Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[TheBrownBottle]

2 hours ago, Hudson said:

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. 

These aren’t the rules that were in place in 2014, and Man City are accused of some pretty serious things tbf. 

[TheBrownBottle]

5 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

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?

Yep, I’m betting precisely that.  The club has been hyper-compliant so far.  

[Unbelievable]

11 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

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. 

Silverstone just a few months ago referred to it not making sense to make short term deals that hurt the club’s ling term prospects. His exact words:

”“Our job is to make sure we now maximise the value and future value of Newcastle United. We don’t want to do deals now that in one to two years — when we get closer to our ambitions — are undervalued. It’s a fine balance but we need to find the right partners at the right value”

 

 

Edited Thursday at 20:15 by Unbelievable

[TheBrownBottle]

5 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

Silverstone just a few months ago referred to it not making sense to make short term deals that hurt the club’s ling term prospects. His exact words:

”“Our job is to make sure we now maximise the value and future value of Newcastle United. We don’t want to do deals now that in one to two years — when we get closer to our ambitions — are undervalued. It’s a fine balance but we need to find the right partners at the right value”

 

 

 

Yeah, I remember him saying this - after we’d signed long term deals for our kit and main shirt sponsorships which were a lot less than those of the Sky six.

 

There is nothing stopping the club from signing one year deals with PIF-linked firms and upping them the following year.

[timeEd32]

1 hour ago, Nepharite said:

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!

 

 

The already very rich owners? No, don't really care about them.

 

But a fundamental problem with football is that clubs struggle to make money or break even, even when their revenue becomes significant. All 32 NFL teams made a profit last year; only four PL teams did in the latest accounts. Part of that is the NFL generates more money, but football's main issue is a spending problem. It's a never-ending cycle because if you lower your spending then you are likely going to be less successful and success is directly tied to revenue (PL status, Europe, etc.). Add in player sales and 50% or more of every larger club's revenue is unpredictable. And that is why the entire sport is fueled by the mega rich and debt, which is directly related to both the good and the bad of the financial restrictions.

[Hudson]

41 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

These aren’t the rules that were in place in 2014, and Man City are accused of some pretty serious things tbf. 

Ohh I’m fully aware of some of the things they have been accused of . 
But large parts of the current version of PSR were created back in 2014, and that will no doubt be attacked by City’s lawyers during this trial. 
 

 

 

Edited Thursday at 20:53 by Hudson

[Wolfcastle]

Could write everyone's debt to owners out of the equation, take Brighton's number and allow everyone to write off up to the same in FFP terms. So the less debt to owners everyone has the more ffp leeway they should be given to make things even and avoid any more of this horseshit.

I'd be fine to call it quits after a 300m plus spend and live within their stupid system thereafter.

 

 

Edited Thursday at 22:28 by Wolfcastle

[TheBrownBottle]

2 hours ago, Wolfcastle said:

Could write everyone's debt to owners out of the equation, take Brighton's number and allow everyone to write off up to the same in FFP terms. So the less debt to owners everyone has the more ffp leeway they should be given to make things even and avoid any more of this horseshit.

I'd be fine to call it quits after a 300m plus spend and live within their stupid system thereafter.

 

 

 

I’ve always thought that the solution was allowing owners to spend but capped to the turnover of the previous season’s richest club.  So if you take over Bournemouth and they have a turnover of £100m, and Man City have a turnover of £600m, then - bingo - you have a lot of spending leeway.  It means that you can’t blow the league apart by outspending even the big boys by a ridiculous margin, but you can pump as much money in as a you want until your income is at a level where you don’t need to anymore.

 

Won’t happen due to UEFA regs etc, but it always struck me that what is unfair is the ability to spend well beyond anyone else in the league.  If you can only ever match through investment the highest earner, then what’s the issue?

[McDog]

13 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I’ve always thought that the solution was allowing owners to spend but capped to the turnover of the previous season’s richest club.  So if you take over Bournemouth and they have a turnover of £100m, and Man City have a turnover of £600m, then - bingo - you have a lot of spending leeway.  It means that you can’t blow the league apart by outspending even the big boys by a ridiculous margin, but you can pump as much money in as a you want until your income is at a level where you don’t need to anymore.

 

Won’t happen due to UEFA regs etc, but it always struck me that what is unfair is the ability to spend well beyond anyone else in the league.  If you can only ever match through investment the highest earner, then what’s the issue?

 

 

Brilliant idea in my opinion. That or a cap on spending is the only way. The poorer teams still can't compete but as of now, nobody outside a few can anyway so why not?

[r0cafella]

37 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I’ve always thought that the solution was allowing owners to spend but capped to the turnover of the previous season’s richest club.  So if you take over Bournemouth and they have a turnover of £100m, and Man City have a turnover of £600m, then - bingo - you have a lot of spending leeway.  It means that you can’t blow the league apart by outspending even the big boys by a ridiculous margin, but you can pump as much money in as a you want until your income is at a level where you don’t need to anymore.

 

Won’t happen due to UEFA regs etc, but it always struck me that what is unfair is the ability to spend well beyond anyone else in the league.  If you can only ever match through investment the highest earner, then what’s the issue?

This is one way of addressing of the structural weakness or strengths depending on where you sit of the current rules. Unfortunately the league would never agree to such rules as they want the field firmly tilted. Your proposal essentially ends the gravy train for the likes of Palace.

[TRon]

7 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I’ve always thought that the solution was allowing owners to spend but capped to the turnover of the previous season’s richest club.  So if you take over Bournemouth and they have a turnover of £100m, and Man City have a turnover of £600m, then - bingo - you have a lot of spending leeway.  It means that you can’t blow the league apart by outspending even the big boys by a ridiculous margin, but you can pump as much money in as a you want until your income is at a level where you don’t need to anymore.

 

Won’t happen due to UEFA regs etc, but it always struck me that what is unfair is the ability to spend well beyond anyone else in the league.  If you can only ever match through investment the highest earner, then what’s the issue?

 

I have a feeling this is somewhere close to where we'll end up as a compromise. No idea how it will hold up with IEFA regs but at some point those might get challenged in court as well.

[Slim]

Thing is with UEFA regs they have shown they only fine you so no big deal.

[Stifler]

Man City’s supporters trust has sent a letter to Man City encouraging them to start petitioning to get Masters out.

 

Additionally, I don’t think it’s been mentioned on here yet, but Masters has cancelled a meeting with broadcasters in order to attend the ‘emergency meetings’.

[Jackie Broon]

I think the change in the APT rules that resulted in Man City bringing the arbitration were proposed and pushed through by a group of clubs, rather than the board, and the board advised against those changes. Masters is an easy scapegoat but he's not really the problem.

[Wolfcastle]

15 hours ago, McDog said:

 

 

Brilliant idea in my opinion. That or a cap on spending is the only way. The poorer teams still can't compete but as of now, nobody outside a few can anyway so why not?

But it would also leave the door open for those clubs to one day be able to compete, via the right takeover, might never happen but presently its certain not to happen.

Maddening it wont even be considered. Solves almost everything that could be reasonably asked. Doesn't guarantee Spurs/Arsenal/Liverpool/Man U stay at the top and that's why it wont be considered.

 

 

Edited Friday at 16:50 by Wolfcastle

[Stifler]

20 hours ago, timeEd32 said:

The already very rich owners? No, don't really care about them.

 

But a fundamental problem with football is that clubs struggle to make money or break even, even when their revenue becomes significant. All 32 NFL teams made a profit last year; only four PL teams did in the latest accounts. Part of that is the NFL generates more money, but football's main issue is a spending problem. It's a never-ending cycle because if you lower your spending then you are likely going to be less successful and success is directly tied to revenue (PL status, Europe, etc.). Add in player sales and 50% or more of every larger club's revenue is unpredictable. And that is why the entire sport is fueled by the mega rich and debt, which is directly related to both the good and the bad of the financial restrictions.

We can’t compare to American leagues like the NFL. The NFL has no competition, it doesn’t even have a cup tournament that isn’t part of the league season. It can easily have things like wage caps, on top of that, the league owns the players, not the clubs.

 

We have too much competition, pretty much every country in the world plays our football. If we imposed salary caps on our league, then every other league would have someone bankrolling them.

We need FIFA to come in and propose spending caps, otherwise everything proposed, will just leave our league at the risk of being topped. 

[FloydianMag]

5 minutes ago, Stifler said:

We can’t compare to American leagues like the NFL. The NFL has no competition, it doesn’t even have a cup tournament that isn’t part of the league season. It can easily have things like wage caps, on top of that, the league owns the players, not the clubs.

 

We have too much competition, pretty much every country in the world plays our football. If we imposed salary caps on our league, then every other league would have someone bankrolling them.

We need FIFA to come in and propose spending caps, otherwise everything proposed, will just leave our league at the risk of being topped. 

FIFA took a battering when the attempted to cap agents fees in December 2023 losing in the Courts on the basis it was anti competitive.

[Keegans Export]

38 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

FIFA took a battering when the attempted to cap agents fees in December 2023 losing in the Courts on the basis it was anti competitive.

On the other hand, wasn't the salary cap in Rugby Union approved on the basis that the teams under it (Saracens being the club who brought the case) were still competitive both in terms of player acquisition and in terms of success on the field? 

 

I think a salary/expenditure cap can still be lawful provided it doesn't stifle competition. In fact, a salary/expenditure cap, if set high enough and flexible enough to change with various metrics, is probably more competitive than the current rules that allow some clubs spend more than other clubs they are in direct competition with.

[Stifler]

48 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

FIFA took a battering when the attempted to cap agents fees in December 2023 losing in the Courts on the basis it was anti competitive.

You don’t put a salary spending cap on though, you put an expending cap on it.

[JEToon]

English Rugby sides were predominantly rubbish in Europe for years, other than, Saracens, the team who broke the salary cap. 

 

Every other major side out with England would see an EPL salary cap as a chance to put their foot right on English teams throats. 

 

 

[Keegans Export]

7 minutes ago, JEToon said:

English Rugby sides were predominantly rubbish in Europe for years, other than, Saracens, the team who broke the salary cap. 

 

Every other major side out with England would see an EPL salary cap as a chance to put their foot right on English teams throats. 

 

Depends where you set it though doesn't it? Obviously they're estimates but most sources agree that the top spenders salary-wise are Man Utd/City/Chelsea at around £200m/season. Outside the big two, the biggest spenders in La Liga are half of that. The only two I can find that seem to be over it are Bayern and Real Madrid.

 

Edit - you could also make the argument that if teams like ourselves and Villa were allowed to spend more, that would attract more quality players to the PL, which would attract more interest/viewers globally, which would increase earnings of all PL clubs, which could be used to justify an increase in the cap.

 

 

Edited Friday at 18:12 by Keegans Export

[JEToon]

2 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

Depends where you set it though doesn't it? Obviously they're estimates but most sources agree that the top spenders salary-wise are Man Utd/City/Chelsea at around £200m/season. Outside the big two, the biggest spenders in La Liga are half of that. The only two I can find that seem to be over it are Bayern and Real Madrid.

 

You are overlooking a pretty relevant part of the world. 

[Keegans Export]

2 minutes ago, JEToon said:

 

You are overlooking a pretty relevant part of the world. 

...Saudi?

[timeEd32]

47 minutes ago, Stifler said:

We can’t compare to American leagues like the NFL. The NFL has no competition, it doesn’t even have a cup tournament that isn’t part of the league season. It can easily have things like wage caps, on top of that, the league owns the players, not the clubs.

 

We have too much competition, pretty much every country in the world plays our football. If we imposed salary caps on our league, then every other league would have someone bankrolling them.

We need FIFA to come in and propose spending caps, otherwise everything proposed, will just leave our league at the risk of being topped. 

 

I was just highlighting the root of the problem; I wasn't suggesting any sort of solution. I don't think there will ever be one unless something like the Super League happens, which would fix this particular problem for a select number of clubs, destroy the others, and ruin the sport entirely.

 

Manchester United made more money last season than 31 of 32 NFL teams (the Dallas Cowboys being the only one higher) and lost over £100m. The Cowboys made over $500m. The basic financials of football are utterly fucked and it's why the governing bodies feel the need to oversee spending, which led to certain owners using that as an opportunity to try to protect their standing/revenue.

[WilliamPS]

Salary caps are used in America to help the owners get rich. In the PL it’s the players who get the cash. Seems fairer when they are the talent