Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Conjo]

1 hour ago, macphisto said:

How do the current rules prevent organic growth?

 

I don't think they do in theory. In practical terms it is extremely difficult. It's quite rare that any business grows organically. Most successful/industry leading businesses operated at losses for ages before they became profitable.

 

If top flight football was more sport and less business, I'd be all for the rules. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I can’t see any financial rules that make sense unless they’re the same for everyone. As long as they’re tied to a club’s current position then they’re just going to maintain the status quo. 
 

People who know more about American sports can tell us about salary caps and luxury taxes etc. We also have the complication that football clubs compete internationally as well as within their own league. 

[macphisto]

1 hour ago, Unbelievable said:

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.

That is a huge presumption without a previous example in the past. Those regional sponsors, in the case of PSG and Man City, hugely inflated their deals as a way to boost growth to the point where the clubs did become organic. In the case of Newcastle now, we have two commercial partners from Saudi Arabia, they're hardly banging down the door to sponsor the club. 

 

@Jonas 100% agree with what you say but the initial growth isn't organic that's the point I was making, maybe cross wires.

 

 

Edited Thursday at 14:25 by macphisto

[macphisto]

2 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I can’t see any financial rules that make sense unless they’re the same for everyone. As long as they’re tied to a club’s current position then they’re just going to maintain the status quo. 
 

People who know more about American sports can tell us about salary caps and luxury taxes etc. We also have the complication that football clubs compete internationally as well as within their own league. 

As the rules claim to be about financial sustainability, I find it crazy that the key metric is not external debt. 

[Unbelievable]

12 minutes ago, macphisto said:

That is a huge presumption without a previous example in the past. Those regional sponsors, in the case of PSG and Man City, hugely inflated their deals as a way to boost growth to the point where the clubs did become organic. In the case of Newcastle now, we have two commercial partners from Saudi Arabia, they're hardly banging down the door to sponsor the club. 

 

@Jonas 100% agree with what you say but the initial growth isn't organic that's the point I was making, maybe cross wires.

 

 

 

How do you know which companies the club’s commercial department are having talks with? What we do know is that the PL has out a regulatory framework in place that was specifically designed to prevent us (and any other club in our situation) from doing commercial deals with companies if they deem the value of said deal a threat to clubs with current bigger commercial deals. How is that not preventing us from growing organically?

 

Edit: I guess you may be using a very narrow definition of “organic growth”. For me non-organic growth would be growth subsidised directly by a club’s owners. These rules however, through loosely defined “associated parties” and non-transparancy combined with non-accountability of the vetting process, also prohibit indirect investment, which is madness. Of course any prospective sponsor of a football club associates with the club and its owners, or they would sponsor generic events or any other club. At grassroots level it is often local businesses that sponsor events, be they sports, cultural or whatever. They have an association of some sort, often geographical, but also in terms of personal preference of the sponsors’ leadership, company strategy, etc. If you decline any entity sponsorship from parties that hold an interest in them and only allow sponsorship from companies that might as well sponsor a rivalling entity, then clearly you are clipping that entities’ wings.

 

 

Edited Thursday at 14:45 by Unbelievable

[TheBrownBottle]

3 hours ago, Unbelievable said:

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.

Agreed - it should be straightforward, provided that the PL had rejected previous potential sponsorship deals.  We’ll find out soon enough if this has happened.  I’m betting it hasn’t. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I don’t think things will be rejected too often, it’ll be more that clubs don’t do the deals because they know it’s possible they might be knocked back. 

[FloydianMag]

17 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Agreed - it should be straightforward, provided that the PL had rejected previous potential sponsorship deals.  We’ll find out soon enough if this has happened.  I’m betting it hasn’t. 

I don’t know…….always the pessimist  

 

 

Edited Thursday at 15:01 by FloydianMag

[Jackie Broon]

15 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Agreed - it should be straightforward, provided that the PL had rejected previous potential sponsorship deals.  We’ll find out soon enough if this has happened.  I’m betting it hasn’t. 

 

So they've rejected three of Man City's sponsorship deals in the past 12 months, but you're betting that they haven't rejected any from us, the club the changes were actually designed to restrict?

[FloydianMag]

37 minutes ago, macphisto said:

That is a huge presumption without a previous example in the past. Those regional sponsors, in the case of PSG and Man City, hugely inflated their deals as a way to boost growth to the point where the clubs did become organic. In the case of Newcastle now, we have two commercial partners from Saudi Arabia, they're hardly banging down the door to sponsor the club. 

 

@Jonas 100% agree with what you say but the initial growth isn't organic that's the point I was making, maybe cross wires.

 

 

 

Growing organically needs plenty of manure………..money as the cartel clubs have demonstrated over the years. Fuck this organic bollocks.

[Whitley mag]

9 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

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

I’m sure the club would be willing to divulge this information if they thought it would bring the PL to a CAT, we’ve already supported the Man City case and I’m sure they’d be quite happy to see fines and bans handed down to rival clubs and directors for breaching competition rules.

[duo]

 

time to fill our boots

 

 

Edited Thursday at 16:35 by duo

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

I recon right now there is a race between:

 

1. Man City going back to the panel to get them to confirm that their ruling means the current rules are void.  

2. The premier league trying to get new amended rules that appear to address the unlawful elements

 

Man City are trying to slow down 2 with the letters to the clubs, threats of more league action, etc etc.  The Premier league are trying to speed up 2 by saying the rules are fine with the exception of a couple parts that we can solve on a zoom call.  

 

If Man City get confirmation the rules are void they will announce their 3 sponsorship deals that were blocked and maybe a couple other clubs will follow suit.  

 

If the rules are amended first we'll be stuck in the current limbo of another tribunal and clubs still having to go through a potentially unlawful process.

 

 

 

Edited Thursday at 17:26 by KetsbaiaIsBald

[gdm]

4 minutes ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

I recon right now there is a race between:

 

1. Man City going back to the panel to get them to confirm that their ruling means the current rules are void.  

2. The premier league trying to get new amended rules that appear to address the unlawful elements

 

Man City are trying to slow down 2 with the letters to the clubs, threats of more league action, etc etc.  The Premier league are trying to speed up 2 by saying the rules are fine with the exception of a couple parts that we can solve on a zoom call.  

 

If Man City get confirmation the rules are void they will announce their 3 sponsorship deals that were blocked and maybe a couple other clubs will follow suit.  

 

If the rules are amended first we'll be stuck in the current limbo of another tribunal and clubs still having to go through a potentially unlawful process.

 

 

 

 

Surely Man City and the clubs that backed them up can just stall any vote by saying they won’t vote till the ruling is clarified. The PL can’t just vote it thru without them 

[Hudson]

23 minutes ago, gdm said:

Surely Man City and the clubs that backed them up can just stall any vote by saying they won’t vote till the ruling is clarified. The PL can’t just vote it thru without them 

Possibly really depends on how many abstain the vote. 
 

The whole point  is mute anyway as the whole PSR/APT contract is classed as illegal, In UK Contract law by the pure fact the certain elements are illegal and anti competitive. 
 

Yes the Judges verdict on a lot of the points was in favour of the Prem, but that don’t mean shit in the grand scheme.

 

Its all about what happens with the PSR 115 charges now (going back to 2014 ?), if this proves that PSR is illegal on any one given point. Then fuck me Everton and Forest for a start have a massive case after last season.

 

On a plus note, Masters ain’t getting out of this one clean. 

[FloydianMag]

37 minutes ago, gdm said:

Surely Man City and the clubs that backed them up can just stall any vote by saying they won’t vote till the ruling is clarified. The PL can’t just vote it thru without them 

All they need is a bloc of seven clubs to vote against and they’d prevent any rule changes.

[Nepharite]

There is a three-week minimum notification period for any vote in the Premier League. There's no vote happening soon!

[Hudson]

1 minute ago, Nepharite said:

There is a three-week minimum notification period for any vote in the Premier League. There's no vote happening soon!

So is the current rule book void while we wait for whatever they concoct this time to be voted in ?

[Nepharite]

1 minute ago, Hudson said:

So is the current rule book void while we wait for whatever they concoct this time to be voted in ?

My understanding is that the noise around the soft loans will need a major re-think by the Premier League. They can't just "re-set" the rules to 2014 because these loans and their effects can't be calculated/dismissed. As it stands the rules aren't fit for purpose. Even though the panel was sympathetic to what the Premier League were trying to do. IMO there needs to be a major re-think of how they decide what makes a club sustainable but keep Man City, Newcastle and Aston Villa pumping monstrous amounts into the clubs making it unfair. I don't know how they do it. But I'm sure there will be some good ideas on here. Like someone said the average fan doesn't care if the owners make a fucking profit!

 

[duo]

1 hour ago, Hudson said:

So is the current rule book void while we wait for whatever they concoct this time to be voted in ?

What the Times are implying - illegal in their current form

[Hudson]

1 minute ago, duo said:

What the Times are implying - illegal in their current form

Yeah, lots of people have suddenly had realised how much of a win this is for city and how much Masters and Co are in trouble.

 

 

[Terraloon]

1 hour ago, gdm said:

Surely Man City and the clubs that backed them up can just stall any vote by saying they won’t vote till the ruling is clarified. The PL can’t just vote it thru without them 

 It appears that Chelseas support for City was a repeat of why they voted against the amended rules namely process as opposed to the application of an APT process. It would seem that alternatives to the amended rules had been submitted for discussion but weren’t ever voted on.

 

Whilst as someone pointed out that in the PL rules there is a requirement to wait 21 days to vote on rules at a general meeting at 13.5 of the Pls A&M of association there is provision should 18 clubs (90% of those able to vote) agree the time requirements can be ignored

 

[Hudson]

17 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

 It appears that Chelseas support for City was a repeat of why they voted against the amended rules namely process as opposed to the application of an APT process. It would seem that alternatives to the amended rules had been submitted for discussion but weren’t ever voted on.

 

Whilst as someone pointed out that in the PL rules there is a requirement to wait 21 days to vote on rules at a general meeting at 13.5 of the Pls A&M of association there is provision should 18 clubs (90% of those able to vote) agree the time requirements can be ignored

 

That’s not going to happen, not unless the cartel makes massive allowances for APT.

 

Anyway I’m off to stock up on popcorn. As a side, I think the club (at this point) is playing a blinder. 

[TheBrownBottle]

4 hours ago, FloydianMag said:

I don’t know…….always the pessimist  

 

 

 

Of course!    When it comes to those running football - which includes our own ownership - I’m not a beacon of positivity or reverence.

 

My scepticism would boil down to the ongoing lack of sponsorship deals from KSA, including for things which seem so easy to have pushed through (training ground / kit, stadium, etc).  We haven’t done the low-hanging fruit, but we’ve got massive deals which the PL has blocked?

 

My suspicion (and it can be only that) is that part of the PL waving the takeover through was guarantees of precisely this nature.  It might go some way to explain why the ownership has been so inert for so long. 

[Terraloon]

1 minute ago, Hudson said:

That’s not going to happen, not unless the cartel makes massive allowances for APT.

 

Anyway I’m off to stock up on popcorn. As a side, I think the club (at this point) is playing a blinder. 

  
Time will tell but from everything I read save the issue of soft loans (which ironically City weren’t against when the PL clubs made the decision to exempt these loans from PSR calculations ) the objections were about the process to determine FV . Shifting the burden of proof and the access to the databank were the key objections and not the principal of APT.