Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[TK-421]

All Premier League Clubs avoid charges.

Therefore, Everton will be hit with a 10 point deduction. 

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

The premier league will be all billy big bollox now saying look the rules work.  Everyone is complying, the rules are great, all hail the rules.

 

Ignoring, car parks, hotels, women's teams, teams selling their youth players, Man Utd playing by different rules, it being impossible to break into the top 4/6 consistently.

 

It would actually have been better for a couple teams to have failed so the game was undermined by these rules putting more pressure on them.

[RodneyCisse]

So sky’s posts last night absolute shite then?

[Dokko]

I'd purposely fail it by a tenner each time, just to piss them off. Test the boundaries like a naughty child. 

[Pixelphish]

I forgot CFC sold the Womens team to themselves. Can't hate it when they're allowed to get away with it. Apparently its not a related party transaction when its literally yourself.

[Nucasol]

4 minutes ago, RodneyCisse said:

So sky’s posts last night absolute shite then?

Bet they got plenty of people to tune in though.

[Unbelievable]

38 minutes ago, NWMag said:

So from 1st July are we in a much better position PSR wise to actually spend money? 

Why would you think that?

[TRon]

25 minutes ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

The premier league will be all billy big bollox now saying look the rules work.  Everyone is complying, the rules are great, all hail the rules.

 

Ignoring, car parks, hotels, women's teams, teams selling their youth players, Man Utd playing by different rules, it being impossible to break into the top 4/6 consistently.

 

It would actually have been better for a couple teams to have failed so the game was undermined by these rules putting more pressure on them.

 

 

The PL won't care as their remit is to make sure the cartel clubs are happy, as they are the big money spinners for the PL, and that is the bottom line.

 

The only threat to FFP that I can see is the stagnant transfer market it has created. Eventually that will mean less money being spent and less money coming in. Does that trickle down to lower wages eventually? It will make players over 27 worth a lot less for sure as clubs won't want to spend big fees which they can't recoup.

[Froggy]

2 hours ago, madras said:

Or explanation of Man Utds special one off allowances.

 

The Athletic has all the explanations you require.

[Mag3.14]

3 hours ago, Keegans Export said:

The cutoff is June, these charges would have been for breaches between 1st July 2023 and 30th June 2024.

 

We started the 24/25 period 1st July 2024

 

Edit - yes as @MagCA says its a three year period but each new year starts on 1st July.

 

 

 

 

New "Squad Cost Ratio" rules kick in on July 1st, 85% revenue (70% teams in Europe), that's an annual measure - the three year "windows" stop at this point   

[Stifler]

23 minutes ago, Mag3.14 said:

 

New "Squad Cost Ratio" rules kick in on July 1st, 85% revenue (70% teams in Europe), that's an annual measure - the three year "windows" stop at this point   

3 year windows run in conjunction with it.

 

 

Edited 16 hours ago by Stifler

[Mag3.14]

4 minutes ago, Stifler said:

3 year windows run in conjunction with it.

 

 

 

That was just for this year wasn't it? with the "soft" launch of the rules for 24/25 season 

[madras]

42 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

The Athletic has all the explanations you require.

You'll have to link me I don't  follow them on there and there's nothing specific on the EPL page.

[healthyaddiction]

11 minutes ago, Mag3.14 said:

That was just for this year wasn't it? with the "soft" launch of the rules for 24/25 season 

That was my understanding too.

[Froggy]

13 minutes ago, madras said:

You'll have to link me I don't  follow them on there and there's nothing specific on the EPL page.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5687061/2024/08/08/manchester-uniteds-40m-controversial-covid-loss-explained?source=user-shared-article

[Mikky]

5 hours ago, Pixelphish said:

I forgot CFC sold the Womens team to themselves. Can't hate it when they're allowed to get away with it. Apparently its not a related party transaction when its literally yourself.

I am pretty sure the sale was between 150-175m (could be wrong) - If it was that, how do you value it? We were sold for just over 300m

 

Secondly - why is the 3 year loss still 105m? Surely it’s way above that in line with inflation? It will only benefit those with greater revenue.

[Ben]

Obviously I'm biased cos I want us to spend loads of cash, but I think it's harsh on Arsenal been held back with the Jesus injury and not been able to replace him.

 

..........then I think " fuck it, they voted for these stupid fucking rules"

[gdm]

37 minutes ago, Ben said:

Obviously I'm biased cos I want us to spend loads of cash, but I think it's harsh on Arsenal been held back with the Jesus injury and not been able to replace him.

 

..........then I think " fuck it, they voted for these stupid fucking rules"

Eh they are just spending £51m on a midfielder for the summer. They could replace Jesus if they want 

[RodneyCisse]

Problem for Arsenal, no strikers are available who’d improve them within their budget.

[Geordie Ahmed]

50 minutes ago, Mikky said:

I am pretty sure the sale was between 150-175m (could be wrong) - If it was that, how do you value it? We were sold for just over 300m

 

Secondly - why is the 3 year loss still 105m? Surely it’s way above that in line with inflation? It will only benefit those with greater revenue.

 

Villa raised a vote for it to be increased, only 2 clubs voted for it, 3 abstained and 15 against it

[Mikky]

4 minutes ago, RodneyCisse said:

Problem for Arsenal, no strikers are available who’d improve them within their budget.

I think Vlahovic is a good option as is Sesko - do you mean their budget is pretty low? 
 

With both you are looking at 40m (Vlahovic - some issues with his contract) and 50-60m for Sesko

[Mikky]

3 minutes ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

 

Villa raised a vote for it to be increased, only 2 clubs voted for it, 3 abstained and 15 against it

I sometimes question the wisdom of these clubs but that being said to keep it at 105m is totally unreasonable and like I said, benefits a dozen teams

[Elliottman]

1 minute ago, Mikky said:

I sometimes question the wisdom of these clubs but that being said to keep it at 105m is totally unreasonable and like I said, benefits a dozen teams

Then again, fans can’t kick off with their owners if they aren’t spending a load of cash … ‘not our fault 🤷🏻‍♂️ ‘ 

[RodneyCisse]

4 minutes ago, Mikky said:

I think Vlahovic is a good option as is Sesko - do you mean their budget is pretty low? 
 

With both you are looking at 40m (Vlahovic - some issues with his contract) and 50-60m for Sesko

Haven’t they had a loan bid rejected for him?

[madras]

3 hours ago, Froggy said:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5687061/2024/08/08/manchester-uniteds-40m-controversial-covid-loss-explained?source=user-shared-article

Doesn't explain a great deal with it all being done in private. I wonder if these exceptional allowances are in line proportionally with others?