Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Guest]

https://twitter.com/martynziegler/status/1879578048879628559
 

HAHAHAHA

[TRon]

20 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

There’s no way the lad was valued at that at the time. 

 

Everyone was cock-a-hoop when they thought we'd got £35m for him. It was a bit of a crash back down to earth when we realised Vlachy had come the other way for £20m.

 

This is one of the biggest pitfalls of PSR though. There's no way we would have sold either Elliott or Minteh if we weren't forced to, both were classed as promising youngsters, and there's something wrong with any rules which force you to sell them when you don't have to.

[Turnbull2000]

If found guilty, Man City owners should sell up to another, not in any way related party like Chelsea did with the women's team, car park, and hotel. All cheati...indiscretions are now 'historic'. Boom! PL can then hit them with a £3 million fine or something and it's all nicely swept under the carpet.

 

 

Edited January 15 by Turnbull2000

[r0cafella]

3 hours ago, MagCA said:

https://twitter.com/martynziegler/status/1879578048879628559
 

HAHAHAHA

Hope forest and Everton are ready to sue the league for this nonsense. 

[Ben]

Imagine PSR contributing to Isak staying at Newcastle cos no fucka can afford him 

[SUPERTOON]

Seeing the new Haaland deal and City spending big again this month, just wondering if they did get away with the charges, what if anything would that mean for us in regards to FFP/PSR?

[Paully]

1 minute ago, SUPERTOON said:

Seeing the new Haaland deal and City spending big again this month, just wondering if they did get away with the charges, what if anything would that mean for us in regards to FFP/PSR?

 

Just seen Ornstein's tweet and thought the same!

 

That's Shearer's record gone!

[duo]

3 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Seeing the new Haaland deal and City spending big again this month, just wondering if they did get away with the charges, what if anything would that mean for us in regards to FFP/PSR?

Of course they did - PSR rules are their to protect them.  £850k a week he'll supposedly be on - if they want to do something cap the wages cause that is ridiculous 

[Sima]

There will be talk about how he's a 'Franchise Player', no doubt.

 

He'll not be on £850K a week, mind.  Sensationalist bollocks.

 

 

Edited January 17 by Sima

[The Prophet]

Can we do that with Isak please?

[r0cafella]

26 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Seeing the new Haaland deal and City spending big again this month, just wondering if they did get away with the charges, what if anything would that mean for us in regards to FFP/PSR?

Doesn't mean anything my friend. They have so much headroom these days. 

[Nucasol]

🚨 *Nerd Alert* 🚨 

 

After building out the Miggy amortisation profile, I thought I might as well do the whole shebang on the train journey home from work. Best efforts based on contract extension timings and publicly available fees, so may be a couple of million out, particularly where loan to buy and performance based fees are involved.
 

For those interested, really shows how extending contracts late in the original contract period absolutely hammers the go forward amortisation figure (Murphy etc):

 

 

 

Edited January 17 by Nucasol
Original cut names off

[Guest]

Turns out you can break the rules and just get away with it. 

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

2 hours ago, MagCA said:

Turns out you can break the rules and just get away with it. 

 

As long  as you vote the way they want you to.

 

I guess announcing this at the same time of the vote would have been too obvious.  They have known this for a while though as they cleared this years accounts that had the same issue.

 

 

Edited January 17 by KetsbaiaIsBald

[ponsaelius]

5 hours ago, Nucasol said:

🚨 *Nerd Alert* 🚨 

 

After building out the Miggy amortisation profile, I thought I might as well do the whole shebang on the train journey home from work. Best efforts based on contract extension timings and publicly available fees, so may be a couple of million out, particularly where loan to buy and performance based fees are involved.
 

For those interested, really shows how extending contracts late in the original contract period absolutely hammers the go forward amortisation figure (Murphy etc):

 

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't worry, you can't be that much of a nerd if you're taking a photo of your screen rather than a screenshot or sharing the spreadsheet 

[Nucasol]

Just now, ponsaelius said:

 

I wouldn't worry, you can't be that much of a nerd if you're taking a photo of your screen rather than a screenshot or sharing the spreadsheet 

Work computer - don’t use N-O on it, never know when Big Brother is watching! 😉

[80]

On 15/01/2025 at 17:39, TRon said:

This is one of the biggest pitfalls of PSR though. There's no way we would have sold either Elliott or Minteh if we weren't forced to, both were classed as promising youngsters, and there's something wrong with any rules which force you to sell them when you don't have to.

This might sound obvious but the whole point of the rules is that we do have to sell players we don't financially need to because those are the rules.

 

It's not a mistake in the implementation or a deceitful trick played by those who set them. The whole idea was to create a power higher than money so that just because you can afford to keep your good player and they want to stay, it doesn't mean they're allowed to stay without permission from the higher power.

 

I think the rules should be eliminated.

 

 

Edited January 17 by 80

[astraguy]

On 15/01/2025 at 20:35, r0cafella said:

Hope forest and Everton are ready to sue the league for this nonsense. 

How has this not been bigger news? You can tell Man City know its a fine they'll be getting yet other clubs get close to going out of business 

[The College Dropout]

On 15/01/2025 at 15:20, Unbelievable said:

With respect to our "big six" competitors, I think it is fair to assume that not qualifying for Champions League will make them significantly less appealing for sponsors, and there are probably bonus related commercial agreements in place depending on the club featuring on the highest European club competition level, as well as perhaps doing well domestically.

 

In the past five years (including current edition) with respect to Champions League participation:

• Spurs has missed out four times and will probably miss out again
• Arsenal has missed out three times
• Man U has missed out twice and will probably miss out again
• Chelsea has missed out twice (last two editions) and might miss out again if their slump continues
• Liverpool missed out once
• Only City was an ever present in the CL

Should we manage to qualify for CL this year it would be the second time in three years since the takeover.

 

If this pattern continues, I would expect commercial revenue at some of these "big six" clubs to stagnate, whereas ours is clearly on the up and, sustained by becoming a regular CL participant, could well continue to grow rapidly.

 

A few years down the line things could look very differently indeed.

 

 

 

It's not.

 

The LA Lakers are the LA Lakers. Man U are Man U. Even Arsenal are Arsenal.

 

But aye if we become CL regulars that will change. That's a massive if though. We haven't qualified for next season so it's not even a pattern . If we get 3 out 5 or better, that's a bit of a pattern emerging but you also can't ignore it's 3 out of 20.

 

And to do 3 out of 5 probably means keeping our best players or somehow selling them and getting better.

 

 

Edited January 17 by The College Dropout

[gdm]

 

[Hudson]

3 hours ago, Nucasol said:

Work computer - don’t use N-O on it, never know when Big Brother is watching! 😉

All the Time

[The Prophet]

Would hardly say Everton "got away with it" mind.

[duo]

14 minutes ago, gdm said:

 

Well they will so we'll see..

[Gaztoon]

36 minutes ago, gdm said:

 

 

If man city win our clubs Liverpool, man utd, and arsenal won't be able to dictate anymore.

 

 

Edited January 17 by Gaztoon

[Unbelievable]

5 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

It's not.

 

The LA Lakers are the LA Lakers. Man U are Man U. Even Arsenal are Arsenal.

 

But aye if we become CL regulars that will change. That's a massive if though. We haven't qualified for next season so it's not even a pattern . If we get 3 out 5 or better, that's a bit of a pattern emerging but you also can't ignore it's 3 out of 20.

 

And to do 3 out of 5 probably means keeping our best players or somehow selling them and getting better.

 

 

 

 

If Man U are not getting televised on a Tuesday or Wednesday night, but rather their players are at home watching Newcastle play Barcelona on the telly, you can safely assume that will make their existing sponsors ask questions at renewal time, and potential sponsors consider the value of associating with them. Reversely the same would be true for Newcastle.

 

As for patterns, qualifying for CL 2 years out of 3 would be a pretty strong signal. If nothing else how would the PL stop say Saudi Airlines from offering similar to Emirates for our shirt sponsorship if we are performing ar a similar level and getting as much exposure as say Arsenal.

 

You seem to think these things are cast in stone. They’re not, far from it. We manage to get CL qualification we become a more appealing proposition for players, sponsors and fans abroad. It’s not rocket science.