Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Dr.Spaceman]

Just now, TheBrownBottle said:

 

Got it - makes sense

 

As Man City and Chelsea have shown us - there's always a workaround

[Stifler]

For what it’s worth, I’m going to email Chi and say that this clause is being proposed by a Liverpool fan who is speaking on behalf of his club in their attempts to retain a portion of domination in football, and not on behalf of the people of the country, and or those within football. Therefor his actions of proposing such a clause is un-ethical, and that it should be disregarded, and himself warned and/or punished for his actions.

[gjohnson]

1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I’m completely comfortable with the notion of nation states not being able to own football clubs tbh. 

Must be difficult or at least uncomfortable to support Newcastle then

[Hudson]

7 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I’m completely comfortable with the notion of nation states not being able to own football clubs tbh. 

At this stage I’m more comfortable with nations owning clubs, who want the kudos. As a posed to corporations that what to steal the sole of the sport.

 

What a horrific choice to have to make as a sports fan. 
 

 

The government is comfortable with France owning our water and energy supply, along with China.

The Americans our Health service,The Russians with our gas supply (until recently) but lo and behold an Arab country wants to own a football club and the mask slips.

 

 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 05:39 by Hudson

[Ben]

That is fucking disgusting, we have been shit on as a club for years now, but imagine actually preventing outside investment because you would prefer your own team you support to do better

[PauloGeordio]

1 hour ago, Hudson said:

At this stage I’m more comfortable with nations owning clubs, who want the kudos. As a posed to corporations that what to steal the sole of the sport.

 

What a horrific choice to have to make as a sports fan. 
 

 

The government is comfortable with France owning our water and energy supply, along with China.

The Americans our Health service,The Russians with our gas supply (until recently) but lo and behold an Arab country wants to own a football club and the mask slips.

 

 

 

 

 

Don’t think the government have an issue with our owners. Saudis are the UK’s closest ally in the Middle East, and us theirs in Europe.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 07:08 by PauloGeordio

[Hudson]

17 minutes ago, PauloGeordio said:

Don’t think the government have an issue with our owners. Saudis are the UK’s closest Ali’s in the Middle East, and us theirs in Europe.

Steve Bassam, Baron Bassam of Brighton

Member of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom.

 

Un elected member of Government. 

[Sima]

Imagine being this terrified of Newcastle United, man.

 

We didn’t even win anything the last time we had a real go at usurping their precious order, yet they are still collectively shitting their pants at a possible resurgence.

 

It’s disgusting that they are blocking what could be significant investment in jobs in the city just so their football team can win a few more games at a weekend, because lord knows this (or any other future) government aren’t going to put the money in.  

They’ve already shown that with the scrapping of the A1 dualling.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 07:48 by Sima

[bobbydazzla]

It’s getting fucking ridiculous now like

 

The cartel are absolutely petrified of a well invested NUFC potentially pushing their snouts out of the trough and aren’t even trying to hide their intentions to retain the status quo 

 

With all this blatant financial handicapping being revealed so openly, it’s not a big jump to assume that on-field handicapping has been rife for years with refs and VAR instructed to look after the cartel’s interests 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 08:15 by bobbydazzla

[ExiledGeordie]

John Gibson summed it up perfectly when he said on a recent podcast that the PSR farce is a double whammy because it handicaps who you can bring in and ultimately can force you to sell your best players. Add to that the fact teams are also forced to sell young prospects often local lads of pure profit. There is absolutely no reason why we should be able to go on and spend money given there’s zero chance of us going out of business and there surely has to be some change eventually?

 

Whole situation is an absolute joke.

[PauloGeordio]

8 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

It’s getting fucking ridiculous now like

 

The cartel are absolutely petrified of a well invested NUFC potentially pushing their snouts out of the trough and aren’t even trying to hide their intentions to retain the status quo 

 

With all this blatant financial handicapping being revealed so openly, it’s not a big jump to assume that on-field handicapping has been rife for a long time with refs instructed to look after the cartel’s interests 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They should be! I honestly believe at some point in time we'll get our way, just as we did eventually with the take over. Our owners playing the long game. In the meantime we keep building and growing however we can. Stadium decision will confirm their intent (I think they'll go with a new stadium close to the existing ground) I've no doubt that the officials and VAR are corrupt. We've seen it with our own eyes. A corrupt ref is one thing, bent decisions getting waved through VAR is confirmation of the corruption as this absolutely should not be happening if the thing was fit for purpose.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 08:13 by PauloGeordio

[ExiledGeordie]

28 minutes ago, Sima said:

Imagine being this terrified of Newcastle United, man.

 

We didn’t even win anything the last time we had a real go at usurping their precious order, yet they are still collectively shitting their pants at a possible resurgence.

 

It’s disgusting that they are blocking what could be significant investment in jobs in the city just so their football team can win a few more games at a weekend, because lord knows this (or any other future) government aren’t going to put the money in.  

They’ve already shown that with the scrapping of the A1 dualling.

 

 

 

Yeah it’s ridiculous 

[Keegans Export]

As I understand it the Lords don't really have a huge amount of legislative power and I'd be very surprised if any sitting UK Government waved through any legislation quite as on-the-nose as that but it does speak to the collective pants-shitting that has been going on. Remarkable really seeing as, in the grand scheme of things, we've achieved fuck all and 18 months after our Champions League qualification we're still reportedly in "sell to buy" territory. 

[Sima]

I want to ask why it’s okay to undercook sponsorships as an owner but as soon as it’s rumoured a team want to overcook all of a sudden there are “fair market value” rules.

 

They’ll never come close to answering that though.

[Keegans Export]

1 minute ago, Sima said:

I want to ask why it’s okay to undercook sponsorships as an owner but as soon as it’s rumoured a team want to overcook all of a sudden there are “fair market value” rules.

 

They’ll never come close to answering that though.

Especially as if we're talking about profitability and sustainability then underselling is considerably worse than overselling. 

 

Of course if profitability and sustainability weren't really the point of the rules...

[Andy84]

1 minute ago, Sima said:

I want to ask why it’s okay to undercook sponsorships as an owner but as soon as it’s rumoured a team want to overcook all of a sudden there are “fair market value” rules.

 

They’ll never come close to answering that though.

No one was ever arsed with APT with Mike Ashley when he was exploiting the club, his minging Sports Direct shite plastered everywhere.  As you say we weren’t a threat to anyone at that point.  Cartel and American owners pose the threat to the competitiveness of the English game.

At one point they all decided to leave to the ESL and it’s of course been swept under the carpet 

[bobbydazzla]

28 minutes ago, Sima said:

I want to ask why it’s okay to undercook sponsorships as an owner but as soon as it’s rumoured a team want to overcook all of a sudden there are “fair market value” rules.

 

They’ll never come close to answering that though.

Same here

 

Sports Direct paid £385,000 in 2018 and £1.1m in 2019 then £0 for 20-22 to plaster every available surface at SJP with their logo

 

Was any other club in the top flight getting zero income for a massive amount of advertising space ? No, thought not

 

Were the PL putting regulations in place to stop owners doing undervalued deals with APT’s that weren’t FMV ? No, thought not

 

According to PL & cartel, getting paid at best next to nothing and at times absolutely nothing for a high value asset actually makes you more competitive.

Whodathunkit ? 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 08:49 by bobbydazzla

[Dr.Spaceman]

If we're talking about these new rules preventing clubs 'doing a Portsmouth' then surely Ashley taking the piss with sponsorship from his own company is a point of discussion

[Stifler]

25 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

As I understand it the Lords don't really have a huge amount of legislative power and I'd be very surprised if any sitting UK Government waved through any legislation quite as on-the-nose as that but it does speak to the collective pants-shitting that has been going on. Remarkable really seeing as, in the grand scheme of things, we've achieved fuck all and 18 months after our Champions League qualification we're still reportedly in "sell to buy" territory. 

The amendment will be debated in the House of Lords on Wednesday.

I think someone will come back to them and say that it may fall foul of U.K. law in regards to ownership of a company, and could be tested. Others may argue that it is overreach of what the bill intends to do, which is to set aside some basic rules which the football authorities have to adhere too.

I would also argue that it specifically targets 1 club, which is against the spirit of law writing/creation.

 

If the amendment passed, it would have to go back to the House of Commons who would also have the ability to accept, or reject the changes. Again, the issues, both the spirit of them, and legality of them would be debated.

 

Assuming it did pass all of these, I would assume the club would just spin off from PIF, and be put into private equity portfolio, which is how the City group who own the majority of Man City is owned.

[Stifler]

10 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

If we're talking about these new rules preventing clubs 'doing a Portsmouth' then surely Ashley taking the piss with sponsorship from his own company is a point of discussion

Portsmouth went bust because of their debt to owners. As the Premier League have only just voted to ban non market value ownership loans this week, and because they have been told not doing so would be illegal, it is further evidence that they had no intent of stopping clubs from doing a Portsmouth.

[Sibierski]

Yep, nothing stopping a club owner covering losses with his own money, time and time again, then turning around down the line and saying “I’m now calling in these loans” or when going to sell “I want these loans paying back in full”, and the club is then fucked.

 

But as long as the club stay below the elite, people don’t care. Rules still and won’t protect clubs from bad owners/going bust, all about protecting the established ones. TV deal collapsed at some point, I can sure bet rules will be well balanced that sees the top 6 protected from the fall out, and the other 14 suck up the fallout.

[SAK]

56 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

As I understand it the Lords don't really have a huge amount of legislative power and I'd be very surprised if any sitting UK Government waved through any legislation quite as on-the-nose as that but it does speak to the collective pants-shitting that has been going on. Remarkable really seeing as, in the grand scheme of things, we've achieved fuck all and 18 months after our Champions League qualification we're still reportedly in "sell to buy" territory. 

A bill or amendment as I understand can be introduced in either house but legislation has to be passed by both houses with the Commons having the final say. If the Commons wants a law the Lords can only slow it down for a year but it will pass. 

[Stifler]

5 minutes ago, SAK said:

A bill or amendment as I understand can be introduced in either house but legislation has to be passed by both houses with the Commons having the final say. If the Commons wants a law the Lords can only slow it down for a year but it will pass. 

It is the House of Lords proposing this amendment, which will be debated on Wednesday.

[Hudson]

1 hour ago, Keegans Export said:

As I understand it the Lords don't really have a huge amount of legislative power and I'd be very surprised if any sitting UK Government waved through any legislation quite as on-the-nose as that but it does speak to the collective pants-shitting that has been going on. Remarkable really seeing as, in the grand scheme of things, we've achieved fuck all and 18 months after our Champions League qualification we're still reportedly in "sell to buy" territory. 

I think that’s season getting 4th really shit them, and every rushed I’ll thought out rule since is a reaction.

[SAK]

33 minutes ago, Stifler said:

It is the House of Lords proposing this amendment, which will be debated on Wednesday.

Even if it receives support in the Lords there will be 2nd and third readings before going to the commons, it will likely end there.

 

edit: I think amendments follow the same process as newly introduced bills but will leave to NO constitutional experts to confirm.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 09:55 by SAK