Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Jackie Broon]

4 hours ago, PauloGeordio said:

Hasn’t it already been proved that we are separate from the state? Wasn’t that a condition of the takeover? 

 

Not really. It was about demonstrating, or giving "legally binding assurances" in the end, that the club would not be "controlled" by the state.

 

I doubt this will end up in the bill for the reasons people have already gone into, but if it were to I think it would likely mean that PIF move on.

 

During the takeover issues they could have just put the club in Al-Rumayyan or some other individual's name and saved themselves all of the bother of the issues with PIF, but they publically walked away from the deal rather than do that.

 

 

 

 

Edited 57 minutes ago by Jackie Broon

[midds]

I think the fact that the club has behaved itself financially will go strongly in it's favour. There were daft rumours about lashing out hundreds of millions on an annual basis - never happened. Signing ridiculous sponsorship deals - never happened. Signing loads of players from Saudi clubs for less than they're worth - never happened. Breaking FFP rules and taking the points hit - never happened. They've done it by the book and played fair (a bit too fair imo) but haven't taken the piss. Can't see any way this goes through, too many allies and no grounds to chuck them out, they've done nothing wrong whatsoever with the ownership pov  

[Jonas]

2 hours ago, andycap said:

Just join the jocks league if it ever did pass. 

May as well get Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus on the blower and fuck off with Man City. 

I've dreaded a euro super league all my life but if all the future holds is fighting for 7th whilst the mostly despised top six compete amongst themselves in a league constructed to ensure both of those outcomes, it'd be little loss

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Jonas

[gjohnson]

21 minutes ago, midds said:

I think the fact that the club has behaved itself financially will go strongly in it's favour. There were daft rumours about lashing out hundreds of millions on an annual basis - never happened. Signing ridiculous sponsorship deals - never happened. Signing loads of players from Saudi clubs for less than they're worth - never happened. Breaking FFP rules and taking the points hit - never happened. They've done it by the book and played fair (a bit too fair imo) but haven't taken the piss. Can't see any way this goes through, too many allies and no grounds to chuck them out, they've done nothing wrong whatsoever with the ownership pov  

And it's done us the square root of sod all good while rivals are getting further ahead by bending, dodging and blatantly ignoring rules that were sticking to. Skint? Sell a hotel you own to yourself...overspend...say covid made you do it, get blatantly caught with your pants down balls deep in a skanky hooker, hire lawyers and delay punishment for eternity.

 

Following the rules in a world where no one else does gets you nowhere no matter what level you're at. Show me a billionaire that hasn't shat on someone along the way...hell I earn a decent wage and live fairly comfortably without busting my balls with 70 hour weeks and look across the road to people I get on with fine who've never worked a day in their life and pull in double by knowing and gaming the system

 

[TheBrownBottle]

1 hour ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Not really. It was about demonstrating, or "giving legally binding assurances" in the end, that the club would not be "controlled" by the state.

 

I doubt this will end up in the bill for the reasons people have already gone into, but if it were to I think it would likely mean that PIF move on.

 

During the takeover issues they could have just put the club in Al-Rumayyan or some other individual's name and saved themselves all of the bother of the issues with PIF, but they publically walked away from the deal rather than do that.

 

 

 

 

 

They couldn’t do that mind - Al-Rumayyan’s running of the PIF still links him to the state.  And MBS is still the head of the PIF. 

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by TheBrownBottle

[TheBrownBottle]

I personally look forward to those in politics showing us their true mettle and not allowing foreign state ownership of UK assets.  Starting with our water, electricity, and trains mind - our football clubs really should be bottom of that list. 

[midds]

39 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

And it's done us the square root of sod all good while rivals are getting further ahead by bending, dodging and blatantly ignoring rules that were sticking to. Skint? Sell a hotel you own to yourself...overspend...say covid made you do it, get blatantly caught with your pants down balls deep in a skanky hooker, hire lawyers and delay punishment for eternity.

 

Following the rules in a world where no one else does gets you nowhere no matter what level you're at. Show me a billionaire that hasn't shat on someone along the way...hell I earn a decent wage and live fairly comfortably without busting my balls with 70 hour weeks and look across the road to people I get on with fine who've never worked a day in their life and pull in double by knowing and gaming the system

 

I'm just saying that the whole "let's ban this state owner club despite breaking no rules and not taking the piss" shtick probably won't amount to much. I will happily admit I'd love to see us push things as far as possible and even break the rules and then challenge them. But we've done nothing untoward and they're still papping their whackers at the mere thought of a successful Newcastle United. Bit embarrassing tbph

[gjohnson]

31 minutes ago, midds said:

I'm just saying that the whole "let's ban this state owner club despite breaking no rules and not taking the piss" shtick probably won't amount to much. I will happily admit I'd love to see us push things as far as possible and even break the rules and then challenge them. But we've done nothing untoward and they're still papping their whackers at the mere thought of a successful Newcastle United. Bit embarrassing tbph

Yes they're petrified, and rightly should be if Saudi did seriously push it...the slightest hint of pissing off a major trade partner would have a Parliment discussion before you could say "money", and we'd have free reign to do a Chelsea/CityPSG

[Jackie Broon]

1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

They couldn’t do that mind - Al-Rumayyan’s running of the PIF still links him to the state.  And MBS is still the head of the PIF. 

 

 

I think they could, Al-Rumayyan being employed by PIF doesn't mean that his persoal assets are state owned. But I doubt that they would do that.

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Jackie Broon

[Stifler]

1 hour ago, Jackie Broon said:

I think they could, Al-Rumayyan being employed by PIF doesn't mean that his persoal assets are state owned. But I doubt that they would do that.

The proposed amendment also makes it illegal for anyone in a government role, and their immediate family members from owning a football club, or being on the board, with no distinction between British government, or foreign governments, and no description of what is and isn’t classed as government.

This amendment would mean that Karen Brady would either have to give up her role at West Ham, or give up her role in the House of Lords.