Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Wolfcastle]

"lawless" = 'how football had been from its inception until a few years ago' 

cynical hyperbole

[The College Dropout]

15 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

 

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.

The emirates level deal we could arguably do now. That deal was done almost 20 years ago.the stadium.

 

Man U is a bad team example. The brand is too strong. They are the LA Lakers of the PL. they’ve been poor for the last 2 years and have achieved more than us.  

[Miggys First Goal]

Cartel will be laughing their arses off at this game because they know there’s nothing we can do to improve the team. 

[Slim]

1 minute ago, Miggys First Goal said:

Cartel will be laughing their arses off at this game because they know there’s nothing we can do to improve the team. 

[Marquee Moon]

9 minutes ago, Miggys First Goal said:

Cartel will be laughing their arses off at this game because they know there’s nothing we can do to improve the team. 

 

The rules are shit, but we could certainly help ourselves by making smart signings like Bournemouth/Brighton/Brentford instead of pissing about with the likes of Guehi.

 

€15m for Hujsen while we were trying our best to blow 70, thats on us not the cartel.

[David Edgar]

These loses always snap me back into remembering that the game is rigged.

[MagPar]

Why don't the rich teams get together and tell fifa to fuck off with their financial rules or say goodbye to any stupid exhibition tournaments in the future. Surely they can do something? As long as clubs aren't spending money they don't have then I don't see any issue. 

 

I have no issue with Man Utd spending 100 million on a Brazilian wonderkid as long as we can spend whatever we want. Spend it if you have it,that's what I say. 

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, MagPar said:

Why don't the rich teams get together and tell fifa to fuck off with their financial rules or say goodbye to any stupid exhibition tournaments in the future. Surely they can do something? As long as clubs aren't spending money they don't have then I don't see any issue. 

 

I have no issue with Man Utd spending 100 million on a Brazilian wonderkid as long as we can spend whatever we want. Spend it if you have it,that's what I say. 

What? The rich teams are why we have these rules. 

[Ben]

Just now, MagPar said:

Why don't the rich teams get together and tell fifa to fuck off with their financial rules or say goodbye to any stupid exhibition tournaments in the future. Surely they can do something? As long as clubs aren't spending money they don't have then I don't see any issue. 

 

I have no issue with Man Utd spending 100 million on a Brazilian wonderkid as long as we can spend whatever we want. Spend it if you have it,that's what I say. 

 

Because the rules are in place to keep the top teams above the rest 

[MagPar]

[Ben]

Fucking Brighton and Bournemouth making a mockery of PSR 

[Stifler]

1 hour ago, Ben said:

Fucking Brighton and Bournemouth making a mockery of PSR 

Neither will be good for any period of time.

You could argue that Brighton have peaked with the season they finished in the European places, Bournemouth are still yet to do that, but I even if they did, I don’t think they would be achieving it consistently. The competition is too fierce, they’ll likely sell their best players soon enough, as well as their manager, and they have a stadium that has a capacity of about 11k. They have nowhere to go in regard to PSR without selling players.

 

Neither club are making a mockery out of PSR, in fact it’s because of PSR which is the reason that once they have had a season or 2 of peaking, they won’t be doing anything other than propping up mid table in future.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 18:09 by Stifler

[The Prophet]

The side is a couple of players away from being a very good one. With a cup semi final and an opportunity to qualify for the Champions League on the line, now would be the perfect time to kick on.

 

PSR working exactly how it is intended to then...

[huss9]

people go on about Brighton.

but wtf have they actually acheived that we havent?

champions league? a cup final?

[TheBrownBottle]

4 minutes ago, huss9 said:

people go on about Brighton.

but wtf have they actually acheived that we havent?

champions league? a cup final?

It is all relative - there's no metric where BHAFC are anything like the size of NUFC.

[TheBrownBottle]

2 hours ago, The Prophet said:

The side is a couple of players away from being a very good one. With a cup semi final and an opportunity to qualify for the Champions League on the line, now would be the perfect time to kick on.

 

PSR working exactly how it is intended to then...

Imagine being Howe, and looking at your GK, RW and need for a fast RCB and thinking of how close you are to a side capable of potentially challenging for the title.  It must be incredibly frustrating.

[Abacus]

24 minutes ago, huss9 said:

people go on about Brighton.

but wtf have they actually acheived that we havent?

champions league? a cup final?

Perfect example of a well run club in this world.

 

I.e. a player farm who aren't going to frighten the horses. We should ALL be like that.

[huss9]

25 minutes ago, Abacus said:

Perfect example of a well run club in this world.

 

I.e. a player farm who aren't going to frighten the horses. We should ALL be like that.

you'd be happy with a top 8 finish and no europe every season?

 

[Abacus]

25 minutes ago, huss9 said:

you'd be happy with a top 8 finish and no europe every season?

 

Nope. 

 

Sorry if my sarcasm wasn't as clear as I thought. I agree with you.

 

Absolutely don't want to be the club known for being well run but never risking upsetting the apple cart, though that's the model of a "well run club" in this system.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 23:20 by Abacus

[Abacus]

The other thing, and the next battle, is the revenue cap idea. I.e. you can spend a maximum of say 70% of revenue on wages and amortised transfer costs to replace PSR, if I have that right.

 

Exactly what does that achieve? The remaining 30% goes on, presumably infrastructure or running costs.

 

But how does that stop reckless spending if your running costs are 50% of revenue? And what if they are 10% of revenue? You waste the other 20%? Or you just bank it forever, essentially taking money from fans in perpetuity?

 

This and PSR are all solutions in search of a problem in the real world. If there is no chance of a club going bust or mortgaging it's long term future, then what is the purpose of this interference?

 

Hard to escape the idea that these are, and have only ever been, sporting sanctions, in reality. But anyway, it's pushing against an open door arguing that on here so I'll stop.

[TheBrownBottle]

3 minutes ago, Abacus said:

The other thing, and the next battle, is the revenue cap idea. I.e. you can spend a maximum of say 70% of revenue on wages and amortised transfer costs to replace PSR, if I have that right.

 

Exactly what does that achieve? The remaining 30% goes on, presumably infrastructure or running costs.

 

But how does that stop reckless spending if your running costs are 50% of revenue? And what if they are 10% of revenue? You waste the other 20%? Or you just bank it forever, essentially taking money from fans in perpetuity?

 

This and PSR are all solutions in search of a problem in the real world. If there is no chance of a club going bust or mortgaging it's long term future, then what is the purpose of this interference?

 

Hard to escape the idea that these are, and have only ever been, sporting sanctions, in reality. But anyway, it's pushing against an open door arguing that on here so I'll stop.

Remainder is OH&P.  So you're absolutely right - if the clubs are run at massive losses due to ridiculous OH, then that's fine.  If the clubs are super 'efficient' and have 25% profit, then that goes to the owners.  Growth won't come into it - so they can exploit the support as much as they can squeeze them.

 

PSR isn't about protecting clubs going bust, though 'fair play' is closer to the 'intent' - to stop new owners coming in and pumping in vast sums into the playing staff.  There's evidence that Abramovich and Abu Dhabi did cause transfer and wage inflation - most of the cost of which is passed on to the supporters, as other clubs have to raise prices to compete; but we know that's not what the rules are there to protect against  

[McDog]

Just now, Abacus said:

The other thing, and the next battle, is the revenue cap idea. I.e. you can spend a maximum of say 70% of revenue on wages and amortised transfer costs to replace PSR, if I have that right.

 

Exactly what does that achieve? The remaining 30% goes on, presumably infrastructure or running costs.

 

But how does that stop reckless spending if your running costs are 50% of revenue? And what if they are 10% of revenue? You waste the other 20%? Or you just bank it forever, essentially taking money from fans in perpetuity?

 

This and PSR are all solutions in search of a problem in the real world. If there is no chance of a club going bust or mortgaging it's long term future, then what is the purpose of this interference?

 

Hard to escape the idea that these are, and have only ever been, sporting sanctions, in reality. But anyway, it's pushing against an open door arguing that on here so I'll stop.

 

 

I was just thinking. What if instead of spending limits the EPL required teams to put money in escrow when they spend to cover it? You can't spend more than you can afford so there is your sustainability. Does that help competitive balance? Not really, to get that don't you kind of have to have a low hard salary cap to even everything out? That isn't how it works with English sports. If the goal is to prevent administration then require the money to be put up front. That would require an emphasis on deal structure when selling for some teams for cash flow.

[Abacus]

18 minutes ago, McDog said:

 

 

I was just thinking. What if instead of spending limits the EPL required teams to put money in escrow when they spend to cover it? You can't spend more than you can afford so there is your sustainability. Does that help competitive balance? Not really, to get that don't you kind of have to have a low hard salary cap to even everything out? That isn't how it works with English sports. If the goal is to prevent administration then require the money to be put up front. That would require an emphasis on deal structure when selling for some teams for cash flow.

 

Aye. The Brown Bottle is right though that the one legitimate reason it is there for is to stop rampant cost inflation - since even with the escrow solution, wealthy owners could just put £1bn into escrow, and still blow everyone else out of the water.

 

That's the bit that's hard to argue around, and where other fans could feel rightly aggrieved. And how we would feel in their shoes. So yeah, the way to fix that is a salary cap on everyone, which would also be legally dubious, even if fairer from a sporting point of view.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 23:50 by Abacus

[r0cafella]

17 minutes ago, McDog said:

 

 

I was just thinking. What if instead of spending limits the EPL required teams to put money in escrow when they spend to cover it? You can't spend more than you can afford so there is your sustainability. Does that help competitive balance? Not really, to get that don't you kind of have to have a low hard salary cap to even everything out? That isn't how it works with English sports. If the goal is to prevent administration then require the money to be put up front. That would require an emphasis on deal structure when selling for some teams for cash flow.

No need to problem solve solutions the rules are created by design to prevent any competition and lock in the status quo. 

 

Clubs on the whole do not want to have to compete it's as simple as that. 

[McDog]

Just now, Abacus said:

 

Aye. The Brown Bottle is right though that the one legitimate reason it is there for is to stop rampant cost inflation - even if wealthy owners could just put £1bn into escrow, and blow everyone else out of the water.

 

That's the bit that's hard to argue around, and where other fans could feel rightly aggrieved. And how we would feel in their shoes. So yeah, the way to fix that is a salary cap on everyone, which would also be legally dubious, even if fairer from a sporting point of view.

 

 

Salary cap is the only way to even it. I do see the inflation point. Maybe you have a hard top limit on transfers in a calendar year? Complete unfettered spending would be a problem, I see that.