgotten the name of this transaction).  Whilst others put in money through loans.  Ashley had a something like a hundred million load the whole time he owned us.  There must be benefits to doing it one way or the other.  Given Ashley chose loans I presume it’s better for the owner to do this.  
 

On selling the club it makes no difference as the load is factored into the price. I guess it makes taking the money out easier.  Maybe it also allows shared owners to keep the same ownership percentages with a single owner injecting funds.  I wonder if there are other issues what will make it difficult for the clubs that have loans to simple switch approaches.  

 

[bobbydazzla]

43 minutes ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

 

I wonder what the impact of this is. Maybe it makes it easier to now look for damages.  
 

It is interesting that some clubs, like us, put funds into the club by issuing new shares.  Our owners have put in additional funds several times by issuing say 1 share for 30 million (I’ve forgotten the name of this transaction).  Whilst others put in money through loans.  Ashley had a something like a hundred million load the whole time he owned us.  There must be benefits to doing it one way or the other.  Given Ashley chose loans I presume it’s better for the owner to do this.  
 

On selling the club it makes no difference as the load is factored into the price. I guess it makes taking the money out easier.  Maybe it also allows shared owners to keep the same ownership percentages with a single owner injecting funds.  I wonder if there are other issues what will make it difficult for the clubs that have loans to simple switch approaches.  

 

in layman’s terms as I’m not a bean counter….
 

shares mean your money is tied up in the club, only accessible via paying dividends (incurs tax) or selling some / all of your shares to a 3rd party and therefore diluting / relinquishing control of the club

 

a loan is just money that has been given to the club, it can be recalled and interest can be paid on it. It doesn’t affect ownership if you extract all or some of the loan money from the club

 

 

Edited October 10 by bobbydazzla

[Stifler]

2 hours ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

I wonder what the impact of this is. Maybe it makes it easier to now look for damages.  
 

It is interesting that some clubs, like us, put funds into the club by issuing new shares.  Our owners have put in additional funds several times by issuing say 1 share for 30 million (I’ve forgotten the name of this transaction).  Whilst others put in money through loans.  Ashley had a something like a hundred million load the whole time he owned us.  There must be benefits to doing it one way or the other.  Given Ashley chose loans I presume it’s better for the owner to do this.  
 

On selling the club it makes no difference as the load is factored into the price. I guess it makes taking the money out easier.  Maybe it also allows shared owners to keep the same ownership percentages with a single owner injecting funds.  I wonder if there are other issues what will make it difficult for the clubs that have loans to simple switch approaches. 

It is capped at £200m, and isn’t classed as footballing revenue. Aston Villa owners put in £50m this way a few days ago, and this was the discussion.

[TRon]

14 hours ago, Unbelievable said:

Mate, I think all most level headed Newcastle fans would want to see is to have our owners allowed to use their financial might to create an even battle field. Just cap yearly revenue on footballing cost so that each club has the same limitations and it comes down to who runs the best operation. It’s more or less how the F1 budget cap works and after a few years in existence lo and behold the competitiveness is insane and all teams are making a profit (self sustainability).

 

This basically. While I'd probably relish the opportunity to blow everyone out of the water by using our money to sign the best players like Chelsea and City did, I can understand why it's not the right way. I'd be happy to just be allowed to spend what the cartel clubs ndo using our own money.

 

That still doesn't put us on a level playing field btw, as they have far bigger brand value now, which in many cases they have bulldozed their way through by chucking the owners money at it.. But at least we could compete.

[Jackie Broon]

My reading of the decision is that it is likely to be important for us in that respect.

 

In their evidence the PL said that the APT FMV rules before the amendments made in February had an inflationary effect, that APTs could be increased over time under the pre-amemdment rules and so the changes were necessary.

 

They essentially wanted to completely restrict our ability to grow our revenue over time.

 

The PL lost that argument.

 

Whilst this isn't going to lead to us being able to instantly catch up to the big 6 it reopens a mechanism for us to do that in the long term.

[Unbelievable]

4 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

They’d need proof of sponsorship deals they had lined up and rejected 

Rejected or stalled, as per the ruling.

 

what makes you think this is particularly difficult to prove for any club? They would know what deals they have submitted for ratification, which were rejected outright or lowered without justification/evidence (again, as per the ruling) and which were stalled unreasonably (longer than 2 months I believe as per the ruling). Any club could have such a list drawn up within the hour if pressed.

[macphisto]

15 hours ago, Mattoon said:

I don't think any supporter of sound mind wants us to do a "City" or "PSG" or even a "Chelsea". But neither do they want to see us tangled up in egregious red tape preventing organic growth. Where's the soul in buying the league? Invest wisely, build a strong, competitive squad and allow us to compete fairly, it shouldn't be too much to ask.

 

We don't want to be selling off our promising youth to pay the piper or still have a vein of Ashley cast-offs running through the heart of the squad 3, 4 or 5 years down the line. Yes, there needs to be rules to stop hyper-capitalistic owners putting their clubs in danger, but the rules shouldn't create a divide between the haves and the have nots. No team should have more sway, more leeway, more margin for error than the others. You can't pull up the ladder on the other 14 and bury your head in the sand.

How do the current rules prevent organic growth?

[Jackie Broon]

12 minutes ago, macphisto said:

How do the current rules prevent organic growth?

 

Realistically, I don't think there is any way that any club outside of the big 6 could ever bridge the financial gap to them with organic growth alone.

[Mattoon]

3 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Realistically, I don't think there is any way that any club outside of the big 6 could ever bridge the financial gap to them with organic growth alone.

 

This, plus we started from a much lower bar because of the Ashley era, so much dross left behind.

[Unbelievable]

1 hour ago, macphisto said:

How do the current rules prevent organic growth?

In an industry where commercial success largely follows (sustained) sporting success, how ever is a club going to catch up if some regulator says one club cannot have a sponsor (with any association to its ownership even if logically commercial interest would be higher from those regional parties thanks to its association with the owners’ interest, with burden of proof on the club side to prove otherwise and without any argumentative justification required for rejection upon ratification no less) that is more than a quarter or half the value of another club’s sponsor due specifically to their existing differences in revenue? That is a self sustaining/defeating principle if ever I saw one.

 

 

Edited October 10 by Unbelievable

[Jonas]

1 hour ago, macphisto said:

How do the current rules prevent organic growth?

If you cant invest, you cant achieve much less maintain a degree of success and thus profile neeeded that the club would then grow (overseas shirt sales etc.) live within that higher level.

That's how every club has 'organically' grown and they'd be preventing other clubs from doing the same.

Furthermore it also prevents those clubs from falling backwards and organically living within lesser means themselves as a result.

[macphisto]

Just now, Jackie Broon said:

 

Realistically, I don't think there is any way that any club outside of the big 6 could ever bridge the financial gap to them with organic growth alone.

100% and it's always been like that, certainly in the Premier League era and introduction of 4 Champions League places.