Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[AyeDubbleYoo]

May not be as simple as that. I’m not a lawyer but I don’t think you can just be forced to agree to something that breaks an underlying law. Especially since these rules came in recently and not when we joined the PL. 

 

Also joining the PL is a function of being a football club in England and finishing top of the Championship, it’s not an opt-in club that you make a decision to join. 
 

Don't think this matters though because it seems PIF are trying to keep their noses clean. 

[brummie]

The impact of PSR can be seen with us at the moment. If we were not (for another window, apparently) so shackled by the constraints we’d be spending money on better players to move on now. We’ve got owners with plenty of money who want to do it but are not allowed to.

 

It is a textbook example of how the system

protects the entrenched six (well, five plus the one with the big money spinning ground). 
 

The only way we can compete is to raise more commercially and on match day. So now we’ve got endless commercial and GA+ ticket options - which means hoping someone will pay 700 quid to watch us play Southampton - meaning seats unsold whilst people can’t buy tickets at normal prices. 
 

The other option is to extend the ground which was the plan until the new commercial guy realised that’s minimum 120m plus to rebuild just behind one goal. So that’s on hold, we have Comcast (huge stadium builders) as part owners and no doubt at some point we’ll end up in a new stadium, probably somewhere else north of the city. So English football loses another of its traditional stadiums and becomes even more like the NFL (only the NFL is more of an even playing field. Imagine that). 
 

it’s a well intentioned mess. 

[The College Dropout]

@brummie PSR is rolling. Once you have issues with it you need to significantly recalibrate your squad or revenue or it will be an ongoing problem.  
 

Amortisation and wages carry over year to year.  

[Poon Raccoon]

1 hour ago, manorpark said:

 

The club simply cannot do that as they signed and agreed the rules of the Premier League when they joined which included a clause that a club CANNOT take legal action against the EPL at all.

 

Other people/groups can take out an anti-competition legal suite, providing they can prove (1) they have been adversely affected by the EPL Cartel and can prove (2) that they have enough money to take the action and pay the EPL costs if they lose. 

 

The 'other people' who fulfil the above two criteria could (for example) be a fan group or wealthy individual.

In essence what you’re saying is if the EPL is breaking the law with anti competitive behaviour, there own rules supersedes law ?

 

Again, competition rules supersede law.

That’s remarkable, and i would be astonished if the Saudis went into buying the club knowing that is indeed the case, where they have basically zero chance of being able to compete.

 

What is the repercussions if Newcastle went fuck it, where suing you anyway. Yes they would fall foul of breaking the rules , but i would imagine the ramifications for the EPL would be far greater if found guilty of anti competitive behaviour.

 

Or is my limited knowledge of the law fanciful.

 

 

[TheBrownBottle]

7 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

@brummie PSR is rolling. Once you have issues with it you need to significantly recalibrate your squad or revenue or it will be an ongoing problem.  
 

Amortisation and wages carry over year to year.  

Yep.  The relatively small amount of ‘losses’ work on moving cycles, but once you’ve built a squad the transfer fees and wages stop you from doing much if you don’t sell

[The College Dropout]

15 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Yep.  The relatively small amount of ‘losses’ work on moving cycles, but once you’ve built a squad the transfer fees and wages stop you from doing much if you don’t sell

And this is why selling one Purple probably doesn’t change things substantially. 
 

We need 100m of recurring revenue.  That’s a game changer aged. £100m for Isak will land us a few cheaper signings but it’s not a game changer. 

 

 

Edited December 9 by The College Dropout

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

15 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Once you have issues with it you need to significantly recalibrate your squad or revenue or it will be an ongoing problem.  

 

This is my fear at the moment.  Leicester and Everton are a couple examples where you can get into a real mess if one or two things to not go well.  

 

Probably an over simplification but:

 

- Everton have been crippled by invested badly in their squad and interest payments on the stadium.  They have had years of relegation battles trying to get out of it.

- Leicester managed ok for a while as they could sell to buy.  Eventually that caught up to them as the buying part did not give them the players they want and they were relegated.

 

I feel like we could are at risk of this if we do not nail the money we get when we sell one of our stars.  We are in the group of clubs that if we get it wrong could be dragged into a relegation battle.

 

Meanwhile Man United, Chelsea and Spurs can get it wrong multiple times and worse case they will end up mid table.   Yet still have the ability to try again next year.

 

It's critical that we find a way to increase our commercial revenue to give us a few lives. Even this year it could have looked a lot different if we had not won the games we did not deserve at the start of the season.

 

 

[Abacus]

30 minutes ago, brummie said:

it’s a well intentioned mess. 

The daft thing here is that you should have been able to strengthen your squad more in summer given that you are competing in Europe.

 

That would have benefitted all of the PL by improving coefficients across Europe - the current rules don't just stifle yourselves, but the whole league at the same time.

[r0cafella]

Just now, The College Dropout said:

And this is why selling one Purple probably doesn’t change things substantially. 
 

We need 100m of recurring revenue.  That’s a game changer aged. £100m for Isak will land us a few cheaper signings but it’s not a game changer. 

 

 

 

Remember, the owners will sort it out no worries.

[manorpark]

2 hours ago, manorpark said:

 

The club simply cannot do that as they signed and agreed the rules of the Premier League when they joined which included a clause that a club CANNOT take legal action against the EPL at all.

 

Other people/groups can take out an anti-competition legal suite, providing they can prove

 

(1) they have been adversely affected by the EPL Cartel and can prove

 

(2) that they have enough money to take the action and pay the EPL costs if they lose. 

 

The 'other people' who fulfil the above two criteria could (for example) be a fan group or wealthy individual.

 

What we need to happen is for someone, some group, some organisation (which satisfies points (1) and (2) above) to take legal action against the EPL under competition law.

 

As far as I can see it is a certain legal win because we have a proven cartel (we knew it already but Man City exposed the letters) and under competition law a CARTEL IS ILLEGAL.

 

 

Edited December 9 by manorpark

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

I’d imagine part of the problem is the member clubs vote for stuff.

[The College Dropout]

It’s the wages for both Leicester and Everton. 
 

The season Leicester got relegated I think their wages were top 7.  Everton wages are way above where they finish in the league. 
 

Leicester were always unsustainable. They would’ve had to sell players for more than £50m every season and sign players for half the fee and wages on a continuous loop.  
 

Neither club has massive revenues. High revenues, low wages is the key.  You get fucked by PSR when you have the opposite. We have the opposite. Our wage bill keeps increasing while our revenues are £250-300m. We can’t sustain inflation wage growth without a sharp increase in wages. 

[Andy84]

The key to unlocking this for us is being able to regularly sell academy players, as cynical as that may be.  Also producing players / signing young players of the standard who can play in our first team.  

[bobbydazzla]

1 hour ago, brummie said:

The impact of PSR can be seen with us at the moment. If we were not (for another window, apparently) so shackled by the constraints we’d be spending money on better players to move on now. We’ve got owners with plenty of money who want to do it but are not allowed to.

 

It is a textbook example of how the system

protects the entrenched six (well, five plus the one with the big money spinning ground). 
 

The only way we can compete is to raise more commercially and on match day. So now we’ve got endless commercial and GA+ ticket options - which means hoping someone will pay 700 quid to watch us play Southampton - meaning seats unsold whilst people can’t buy tickets at normal prices. 
 

The other option is to extend the ground which was the plan until the new commercial guy realised that’s minimum 120m plus to rebuild just behind one goal. So that’s on hold, we have Comcast (huge stadium builders) as part owners and no doubt at some point we’ll end up in a new stadium, probably somewhere else north of the city. So English football loses another of its traditional stadiums and becomes even more like the NFL (only the NFL is more of an even playing field. Imagine that). 
 

it’s a well intentioned mess. 

 

 

You're situation mirrors ours so closely

 

And it's showing PSR up for exactly what it is, a sham to keep a cartel in the strongest possible financial position and curtail the ambitions of any club who has the financial clout to challenge the cartel

 

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

11 minutes ago, Andy84 said:

The key to unlocking this for us is being able to regularly sell academy players, as cynical as that may be.  Also producing players / signing young players of the standard who can play in our first team.  

 

Which there does appear to be an attempt towards. 

[The College Dropout]

24 minutes ago, Andy84 said:

The key to unlocking this for us is being able to regularly sell academy players, as cynical as that may be.  Also producing players / signing young players of the standard who can play in our first team.  

I don’t necessarily agree.  
 

If anything you want academy players in the first team.  They are cheap.   We aren’t good enough that we can sell academy players that aren’t good enough for us for significant money.   
 

Even selling Anderson and Minteh - good for the short term.  Bad for the long term.   
 

Chelsea and City are only able to get away with it because they have the very best academy’s in the country.  And they sell youth players that could contribute for expensive signings that are no better. That’s not a good model. You can’t criticise Pep but they could clearly benefit from Palmer and Lavia alone. 
 

Liverpool have the best model.  The lads they sell are mostly not good enough or have tried and failed to secure a role. Villa try to keep their best youngsters through buybacks. 

[The College Dropout]

Like if we are selling academy players for 15-30m - that’s going to be a player that could contribute to the first team squad. Thats not necessarily the case for the ‘top 6’.  

[manorpark]

1 hour ago, manorpark said:

The club simply cannot do that as they signed and agreed the rules of the Premier League when they joined which included a clause that a club CANNOT take legal action against the EPL at all.

 

Other people/groups can take out an anti-competition legal suite, providing they can prove (1) they have been adversely affected by the EPL Cartel and can prove (2) that they have enough money to take the action and pay the EPL costs if they lose. 

 

The 'other people' who fulfil the above two criteria could (for example) be a fan group or wealthy individual.

 

What we need to happen is for someone, some group, some organisation (which satisfies points (1) and (2) above) to take legal action against the EPL under competition law.

 

As far as I can see it is a certain legal win because we have a proven cartel (we knew it already but Man City exposed the letters) and under competition law a CARTEL IS ILLEGAL.

 

 

Can anyone suggest something / someone / some group?

 

It is the only way we will ever get anywhere at all

 

 

Edited December 9 by manorpark

[FloydianMag]

Interesting given the recent amendments put forward by the HoL and the independent football regulator to ban state ownership of football clubs!

[Ellis H]

“As Starmer landed in the region, a Manchester-based company that specialises in the material graphene announced a new deal with the Saudis to use its product in a major construction project. The deal with Graphene Innovation Manchester aims to generate £250m of investment and research in Greater Manchester, and could generate more than a thousand skilled jobs.”

The North and the North East are very different to Southerners.

[FloydianMag]

15 minutes ago, Ellis H said:

“As Starmer landed in the region, a Manchester-based company that specialises in the material graphene announced a new deal with the Saudis to use its product in a major construction project. The deal with Graphene Innovation Manchester aims to generate £250m of investment and research in Greater Manchester, and could generate more than a thousand skilled jobs.”

The North and the North East are very different to Southerners.

That may well be, however he isn’t going to piss the Saudis off by given the new IR from preventing Saudi PIF ownership of NUFC wherever they choose to invest in the the North or even the South for that matter.

[GEFAFWISP]

2 hours ago, Ellis H said:

“As Starmer landed in the region, a Manchester-based company that specialises in the material graphene announced a new deal with the Saudis to use its product in a major construction project. The deal with Graphene Innovation Manchester aims to generate £250m of investment and research in Greater Manchester, and could generate more than a thousand skilled jobs.”

The North and the North East are very different to Southerners.

The "North" and Mackem lover Burnham wins again!

[SUPERTOON]

 

[astraguy]

6 hours ago, brummie said:

The impact of PSR can be seen with us at the moment. If we were not (for another window, apparently) so shackled by the constraints we’d be spending money on better players to move on now. We’ve got owners with plenty of money who want to do it but are not allowed to.

 

It is a textbook example of how the system

protects the entrenched six (well, five plus the one with the big money spinning ground). 
 

The only way we can compete is to raise more commercially and on match day. So now we’ve got endless commercial and GA+ ticket options - which means hoping someone will pay 700 quid to watch us play Southampton - meaning seats unsold whilst people can’t buy tickets at normal prices. 
 

The other option is to extend the ground which was the plan until the new commercial guy realised that’s minimum 120m plus to rebuild just behind one goal. So that’s on hold, we have Comcast (huge stadium builders) as part owners and no doubt at some point we’ll end up in a new stadium, probably somewhere else north of the city. So English football loses another of its traditional stadiums and becomes even more like the NFL (only the NFL is more of an even playing field. Imagine that). 
 

it’s a well intentioned mess. 

I noticed ur ground was empty the other night on motd tnh

[TRon]

4 hours ago, manorpark said:

 

Can anyone suggest something / someone / some group?

 

It is the only way we will ever get anywhere at all

 

 

 

 

If there's anyone with the sort of money to take on the PL in a very expensive court case, you would imagine it would be the Saudis themselves who would have the sort of clout to bring them in, or unofficially bankroll them.