Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Jackie Broon]

This vote was never about whether to get rid of PSR, clubs were voting against it because it's not fair and probably not lawful in how it deals with the shareholder loans issue.

 

If anything, the vote for it is a greater risk to the future of PSR because the tribunal could end up going in dry on the PL in their final judgment.

[Ben]

1 hour ago, Sima said:

Getting voted over by cuck clubs who have no place being in the top tier at all historically.

 

Brighton, Brentford, Crystal Palace, Fulham and Bournemouth.

 

Put those teams in the north and they wouldn't be anywhere higher than the Championship playoffs.

 

Won't Brighton and Everton be in bother if these owners loans are included in the calculations ?

[TK-421]

4 minutes ago, Ben said:

 

Won't Brighton and Everton be in bother if these owners loans are included in the calculations ?

They'll just do what they did when we got taken over. Any deals, even inflated ones and those with associated parties that were in place prior to the rule changes, were fine and could stay. Anything from that day on, subject to the new suddenly rushed in rules.

This will be the same. Previous interest free shareholder loans, meh, thats fine. From now on though, not so.

 

 

Edited Friday at 11:30 by TK-421

[The College Dropout]

13 hours ago, TRon said:

 

Somewhat sobering to see it so starkly how many clubs run the Mike Ashley economic model.

This is not entirely true. Most clubs have to invest vast sums to get onto the gravy train.  When they get on it they want to be able to stay on it or rejoin quickly. 
 

 

[Monters]

7 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

This is not entirely true. Most clubs have to invest vast sums to get onto the gravy train.  When they get on it they want to be able to stay on it or rejoin quickly. 
 

 

I might be mis-remembering most of the Ashley years are now shrouded in a mist of anger and disbelief! But didn't he usually spend more after relegation that he ever did to avoid it? 

[Sibierski]

3 minutes ago, Monters said:

I might be mis-remembering most of the Ashley years are now shrouded in a mist of anger and disbelief! But didn't he usually spend more after relegation that he ever did to avoid it? 

 

Pretty much, as it was seen I assume in his eyes, a gamble worth taking because getting back into Premier League straight away was needed.

 

Could cut losses, sold and not reinvest, but 2 seasons outside of Prem would have a bigger impact (club value and money), then it would be to spend to get out, and have the Prem TV money cover things again.

[TK-421]

2 minutes ago, Monters said:

I might be mis-remembering most of the Ashley years are now shrouded in a mist of anger and disbelief! But didn't he usually spend more after relegation that he ever did to avoid it? 

 

Yeah, thats when (and the only times) he'd throw some of his own coin in, to try and get us straight back up, but then that money was added to his overall loan to the club.

In fairness though, it worked. But was only to get us back up as quick as possible, so his SD advertising got back in the PL.

[Monters]

Just now, Sibierski said:

 

Pretty much, as it was seen I assume in his eyes, a gamble worth taking because getting back into Premier League straight away was needed.

 

Could cut losses, sold and not reinvest, but 2 seasons outside of Prem would have a bigger impact (club value and money), then it would be to spend to get out, and have the Prem TV money cover things again.

Yep that was my thoughts too

[AyeDubbleYoo]

We’re honestly lucky we’re not in league one now. We came close to absolute disaster, all of Ashley’s own making. 

 

 

Edited Friday at 11:55 by AyeDubbleYoo

[Whitley mag]

Very predictable clubs just vote to protect their own interests, the tribunal verdict and City’s response will be the true test on this.

 

Telling that clubs voting against were all non American owned.

 

 

Edited Friday at 11:57 by Whitley mag

[Sibierski]

The big 6 would love the other 14 clubs to basically be full of Mike Ashleys. No ambition, no trouble.

[SUPERTOON]

BBC reporting that City are confident the tribunal will side with them meaning todays vote is pointless.

[duo]

I've lost track of what the rules are now and what it means for NUFC.  Status quo?

[TRon]

20 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

We’re honestly lucky we’re not in league one now. We came close to absolute disaster, all of Ashley’s own making. 

 

 

 

 

If that had happened, he'd just have cut his costs to League One level. He'd still be making money, just less of it. There are very few owners in football willing to spend their own money if the risk of losses is substantial. Most of them would much prefer safe and steady returns, hence the majority backing the PL rules.

[timeEd32]

23 minutes ago, duo said:

I've lost track of what the rules are now and what it means for NUFC.  Status quo?

Worse than when the takeover happened, but better than 6 months ago with a huge unknown about what happens next.

[Bimpy474]

2 hours ago, Nucasol said:

Bournemouth:

 

 

Brighton:

 

 

Palace (Steve Parrish & his Cartel friends):

 

 

Brentford:

 

 

Fulham, Wolves and Everton:

 

 

Interesting google or just the usual ?

[Nucasol]

Just now, Bimpy474 said:

 

Interesting google or just the usual ?

Ready stash in the photo reel.

 

 

Edited Friday at 12:46 by Nucasol

[Bimpy474]

1 minute ago, Nucasol said:

Ready stash in the photo reel.

 

 

 

 

[Abacus]

There is a mild softening of the rules around benchmarking ATP sponsorships. So, there's a slight positive to this.

 

That's if these rules even stand in any shape or form once inevitably challenged by City.

 

It's a long battle, just frustrating. Think it's best to crack on with the things we can control, like the stadium and being smart in the transfer market.

[JEToon]

I think it is inevitable what happens next, the EPL are going to create rules that are going to have a form of limit on the spending of City and us, I don't see a massive change from that around the corner and never have. 

 

 

 

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

One positive of the premier league again putting unlawful rules in could be to completely undermine the current process of the rule decision making process. 
 

They have approved unlawful rules and now potentially knowingly voted in more unlawful rules.  
 

let’s see what Man City’s next step is. 

[Stifler]

2 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

This vote was never about whether to get rid of PSR, clubs were voting against it because it's not fair and probably not lawful in how it deals with the shareholder loans issue.

 

If anything, the vote for it is a greater risk to the future of PSR because the tribunal could end up going in dry on the PL in their final judgment.

Yeah.

Everton’s takeover was obviously put on the line by the Premier League. Wolves fell for them saying they won’t apply it retrospectively, forgetting that if they do then this would both open up a can of worms in itself legally, and also that at least 1 red top would be skewed if they did.

[andycap]

4 hours ago, r0cafella said:

The path to establishment is yoyoing for a couple of seasons PL TV money plus parachute payments combined with the EFL strict ffp rules are great moats. If it becomes a free for all the person with the biggest wallet wins. 

But Leicester are sponsored by there owners surely that would be a factor to vote against the rules. 

[r0cafella]

10 minutes ago, andycap said:

But Leicester are sponsored by there owners surely that would be a factor to vote against the rules. 

I could be mistaken but they aren't backed to the extent they were previously. 

[TK-421]

14 minutes ago, andycap said:

But Leicester are sponsored by there owners surely that would be a factor to vote against the rules. 

They were sponsored by King Power with the Stadium and Shirts when our takeover happened and the new rules over associated parties was brought in. But of course any deals already in place were fine and could remain. They now have a new mens team shirt sponsor, but King Power still sponsor the stadium name, training kits and the womens team shirts.

I guess as long as any deals aren't vastly over-inflated from what they've had before, its fine for their owners to keep sponsoring them.  

 

 

Edited Friday at 14:48 by TK-421