Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability - New APT Rules Approved by Premier League

[Stifler]

37 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

The problem is if you increased the limit to one of those numbers and a club took it to the max then they'd be massively breaching UEFA's rules. 

It depends. I think a big barrier is also the sponsorship being restricted. Easing/losing that rule would open it up a lot more for those clubs.

Of course it will mean 10-12 of the Premier Leagues clubs get left behind.

[FloydianMag]

1 hour ago, Stifler said:

It depends. I think a big barrier is also the sponsorship being restricted. Easing/losing that rule would open it up a lot more for those clubs.

Of course it will mean 10-12 of the Premier Leagues clubs get left behind.

Not much different to how it is now🤷🏼‍♂️

[Stifler]

2 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Not much different to how it is now🤷🏼‍♂️

Not really.

I think the gap is going to increase again.

You have Spurs with their mega stadium.

Man Utd wanting to build theirs.

Arsenal wanting to increase their capacity.

Man City extending their stadium.

Us building a new stadium.

Villa will do something with theirs at some point.

 

You are going to have a case where you have 8-10 clubs with a stadium capacity of 55k and over. At least half of those in time you would expect to have a capacity of over 70k.

Matchday revenue alone is going to make it so other clubs can’t touch those clubs.

I honestly think that in the next 5-10 years we are going to see a massive shift in the dynamics again.

Even if we look at other clubs like Nottingham Forest, Leeds, Leicester, possibly Birmingham City who are looking at 50k-55k capacities. 10 years ago those capacities were big, now they will be classed as fairly moderate. What it will mean though is that the these clubs will almost guarantee themselves a place in the Premier League in future, and the gap between the Premier League, and the Championship will grow.

We’ll end up creating a natural gap that in unlikely to be bridged, and that might ultimately lead to locking the Premier League. There will certainly be calls to do so.

[FloydianMag]

 

[Stifler]

I haven’t read the article, but the subline there is a bit misleading.

I don’t think anyone thinks Nottingham Forest will be up there towards the end of the season.

[PopeandGlory]

“…but Newcastle and United…”

 

 

 

Edited November 4 by PopeandGlory

[FloydianMag]

 

[The College Dropout]

14 hours ago, huss9 said:

£35m a season net spend ffs.

always was a ridiculous level to set it at.

It's not 35m net spend. It's 35m accounting loss on football.

[The College Dropout]

13 hours ago, Stifler said:

I haven’t read the article, but the subline there is a bit misleading.

I don’t think anyone thinks Nottingham Forest will be up there towards the end of the season.

Forest seem to have ambitious owners. As do Forest.

 

It's Brighton and Brentford that seem happy to be on the gravy train. They are FFP Champions with low wages.

[Shearergol]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

Forest seem to have ambitious owners. As do Forest.

 

It's Brighton and Brentford that seem happy to be on the gravy train. They are FFP Champions with low wages.

 

And Forest.

[Rod]

25 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

 

And Forest.

What about Forest though?

[Stal]

56 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

 

 

Forest proving this is good title race – but Newcastle and United should be in it too

This could be an even better title race if clubs such as Aston Villa and Brighton were not handicapped by financial rules that only serve to maintain the status quo

 

Nottingham Forest are third. Now imagine where they might have been had they not been forced to sell Brennan Johnson to Tottenham Hotspur? Higher? Top, even? We’ll never know.

He’s in rare form now, Johnson. A goal a game in six fixtures across three competitions between September 18 and October 6 and another yesterday in an impressive 4-1 win over Aston Villa. It was the big goal, too: the equaliser at the start of the second half that sparked Tottenham’s revival. He had never hit such form in the Premier League with Forest, or even with Tottenham last season, so there are no guarantees that he would be in the same nick and having the same impact had he remained with his first club.

What we do know is that Forest did not need to sell. Not really. Their best player ended up at Tottenham because that is what Premier League rules demanded. Johnson had to leave to finance Forest’s investment in a Premier League future. Evangelos Marinakis, the owner, wasn’t allowed to finance that with his own enormous wealth, even though Johnson was an obvious asset. So Forest have thrived despite Premier League regulations. They have succeeded despite the intentions of rivals who are very keen on these limitations. Long may they continue to occupy the spots believed to be the preserve of others.

 

Forest are where ambition gets you, sometimes. On other occasions, a club can spend big and end up where West Ham United are now, or Ipswich Town, who are still without a win despite a summer investment of £106million. The right recruitment is as important as selecting the right manager, or the right tactics. The difference being that the league does not rule on those choices, beyond outlawing tapping up or foul play. Yet Forest had to sell Johnson to meet some bogus calculation of what made the club sustainable. And when they delayed to get a better price out of Tottenham — one that looks more than reasonable now — it resulted in a points deduction.

Tottenham’s first offer was an undervalued £30million, but they went low because it was common knowledge Forest were struggling with their Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) calculations. Forest held out for £47.5million but missed the accountancy deadline. The Premier League actually punished them for making a further £17.5million profit.

Yet look at them now. Forest occupy their highest league position since September 1998 and are the only club to win in any competition against league leaders Liverpool this season. Arsenal couldn’t do it. Nor Manchester United, Chelsea, RB Leipzig and AC Milan. Yet Forest went to Anfield on September 14, kept a clean sheet — also unique against Liverpool this season — and won through a goal by Callum Hudson-Odoi. They have also got creditable draws this season at Chelsea and Brighton & Hove Albion. Some tough matches are to come — Newcastle United, Arsenal, Manchester City, Aston Villa and a Rúben Amorim-inspired Manchester United are among their next six opponents — but nobody mocks their scattergun recruitment now. Nuno Espírito Santo has even found a way to turn Chris Wood into Erling Haaland.

If there were no regulations around profitability and sustainability or financial fair play, Manchester City would just win the league every year. That is the argument. It’s wholly false. Forest, who fell foul of PSR, are what can happen if smaller clubs are allowed to dream. They become a pest to all those who feel entitled. As for Manchester City, if they don’t win the league this year it won’t be because of noble red tape. It will be the usual myriad collection of factors including injuries to key players such as Rodri, or maybe the mental toll it takes to remain at the top. There is a reason nobody had won more than three titles straight until City made it four last year. Pep Guardiola admitted the celebrations at getting over the line were so great his players were still suffering the effects when they faced Manchester United in the FA Cup final. And if the fourth is the hardest title any team has ever won, then five is harder still. It isn’t PSR that might stop City running away with the league again — it’s football.

 

What PSR stops is the likes of Forest, or Brighton, or even Brentford, getting too good. And Newcastle United, of course. Particularly Newcastle United. After Alexander Isak scored the winning goal against Arsenal on Saturday, he was talked of as having passed his audition, because Isak is the striker Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta has his eyes on to bolster his forward line and relieve Kai Havertz. Yet why should a club that is backed by the wealth of Saudi Arabia have to sell their best goalscorer to Arsenal?

It’s because profitability and sustainability requires Newcastle to pretend they are poor. It keeps them exactly where the elite wants them: tenth, at present, so that their finest players become frustrated and wish to leave. And where would they go? To the established elite, the ones who shape the rules to ensure they stay at the top — unless an upstart disruptor such as Nottingham Forest comes along and spoils it. Newcastle, like Forest before them, may need to sell so they can buy. Yet selling could strengthen a rival, so the impact of buying has a diminished effect. Clever, isn’t it? And all because those elite entities were so unhappy about what almost happened to Portsmouth, when they nearly went bust, but didn’t, 14 years ago. They still haven’t got over it, poor lambs. That’s why they vote for these rules to ensure no club outside the Super League six ever attempts ambition again.

 

Aston Villa, meanwhile, have dropped four points in three home league games that have followed their Champions League matches this season. They defeated Wolverhampton Wanderers, but drew with Manchester United and Bournemouth and Sunday was the first time they had conceded four goals or more since a dead rubber against Crystal Palace on the last day of last season. Might they have fared better, then, and made this season more competitive, had they not had to sell players to meet the artificial construct of PSR in the summer? Villa are not in financial jeopardy. Indeed reaching the Champions League — or any European competition in the case of a smaller club — invariably necessitates squad improvements. Instead, Villa had to asset strip. As a result, the demand on their squad is greater and their league form is not what it could be. Imagine the contest there would be at the top if every club could operate to its potential, rather than have the dead hand of Premier League chief executive Richard Masters and his ever-expanding team of lawyers hovering over their accounts.

This is a good title race, but it could be a better one. Newcastle should be in it, even Manchester United if Ineos was allowed to finance the change required. Aston Villa should be stronger, Nottingham Forest should be able to stay the course — maybe even Brighton, too. Beyond this season, we should have the most competitive, strong and open league in the world. Whatever the verdict after the 115 charges have been heard, Manchester City look to be nearing the end of their period of dominance. If Guardiola does not leave at the end of this season, in all likelihood he will be gone at the end of 2025-26. Either way, it is hard to imagine City towering over their competitors when that happens.

Guardiola may be right that City will handle succession issues better than Manchester United or Arsenal, but they were never as dominant before he arrived. They won titles, sure, but as singles not quadruples. So there may be a vacancy at the top and as many as ten teams capable of contesting it. How tedious, then, to run that race as a handicap — particularly with the weights applied to those needing to be lightest.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 5 by Stal
Putting a line through the word "and"

[Whitley mag]

Good article by Samuel seems to get it unlike some of these cunts from the Guardian and Delaney etc.

[Maggies]

The clubs won’t vote to change the rules as there’s too many teams it benefits (the cartel clubs plus their gravy-train cucks).

 

Unless they can compromise on the APT stuff then it feels like the legal route is the only route for this to go down.

[TRon]

14 hours ago, Stifler said:

Not really.

I think the gap is going to increase again.

You have Spurs with their mega stadium.

Man Utd wanting to build theirs.

Arsenal wanting to increase their capacity.

Man City extending their stadium.

Us building a new stadium.

Villa will do something with theirs at some point.

 

You are going to have a case where you have 8-10 clubs with a stadium capacity of 55k and over. At least half of those in time you would expect to have a capacity of over 70k.

Matchday revenue alone is going to make it so other clubs can’t touch those clubs.

I honestly think that in the next 5-10 years we are going to see a massive shift in the dynamics again.

Even if we look at other clubs like Nottingham Forest, Leeds, Leicester, possibly Birmingham City who are looking at 50k-55k capacities. 10 years ago those capacities were big, now they will be classed as fairly moderate. What it will mean though is that the these clubs will almost guarantee themselves a place in the Premier League in future, and the gap between the Premier League, and the Championship will grow.

We’ll end up creating a natural gap that in unlikely to be bridged, and that might ultimately lead to locking the Premier League. There will certainly be calls to do so.

 

 

While matchday revenue from bigger grounds does make a difference, the real big money is tv rights and global sales. This is why winning stuff is so important to grow your brand worldwide. It's also the reason PSR has been rushed through without much thought beyond stopping Newcastle threatening those already at the top. That's exactly why building a fantastic title winning team is more important than building a new stadium.

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, Shearergol said:

 

And Forest.

Meant Villa.  
 

and Leicester, Everton tbf. 
 

Brighton and Brentford are nowhere near their FFP ceiling.  They are among the lowest as of last years accounts.  
 

Villa and Everton in particular have the fanbase to bridge the gap to the big 6 with the right investment. Or at least get close to Spurs. The red tops have another level of fandom.  The red tops and their American ownership want to take home that additional revenue - not use it to stay ahead of us. 

[JonBez comesock]

Good news ?

 

 

 

[JonBez comesock]

 

[JonBez comesock]

 

 

Edited November 6 by JonBez comesock

[JonBez comesock]

 

[jack j]

18 minutes ago, JonBez comesock said:

 

No good to us then?

[Turnbull2000]

Just sounds like the status quo will largely remain as is. They'll keep us throttled on sponsorships, so only hope is a super stadium. Even then we'll not come close to closing the revenue gap.

[FloydianMag]

 

[timeEd32]

This is not leading to a free for all, which I never expected anyway. All of these things are a positive though:

 

include shareholder loans in financial assessments (presumably with a FMV interest coupon applied). Equity injections will remain exempt under the new rules.

 

return to the original FMV wording that asks if a transaction “could” be sold between willing parties, instead of “would.” The Amended APT rules’ addition of “in normal market conditions” will also be removed to allow broader value interpretations, especially for unique sponsorship contexts.

 

granting clubs access to the Databank of commercial deals that the PL uses in FMV determinations, and this access will come before the appeal stage.

 

roll back stricter FMV criteria introduced in February 2024.

 

It's certainly better than where things were / where they were heading. It will be very interesting to see if this gets the necessary support.

[Nepharite]

How does this address the shareholder loans though? Are they just drawing a line under the historical loans? Surely that can't be allowed. Certain clubs have been given an unfair advantage which would be hard to quantify or roll back?