Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Ben]

So can the Saudis pump more money to catch up with the Sky6 ?

[Scoot]

2 minutes ago, Ben said:

So can the Saudis pump more money to catch up with the Sky6 ?

 

It's as clear as mud as usual but it does seem things have softened in terms of the rules. The bit about exceptions being made for sponsorship linked to clubs that are ran by countries was interesting though.

[Unbelievable]

1 hour ago, JonBez comesock said:

 

So what happens if these are rejected assuming the old rules can't stay in place?

[Jackie Broon]

1 hour ago, Nepharite said:

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? 

 

Yeah, unless they do it retrospectively over the past three years, which the clubs with shareholder loans will never vote for, they have what the tribunal has ruled is an unfair advantage baked in for the next three years.

[PopeandGlory]

1 hour ago, Unbelievable said:

So what happens if these are rejected assuming the old rules can't stay in place?

 

Will have to come up with other amendments until it’s deemed legal and passes through.

 

You’d expect the clubs* have been involved in these amendments being suggested though which would almost guarantee safe passage through.

 

It’d make no sense for the Premier League to turn up without consulting.
 

*Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool and anyone else Man Utd chose to let in

[Unbelievable]

38 minutes ago, PopeandGlory said:

 

Will have to come up with other amendments until it’s deemed legal and passes through.

 

You’d expect the clubs* have been involved in these amendments being suggested though which would almost guarantee safe passage through.

 

It’d make no sense for the Premier League to turn up without consulting.
 

*Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool and anyone else Man Utd chose to let in

Right, but the likelihood of 14 clubs accepting a solution like this is much greater if the alternative is a free for all than if the alternative is the continuation of the current set of rules (which albeit deemed unlawful suited them fine).

[SUPERTOON]

This is positive, coming from the premier league mouthpiece as well:

 

 

[r0cafella]

6 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

This is positive, coming from the premier league mouthpiece as well:

 

 

If Ziegler is correct and if this passes it opens for the door for sure. Will also be a litmus test for PIF. seems like some folks are assuming they plan to do a city but I'm not so sure. 

[SUPERTOON]

42 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

If Ziegler is correct and if this passes it opens for the door for sure. Will also be a litmus test for PIF. seems like some folks are assuming they plan to do a city but I'm not so sure. 

Aye I don’t think they do a City, I do think we will see a lot more investment though, just not on that scale. 

[JonBez comesock]

Door open for huge deals if Premier League loosens related party rules
All teams in the top flight stand to benefit if the Premier League’s proposed changes to the rules on Associated Party Transactions (APTs), as seen by The Times, are adopted in a vote on November 22

October 07 2024, 6.30pm
Rules governing commercial deals between clubs and related companies were declared unlawful last month after being challenged by Manchester City
Rules governing commercial deals between clubs and related companies were declared unlawful last month after being challenged by Manchester City
DAVE THOMPSON/AP
The Premier League has detailed the proposed rule changes on Associated Party Transactions (APTs) in a 14-page document, seen by The Times, that has been circulated to clubs before a meeting in London on November 22. The focus is on three key areas of the rules.

The panel cited the exclusion of shareholder loans — interest-free loans from companies or individuals that have more than a 5 per cent stake in the club — as a key area that needed to be addressed, with the English champions arguing that the cost of such loans should be included in the League’s financial regulations.

In the proposal document, the definition of “fair market value” has been softened slightly from whether the amount “would” be sold to “could” be sold between willing parties.

Of potentially huge significance, however, is the fact that the words “in normal market conditions” have gone from the existing rules, along with three paragraphs outlining what that actually means. City’s legal dispute was sparked by a block that was placed on a large new sponsorship deal with Abu Dhabi-owned Etihad Airways, but the rule change would seem to make allowances for the value an oil-rich Middle-Eastern state may place on an association with a top-flight English football club.

The clubs will meet at the Nobu Hotel in Portman Square, and while League officials are hoping this brings some peace to a situation that has escalated into civil war between rival clubs, it remains to be seen if these proposals will be passed with a 14-club majority required. Previous votes on the rules, introduced in 2021 in the wake of Newcastle United’s Saudi-led takeover, have been on a knife edge, with 12 voting in favour and six against — with two abstentions — when the amendments that sparked City’s legal dispute were passed in February.

As well as the shareholder loans, which for some clubs run into millions of pounds, the proposed amendments concern a reversal to some of the rule changes implemented this year and a club’s access to the relevant data, which is relied upon by the Premier League board when assessing if an APT is of “fair market value”. In future, access will be granted before the appeal stage.

The proposals are the result of meetings of the Premier League’s legal advisory group and financial controls advisory group, with the exclusion of shareholder loans now removed and only equity injection investments remaining exempt.

Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see if further concerns are raised given the speed with which the Premier League is now trying to resolve the matter against the backdrop of the hearing into the 115 charges levelled at City for alleged financial rule breaches.

The Premier League’s claim that the APT rule amendments could be implemented “quickly and effectively” was met with an immediate challenge by City’s legal counsel, Simon Cliff, who accused Richard Masters, the Premier League chief executive, of “misleading clubs” and warning against a “kneejerk reaction”.

Cliff said it was a time “for careful reflection and consideration”, inviting clubs to communicate directly with him if they wanted a more detailed read-out on the 175-page award document published by the tribunal. This came as a shock to some clubs, even if others have proved more sympathetic to City’s cause.

If the new amendments, which have been drafted with the assistance of “leading counsel, Daniel Jowell KC”, are voted in by the clubs on this occasion, they will be effective immediately.

[Rich]

If we can just get enough rolling in to prevent having to sell when we don’t want to sell that’ll do for me.

[Dr.Spaceman]

44 minutes ago, JonBez comesock said:

Door open for huge deals if Premier League loosens related party rules
All teams in the top flight stand to benefit if the Premier League’s proposed changes to the rules on Associated Party Transactions (APTs), as seen by The Times, are adopted in a vote on November 22

October 07 2024, 6.30pm
Rules governing commercial deals between clubs and related companies were declared unlawful last month after being challenged by Manchester City
Rules governing commercial deals between clubs and related companies were declared unlawful last month after being challenged by Manchester City
DAVE THOMPSON/AP
The Premier League has detailed the proposed rule changes on Associated Party Transactions (APTs) in a 14-page document, seen by The Times, that has been circulated to clubs before a meeting in London on November 22. The focus is on three key areas of the rules.

The panel cited the exclusion of shareholder loans — interest-free loans from companies or individuals that have more than a 5 per cent stake in the club — as a key area that needed to be addressed, with the English champions arguing that the cost of such loans should be included in the League’s financial regulations.

In the proposal document, the definition of “fair market value” has been softened slightly from whether the amount “would” be sold to “could” be sold between willing parties.

Of potentially huge significance, however, is the fact that the words “in normal market conditions” have gone from the existing rules, along with three paragraphs outlining what that actually means. City’s legal dispute was sparked by a block that was placed on a large new sponsorship deal with Abu Dhabi-owned Etihad Airways, but the rule change would seem to make allowances for the value an oil-rich Middle-Eastern state may place on an association with a top-flight English football club.

The clubs will meet at the Nobu Hotel in Portman Square, and while League officials are hoping this brings some peace to a situation that has escalated into civil war between rival clubs, it remains to be seen if these proposals will be passed with a 14-club majority required. Previous votes on the rules, introduced in 2021 in the wake of Newcastle United’s Saudi-led takeover, have been on a knife edge, with 12 voting in favour and six against — with two abstentions — when the amendments that sparked City’s legal dispute were passed in February.

As well as the shareholder loans, which for some clubs run into millions of pounds, the proposed amendments concern a reversal to some of the rule changes implemented this year and a club’s access to the relevant data, which is relied upon by the Premier League board when assessing if an APT is of “fair market value”. In future, access will be granted before the appeal stage.

The proposals are the result of meetings of the Premier League’s legal advisory group and financial controls advisory group, with the exclusion of shareholder loans now removed and only equity injection investments remaining exempt.

Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see if further concerns are raised given the speed with which the Premier League is now trying to resolve the matter against the backdrop of the hearing into the 115 charges levelled at City for alleged financial rule breaches.

The Premier League’s claim that the APT rule amendments could be implemented “quickly and effectively” was met with an immediate challenge by City’s legal counsel, Simon Cliff, who accused Richard Masters, the Premier League chief executive, of “misleading clubs” and warning against a “kneejerk reaction”.

Cliff said it was a time “for careful reflection and consideration”, inviting clubs to communicate directly with him if they wanted a more detailed read-out on the 175-page award document published by the tribunal. This came as a shock to some clubs, even if others have proved more sympathetic to City’s cause.

If the new amendments, which have been drafted with the assistance of “leading counsel, Daniel Jowell KC”, are voted in by the clubs on this occasion, they will be effective immediately.

 

I'll believe it when I see it.

[Keegans Export]

I just want to be able to keep doing what we've been doing (pre-Jan 2024).

 

We have ambitions to qualify for the Champions League. Any one of the signings we made could have been made by the clubs we're competing with for those places. Arsenal could have bought Bruno, they were actively sniffing around him. Isak had come off a poor season and was seen a risk at £60m+, Man Utd or Chelsea could have taken that risk. If Liverpool had made a move for Gordon at the same time we had, every chance he ends up there.

 

I don't want to blow these clubs out of the water with our spending power, I want to be able to buy players we rate and have those clubs wishing they'd signed them 12-18 months ago when we brought them in for half the amount it would cost them now.

[NG32]

I dont want to blow other clubs out the water, i just want to be able to compete with the top 6 but that unfortunately requires investment and spending in large amounts for the short term.  Long term we can keeping investing in youth players, development 7 training facilities. 

 

 

[Scoot]

I want to blow the cunts out the water and give them a taste of what they've done to everyone else with these shitty rules which limits everyone bar themselves. 

 

Whether we see these huge sponsorship deals or not I don't know though. 

[Whitley mag]

Jowell represented Ashley in the takeover proceedings, this definitely looks positive for us and will be interesting if the likes of Liverpool vote against it knowing the current rules are illegal.

[TRon]

3 hours ago, SUPERTOON said:

Aye I don’t think they do a City, I do think we will see a lot more investment though, just not on that scale. 

 

I don't know if we'll be buying the biggest stars immediately, for a start most of them will still prefer established CL clubs. But I do think it will allow us to start competing for the best of the best youngsters who would see an easier path to the first team here than Man City or Liverpool. Eventually, I would imagine the aim is still to be number 1, just we'll do it over a period of a few years.

[The College Dropout]

Sounds like a roof-raiser for sponsorships - not removing the roof entirely?

 

 

 

We are 200m revenue per year short of Spurs. 500m short of Man U.

[gdm]

17 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Sounds like a roof-raiser for sponsorships - not removing the roof entirely?

 

 

 

We are 200m revenue per year short of Spurs. 500m short of Man U.

Aye it’ll help us out a bit but not massively I’d imagine 

[r0cafella]

17 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Sounds like a roof-raiser for sponsorships - not removing the roof entirely?

 

 

 

We are 200m revenue per year short of Spurs. 500m short of Man U.

500m behind Manchester red and thinking we can compete with them on a consistent basis Is wild. We basically have to hope they never gee it remotely together. 

[Dr.Spaceman]

37 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Sounds like a roof-raiser for sponsorships - not removing the roof entirely?

 

 

 

We are 200m revenue per year short of Spurs. 500m short of Man U.

 

That's what the gap should have been pre-takeover. Two years in to a new ownership structure with polar opposite intentions, however....nah.

[TRon]

51 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

500m behind Manchester red and thinking we can compete with them on a consistent basis Is wild. We basically have to hope they never gee it remotely together. 

 

There's no way any club outside the cartel can bridge the gap without spending like Man City or Chelsea did. PIF do have the means, we won't really know if they have the intent until the legal roadblocks are cleared.

[r0cafella]

3 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

There's no way any club outside the cartel can bridge the gap without spending like Man City or Chelsea did. PIF do have the means, we won't really know if they have the intent until the legal roadblocks are cleared.

Correct without massive investment it's not possible. The growth comes from success it's a chicken and egg situation. 

[The College Dropout]

That’s why I say we need to be aggressive and push the boundaries. There’s no ‘organic way’ to compete at the top of the game consistently. 
 

These rules might help us get halfway to spurs.  
 

but imo long term we need an elite academy, stadium and a multi club model that benefits us. Not Saudi teams.  

[TRon]

7 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

That’s why I say we need to be aggressive and push the boundaries. There’s no ‘organic way’ to compete at the top of the game consistently. 
 

These rules might help us get halfway to spurs.  
 

but imo long term we need an elite academy, stadium and a multi club model that benefits us. Not Saudi teams.  

 

As long as those boundaries are wide enough to throw enough money to bridge the gap I don't see why we won't do it. Previously the sponsorship restrictions were a roadblock. If that's an avenue where we can make up the difference, then there will be more incentive for the rest of it.